Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hoary, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help Wikipedia

How do I create a new article? I’m so new, and I’m nervous about it.

Hello there. I am just basically new at Wikipedia and I wanted to create a new article. How? I’m on mobile! I’m nervous! 🥺 The Industrial Me 1563 (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

1 hour, no replies. Can someone help?

The Industrial Me 1563 (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello @The Industrial Me 1563:. You can take a look at WP:YFA which also has a link to the Article Wizard. Knitsey (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, The Industrial Me, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia.

In my experience, people who try to create an article before they have spent a significant amount of time learning how Wikipedia works usually have a frustrating and disappointing time. Imagine buying a violin and immediately going busking on the streets - it's probably not money that people are going to throw at you.

My advice (as usual to new editors) is to spend a few weeks or months learning how it works by making smaller edits before you even try it. Start with Help:Introduction if you haven't already read that, and then pick up some tasks that interest you from the "Help out" section of the Community portal. Start with the tasks on the first row, but make sure you've done some of the "Check and add references" before you try your own article: references are the foundation of any Wikipedia article, and if you don't understand them, you cannot create a satisfactory article.

The other thing to note is that creating a new article is not the only way to improve or add value to Wikipedia. I remember when I started how much I wanted to "make my mark" by adding new articles. But now I know that bringing existing articles up to scratch is often of more value. I have only every created a dozen articles. ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Does that only apply to mobile or is it for Chromebooks too? Are there any other devices? OddyAwesome (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Did you get the help that you asked for? I can understand but don't be nervous and keep trying. You are not alone experiencing this. Why don't you email to admins or any friend user of yours if not getting in pages? I wish you get solutions soon and help me out as well. 🙂 Yes! actually I am in same situation, not in position to help you otherwise I would have do for sure. 2409:4081:9E0B:CDBD:0:0:CC4A:5613 (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@The Industrial Me 1563 Maybe use the Article Wizard. Babysharkboss2 was here!! 00:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see! Thanks! The Industrial Me 1563 (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Assistance

This Draft got decline https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tupocracy and I am confused because It has some book reviews see [1] and quite a good number of Reliable/ independent reference.Calyx2s (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Calyx2s, I read that "The term 'tupocracy' was coined by Dr. Godwin Akpan Amaowoh": a credible claim. And yes, this coining has been celebrated, but I sense something fishy about the celebration. Consider this cited example, which says: "Nigeria is about to make another strong impact on the global stage with the discovery of a new political theory which may become a major political theory that will be adopted by countries." Which is mere wishful thinking. (Perhaps published on a slow news day?) But you may object that no, this is a serious statement in a serious publication. If so, then we can expect the concept/word to make a "strong impact on the global stage". Well then, let's wait for the impact to occur, and for moral philosophers, political scientists or whoever to verifiably adopt the concept in their analyses. In the meantime, WP:CRYSTAL rules out an article on "tupocracy". -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hoary Thank you for the insight,but do you mean if not on global stage it not notable considering it already been adopted in university especially in Nigeria. Would also kindly like to ask what kind of reference should I look at in order to develop it? And there are some book reviews, unfortunately I don't know how to references them on the article. Please kindly guide, if I can help to still see how I can develop it more.Calyx2s (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Calyx2s, the draft cites quite a lot of sources. I picked two.

First, "Akwa Ibom govt adopts tupocracy as governance model". This says:

Akwa Ibom State [...] has adopted the newly propounded system of [Government] Tupocracy as the system that will run the state [...]. Tupocracy is Leadership by example [...]. When leaders lead by example, they set a standard of behavior that others can look up to and emulate.

Secondly, "Tupocracy established in Enugu, spreads across Nigeria and Africa", which says:

Tupocracy is gaining more grounds in Nigeria as Enugu State has adopted the political principle as a guiding principle. Leadership by example refers to a leadership style in which leaders demonstrate their values, work ethic, and behavior through their actions, setting a positive example for others to follow.

(Incidentally, clicking within the text of that second source in order to copy some of it triggers an additional browser window -- which looked sleazy and which I killed before it could show me anything.)

I infer that tupocracy means government by decent people who aren't hypocrites.

I find it hard to imagine a government that would openly reject this: "No, we are not going to lead by example. Do as we say, not as we do." If leadership by example becomes a talking point, then of course the government will pay lip-service to it. Now, image-making and "spin" can themselves become notable, and certainly there's real content in your draft (so I'm not suggesting that you should give up); but I'd like to see evidence that the concept has actually influenced government policy or that it has been taken up by scholars other than (and independent of) Amaowoh, or some more substance to either the concept or its influence. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary:I found the below two sources and it already existed on the body on the article. Hope it meet your expectations?

https://tribuneonlineng.com/akwa-ibom-govt-adopts-tupocracy-as-governance-model/

Akwa Ibom State under the leadership of Governor Udom Gabriel Emmanuel has adopted the newly propounded system of Govermmennt Tupocracy as the system that will run the state.

https://tribuneonlineng.com/unn-elated-as-scholar-akpan-invents-new-political-concept-tupocracy/

The board of Examiners chaired by an External Examiner Prof. Vincent Nyoyoko from the University of Port Harcourt adopted the dissertation and as well recommended that it should be globally accepted as a Political Doctrine that may be adopted by countries or further studied.Calyx2s (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary:It is also on Urban Dictionary https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=TUPOCRACY Calyx2s (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Calyx2s We have an extensive article on leadership, with several forks for different types. Some of your sources might be suitable for inclusion in one of these. The word "tupocracy" sounds to me as of limited use at present but might be suitable for Wiktionary. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Calyx2s, as you say, both of these tribuneonlineng.com sources are already cited. (Indeed, I've already commented on one.) They may have some value. As you can see in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, the Urban Dictionary does not. Yes, as Mike Turnbull suggests, you might start by creating "tupocracy" in Wiktionary. -- Hoary (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary: I have actually created it "tupocracy" in Wiktionary but I seems lost in the coding of it, Can you please kindly assist @Michael D. Turnbull:Calyx2s (talk) 06:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Calyx2s, you have created an encyclopedia entry for the word tupocracy, and have placed it in a dictionary. But a dictionary is not an encyclopedia. Please examine the entries for bureaucracy, autocracy, gerontocracy, etc to see how dictionary entries should be written. -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

HoaryThank you for the assistance, I have actually created it but as times goes on I will develop it or someone experience can aswell assist and on the draft as you advised there are some substance in it; I will find time to search for more sources to establish it notability.Calyx2s (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Calyx2s:, your term was deleted from Wiktionary by someone. Please see Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion; you can ask questions there at Wiktionary:Tea room. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Is this image from Flickr alright to upload?

This image would be great to use in an article I am editing. I can't make much sense of the guidelines Wikipedia has for this. It seems to suggest contacting the photographer, but I don't want to bother them. I did want to confirm here though, is it unwise to upload it? Thank you in advance. Slamforeman (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The licence under which the photographer has released it is NOT compatible with wikipedia ... the non-commercial part is a deal-breaker. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Shame. Thanks anyways though. Slamforeman (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Slamforeman In the past, I have had some success by directly approaching a photographer on Flickr to explain my wish to use their image and to ask them to consider changing their licensing to a CC-BY-SA commercial licence. There's no guarantee of success, but some photographers may think the use of one of their images in an article on this platform is worthwhile. It can do no harm to try, though there's no guarantee the person is even still active on Flickr nowadays. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The thing is if I were to contact the photographer I would have to do so through my personal email, and I would prefer to stay as anonymous as possible. Slamforeman (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Slamforeman. You can find some additional information about what Nick Moyes is describing above at c:Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change. Such direct appeals do sometimes pay off. However, given that there's freedom of panorama for buildings in the US, anyone should be able to take a similar photo and upload it to Commons under an acceptable free license. You might try asking at WP:TEXAS or WP:AUSTIN to see if there's a member of either of those WikiProjects who lives in the area and who might be willing to take such a photo. You could also see in anyone in Category:Wikipedians in Austin, Texas might be willing to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I’ll look into that. Seems interesting. Although I should clarify, it is inside AusSSLC which is private land, so options may be limited. Cheers! Slamforeman (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The building being on private land doesn't, to the best of my knowledge, make it eligible for copyright protection; it can, however, make photographing it a bit more difficult. Obviously, anyone attempting to take such a photo should respect the rights of the property owner and local laws, but anyone who has permission to access the premises can freely photograph the building at least from a copyright standpoint for Wikipedia's purposes. They may personally be otherwise subject to house rules, but those matter not when it comes to Wikipedia's image licensing requirements. Finally, if the building is visible from a publicly accessible location, it should be OK to photograph it from there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Mika Muramatsu and Draft:Heikichi Yamamoto

I've completed them with all reliable sources that I can find. Can you create their own pages? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.239.125.208 (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Eventually somebody will review them. Please be patient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.33.56.248 (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. 95.239.125.208 (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

For Mika Muramatsu, can you help me to find other info and reliable sources? Thank you. 193.207.220.238 (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Teahouse Hosts are here to advise, but not co-author or find references. David notMD (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I've just added many info and sources, then... 95.239.131.137 (talk) 09:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Try asking on Japanese Wikipedia for help finding sources. 73.116.159.154 (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Posting new articles

I notice certain articles on Wikipedia comprising 1 or 2 sentences are published, albeit with notices requiring e.g., citations etc. Nonetheless, they are published.

An article that I have published (my first on Wikipedia), had been rejected and marked for potential deletion. I have posted references to books, papers and symposia.

I find this difference in content approval to be erratic and even discriminatory. I have been pointed to tips on references, reliability etc while these links are generic.

Can anyone care to explain what I may be missing? Francisdsilva (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Francisdsilva Hello, welcome to the teahouse, there are two ways of publishing articles, one is publishing them directly in mainspace, another is WP:AFCH process, we are encouraging the second process which will help you improve your article before publishing, however, some articles are just published in mainspace, without being noticed and patrolled. Can you specific the previous article you talk about? -Lemonaka‎ 12:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be about Draft:Gigamapping. David notMD (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I created this in response to a conference discussion where there was an engaged exchange on more knowledge on gigamapping as a diagramming "language". Francisdsilva (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Lemonaka, for the clarification on the two spaces. The short articles that I am referring to are most likely the unpatrolled area. Francisdsilva (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, where people do what they can when they can, and where standards have changed over time. As such, there are likely tens of thousands of articles that should not exist, but we need help in identifying and removing them. This does not justify more inappropriate articles being added, see other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I appreciate volunteerism and its use in Wikipedia (I joined Wikipedia about 18 years ago with the intent of contributing more than I actually did).

I will gladly delete the article if someone can be more specific on what is inappropriate. Francisdsilva (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

FYI: Content on your User page was Speedy deleted, as that was wrong place for article development, etc. See WP:UP for what goes on a User page. Your draft was Declined, not Rejected, nor scheduled for deletion. David notMD (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I just followed the invitation to describe myself. As a big fan of transparency, I wanted to provide a couple of sentences about myself. (I requested a name change, from the system-generated name I was given, with that aim).

Yes, the article is declined and not rejected. The tone of voice indicated a reject (incl a warning of potential deletion).

To be clear:

I created the article as a stub, with the intent to invite a number of academics to refine tbe article. They agreed to write if I could "get the ball rolling". Since it is not published, it cannot be edited. Francisdsilva (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Since you are editing using your own business name, perhaps you would care to disclose your conflict of interest on your user page. Theroadislong (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I am editing using my given name Francis D'Silva (francisdsilva) and not my business name.

Would you please point me to the template to confirm that I am not being paid for this or other contributions? (I understand that the "paid" template can be used to disclose payments.)

Thanks for your patience in responding to questions. Francisdsilva (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Your user page states "Francis is an independent consultant and student of systems-oriented design and how it can accelerate digitalisation of social systems and enterprises.' that would imply that you have a conflict of interest in the draft you are editing. Theroadislong (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Francisdsilva, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia (I see your account has been here for a long time, but you hardly edited until last month, so I'm welcoming you as a new editor!)

I'm afraid that you are in the same position as hundreds of other editors who plunge into trying to create a new article with little understanding of what is required or how to go about it. I liken this to buying an instrument for the first time and immediately going out busking: you're not likely to get much response that is welcome.

An article begins, stands, and falls, with its sources; and not just any sources: they need to be reliable, substantial, and wholly independent of the subject (see Golden rule). If you haven't found several such sources, there is no point in writing so much as a single word of an article, because almost every word you do write should be supported by one or more of those sources.

It doesn't look to me as if any of your current sources is independent (I haven't looked closely, so I might have missed something). Certainly, if the topic was developed by Sevaldson, then nothing written or published by him, his colleagues, or his institutions, will go towards establishing that the subject is notable. ColinFine (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. And the analogy to new instrument owners :-)

You make a fair point on notability. However, your closing comment seems to suggest that I should write an academic paper before it can be published. Currently, I point to peer-reviewed papers and to open conferences where practitioners and academics (not colleagues) discuss the topic. Imo, that should constitute some degree of notability

The article is far from perfect and my intent was to open the door to invite others to refine the content - co-creation - and to engage in discussion in in-person arenas.

Ideally, I would've appreciated an accept/reject deadline, say (10 weeks), by which time I could've gotten other enthusiasts to contribute towards increasing the articles notability. Francisdsilva (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm not sure what you mean about seems to suggest that I should write an academic paper. If you're talking about the WP article, then no, it's very different from most academic papers, in that it must not present any argument, discussion or conclusion, but only summarise what the sources say. If you're talking about you writing an independent paper that then gets peer-reviewed and use that as a source: well yes, that's possible; but citing your own paper is regarded as a conflict of interest - not that you can't do it, but you'd need to be circumspect. In any case notability requires multiple sources.

The first part of writing an article is to assemble adequate sources that establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability: if you can't do that, you know there's no point in continuing.

If you have the sources, then you can start writing the article, preferably as a draft. There it can remain for a long time, if you wish, being gradually developed (it's not customary to edit other people's drafts, but there's no rule against it, and it's certainly acceptable for people to work collaboratively on a draft). As long as it isn't something unacceptable like pure promotion or an attack page, a draft won't get deleted unless it's left untouched for six months. So there's no deadline to getting it up to standard, and you can submit when you think it's ready. (You don't have to get it perfect or complete to submit: just to the level where it establishes that the subject is notable, and has adequate citing and tone. You and others can continue to improve it after submission, and after acceptance.

Papers and conferences where people unconnected with Sevaldson discuss it can establish notability, but nothing by him or his colleagues can do so. ColinFine (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Francisdsilva: Be aware that notability is an attribute of a topic, not of an article. There is literally nothing you or anyone else can do to increase a topic's notability. (Well, okay, that's not 100% true: you could become an author and write a book about the topic, and that would increase its notability.) Notability depends strictly on what published material is available about the topic, and not whether an article exists about the topic. Just reinforcing what Colin already said, because you said something about "increasing the articles notability" and that can't be done, because article's don't have notability; topics do. Mathglot (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

combining wikipedia pages

How do i combine my sandbox with other user's to create a full profile on a person? Mee1uh (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mee1uh, and welcome to the Teahouse. Presumably, this is about Draft:Kieran Hickey, (which you apparently started on your user page: please delete the text from there, as you user page is not an appropriate place to draft an article).

I see that your draft is part of an article: I guess the other person is working on the first half of it?

If somebody else is working on a draft about Hickey, then the two of you should agree which one you're going to use, and simply copy the text from one to the other, and then paste {{db-author}} to the top of the one you are not using, asking for it to be deleted. There are restrictions on copying within Wikipedia, because of licensing requirements, but if it's entirely you own work that you are copying, there is no problem.

I'm afraid that I have nominated c:File:Kieran hickeys photo.png for deletion, as it is pretty clearly a copyright violation. Uploading a scan of a copyright picture to Commons and claiming it as "own work" is a pretty serious mistake. It is possible that you may be able to upload the picture to Wikipedia (not to Commons) as a non-free image, but not until the draft has been accepted into the encyclopaedia as an article. You will need to show that the use complies with all the conditions in the non-free content criteria, which include that non-free images may be used only in articles. ColinFine (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You should absolutely not create "profiles". This is not social media or a means of promotion. Edward-Woodrow • talk 17:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You are not even an administrator and you have made me feel unwelcome in the wikipedia community ! Mee1uh (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, this is for a class for my university and I'm following the instructions from my lecturer, which was to make it on my user page. Also, I was told if I take my own photo it's allowed to be used. I dont appreciate your tone, but thanks for the help Mee1uh (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mee1uh: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your lecturer really should have gone through the Wikipedia Education Program, as everyone is beholden to the policies and guidelines laid out on this site. Taking a picture of a pre-existing image being the main focus does not mean you inherently own its copyright and by extension the image. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Prolific questioner

The following discussions were originally in separate sections and refactored at 18:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC) by Mathglot (talk).

I think nuclide symbols are overused on Wikipedia. They hurt readability IMHO. I wonder what I should do?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nuclear_weapon_design#235U_versus_uranium-235. is a link to a discussion I had about this which, as I see it, was concluded without much rebuttal of my arguments, but rather a refusal to discuss the matter. So I am wondering whether I am really right about this, and also, what I should do, if anything. Polar Apposite (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it U₃O₈ or triuranium octoxide? H₂O or dihydrogen oxide? Personally, I prefer Arabic digits to Greek prefixes. Maproom (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

"Is it U₃O₈ or triuranium octoxide?"

For the nonscientific layman, the latter is plain English while the former is a formula, IMHO.

Literacy on the part of the reader of an encyclopedia article about chemistry can be assumed, I think, but numeracy cannot. For us numerate guys it is hard to keep in mind just how innumerate a lot of people are, including university graduates. I once saw a cartoon showing an office with "Principal" on the door, and a man behind a desk who was obviously the principal. Another man faced him across the desk, saying, "A new study shows that fifty-one percent of educators have not mastered basic math concepts." The principal's speech bubble contains the text, "My God. That's almost half."

"Dihydrogen oxide"? You have got to be kidding me.

Anyway, my question is not about familiar, *relatively* easily pronounced, and understood, but nuclide symbols which are on a whole other level of unfamiliarity, and even when the reader is familiar with them, disrupt reading to a very great degree, mainly because they are essentially pronounced backwards, that is to say, they are read from right to left in some sense. Polar Apposite (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

If someone can't understand middle school level chemistry, we shouldn't be trying to dumb basic concepts down to their level. The concept of chemical compounds is very simple and almost universally known; if they don't know what the specific compound is, we can just link it. AryKun (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

What should I do when I forget to include an edit summary?

Or if I accidentally hit a key and publish an edit before writing the edit summary? Like I did just now. Polar Apposite (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite: You can make a dummy edit (put an extra space somewhere on the page) and leave your edit summary there. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 22:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I did it. Do you have any other tips about edit summaries. Polar Apposite (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Polar Apposite Go to "Preferences" (top line of the page) "Editing" and check the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box - this will remind you if you try to publish without an edit summary - Arjayay (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I did it. Thanks. How about another edit summary tip? Polar Apposite (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Polar Apposite, an edit summary should clearly and concisely describe the purpose of your edit. Do not debate or argue with other editors or be negative or sarcastic. Detailed discussion belongs on talk pages, not in edit summaries. Cullen328 (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I always Edit summary for article content, but never for Teahouse or editors' Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That's been my policy up to now, too. Polar Apposite (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If the edit summary of a revert of someone elses's edit included, "Take your concerns to talk", would that normally be understood to mean, to reverter's talk page, or to the article talk page, or something else? Polar Apposite (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Polar Apposite, I would usually prefer the article talk so that everyone would more easily be able to find the previous discussion before starting a new one about the same topic. Justiyaya 22:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense. But I was asking about the meaning. Polar Apposite (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The meaning is normally to take your concerns about the edit to the article talk. Equalwidth (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

What should I do when my question gets no response?

At least one of my questions at the Tearoom has no responses, likewise on my talk page when I clicked on the "ask for help/ask a question button". What should I do, and when? Polar Apposite (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see an unanswered section on your Talk Page and I'm not going to hunt for the relevant question here, since you have several in total. Please link both sections (here in this section!) and someone will attempt to assist you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not sure I'd be able to find them, and I could be wrong, anyway. I mean, I can't be sure they weren't answered. Maybe I should start making edit summaries for my Teahouse questions, at least for the ones that seem not to have answers, so that I can find them. Polar Apposite (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It's always wise to be judicious in raising points for discussion. Asserting that "At least one of my questions at the Tearoom has no responses, likewise on my talk page" and then conceding that "I mean, I can't be sure they weren't answered" could be construed as disrespectful of the time of anyone who took your original question seriously & investigated the never-found unanswered question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I'll be more careful next time.

On the other hand, my actual question was not "why haven't my all my questions been answered" and there was no need for anyone to search for the (possibly) never answered question. My question was should I do *when* that happens (or "if" as I should have said)?

(By the way, if I reply to an answer with a further question, for clarification, say, and that reply gets no answer, does that count as a never answered question?) Polar Apposite (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Polar Apposite, if you go to Special:Preferences → Editing → Discussion pages, and toggle on "Enable topic subscription" and "Automatically subscribe to topics", you'll get notifications whenever there's a new message in a thread you've started (or manually subscribed to) so you won't miss any answers, even if you're not pinged in the reply.

To answer your actual concern here, you can try to find a more specific venue for your question in a talk namespace. Finding the right venue can be challenging, especially for newer editors or newly returning editors. You can use the {{Help me}} template on your own usertalk page to draw attention to your question. That template puts the page it's called from into a maintenance category that's pretty well patrolled. Folly Mox (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Oops I should have opened the thread below this one, where the same advice was already given. Folly Mox (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Could you delete what you added to this thread, please, if it was intended for the thread below? Polar Apposite (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

What is the difference between asking a question by clicking the button on my talk page vs. asking a question at the Tearoom?

And how to choose between the two options? Polar Apposite (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi there Polar Apposite, Template:Helpme will be answered by volunteers that will post an answer on your talk page, the teahouse will be answered here and by a slightly different set of volunteers. There really isn't that much of a difference between the two, but I'd say that the teahouse is probably a bit friendlier. Justiyaya 22:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there any other difference? Polar Apposite (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The main difference that may matter to you is that questions here at the Teahouse are very visible since many people read this page, whereas your own Talk Page is not on the watchlist of many editors. Hence, if you think that the answer may be of interest to many beginners, it would be better to ask here. The downside is that the thread here will soon be archived. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

What happens when it is archived? Why do they get archived? Can people still reply to it? Polar Apposite (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The archived thread is added to an archive page, where it can be viewed. See the list of archive pages at the bottom of the index at the top of this page. Threads are archived so that this page does not get overlong. People should not reply to archived questions; in general, the idea is to answer questions on this page, preserve answers on archive pages, but not modify archive pages. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I asked a long (about a page long) question on someone's talk page. What it I want to ask it here?

Can I just copy paste it with some small changes into the question box here at the Tearoom? Polar Apposite (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

If it is very long, you could just give a link here to the talk page. Bduke (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Plantsurfer#Fungi. Here's a link to it. Polar Apposite (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure whether it's "very long". What do you think? Polar Apposite (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Polar Apposite One of the issues with long questions is what we call WP:TLDR. Please be as concise as possible in your question, or post a WP:LINK to your previous discussion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

To my eye, Plantsurfer's edit in respect of the singular / plural issue improved the article. Your quoting huge chunks of Strunk and White is not very helpful. I get that you have a preference in the matter, but first you note "I'm not saying you are wrong", and then you go on & on in support of your personal preference. No-one has time for this. It's useful to accept, gracefully, that there are other legitimate forms of expression. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean that you do not have time to discuss this with me? Polar Apposite (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean that there comes a point where your wish to argue a point is a waste of everyone's time. It's always wise to be judicious in raising points for discussion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

But we haven't even started discussing it. I mean, you haven't. Polar Apposite (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Polar Apposite: if you can't make your point without a long boring block of text that no-one will read, it's probably not worth making. Maproom (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was interesting. Polar Apposite (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, I never said I needed to use a long block of text, and indeed, I made the point very succinctly on Plantsurfer's talk page. The block of text, as you put it, was just an update. It takes a minute to read, and was the only relevant stuff I could find during about four hours of Googling. A one minute distillation of four hours of hard work doesn't seem to be a lot. Polar Apposite (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You see, the thing is, a user made an unobjectionable edit to a page. In response, you decided to edit the user's talk page 7 times over the course of about 4 hours. In general, people do not want their lives disrupted in this fashion. WP users should be able to go about their business largely uninterrupted, and certainly not be harrassed by multiple new message notifications because your personal preference differs from their choice. This is very basic stuff, Polar Apposite, very basic indeed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I will be more careful next time. I had no idea that a few purely friendly updates on the results of my googling (or rather, lack of results) could be construed as harassment. Polar Apposite (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Polar Apposite, there is no reason to take The Elements of Style seriously. -- Hoary (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Why not? Polar Apposite (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Because, as the article Hoary links to demonstrates, it is bone-headed, inconsistent, and ill-informed personal prejudice that has somehow bizarrely acquired a sheen of authority. ColinFine (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that the link contains an article *about* the The Elements of Style. I had not noticed that. Polar Apposite (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I've started reading the article. The author shoots himself in the foot by saying at the outset, "The book's style advice, largely vapid and obvious ("Do not overwrite"; "Be clear"), may do little damage; but the numerous statements about grammatical correctness are actually harmful." It makes him look unkind, and perhaps even not to be trusted, to any reader, such as myself, who thinks that the quoted advice certainly does a great deal of good.

On the other hand, I agree with the first specific ( albeit marred by overwriting) nitpick, which is that the TES is egregiously wrong to favor "None of us is perfect" over "None of us is perfect".r Polar Apposite (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed that Pullum shoots himself in the foot *again* (so soon!), making himself look very unkind by speculating that TES is guilty of "breathtaking" arrogance, without presenting any strong evidence. Here's the section:

"The sentence None of us are perfect is given as an example of incorrect grammar; None of us is perfect is claimed to be the correction.

The arrogance here is breathtaking. None of us are perfect is a line from literature. It is uttered by Canon Chasuble in the second act of Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest (1895), possibly the greatest of all stage comedies in English. It is absurd to suggest that Wilde didn't know the rule of verb agreement, and surely false that he wanted to depict the learned Dr. Chasuble as unable to speak Standard English.

People say, "None of is perfect", "No one is perfect", "None of us are perfect", "No one's perfect", and so on quite a lot. It's a common idea. So maybe one or both of the authors of the TES heard it, or heard someone say it is right or wrong, and started thinking about it in that way. How does Pullum know that they knew that that phrase is in Wilde's work? Pullum says nothing to back this claim up. He just takes it upon himself to accuse the TES of arrogance (stating it as a fact) quite casually, quite arbitrarily, rather boldly, rather self-assuredly, rather... (what would be the best word here, I wonder?) Polar Apposite (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• speak Standard English"

Polar Apposite (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

This page is a place where users can ask for help about wikipedia. It is not a forum for your opinions on The Elements of Style. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

May I suggest that you read the whole thread? You may wish, having done that, to revise your position. Polar Apposite (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

For your information Polar Apposite, Geoffrey K. Pullum is an internationally renowned Professor of Linguistics who has written prestigious textbooks on these matters. I happen to think he is a little too hard on the now-very-dated (originally 1918) guidebook The Elements of Style – it may serve to make very poor writers' work a little more comprehensible – but it was always intended as a compilation of hints and suggestions (perhaps over-emphatically stated), not an iron-clad rulebook. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.5.208 (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That is hilarious. I thought he was a blogger. That does *not* reflect well on internationally renowned Professors of Linguistics who have written prestigious books on these matters.

Regarding TEoS, I know next to nothing about it, and consequently have no opinion on whether it is good or bad. All I know is it is wrong about "None of us are perfect", and doesn't say anything about my, possibly original, rule of thumb that you should use the singular form whenever you reasonably can, as it leads to greater clarity. Like I said, this is possibly an idea I came up with on my own, and AFAIK no book, not even Pinker's awesome Sense of Style mentions it, so this is not a criticism of TEoS in particular.

My rule of thumb says that "When men and women get married they usually produce children." is not as clear as, and therefore not as good as, "When a man and a woman get married they usually produce a child." or ""When a man and a woman get married they usually produce children.". Which of the last two you use would depend what your intended meaning is.

My failure to find any trace of this of this idea anywhere, despite half a day of my best googlefu, is matched only by my inability to find anyone who will say that it is a good rule of thumb:) Polar Apposite (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• matched only by my failure to find

Polar Apposite (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Is it a rule to be friendly at the Teahouse?

Or is it just said to be a friendly place? Polar Apposite (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite Hello, welcome to the teahouse. It is a policy that you should be civil on the whole Wikipedia, for this, please have a read on WP:CIVIL -Lemonaka‎ 13:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

So you think anyone has failed to be civil in any of the threads I have started in the Teahouse during the last twenty-four hours? Polar Apposite (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Do

Polar Apposite (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite What, I cant quite catch you. If you want to report who is failed to be civil, feel free to WP:ANI, not here. -Lemonaka‎ 17:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I just thought you perhaps found civility more interesting than friendliness, so I thought I'd give you a chance to expand on that, while keeping it relevant to the Teahouse. Plus I'm not sure anyone *has* been, it's just a strong suspicion right now. I thought you might be able to clarify that. A lot depends on how you define incivility, and examples of what is what isn't counted as that would be very helpful. So I thought that if you said "This one and that one are both almost but not quite, but the rest are no where near incivil by Wikipedia thinking", say,

Could we get back to my original question, please? Polar Apposite (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• say, that would give me a clearer idea. The last thing I would want to be is incivil.

Polar Apposite (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You have not been uncivil, but your edits at Teahouse and elsewhere have been evaluated and found to be annoying to the point that you are now temporarily blocked, in part for WP:NOTHERE. See your Talk page for details. David notMD (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Does the MoS say anything about when to give an example?

Does the MoS say anything about this? I'm asking not about recommended the form of the example, but rather when to, and in what part of the article, and how many examples should be given, and do on. Polar Apposite (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it doesn't (I've checked). This would be a matter of general writing competence, entirely dependent on specific circumstances, not something that could be prescribed in the MoS to fit all occasions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.5.208 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Can I ask another editor not to contribute to threads I start at the Tearoom?

If a particular editor seems to never contribute a constructive comment in any Tearoom thread that I start, but frequently contributes unconstructive ones, can I ask him or her to refrain? Polar Apposite (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You can ask, but they are under no obligation to follow unless you have a wp:IBAN. Most users would probably listen to the request. Also, are their answers so bad/hostile that you don't want to see them? See wp:hound if you think they're intentionally following you. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 18:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You can ask. They may comply, within reason. There may be other views on "seems to never contribute a constructive comment in any Tearoom thread that I start". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course you can ask. Whether they accede to your request is another thing entirely. Then there is the difference between "unconstructive" and "replies that I do not like". You have asked a lot of questions in the last three days, and it seems like you have decided to camp on this page, exclusively; not to the obvious benefit of anyone. You might consider giving it a rest and finding a new game to play? There is a WP concept of NOTHERE and it's my view, fwiw, that it describes your behaviour. It is possible that you have a difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms; but I think it clear that you have a difficuty. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly advise against it, because it will come across as very hostile. I wouldn't necessarily encourage it, but if you must, I would suggest that you instead describe the sort of content you object to, e.g. "I don't want to hear about a rule from The Elements of Style" or "Please don't bother making any suggestions to change between singular and plural". While you might consider these as being too personal, at least I'm not directly objecting to the person who's making the suggestion. Fabrickator (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying I should stop asking questions at the Teahouse (not Tearoom, I got confused). Would that be for all time? If not, for how long? Polar Apposite (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not addressing the question of which is the proper forum or what sort of questions are suitable for the Teahouse, but about your specific proposal to ask somebody not to contribute. Perhaps saying something about the nature of the content you are hoping to hear would be better. I'm not sure. While I can imagine getting tired of hearing from the same person whose suggestions you've found unhelpful in the past, try to describe in positive terms what you think would be helpful. Granted, we should all WP:AGF, but having someone tell you that your input is not desired is kind of asking for a hostile response. Fabrickator (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Polar Apposite temporarily blocked, per notification on Talk page. David notMD (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Why do I already know from other parts of Wikipedia so many of the people commenting in threads I have started in the Tearoom?

There are about a hundred thousand Wikipedia editors, right? But, out of about twenty people who have commented in Tearoom threads that I have started in the last few days, I recognize two of them (I mean their names). And I guess I would only recognize about thirty people's names out of all Wikipedia editors. I get that I, and the people I recognized in the threads I started, are among the more active of the hundred thousand editors, but it still seems remarkable. Polar Apposite (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Polar Apposite, you are certainly among the most loquacious. Could it be time to take a break from asking questions here? (Article improvement is always welcome.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.33.56.248 (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, there are millions of people who have created accounts, but only a very small number who have the requirements and interest and energy in being Teahouse Hosts. David notMD (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite: Hi there! Please note that this is called the Teahouse (not Tearoom). GoingBatty (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

What does "friendly" mean here?

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia#What_%22not_here_to_build_an_encyclopedia%22_is_not it says:

"In a small number of cases this may lead to a friendly block with warnings or even bans in some long term cases." Polar Apposite (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Whatever it means you appear to be getting close to a "friendly block". Theroadislong (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Really, for what? Polar Apposite (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite I would refer you back to a post on your Talk Page entitled "Word to the wise" in which your constant, pedantic nit-picking and sometimes seemingly pointless question-asking is reaching the point in some editors' minds where your activities are liable to be deemed as WP:Disruptive editing.

The kind of 'friendly block' is one that I might be minded to offer someone such as yourself for what we see as disruptive editing and constant question over trivia, but which you seem to see as quite justified and normal behaviour. It would be done without enmity for your own good, as well as to avoid further wasting the time of volunteer editors. Initially it would probably be applied for a relatively short period of time, which might lengthen if that disruptive behaviour continued. (For the sake of clarity, there is no formal definition of a 'friendly block', it was just a term used in an essay, but I would hope you are capable of getting the gist.)

NOTE: As I draft this reply, I see that @Cullen328 has imposed just such a 'friendly block' on you. It seems quite justified to me.

When it expires and you choose to return to editing, you need to have changed your approach to engaging with other editors here, and take time to understand the norms of this community and its editing guidelines and policies so that it doesn't need to be applied again. Some people might call that 'learning to read the room'. We wish you well and hope you will return to constructive editing from now on without such time-wasting over trivia. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Nick Moyes has explained the block so well that I don't need to. Cullen328 (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

"Friendly" in this context means short. i.e., 31 hours. "Unfriendly" would mean an indefinite block, reversible only with a successful appeal to an Administrator. David notMD (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion, I would suggest that in this context, "friendly" is properly described as a euphemism. Fabrickator (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Too true! Nick Moyes (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Notability for animals

Why is there no notability criteria for animals? We have several pages like this that are stubs and unable to be expanded. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 20:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

There definitely should be if there isn't one- I see pages like that as unacceptable in their current state. Can't speak on whether or not there is one, but you bring up a great point. Please ping me if there turns out to not be one. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 20:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:NBIOL may have something of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTarantula and UnexpectedSmoreInquisition: I suggest taking a look at WP:NSPECIES. While many species are effectively perma-stubs, we still de facto consider them notable. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTarantula I don't really understand the premise of your question, nor do I really accept the suggestion in one of the responses to you, saying that many pages are effectively 'perma-stubs'. I could easily get that article up to a basic C-standard if I wanted to invest the time and effort - but I'm not interested in this taxon. And therein lies the real issue. Too many notable species, and too few editors inclined to work on them.

Wikipedia regards every species of animal and plant on this earth as inherently notable, providing it is a properly described and validly-named taxon, and not a synonym (See WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES). Homo sapiens is just one of around 8.7 million species inhabiting the earth, and there are countless tens of thousands still to be discovered and described (unless we manage to destroy their habitat before we find them).

There are around 1,500 beetle species within the Elmidae alone, from which your example, Stenelmis concinna, comes. Every single one of those species is notable! There is absolutely nothing whatsoever stopping you creating or expanding any stub article about any species. The problem comes in that very few editors are interested in wading through the literature to create these stubs on obscure taxa, let alone put the work in to expand them further. And not every species has been studied and written about in popular and easy to access magazines (unlike pokemon characters, pointless social media 'influencers' or minor singers who've never had a hit, but which someone thinks is nevertheless worth making an article about.) So it does take a lot more effort and access to resources than usual to unearth the gems such as monographs, and to understand the technical biological terms so as to write about them effectively.

But, honestly, just a quick search for a good references for Stenelmis concinna could let me add add a suite of locations to demonstrate which regions of North America it has been recorded in. I could create a 'Description' section, telling you that it is between 3.3 to 3.6mm in length and approximately 1.3 to 1.5mm in width; I could describe its general colour, form of its head, pronotum, appearance of its elytra, and describe its legs (tibia and tarsi).

I could tell you that the holotype of S. concinna]] was a male specimen collected from the Hudson River in New York NY, and that that first specimen from which the species was described and named is in the Francis Huntington Snow collection of insects at the University of Kansas, with further paratype specimens in the Canadian national collections. It was first described as a new species in 1938 by Sanderson in his major monograph of the Genus (which I used as one of my sources to give you this quick reply)

Looking at other sources, I could tell you that it is a species mostly found in clear water streams and rivers, and that a number of ectosymbiotic protozoa have been recorded attached to the upper abdominal sclerites, and even the elytra, of this species. If I did more than a 10 minute search for sources, I am sure I could tell you a lot more and improve this, or virtually any other stub you gave me so that each article at least included Description, Range and Habitat and date of discovery and the names of any synonyms. It's often information on the ecology of these species that is hard to find as they've often not actually been studied. Luckily, I get the feeling that S. concinna is regarded as an indicator species in water quality assessments of rivers, and so i might be able to find out a bit more on it if I were to try.

TL;DR: All properly-named species of animals and plants are inherently notable, and don't ever be fooled into thinking that stubs about obscure animal or plant species cannot be improved. They can if you put your mind to it! There's just an awful lot of them, and many more red-linked taxa yet to be written about at all here! Pinging @UnexpectedSmoreInquisition, @Elli and @Gråbergs Gråa Sång for their interest. Regards to all, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I assumed that animals that can be proven to exist would be practically immune to AFD. I agree the articles should be kept and are able to be expanded upon- but should there not be notability guidelines for animals specifically? That part confuses me. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 23:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

For species, the notability criterion is "its existence has been documented in the scientific literature". DS (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but what determines the validity of the scientific sources? Does information need to be refuted to be considered valid? Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 02:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Basically, nearly all Scientific sources are considered valid/reliable until proven otherwise (such as if the jounal is a Predatory journal or Journal of questionable editorial judgement (i.e. fringe journal) etc.) Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@UnexpectedSmoreInquisition If you're really interested in this, I think you need to read and understand the concepts of Species description and Taxonomy (biology).

Imagine a biologist finds what she thinks is a new species. She would need to publish in the scientific literature (not the Daily Mail or New York times) a proper description of it in a manner that allows another biologist to understand the difference between that species and other closely related ones within the same Genus that are already known about. That biologist has the right to name the new species according to the rules of Binomial nomenclature. The fact that that individual specimen of animal or plant exists is not in doubt - it's there in the biologist's collection (see Holotype) on her bench.

Initially, we can regard that new species (providing it has been correctly described and named in a valid scientific publication) as Notable by Wikipedia's standards. We can write a short article about it here! Yay - I feel a stub coming on!

However, along comes a taxonomist 20 years later who reviews the entire genus or family of creatures and publishes an academic review of all the specimens they have studied. They may publish a revision of the Classification of the entire group. That revision and any nomenclatural changes made in it will probably stand for the next 20 years or so until another expert does a further revision of the group or species.

Now, just imagine if our first taxonomist concluded (and nowadays we use DNA analysis to help us, not just morphological features) that the new species is a valid one to erect, and the name stays. Or, maybe, they decide (after studying innumerable other specimens in museum collections around the world that those matching the holotype are simply variants of an already known species which had been described and known about for many decades. The taxonomist will publish their detailed classification revision in a way that clarifies that all specimens with our lady biologist's name and matching its description should be subsumed into some other species. From now on, that name will simply be regarded as a Synonym of the other name (until, that is, some other Lumper or Splitter of a taxonomist comes along in another 30 years or so and re-revises the classification all over again in the light of new discoveries, and the nomenclature (naming) changes yet again.)

Meanwhile, back on Wikipedia, we now need to merge together into one article what were formerly two separate articles about what we believed were different, but closely-related species. We can create a WP:REDIRECT from what the scientific community of experts now regard as an invalid name (based on that published revision of the group's classification) to the other article which is regarded as the correct name to use nowadays.

Luckily for us, it was just a tiny stub article that you were asking about, so all we might need to do is just add the synonym to the Infobox!

Meanwhile, the specimen (now transferred to a museum collection for safekeeping) remains available for study and for any future revisions of the group. Who knows? - it may change again. By way of example, you might like to view all the synonyms on the Wikipedia page Infobox for the English Bluebell. In my lifetime, its accepted name has changed three times, I think. But it's still the same old notable species!

Does that help? (bet you didn't read it though. LOL!)

Oh, and don't get me started on 'Common Names'. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Lavalizard101@Nick Moyes I did read through, and I can say you have successfully changed my stance on the article length; when I said the length was unacceptable, I really meant frustrating. I wish more information was available! Alas, the scientific community can only do so much. The process is really quite fascinating. One article that comes to mind is the axolotl article, which I haven't checked in a while, but I found the lack of availability of sources for the status of the species frustrating. Regardless, my other question on determining scientific validity has also been answered, as I see it it's pretty much the same as elsewhere here; the best source stands unless a no source is available and reliable. Thank you both, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 13:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's an example of two articles I created (although I did copy from a source that had a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License) Arisierpeton or Hypselohaptodus (which I'll probably expand at a later date). Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Nice ones! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@UnexpectedSmoreInquisition I'm glad you read it and that it changed your thoughts! You know, I still don't think it's fair to blame the scientific community for short, stubby articles on Wikipedia. My point was precisely to highlight that there is often easily enough information out there within the scientific literature to turn a stub into a C-class article (or a pretty useful Start-class one, at the very least), containing the basics of Taxonomy, Description, Distribution, Date of Discovery, and possibly Habit.

But it's still down to the Wikipedia Community to do the work to take that literature and make the articles better than mere stubs. As a biologist, I guess I must take some of the blame for failing to do that, as I've only created five new articles on living species (and only one has been assessed at C-grade.)

re Axolotl: I'm stunned you struggled with finding sources. I've not looked at the article either, but within the last 5 years I'm sure I remember hearing that it was now nearing (or had reached) the status of 'Extinct in the Wild' because of pollution and abstraction in Mexico City area. Unless you looked for status info at the time when IUCN were still reviewing their Red List status for this species, I'm surprised you had difficulty. That's certainly the definitive source that I'd look at. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

For the axolotl status, the population count wildly varied by sources from nearly extinct to 10,000+. With the sources I have available now, I'm sure that's just an arbitrary point. And yes, it's not the scientists' fault that they can't answer every question- just the unfortunate need to wait for the passage of time to get that answer. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 18:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@UnexpectedSmoreInquisition 50-1,000 (not 10,000) individuals, per IUCN Red List (here). The 10,000 figure was a failed introduction back in 2012, which doesn't count as they weren't refound. I think we can regard this source as one of the most reliable, unless there are later papers showing higher numbers from new surveys. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This was a very long time ago that I saw the number, but it was some wild variation like that at the time. Anyways, I appreciate the knowledge; it is human's most valuable tool. (Sorry if I sound like a robot sometimes lmao I just want to be clear and professional as I got that vibe with other editors.) UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Jenna Kerr - Tattoo Artist

Hello All, After 2 days of writing an encyclopaedic page for the artist Jenna Kerr, it was removed within days.. I believed she to be notable, successful and relevant enough for a page to be created. I have the HTML script still in word to reapply, but would anyone be able to help me to draft and hopefully have it published.?

Many Thanks Astro Astroscobee (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Astroscobee. Your draft article was overtly promotional. Promotional content is not allowed on Wikipedia, and all content must comply with the Neutral point of view, a core content policy. Cullen328 (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, Thank you kindly for her help here, I didn't realise it was promotional content I was posting, I was honestly tagging reference links to validate the notable claim. Thank you very much for your help here. Astroscobee (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Astroscobee, and welcome to the Teahouse. The question, always, is Can you find several places where people wholly unconnected with Kerr have chosen to write at some length about her, and been published somewhere with a reputation for editorial control? That is (approximately) the special meaning of notability in Wikipedia.

If you can find such sources, then you can write an article based almost entirely on what those sources say. Do not try to build an article either on what the subject or her associates say, or on what you know or believe about her. Only material citable to such sources is acceptable. ColinFine (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Try this sample, Astroscobee. "Jenna's distinguished popularity came following a feature with Business Insider in 2017, coupled with a second feature in 2019." To which were appended two links to insider.com. One is to a short video (less than two minutes) about her work; the other is to a video of under seven minutes that promises "25 Tattoo Artists Taking Tattoos to the Next Level". So where's the evidence that this pair were followed by distinguished popularity (whatever "distinguished popularity" might mean)? This kind of prose seems a shaky attempt to aggrandize Kerr, whereas an encyclopedia should provide a soundly based description of her. -- Hoary (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Hoary,

That'd wonderful advice and yes, it's worded much better, It seemed very obvious to me, with time stamps that Business Insider was responsible for being discovered internationally, I likely have gone a little overboard with wording, very appreciated and very grateful. Thank you so much. Astroscobee (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey Hoary, again a huge thank you for helping me here. I am so very grateful.

I wanted to add this change you suggested, but now cannot even my find my article, has it been completely deleted, if so would I need to created a new submission but with better amendments? Astroscobee (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately Astroscobee, your draft was deleted for being too promotional. You'll have to start over. I recommend taking a look at WP:BACKWARD to help you create an article with staying power. Madam Fatal (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Madam Fatal, Thank you for your help there.. yes, thankfully I have kept the HTML of it and placed it in a Word Document, I will try my best to get it to be less promotional.

Thank you

Astro Astroscobee (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Addresses and names of relatives in articles; Familysearch and Ancestry as sources.

1. As I understand it, names of family members and addresses are not to be used in articles. Why can they not be used to distinguish people born in the nineteenth century from those with identical or similar names in the same geographic area?

2. Familysearch and Ancestry.com are on the list of sources considered unreliable because they're user-generated. However, they also contain scans of censuses, vital records, city directories, etc. What repositories of these kinds of documents are considered reliable? Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Oona Wikiwalker, please read Reliable sources. Secondary sources are always preferred. Primary sources such as scans of censuses, vital records, city directories are among the raw materials used by professional biographers and historians. They have the training and experience to draw conclusions from such materials. It is not the role of amateur volunteer Wikipedia editors to do that type of research. Our task as Wikipedia editors is to cite and accurately summarize what reliable sources say. Cullen328 (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• That's such sound advice that I had already read that page. But what if you're dealing with a person to be too obscure to have a biography? I was copy editing a page without sources. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_Punch) I found the text had been lifted nearly verbatim from a site on the blacklist. The person the page named came up only on very sketchy websites. So I did some extensive digging and I found the actual creator, but he's so obscure that no one's written a biography of him. The only way to counter the false online claim would be to offer the original sources. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

A search for Delaware Punch on a newspaper archive website seems to come up with a plurality of hits; right now I'm reading the Spokane Chronicle of 20 Aug 1985, which talks about no-one knowing how the flavour originated, but identifying one Tom Lyons as the first name to be concretely associated with the drink. I don't know if that matches your source. Nor do I know what your source is: if it's user generated content, then it is of no use to WP fullstop. I'd advise exhausting the newspaper archive first - "Delaware Punch" in quotes gets 23k hits. It's more than likely there is whatever you're looking for in there. Ironically the archive I'm using - Newspapers.com - is run by Ancestry; it's available via the https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

To come back to your specific question: exactly what is the "original source"? Right now, as we do not know what the source is, it's hard to give any better advice. That the platform is Familysearch or Ancestry may not be material if the source itself is not user generated. It is possible to use WP:PRIMARY sources, but with great care, should your source be primary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• The original sources I was using were a combination of census records, marriage records city, directories and patent office records showing Thomas Lyons being raised by a vinegar producer, going into the same business himself, being granted a trademark for producing a syrup for beverages, having that business dissolve and then being listed as the president of the Delaware Punch Company. These records don't reflect the public story, probably because it took a few years to straighten out the legalities around the trademark. This last is educated speculation, but I do understand it has no place in a Wikipedia article. I took the vital records research route because Lyons was not an uncommon name in the city where Tom was born and lived his first 30 years, and neither is Tom. I wanted to be certain I was naming the correct person. And, as I've shown, newspapers don't always get told the truth, so they don't always have truth to pass on.Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• All of this sounds like the kind of original research that wikipedia doesn't do. If a reliable source publishes this research into the origin of Delaware Punch, we can cite that. If it's clear that an apparently reliable source says something wrong, we can make an editorial decision not to cite that. But if all the reliable sources say something is true, it's not our place to say something else based on the interpretation of a bunch of different primary sources. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  Then what should be done about the article? It actually seemed very unimportant topic. It's a discontinued soft drink that was always rather obscure. The article, as it was suggested for copy editing, contained: 1. a false origin account copied verbatim from a site on Wikipedia's blacklist, 2. a mention that Coca Cola had made it and discontinued it, 3. and an extensive list of products Coke makes (it was more like a promotion for Coke brands than an encyclopedia page). I'm finding this all extremely confusing. Different people are weighing in, and that's okay, but no one person is continuing this dialog and you all have a slightly different reaction from the editor who inspired me to ask these questions in the first place... Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Need to change password on Wikipedia account, but lost access to the associated email

I no longer have access to the email address that I used to create my Wikipedia account, but I need to change the password. Would appreciate help. (I do recognize that I might not even be asking this in the right place, sorry.) Thanks! Catalinaeddie (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If you can't log in, and you don't have the password, and you don't have access to the email that was used to create the account, then you're pretty much out of luck, sorry.

Don't worry, you're not the first person to lose access to an account and have to start over. DS (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Catalinaeddie: If you are logged in - and it looks as if you are - try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences ... towards the bottom there's an option to change email addresses. No clue if you'll manage, but worth giving it a go. Search on the page for "Email options". The same page enables you to amend the password. I'd deal with the email first. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Catalinaeddie I can confirm the above advice! Had to do this some time ago. Log in with old Password, change the email adress. Then get your new password. If it worked for me, then it will work for you! Good luck! --Maresa63 ^Talk 05:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Maresa63 and Tagishsimon! That did it. Much appreciated. Catalinaeddie (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Excellent news. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

Translating from different wiki

can translating whole or expanding from different language Wikimedia need contributer's permission or any attribution or it is a completely allowed. 2409:4041:CEB8:85EB:0:0:3C4A:4E10 (talk) 08:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Translation and/or Wikipedia:Translate us depending on what you have in mind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP 2409:4041:CEB8:85EB:0:0:3C4A:4E10. You can find out more about this at WP:TRANSLATE, but you will need to properly attribute the source article you're basing your translation on. However, you might want to take a look at WP:OTHERLANGS and WP:42 for reference before translating anything. It's important to understand that each Wikipedia project is a separate project with its own policies and guidelines, and its own community applying those policies and guidelines. Lots of the other language Wikipedias have policies and guidelines that may be similar to English Wikipedia in many ways, but there also may be some important differences. Moreover, even if the policies and guidelines are similar, they might not be being applied as consistently or as rigorously as they are on English Wikipedia. So, there's no guarantee that any translated content you add won't be challenged or even removed by other English Wikipedia users; if that happens, the WP:ONUS will fall upon you to establish a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of its inclusion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

IP 2409, you can translate from other Wikimedia properties and copy it into an article here without requesting permission from anybody. You must provide attribution to the foreign article in the edit summary of your translation; this is a requirement per Wikipedia's licensing, and can never be ignored. See WP:TFOLWP for a model attribution statement that you can copy and use. As Marchjuly said, English Wikipedia has stricter requirements for new articles than many others, so I would start by translating only a few paragraphs to see if it is acceptable here, before devoting a lot of time on a long translation that might ultimately be rejected. Mathglot (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

How to notate strange behavior of archived link

Hi, I found a reference that only exists archived on the Wayback Machine, but also can only be reasonably accessed with JavaScript turned off, as it for some reason redirects to a non-existent URL inside the Wayback Machine. Is there a way to notate this? Is this expected behavior from the Wayback Machine?

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SumTotal_Systems#cite_note-7

direct link: https://web.archive.org/web/20210517201023/https://tb.sumtotalsystems.com/KBFiles/kb/History.html Precociouspi (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Precociouspi It's perfectly normal.

In September 2018 someone tried to archive the page, but it failed. Why it failed I have no idea.

Since September 2018 the page has clearly been changed, which is why the May 2021 archive, tries to redirect to the new page which hasn't been archived. That new page doesn't exist anymore, therefore it can't be archived now either.

I see this a lot, especially when I'm trying to find out which company/charity/organisation is credited in a production, and there's been multiple companies with the same name or acronym which don't exist anymore.

There's even single pages or entire websites which I've saved on The Wayback Machine and/or Archive Today in the past, which haven't been available on The Wayback Machine and/or Archive Today, even though they were supposedly saved perfectly fine at the time, which is why I now save everything I archive on both sites, just in case one of them fails. Danstarr69 (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for replying. The link is archived on May 2021, you can see it if you disable Javascript in your browser, so I want to know if I can note that somehow. Precociouspi (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Precociouspi I know it was archived in May 2021, which is why I said "the May 2021 archive, tries to redirect to the new page which hasn't been archived" as they tried to archive the old link which didn't exist anymore, and neither did the unarchived new link which also doesn't exist anymore.

You don't have to disable anything to see that it hasn't been archived. You can just copy the original link, paste it in The Wayback Machine, and you can see that the 2018 link is Orange (more like Peach imo) meaning it failed to save, and the 2021 link is Blue meaning it was successful, however it wasn't successful as the link they tried to archive was the old link not the new link.

This is the original dead link, which failed the first time they tried to archive it, and was dead the second time they tried to archive it [2]

This is the new redirect link, which is also dead, and hasn't been archived at all [3] Danstarr69 (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Danstarr69 I don't understand what you mean by it not being successful in 2021, as I can see the original page in the archive. It contains the information listed in the article ToolBook. How could the link have been dead in 2021 when it exists in the archive at all? Precociouspi (talk) 08:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Precociouspi It looks like you've taught me something.

Maybe some of those sites I archived, but were unavailable when I tried to find them years later, were available after all, by turning off Javascript.

Most of the old websites I search for, are old production company websites, TV network websites, filmmaker/actor websites, and related company websites who contributed something to a production, whether that be filming locations or funding, which don't exist anymore.

Occasionally I'll find websites which have been archived 100s or 1000s of times, yet nothing is readable, however it might be readable now. Danstarr69 (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Danstarr69 Sorry if I came off as passive-aggressive. Although, now you can answer my original question: should I notate this somewhere in the talk page or references? Is there a way to add notes directly to references? Precociouspi (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed I can add a link status. I will notate it there. Precociouspi (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

...nevermind, it doesn't count as a valid status. Precociouspi (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Precociouspi I've no idea. I've made added maybe 3 notes in my time on Wikipedia, and I can't remember how. You probably need to use something on here Template:Note Danstarr69 (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Needing more independent, significant coverage

My article was recently declined.

Draft:OptTek - Wikipedia

The comment from the reviewer was "Close, but not quite enough independent, significant coverage."

I would like some help please on what exactly is insufficient with the current references and I how I can improve. Sirius Stella (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Sirius Stella Did you intend to claim that you personally created the logo of your company, and want to make it available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution?

Most of your sources summarize the routine activities of the company- which does not establish notability- you need independent reliable sources that on their own decided to write about your company and describe what they feel is important/significant/influential about the company as they see it(not as the company itself sees it). 331dot (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Understood, thank you for the feedback. No the company's logo was created by my leadership at the company. Sirius Stella (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sirius Stella: ideally, you should ask a question like this either here or at the AfC help desk, but not both. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Apologies. Sirius Stella (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Binge.buzz

why my article submission was declined AreezZbd (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Binge.buzz

Hi @AreezZbd: it was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice, namely that the draft is unreferenced and promotional. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Sir this is not a promotional article and sir I will give reference from where AreezZbd (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Quote: An OTT video streaming platform that offers limitless entertainment through live TV, web series, movies, dramas and Binge Exclusive Originals, Binge truly serves its motto of 'Entertainment Made Endless' Now, Binge has become an "All in One’’ streaming service, offering its users an endless entertainment experience with its wide and diverse range of 3000+ original web series, movies, dramas, award-winning TV shows, dubbed contents, documentaries, kids’ content, Live TV Channels and much more! AreezZbd, it's not an article, but it is (or was) promotional. -- Hoary (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@AreezZbd, I've also noticed that you're using Wikipedia as a source. That is not a reliable source. Also, you've resubmitted your article again without fixing the problem. It's very likely that it will be declined again. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 11:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Sir then what can I do please suggest me can I give the news article and web site as referenced AreezZbd (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, AreezZbd, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you are in the same position as thousands of other people who ask questions here, who register an account, and immediately plunge into one of the most challenging tasks there is: creating a new article. This is like buying a musical instrument you have never played before, and immediately going out busking: you are going to have a frustrating and miserable time.

I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our six million articles before they try to create a new article. (They will probably over those months add far more value to Wikipedia than they would by trying to make an article before they are ready).

When you think you might be ready to try creating an article, read WP:YFA and especially NCORP (if it is a company). For most companies in the world you will quickly discover that there are not sufficient quality sources to establish notability, and there is no point in trying to create an article about them. ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

AreezZbd First, the salutation "Sir" is not needed. Second, drafts on this topic have been Speedy deleted three times, albeit the first and second not submitted by your account. Consider it very unlikely that you can succeed. David notMD (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

AFAICT "sir" is just a common thing in Indian English. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but not Wikipedia English. David notMD (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia English? Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ca: On the talk pages of the English Wikipedia, it's more common to ping the user you're responding to instead of using a salutation. GoingBatty (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

ip block question title

do ip or ip range blocks also block any users associated with those ips (unless they're specifically exempt, which is a thing that can apparently happen), however that seems to work? cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 11:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Cog-san Depends. Wether to block registered users using the IP in question is an option administrators can choose when blocking an IP adress. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

oh, so ip block exemption seems to be a thing that keeps admins from accidentally doing that to the wrong people

thanks cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 13:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Translation from German into English or visa versa

I apparently don't have the rights now to fully publish translations of pages? I can press the buttom publish after doing the page translation but if i am searching for the English page, I can't find it. What is the procedure? Does it take usually a while until a German Wikipedia page can then be found in English as well? Are there any experienced editors/translators to whom I can reach out? This is the page I am trying to translate. I would like to contribute more. Also, the automated translation tool doesn't seem to work. What might be the reason? Kindly! Ap crazydate (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ap crazydate Automated translation does not work because we do not want automated translations on en-wiki. See WP:HOWTRANS for info. The article you translated is here: [4]. You need to move it to mainspace before you can find it on a search. However, I don't recommend doing so, as it will immediately be draftified for having no references. -- asilvering (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ap crazydate Note that the English Wikipedia has very strict sourcing requirements for biograpies of living people. Please read that link very carefully. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ap crazydate: Your draft would work better in draft space where others are more likely to find it and help out, or at least comment on it, and ultimately review it and move it to main article space. I can move it to Draft space for you, if you like; let me know.

Other issues: you should remove all your in-line links to German Wikipedia and convert them either to a plain link (which will be blue if the article exists here, and red if it doesn't), or in the case of redlinks, in preference to an {{interlanguage link}}.

For example, in line two of the lead, you link directly to German Wikipedia for "Compact magazine", thus: [[:de:Compact_(Magazin)|Compact]]. But we already have an article for that; all you needed to do was to code [[Compact (German magazine)|Compact]] which renders as blue link "Compact".

In the case of your direct link to the German wiki for "Islamische Zeitung", we have no article here for that, so you could code that either as: [[Islamische Zeitung]], which renders as a plain red link: "Islamische Zeitung", or much better as this interlanguage link:

• {{ill|Islamische Zeitung|de|valign=sup}} which renders as " Islamische Zeitung ".

Same thing with all the other links with "de" prefix. See the documentation at Template:Interlanguage link for how to code these links. Mathglot (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you help me with this article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Advanced_Technology_Centre_Shah_Alam

It is a notable vocational training center in Malaysia. It was first declined (but to be fair I only put two references at the time). It is also related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_Latihan_Perindustrian_Kuala_Lumpur. I resubmitted with more references and pending review, in the meantime how can I prove the notability of this college? thank you Editing and contributing (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Editing and contributing The relevant notability criteria are listed here. You need as many sources as possible meeting these criteria. (I've not checked your draft to see if any of the existing sources do so.) Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Help to edit an organization page

Draft:Superintendence for Cultural Heritage - Wikipedia I drafted this but not being proficient in reference editing I'm not sure what it needs to being approved. Being a major government agency in Malta I feel like it deserves a page on Wikipedia Indigomoi (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Indigomoi: I think the article was well-enough cited. I've added one more reference and promoted it as Superintendence for Cultural Heritage. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Why my page Henoel Grech has been blocked for publishing??

What can I do to satisfy the minimum reference of Wikipedia? Mythodea2023 (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mythodea2023. In short, because it does not have a single inline citation, and because the "references" floating at the bottom are bare URLs, that make it difficult to evaluate them.

Please read the notices at the top of Draft:Henoel Grech, following the blue links in them if there are words you don't understand. Then if you have read those and still have questions, please come back her and ask. ColinFine (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

question #2 already

(my bad for the second question in just 3 hours lol, i'm just asking here because it can apply to other things)

per the existence of "gen 9 pokémon" (and currently only gen 9) as a redirect to the list of generation [stinky roman numeral for 9] pokémon, would making according redirects for the gens 1-8 or nominating the gen 9 redirect for deletion be the more uncontroversial decision? cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 14:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Cog-san . From my understanding, this article exists as if the pages were combined, the article would be too long and weighty to read comfortably. Best regards, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 14:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I read your question wrong, please forgive me. Yes, I believe you should make the according redirects. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 15:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

okay, thanks

i'll be finding out how to them in an hour or so cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 15:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's how to do it so you don't have to dig. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 15:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

oh yeah wow that makes things a lot easier

thanks again cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 16:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 16:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Quincy Jones Comedian Update

I updated his page with current information and it was deemed not constructive, Not sure why Truth23Teller (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Truth23Teller Hello. Your edit to that article was unsourced; all information about living people must be sourced to an independent reliable source, please see the Biographies of living persons policy. Your personal knowledge or observations are insufficient. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Add game info to 10-team bracket

So I want to use this 10-team bracket format:

	First round					Quarterfinals					Semifinals					Finals
						1
	8
	9
						4
						5
						2
	7
	10
						3
						6

But I want to add game info above matchups like in this 8-team bracket (21 November, Málaga)

Quarterfinals

Semifinals

Final

21 November, Málaga

Canada

24 November, Málaga

Finland

22 November, Málaga

Czech Republic

26 November, Málaga

Australia

23 November, Málaga

Italy

25 November, Málaga

Netherlands

23 November, Málaga

Serbia

Great Britain

When you look at the "Usage" section of the "Template documentation" for the 10-team bracket (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:10TeamBracket), it shows how you can add certain options to the bracket by inserting lines into the code, and the code shown there looks a lot like that of the 8-team bracket. However, when you look at the code of the actual 10-team bracket, it appears different and the syntax "RD1T1-loc=" used in the 8-team bracket to add game info does not work. Thanks. Redacwiki (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Redacwiki: Welcome to the Teahouse! The best place to ask questions about the template and request syntax changes is the template's talk page: Template talk:10TeamBracket. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Notability of Ines Schwerdtner

Hello, I want to prevent the deletion of the Wikipedia article about Ines Schwerdtner. How could I proceed? I think one Option Is to Just wait till she gets more news coverage in the process of the European election. Which Is likely. Or Could put the article in a draft space and then bring it back when there are more news articles. Or I could check if there are more news articles on her in general. How should I Proceed? Aberlin2 (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Aberlin2. Please read the Notability guideline for politicians. Unelected politicians are rarely notable unless they have an unusual amount of coverage as compared to other candidates in the same race. Cullen328 (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I already guessed this. This Is why I would like to know how to proceed the article from deletion. As I understand you the Article could probably become more notable by providing more sources on other aspects of her career like publishing, activism or academic works. Or I could move the article to the draft space and wait a few months. I wondered if this is possible. This is why I was asking. Aberlin2 (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Aberlin2. Articles are not notable or non-notable: their subjects are. If suitable sources exist, then she is notable, if not, she is not. So you cannot "make the article more notable", though you might be able to demonstrate her notability.

Failing that, moving it to draft space is probably a good solution, If she is elected, then the sources will presumably appear, and in time it can be improved and made fit for main space again. ColinFine (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Coloring My Signature

Hello, Teahouse. Today my question is a more technical one. (I believe involving HTML/Wikitext.) I am attempting to recolor my signature, and followed the template, putting this: " My Username is UnexpectedSmoreInquisition, but feel free to call me USI (talk)! " but it came back with the error "Your signature must consist of a single line of wikitext." Could someone experienced with wikitext help solve my problem? Thanks, My Username is UnexpectedSmoreInquisition, but feel free to call me USI (talk)! 19:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Please don't colour your sig. First, I cannot read it. Second, it is disruptive in threads. And, ideally, don't have a signature half a line long. It's basically disrespectful. People do not want to have to read that lame joke again and again and again. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't help you with the error, but please don't set that as your signature. The links are impossible for me to read; better contrast would be advisable here. -A Fluffy Kitteh | FluffyKittehz User Profile Page 19:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@FluffyKittehz Yep, should have used sandbox for that one first- definitely need to work on the color scheme. @Tagishsimon Respectfully, what joke? Part of the reason I'm coloring it in the first place is to make it so people don't get confused with it being part of my comment. My Username is UnexpectedSmoreInquisition, but feel free to call me USI (talk)! 19:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"My Username is UnexpectedSmoreInquisition, but feel free to call me USI (talk)!" is a sentence; the exclamation mark frames it as a joke. "Tagishsimon (talk)" is a signature. Please have a signature. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The exclamation mark was left over from my previous signature, but thanks for reminding me to remove it. My Username is UnexpectedSmoreInquisition, but feel free to call me USI (talk)! 19:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Take a look. Half of your message immediately above is your signature; your sign is indistinguishable from text because of the amount of text you have stuffed into it. Please take it from me: it is wasteful of the time of everyone else on WP; it is disrespectful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This is exactly why I'm trying to distinguish it with the font color- if you have nothing further to add to this, you may go on to do other things. My Username is UnexpectedSmoreInquisition, but feel free to call me USI (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

You would be better off removing the additional words. Your attempted brush-off is also disrespectful. Maybe take some time out to think about your hubris. I assure you that it is not appreciated. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I find your claim of disrespect to be hypocritical in regards to you nagging me on making a change that seems to only bother you. Again, if you want to discuss this further, please bring the relevant rule to my talk page. If you wish to answer my question, feel free to help me here. Best regards, My Username is UnexpectedSmoreInquisition, but feel free to call me USI (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If you want my two cents, I agree with Tagishsimon. Giving your username a background color makes the text hard to read and disrupts flow in threads, not to mention your signature is super confusing. There is no policy in particular that prohibits it, however, so do what you want, just keep what we said in mind. Industrial Insect (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm just going to pop in here to point out WP:SIGLENGTH and let others determine if that signature's length is pushing it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tenryuu@Tagishsimon@Industrial Insect Is this a better length? UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

That is much better. Thanks for taking our advice. Industrial Insect (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

np UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@UnexpectedSmoreInquisition: For the technical issue, it appears that you have included newlines in the span tag of your proposed signature: span style="background-color:⏎#800000; color:⏎#FFFFFF;" (I have replaced the newlines with the U+23CE ⏎ RETURN SYMBOL in the previous text). However, please follow the advice of the above comments and modify your signature. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 20:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question :) UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Need help writing an article about a product which I know for a fact exists, but can't find any good information on it.

I am writing an article about the Gateway Select computers, a line of computers from Gateway that released in the year 2000, including the Gateway Select 1000 and 1100. I know these computers certainly exist because I own one and can find them for sale online. The issue is, I can't find any documentation regarding these computers or even currently available news about their existence. I have found this listing from an old web site (which the citation wizard refuses to cite for some reason), and this article from PCmag UK which no longer exists (and returns a 410 HTTP response, suggesting intentional and permanent deletion). How am I supposed to get any information about these computers to cite in my page? Even proving their existence is needlessly difficult, considering I already know for a fact that they do exist. -A Fluffy Kitteh | FluffyKittehz User Profile Page 19:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The probability is that if they were notable, they'd have been reviewed in the PC magazines of the era, and so you need to find a newspaper archive which has such magazine. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I was able to find a single archive of a PCMag article about these machines on the Internet Archive. -A Fluffy Kitteh | FluffyKittehz User Profile Page 19:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Internet Archive is not a very complete newspaper archive. Maybe try newspapers.com via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library ? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@FluffyKittehz You may not have access to The Wikipedia Library but I did a quick search and easily found two reviews of Gateway Select computers. One was in PC World, 1999, Volume 17 number 6 page 101 and the other in Fortune, Winter 2002 Tech Review, Vol. 144 Issue 10, p140. There may well be others if I take a more detailed look. Do you want me to email you what I've found? (You'll have to allow email from your WP account: don't post your address here!) Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I assume you are aware that the article Gateway, Inc. has many references but not necessarily to these specific models. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Inserting Authority Control Database box

Hello, I'm working on an article on a living person and would like to insert an Authority Control Database box at the bottom of the page. The subject already has an entry on Wikidata (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q57220594), and I've added "authority control" on the Wikipedia page, but I'm not sure how to link the two. Would really appreciate guidance on how to do this. Thank you so much! Katrinpark (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

{{Authority control}} will work once the article is in mainspace and linked to the WD item. Don't worry about it whilst the article is in draft. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Tagishsimon! Appreciate your response very much. Katrinpark (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

How can I find our what's wrong with my translation?

Hi newbie here! 👋

I'm passionate about Christian theology and I want to translate the page about Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement into my native language, Romanian. So I do just that, right? However, when I want to publish it I get the complaint that "obscene" language was detected. Now... that's just not true. So I'm stuck!

Any help, please? Dan the protestant (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Is this not a question for the Romanian wikipedia? (It may have abuse filters; no-one here will have a clue b/c this is the English wikipedia). --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, ok.

Right, so I go to ro.wiki.. and then? Dan the protestant (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

They'll have a forum somewhere where you can raise it. Raise it on their main chat, perhaps. Spell out what you did so someone else can try it. Bottom line is, each language wikipedia is its own thing. EN wiki people have no clue how other language wikis do their thing, for the mostpart. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dan the protestant: Your abuse filter log [5] and ro:Special:AbuseFilter indicates your edit was disallowed by ro:Special:AbuseFilter/4. I don't have access to your edit or the filter but it was last modified by Andrei Stroe who may be able to help. He knows English and has been alerted by my post. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

We've worked it out, thanks. - Andrei (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Article was declined, for missing reliable sources. However the only English book in existence is cited at the bottom of the page. The page is about a very little known and even less documented Taekwondo form. What other sources should I use if there really are none? Dogil32769 (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If there are none, then the subject is not notable in WP terms. That's just the way it works. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Dogil32769, this being the English language Wikipedia, E-L sources are preferred if they are available, but non-English sources are allowed. However, they are more difficult for any reviewer who does not speak the relevant language to check (and many reviewers will not undertake the task), so it will likely take longer for a Draft using them to be reviewed. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.5.208 (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Notable person with criminal record

can a notable person who has a criminal record have that mentioned in their description?

I.e. Notable Graduates ..... Dawn Dumont- writer and convicted criminal ...... 174.92.126.39 (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

yeah

see the article on sam bankman, it specifically describes him as "convicted of fraud" cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 20:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Where the primary notability of a subject is not regarding their criminal conviction, published Reliable sources can be cited in order to mention it, but the mentions should not be disproportionally large compared to the article as a whole. To invent an extreme example, if a distinguished novelist had a conviction for Driving without due care and attention, that could be mentioned if it has significant impact on their life overall, but should not be detailed at greater length than the text about their novels. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.5.208 (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If you're talking about this, no, that sort of thing is not appropriate. First, any claims about a living person need to be reliably sourced. Second, "criminal" is way too vague. You could be describing civil disobedience, or serial murder. In Dawn Dumont's case the convictions look to be related to her illegally taking her own child across a border during a custody dispute in which she alleged abuse. The case is highly contentious. That needs to be put in full context, or not mentioned at all. Just saying, as you did, "author and convicted criminal" or "author, who has been convicted for child abduction" leads the reader to imagine something far worse. There's no room to add context at List of Queen's University people, so just leave it to people who click on the article. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

searching help to complete translation draft of a Feminist magazine draft

Hello, I created a draft translation regarding a feminist magazine in germany. Im searching for help to complete the draft so that the article can be moved to the article space. I already added a block refferring to the wikipedia women Project and the germany project. What else could I do to find more contributors for the draft ?Aberlin2 (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Aberlin2 Welcome to the Teahouse. I've just done some tiny copyediting, but what I think you really need is more detailed references to demonstrate it meets one of these notability criteria for newspapers and magazines. It was a bit of an effort to translate some of them, but most seemed to be passing mentions, rather than in-depth reporting by other media on Missy Magazine. If you think I missed something, please link us to three (maximum) references which you think meet the criteria I've linked to above. The section on 'Circlusion' (as interesting and as valid as the source was) seemed a bit WP:COATRACK-like (follow the link to understand that I'm implying that I don't feel it's directly relevant to the article unless it caused an absolute furore, which your sources don't seem to suggest was the case.) Hope this helps a bit. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"Citation needed" needed?

I just noticed what seems to me an arguably unnecessary use of the above template, but Wikipedia:Citation needed didn't really resolve my quandry either way.

In the article about Giuseppe Peano's 1889 treatise Arithmetices principia, nova methodo exposita (the last major mathematical work to be published initially in Latin – see Neo-Latin#Scientific works), the sentence:

"Peano would publish later works both in Latin and in his own artificial language, Latino sine flexione, which is a grammatically simplified version of Latin."

has been tagged (by an IP editor's sole edit, in 2021) 'Citation needed' (inside the full stop – oh horror!).

However, since the well-referenced article about the language is linked in the sentence, and the earlier linked article about Peano details his use of Latin and Latino sine flexione for many of his publications, it strikes me that a citation is not really necessary. What do others think? Is there an instruction addressing such cases as this that I've overlooked? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.5.208 (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I quite agree with you. It took me a while to understand which of the links you meant us to follow, but I have now removed that template.

It's akin to when an article about a city has a list of 'Notable people' linked to that city. If it's stated in the target article that the person came from that city, then we don't really need to demand a citation in the city article. But we do if there's no mention in the target article that the person came from there. So it's then valid to demand one.

Of course, in your case, it's clearly stated in the first or second sentence of the wikilinked target article. So you were right to suggest its removal. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Working with a 3rd party to create our article - are we being scammed?

We are working with a company named "Wikiconsultancy" to create articles about our nonprofit and its founder for publication on Wikipedia. Now that we have finished getting them ready, we are being told we should pay for some nationally recognized articles to be published. Our content is valid and describes the awards won over the last 50 years, for our broadcasts. Do we really have to pay someone to publish articles? All of our facts are accurate... Thank you for helping us understand this process. Wendy at New Dimensions (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

You are most definitely being scammed! Theroadislong (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Wendy at New Dimensions: Welcome to the Teahouse! No, you don't have to pay Wikipedia to create or edit articles. However, if you hired a third party company, you might have agreed to pay them for their work. See Wikipedia:List of paid editing companies and WP:SCAM. GoingBatty (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Wendy at New Dimensions, please read Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. Cullen328 (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The company's "About" page has just two sentences, viz the strangely capitalized We Are An Expert Wikipedia Service Providing Company and the reassuring (or not) If you plan to take your Wikipedia services from us, you must keep yourself relaxed and feel the success only because your work is taken care of by the top industry experts. My observations: (i) The English in the second is remarkably contorted; it's hard to imagine that such a company can write decent prose for articles. (ii) If I understand the second correctly, they ask potential customers to infer success when "your work is taken care of", which of course is some way short of having an article survive and impress other, disinterested users to the point where it attracts their (of course unpaid) additions and improvements. -- Hoary (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Wendy at New Dimensions Not wanting this to be a pile-on, but I've just found and read through their website. The standard of their written English is abysmal. "If readers find content, they switch to a new site that is why you need to carefully design your content to look fresh and worthy. To fall as per Wikipedia page creation criteria, we add authentic citations to it." There's plenty more where that came from, and I found myself imagining that the owner of the Best Exotic Marigold Hotel had found a new outlet for his creative talents. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Suzanna Gratz, from the radio station's PR company, did create an article about New Dimensions Radio back on 21 August 2013, after failing to get an WP:AFC submission accepted earlier in February of that year. It was speedily deleted the same day as "unambiguous promotion". Having access to deleted content, I can fully see why. I'm really sorry, but I feel this could be a bumpy and a potentially expensive uphill ride for the business. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

In addition to all the other comments, Wendy at New Dimensions, I advise you to read COMPORG, to understand why you might not want such an article in the first place. ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

As I reread this, it becomes more interesting. Specifically, "we are being told we should pay for some nationally recognized articles to be published". Not payment for the (presumably singular) article here, but instead "nationally recognized articles", plural. Is this an attempt to create spuriously "reliable" sources that the Wikipedia draft/article can then cite? If so, please note that although taken seriously elsewhere, a variety of periodicals with august titles -- as an example, The Times of India -- are infamous for printing what they're paid to print and are little more than a sad joke among knowledgable Wikipedia editors. -- Hoary (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hoary now I understand what you, and possibly others, have been going on about on Teahouse lately.

The Times of India have written a minimum of 20 or 30 articles about 3 brothers who grew up less than a mile from me (where their parents still live today), and are possibly mentioned in a maximum of 343 articles.

However you'd think that if they were being paid to the write the articles, that they'd at least get their names correct, however they're constantly changing, and are occasionally misspelt, just like with practically every other source which mentions them, to the point that even I have no idea what their real names are, and makes me think that 1 of them might be a half-brother of the other 2, rather than a full brother.

They all have 3 names: A first name, a middle name, and a surname. However I don't know which way around their middle name and their surname are supposed to be, especially as most of the time only 1 of the 2 names is used. Their first names are also abbreviated a lot of the time. Plus 2 of the 3 brothers also have stage names.

I've found all theirs and their parents business details on Companies House in the past, but just like with the news articles, their names on there aren't any clearer, as 1 of the 3 brothers prefers to use a different surname to the other 2 most of the time. Danstarr69 (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Kappa Beta Phi

I am trying to add an active chapter to the description of Kappa Beta Phi

I am the president of the Chicago chapter that has been in existence since 1951

I have been on the Board for 10 years

It is not listed in your description

I just registered today to be an editor and this is my first attempt DPEQ (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@DPEQ: Welcome to the Teahouse! As explained on your talk page, additions to Wikipedia need to be based on published reliable sources. Since you have a conflict of interest, it would be best for you to make edit requests on Talk:Kappa Beta Phi for others to implement. GoingBatty (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Don't believe anything is formally "published"

Would copies of event announcements, invitations, member directories or dinner programs be acceptable? 75.145.145.153 (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

No they would not be acceptable. (Please read and digest WP:RS.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at the type of news coverage and books that are used to show that the group in New York City exists. It is entirely possible that these or similar coverage would include mention of a Chicago chapter.Naraht (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

As an additional note, *many* newspapers can be found as references. If the Chicago Sun Times mentioned Kappa Beta Phi in 1974, we can probably track it down. :)Naraht (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

And there is definitely more room for information of Kappa Beta Phi, but it needs to be referenced. (and somehow separated from the Legal Sorority of the same name. :( )Naraht (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Naraht

I have found the Obituaries of 3 of our past presidents in the Chicago tribune and the Chicago Daily Herald

Will these work?

All I want to do is add the Chicago Chapter to the description of Kappa

https://www.newspapers.com/image/883130799/?terms=%22Kappa%20Beta%20Phi%22%20&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/14493601/?terms=%22Kappa%20Beta%20Phi%22%20&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/article/chicago-tribune-obituary-for-richard-b/134790728/ DPEQ (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

will wikipedia stop asking for donations now that I've made an account?

I give once in a while - I don't keep track. But I don't like seeing the reminders of fundraising pop up every month or two when I've already donated. Will I continue to see those even if I'm logged in and make donations from my account? Thx Robintundrabay (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Robintundrabay: I believe donation banners are automatically disabled for anyone with an account, regardless of whether or not you make donations. Tollens (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Robintundrabay (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Robintundrabay. Thank you for your donations, but the donation system (to the Wikimedia Foundation) are kept completely separate. Quite deliberately, there is nobody and nothing in Wikipedia (except maybe a few WMF employees who sometimes edit Wikipedia) that knows who has donated, and there are no links between a donation and any Wikipedia account.

In response to Tollens' reply: unless something has changed recently, donation banners are not automatically disabled, but you can turn them off in your preferences. (See Special:Preferences and pick "Banners". But there is no connection between whether or not you have donated and whether or not you choose to turn the banners of. ColinFine (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Robintundrabay (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@ColinFine: I also thought they were shown to everyone, until recently when it occurred to me that I don't think I ever switched them off – this FAQ also seems to suggest that they aren't served to logged-in users. Am I missing something? Tollens (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks as if my knowledge was indeed out of date, Tollens. Thanks for pointing to that FAQ page - I'd looked for something in Wikipedia, but hadn't thought of looking outside. ColinFine (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Seconding the thanks for the updated info. For the far future reader surfing the archives, the FAQ as of this note reads: banners are not typically shown to users who log-in to Wikipedia accounts. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

how to I add an Infobox like in this article?Preston bus station Tbrookes.23 (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

See {{Infobox station}}. It's a template. You cut & paste it from the template page into your article, and fill in all of the details you have for the subject. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tbrookes.23 Welcome to the Teahouse. You were so nearly there! You simply missed off two critical brackets in a wikilink within the Infobox at Chorley Interchange. I added them with this edit, and it worked fine.

In future, when editing Infoboxes or Tables in live articles, my advice would be to copy the source code (by clicking Edit Source) and pasting it into your sandbox to work on. You can test it there to get it all working first bofore copy/pasting it back in, instead of messing up the article you were working on. But it looks like you've been doing some good work to improve that article - so well done! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Contradictory reviews / notability

Hi,

I've been working on a draft article on the band Macula Dog for a little while now and it got reviewed and rejected for the second time. I'm just feeling really confused, as they seem to contradict each other. The first review was declined due to sourcing issues, but said they were clearly notable. This more recent one said that they weren't notable enough. I just feel really weird about the fact that they go against each other. I will probably just find more sources to add and a little more info and submit it again, but I would like to know how many I should add for them to seem concretely notable, since it seems like it's probably far more subjective than I initially thought. Poppedcolonels (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Poppedcolonels, the sheer number of sources doesn't matter. What does matter is the reliability of those that are cited. The draft currently makes quite a lot of use of the band's own website and of the website of a retailer. Neither is disinterested and therefore neither is reliable. Remove such references. If this leaves you with unreferenced material, add reliable references. If no reliable references can be found for some material, cut that material. (Perhaps the draft also now cites other unreliable references; I haven't checked.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Poppedcolonels Your draft at Draft:Macula Dog doesn't really have hugely conflicting comments - they're both pretty close to saying "you're on the right track", but better sources are needed to clearly demonstrate notability (See WP:NBAND).

Yes, our volunteers do have to make subjective decisions based on their interpretations of the sources in around 500 draft articles that are submitted daily. And they aren't paid for it! Sometimes, too many weak sources overwhelm reviewers, as it's not quantity, but quality that counts. A few indepth and independent national reviews of a subject are far more useful than a myriad of minor mentions.

My advice is to keep going and when you're next ready, why not 'ping' the most positive of the two reviewers to say you've resubmitted it and ask them directly if they wouldn't mind reviewing it again. You could even point to the three most important of your sources that you feel demonstrated the group meets our notability criteria. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Poppedcolonels, it is not at all unusual for different volunteers to disagree about notability. It happens countless times every day. More mediocre sources and more unnecessary detail is not the answer. Just the opposite. What you need to do is to structure the article so that the notability is obvious to a reviewer. It's obscured now. Strip away all of the non-independent references that are to the bands own website and their record companies. Those references are of zero value in establishing notability and clutter up a notability assessment. Leave only the references to reliable sources completely independent of the band and their record companies, and eliminate all content that is not verified by those independent sources. Cut the websites from three to one. Quality is vastly more important than quantity. Cullen328 (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you o7 Poppedcolonels (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit Conflicts

I have been getting multiple edit conflicts for no obvious reasons. What is going on? ----MountVic127 (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it just means someone else was editing at the same time as you, but they get priority so their edit goes through but yours doesn’t. Fotzendurchfall (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

MountVic127 didn't seem to be working on pages which had high edit contention, so there might just be something else going on. Not sure as I write if the edit conflict page shows enough info to know with whom the edit conflict is with, but I'd want to be paying close attention to it. Particularly, I'd be interesting in checking whether you are getting into conflicts with yourself, which might indicate some - who knows what - condition in which you're sending two edits at the same time? --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It means someone else/multiple people is trying to edit the page at the same time. You have to do the edit again. MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Ricky Sings Spirituals

if i could make a article of Ricky Sings Spiritual0s by Ricky Nelson, should i make it believe a Rock and Roll or Gospel? Samchristie05 (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The first thing you should do, Samchristie05, is to ensure that this LP (or whatever) is "notable", as defined by and for Wikipedia. (Consider your creation Draft:Del Shannon Sings Hank Williams: you and others have spent a lot of time on this to no avail, because there's no sign of notability.) Then look in the reliable sources that you've amassed for descriptions. If these call it "gospel", you call it "gospel". Et cetera. If different sources call it different things, bring up the matter on the draft's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Del Shannon Sings Hank Williams

what self-published sources i need to fix? Samchristie05 (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Have you not read what's written in Draft talk:Del Shannon Sings Hank Williams, or do you not understand it? -- Hoary (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Samchristie05. Lulu.com and Xlibris are self-publishng platforms. The books by Robert Reynolds and Brian Young are therefore not reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Review an article

Hi, I'm editing articles from the community portal. Came upon this one: Suvigya Sharma. It looks like the article needs copyediting for tone - it reads like a PR. Can somebody review it, please? Thanks! UMStellify (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@UMStellify: Welcome to the Teahouse! You could add an appropriate template to the top of the article, such as {{tone}} or {{cleanup press release}}. GoingBatty (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Is anyone aware of a common household item I can take a picture of?

Terribly sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but just wanted to contribute some photos and was wondering if anyone knew of something I might find around the house I could upload. Slamforeman (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Slamforeman, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you've taken a photo of any household item, you can upload it to the Commons.

Answering your title question, (a table, chair, couch, TV, a refrigerator or anything you use daily) may be the most common household item you can take a picture of. Regards. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 03:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I appreciate your advice, but I should have been more specific. I meant to ask if a Wikipedia article about a common household item, or just something general I might find in my house that needs a photo. Ideally something I could put against a wall, so that people who know what my house looks like would not be able to recognize it. Slamforeman (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Slamforeman: You could browse through Category:Wikipedia requested photographs by subject to see if there are requests for anything you might have. GoingBatty (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Slamforeman. Wikimedia Commons contains nearly 100 million media files, most of them photos. Household items are heavily represented because they are so easy for most people to take pictures of. So, check for household topic items that have poor quality photos and upload better ones. Also, if you have antique or rare household items, those might be useful. For example, I have uploaded a photo of a rare, very early household refrigerator that I took while touring the Ernest Hemingway House in Key West, Florida, and a photo of antique children's rollerskates that I saw at a California antique shop. These types of photos are useful for understanding how a household item has developed and evolved over time. Another photo of a typical 21st century toaster is unlikely to add value to the project, but perhaps a photo of a disassembled toaster laid out as an exploded diagram may be of value. Cullen328 (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I’ll look into that. I hesitate to take up more of your time, but I was wondering if you could recommend anything in specific? If not, I understand and still thanks. Slamforeman (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Slamforeman, I don't have much time at the moment but I've quickly searched for some household objects on walls. How about a wall clock, or Shelf (storage) and maybe Floating shelf? It's not much, but that's what I can find at the moment, which is related to something "that can be put up against a wall". I hope this helps regarding your question. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 04:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was looking for!! Much appreciated, Thanks a million. Slamforeman (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Glad I could help :) 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 04:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I checked through there, but I couldn’t find much, which is why I asked here. Slamforeman (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Slamforeman, I started working on Baby rattle when my granddaughter was born. We have several excellent photos of ancient and antique baby rattles, plus a photo of a colorful plastic 21st century rattle. Photos of common mid-20th century rattles would be a great addition. Cullen328 (talk) 09:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I do have quite a few antique things, so I’ll look around for them. I must thank you again, your kindness and support is much appreciated. I wish you well! Slamforeman (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that images on Commons "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose ...

The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative"."

Therefore, just filling Commons with pictures of random household objects may be overkill. However if you think you can make an image that might conceivably be useful for educational purposes (such as to add value to a Wikipedia article on the subject), or maybe to be useful to social historians in the future, that would probably suffice... Just my take on this. Tony 1212 (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I created a page about a Lake in Shah Alam.

I'm not sure what happened, I think I sent for approval. Then within a few seconds it's no longer a draft? Did it get accepted that fast or did I miss something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_Alam_Lake_Garden This is the page.

I just want to know if it's an actual wiki page or not. Editing and contributing (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Editing and contributing You created it as an actual article, not a draft. You're autoconfirmed, so you can create articles directly. Unregistered users and new users can only create drafts. 73.116.159.154 (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see. Is there any reason for me to make drafts now? Would I be in trouble if let's say I approved the ADTEC article for example which is pending review? I'm still learning. Thank you for the prompt reply btw, I really appreciate it. Editing and contributing (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Editing and contributing: Hi there! You may choose to make a draft so you can build it without others tagging it with maintenance templates or proposing it for deletion, and then moving it to articlespace when you're done. I suggest you don't accept any drafts without first reviewing all the information at Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation, and then determining whether you want to be a reviewer. In the case of Draft:Advanced Technology Centre Shah Alam, there are still several sections that are unreferenced, so it's not ready to be accepted. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

North Korea

Has anyone in North Korea, or with a North Korean IP address, ever edited Wikipedia? 73.116.159.154 (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP 73.116.159.154. You might try asking this at the Wikipedia:Reference desk; however, given that Internet access from North Korea appears to be highly restricted and monitored, anyone willing to risk editing Wikipedia probably also did their best to avoid being detected. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

North Korea?

Internet access is not generally available in North Korea. Only some high-level officials are allowed to access the global internet. Answering your question Maybe but probably not. I do not record any source that would allow you to see IP addresses in each country. Your pleasure, MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia icons with no explanation

Where do I find out what the icons on this page mean? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_improvement/Articles Thanks for helping us newbies out! Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Oona Wikiwalker: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you hover over each icon, you'll see they stand for the article assessment levels. For example:

• - Stub
• - Start
• - C
• - B
• - List

Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, This template might also help. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 05:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Oona Wikiwalker: That template doesn't have all the icons, but there's a legend at Wikipedia:Articles for creation that has more entries than I listed above. GoingBatty (talk) 05:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@GoingBatty, I think you were meant to ping me? Anyways, yeah, the legend will work out too. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 05:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Midori No Sora: Nope, I meant to ping the original poster who asked the question. GoingBatty (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@GoingBatty, Ah, sorry my bad. Got it mixed up when you said "Template". 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 05:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the welcome and the tip. Bookmarked! :D Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Article was not accepted

Hi, my article was not accepted and the given reason was “ Not quite enough independent, significant coverage listed.” Regardless of my attempts to create a good article, it looks like I have missed some points in the process. As far as I know, I have tried my best to use appropriate citations to verify the information in the article, unfortunately seems its not enough. Therefor, I appreciate your help on improving my article before I resubmit it. Thanks you. Manike23 (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Buddhika Jayaratne 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 05:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I’ll try to review the citations accordingly. Manike23 (talk) 05:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Manike23, and welcome to the Teahouse. If a reviewer has made a comment you don't quite understand, the best plan is to ask that reviewer to clarify (There's no guarantee they'll reply - reviewers are volunteers like the rest of us - but usually they will). You can either ask on their user talk page (User talk: WikiOriginal-9), or else post on the talk page for your draft Draft talk:Buddhika Jayaratne, and ping them so that they see it. ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I think I msged the reviewer, but I’ll try to msg in the page talk as well. Manike23 (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Manike23 make sure you ping the reviewer - use Template:Ping or, if you're using the "reply" button, type @ and then select their username. If you just reply to the AfC decline message, we won't get notified! -- asilvering (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Get rid of 3 page issues

Hello. I created an article called Jeff Browne a few days ago. It has been flaged with 3 page issues. I think I have fixed it. Can I remove the page issues? Or can you give me some suggestions.Im on mobile visual editor Thanks, MrFlyingPies23 Page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Browne MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

MrFlyingPies23, a lot of the cited sources for Jeff Browne are from his employer. Does this article cite any sources that (i) are independent of any of his successive employers and also (ii) describe or discuss him in depth? That important matter aside, please remove redlinked categories, and take a look at the articles about comparable people in order to get a better idea of how categories work in en:Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Are the category's better now??? Thanks, MrFlyingPies23MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Have I fixed the sources now? MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I did some copy editing and removed one of the three tags. David notMD (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

MrFlyingPies23, it's better, but a lot is still sourced to collingwoodfc.com.au (Collingwood Forever), Browne's employer and thus not disinterested. (Also, "Browne previously worked as an external lawyer for the AFL for the past 22 years" sounds very strange to me. Perhaps "Browne had previously worked as an external lawyer for the AFL for 22 years"?) -- Hoary (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it was between 1985-2005. I can't seem to find a reliable source on that info. MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

problem with creating an article with a link to Russian Wikipedia

Hello, I have a problem with creating an article with a link to Russian Wikipedia. Tell me if it is possible to do this and how Do I need to clarify that this article is from Russian Wikipedia, translated into English and added here? Allbbrtt (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Allbbrtt are you translating a page? If so see Help:Translation. If you have any questions about that, feel free to ask. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you do need to clarify that. Make sure you pay attention to "License requirements" on the link given to you in the previous reply. -- asilvering (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Template to direct readers to watch multimedia from website outside Wikipedia

Hi,

I have recently created my article and I want to show a video related to the subject of the article. Since the full video is copyrighted, I can't upload it to Wikipedia or in Commons. However, I do remember there was template with words like Click here to watch the video used in Wikipedia that directs users to the website where the video is hosted. I don't remember the template name and it would be realy helpful if you could provide me the template name so that I can use it in my article. Toadboy123 (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Toadboy123 are you talking about Template:External media? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That's the one. Thank you so much for your help. :) Toadboy123 (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

2022 Houston Astros season cleanup

Go to above article, then scroll down to Statistics section. Please clean up. Cant figure out where to put back a symbol. Thanks and have a good day.Theairportman33531 (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Theairportman33531: Welcome to the Teahouse! I reverted the most recent edit that broke the table in the Statistics section. You could discuss the edit with the editor who made it on the article's talk page - Talk:2022 Houston Astros season. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Help with finding sources for an album.

I am writing a draft Draft:Nosferatu (Bloodbound album), it has been rejected for lack of secondary sources (which in does indeed lack), but I am lost on how to find any. What constitutes a worthwhile secondary source for an album? I could add reviews by critics, but I don't know if that is enough. BlazingBlast (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@BlazingBlast Yes, reviews by critics reported in reliable publications are exactly what are required. Take a look at a few highly-rated articles listed here and you may get more ideas. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@BlazingBlast: Welcome to the Teahouse! You could review Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources to see if any of those sources have reviewed the album. (Sources do not have to be online and do not have to be in English - you can cite a magazine or newspaper.) You might also find some guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

How to make a userbox

I want to add a userbox to my user page, but I don't know how to alter it or add a logo to it. Plus, I'm not very good at wikitext.

User:Keagen J. Cole

Keagen J. Cole (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Keagen J. Cole The page WP:UBX has guidance on what userboxes are available and how to place them on your page. Using the templates {{Userboxtop}} and {{Userboxbottom}} will keep things tidy. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Mudar nome de utilizador

Há já algum tempo quis criar um perfil na Wikipédia e inseri o meu nome como, de resto, me é habitual pois sou responsável pelo que digo e escrevo. Não o consegui e, pensando estar a fazer uma reclamação, inseri algo que, como nome de utilizador, resulta numa estupidez: "Não tenho outro nome e não uso nicknames". Como posso alterar isso, sabendo que o meu nome não está proibido, seja por ser igual ao de outro, seja por outro motivo? Não tenho outro nome e não uso nicknames (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Não tenho outro nome e não uso nicknames {Google's poor translation: I've had some time to create a profile on Wikipedia and enter my name as, after all, I'm used to being responsible for what I say and write. Don't get it and, thinking about making a complaint, enter something that, like the user's name, is stupid: "I don't have my own name and I don't use nicknames". How can I alter this, knowing that my name is not forbidden, if it is the same as another one, if it is for another reason?} You can use your own name if you wish: I and many others do. However, this is the English Wikipedia and we prefer to write in English. The procedure at WP:CHUS allows long-term editors to change their UserName but as you only have this one edit, I suggest you abandon the account and start again. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

ntonenun using literal portuguese translations of english terms (like "nome de usuário") which themselves got translated literally aside, it's decently accurate (assuming that's overly formal brazilian portuguese and not portuguese portuguese), so don't worry about that part

worst i can say is that it very slightly misinterpreted the first sentence, which mentioned wanting to make a profile for some time cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 14:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

.... actually it did not a bad job considering I suggested the original was Italian! Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Amigo Mike Turnbull, o original era Português de Portugal.

Embora possa ser excessivamente incomodativo, agradeço que me indique como proceder para eliminar a conta actual e, como me disse, começar de novo.

Quis mandar isto numa tradução do Microsoft Bing (melhor que a do Google, na versão que tenho) mas esta página não o permite. Paciência! Não tenho outro nome e não uso nicknames (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Desculpe, as contas não podem ser excluídas por motivos relacionados a atribuição e direitos autorais. Basta abandonar sua conta antiga e começar de novo! (Sorry, accounts cannot be deleted for reasons to do with attribution and copyright. Just abandon your old account and start again!) Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

hİ;

I got blocked while trying to add my company profile. Can you help me? Melihbey07 (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for your company profile. If you try to add it again you will be blocked from editing. Sorry to have to break that news to you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Melihbey07 You are not blocked, or you would not be able to make edits here at the Teahouse. However, you have been warned not to use Wikipedia for WP:PROMOTION. See also WP:COI and WP:PAID. I suggest you contribute in some other way: there are lots of articles you could improve. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia images

FYI

 – Added section header. GoingBatty (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, My name is Dr Peter Dickens. I am writing a book about outer space, power and fantasy. I would like to include some images taken from Wikipedia. I would acknowledge Wikipedia as source. Is it OK to use Wikipedia in this way? 82.8.17.177 (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons mostly uses Creative Commons licences. Check the conditions for the licence attached with images. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing for more details. Leoneix _(talk) 15:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, 82, and welcome to the Teahouse. To expand on what Leoneix says: most images on Wikipedia are hosted on Commons, and can nearly all be freely used - see the page Leoneix linked for the details.

A minority of images on Wikipedia are not free, and you may not be able to reuse them. You need to examine each image's individual information page for details of its copyright and lice4nsing status. See WP:REUSE. ColinFine (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, not all images on Commons are properly licensed; some of them have yet to be located and removed. If you find an image whose freely-licensed status seems "too good to be true" -- e.g., if a historic image has a Creative Commons tag on it, or if the uploader claimed it's their own work -- that's probably an indicator that you shouldn't use it. DS (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit section option

Hi, I think it would be a good place to ask this. There used to be a edit section button next to every section in articles. It is no showing anymore. Is there a way to turn it on? Leoneix _(talk) 15:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

even the reply button in talk pages is not showing up Leoneix _(talk) 15:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind! I just had to tweak some settings in Special:preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. Case Closed! Leoneix _(talk) 15:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Business Studies

Difference between quality performance and quality management 41.116.161.85 (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

no, we won't help you with your homework. ltbdl (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! This is a place to ask questions about Wikipedia, not general questions. You could try the Wikipedia:Reference desk if you like. GoingBatty (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles on Quality of service and Quality management. David notMD (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

How to add optional rows and interactive maps to a template?

Hi! I'm improving a template (which I use to create info-boxes) for a Wikipedia Project in the Incubator. I would like to add optional rows and an interactive map to template. The problem of the current template is that 1) non applicable rows appear in some articles, and 2) I have to upload location maps individually, instead of just entering geographical coordinates. How can I solve that? Thank you very much! Anaxicrates (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Anaxicrates, which template are you working on? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This one: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wp/grc/Ἀρχαία_Πόλις

And here is how it can be used: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/grc/Μέγαρα_(ἀρχαία_πόλις)

And: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/grc/Ἀλαλίη (here some rows are irrelevant) Anaxicrates (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the links Anaxicrates! I think I can offer an answer for your question (1): Are you familiar with conditional expressions? These allow templates to change their displayed content depending on which parameters are filled out. There is an explanation at Help:Designing infoboxes at "Field conditionally displayed". If you look at the source code for Template:Infobox person, you'll see many examples of it in action.[6] (That template is making the table indirectly via Module:Infobox if it seems odd to see no table markup.) Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! I've solved a problem, but I've created another. I had already figured out that using the infobox template could have been a good solution. However, I had problems using it, because (apparently, I'm not an expert) the existent module could only be used in the English Wikipedia. However, now I've created (i.e., copy-pasted) the module in the Ancient Greek Wikipedia Incubator.

Here is the copy-pasted module: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Module:Wp/grc/Πινάκιον_Πύστεων

I also had to re-create this, since I got an error message: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Module:Wp/grc/Infobox/styles.css

Here is the new "ancient polis" infobox template: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wp/grc/Πινάκιον_Ἀρχαία_Πόλις

Here is an article in which I use the new template: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/grc/Ἀγύριον_(ἀρχαία_πόλις)

Optional rows work now. However, there are some problems, mainly the infobox style: I initially got an error and I had to re-create the "infobox styles" module linked above, but nothing has changed, apparently. Secondarily, I still have to figure out how to use pictures, but I hope I can work that out. Unfortunately, I'm not a programmer and I don't understand the meaning of the code completely. Anaxicrates (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki page "Spiritual Exodus "

Hello. My wiki page could not be published due to referencing issues. How do I fix it? Ghostbusters223 (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Spiritual Exodus. -- asilvering (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Ghostbusters223. Your first reference is to Manual Magazines, a self-publishing platform that reprints promotional articles submitted by random people. This source is neither independent nor reliable. The rest of your references are about the history of the Berlin Wall and do not mention the painting. What is required are multiple references to reliable sources that are entirely independent of the artist, that devote significant coverage to this painting. Notable paintings are usually displayed in major museums or in public buildings and have been discussed by professional art critics or art historians. Cullen328 (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Ghostbusters223, you are claiming File:Spiritual Exodus.jpg as your "own work". Are you Mark Kostabi? If not, then that file is not your own work. Please clarify. Cullen328 (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

You may have taken a photograph on the painting but that is a copyright infringement in this context. David notMD (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

How do I know whether to use American or British English

How do I know whether to use American or British English on an article? Sometimes it has an invisible template saying to use one or the other, sometimes it doesn't. Should I use British English by default? If it says to use mdy dates does that mean use American English? Poopykibble (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Try looking at WP:ENGVAR to help you decide. Basically it should take the variation based on the location or strong national ties of the topic or which version it was originally written in for an international topic. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

And if ENGVAR doesn't help, just use whatever is natural to you. The idea is to prevent people from going around changing everyone's -ours to -ors and driving people crazy, not to force you as an editor to write in an English you do not use. -- asilvering (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Poopykibble. In addition to the advice given above, you should keep MOS:RETAIN in mind. Wikipedia expects us, in principle, to defer to the national variety of English chosen by the article's creator or its first major contributor. If you're creating a new article yourself, you're free to use whichever variety of English that you're most familiar with, except perhaps in obvious cases of MOS:TIES; similarly, if you come across a stub with very little content that you significantly expand and improve on, then you can also change to a style you're more comfortable using. What Wikipedia wants us to try and avoid doing is going around and mass changing the variety of English being used in articles to our preferred variety just because it's our preferred variety. There typically needs to be a pretty good policy or contextual based reason for changing from one variety to another, and often this is something that needs to be discussed or proposed on article talk pages. Ultimately, the most important thing is to try and be MOS:CONSISTENT throughout the article regardless of the variety being used. This kind of thing also applies to date formats and citation styles as well. As for your question about the {{Use mdy}}, that is the date format commonly used by American English so it would make more sense if the article was written in American English. If you find the template being used in articles written in British English, then you might want to look at the article's page history or its talk page to see if an explanation is given for using that template. If none can be found, then perhaps the template was added in error or someone chose to ignore it and inappropriately change the variety of English to British English at some point. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Over 600 films - Filmography table

Sreekar Prasad has worked on over 600 films as of now. Is it okay to include all of them in his filmography? Jeraxmoira (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jeraxmoira we tend to avoid keeping complete lists if they're that long. My advice would be to mention only the most notable, and leave the full listing for a database project instead. -- asilvering (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Noted, thanks <3 Jeraxmoira (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Help with resolving issues on new entry

An editor flagged some issues on a page I created, there was a flurry of activity and then it died down. The page is still flagged and I am nervous about trying to fix the issues myself. How do I get an editor to just resolve this? Doorknobbish (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Doorknobbish: Be bold! Go ahead and try to fix the issue; if you do something wrong someone will help you. What is the article and the problem? Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The article is presumably Joshua Lisec. Without doing too much digging, it's not clear to me from the article as it stands why the subject is notable: the only independent coverage seems to be the Kirkus review (the Dayton daily news and Wright State Guardian sources are clearly heavily based on interviews with Lisec) and that is not exactly in-depth coverage of Lisec. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

maps for pages on post ww1 treaties

hello, i found some maps from a book called "historical atlas of east central europe by Paul Robert Magosci, which was published in 1992.

in it i found some maps showing territorial demands put forward by various eastern and central european states during the paris peace conference. im not sure if the maps should be on the individual treaty pages or on the paris peace conference page, and im not sure how to check for copyright status, but i argue the maps provide context for these historical events Bird244 (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Bird244. I sincerely doubt that these maps published in 1992 would meet the stringent requirements for Non free images. If the maps were prepared for this book, they are almost certainly copyright protected. On the other hand, the content in any book published over 95 years ago is in the public domain, and can be used without restriction. So, that includes books published in the ten years following World War I. Cullen328 (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

could i make my own version of the maps so it counts as own work? Bird244 (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but you must document where you got the information. Cullen328 (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

i guess il try to make my own version then Bird244 (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Bird244, if you're not sure how to check for copyright status, you should assume that the maps are conventionally copyright (all rights reserved) and thus that they may not be used for Wikipedia articles, even via a claim of "fair use". Such a claim requires an understanding of whose copyright it is (and you say you're unable to check this), as well of course as a careful reading and good understanding of what Wikipedia says about "fair use", and meticulous phrasing of any "fair use" claim. ("Providing context for articles about historical events" would be inadequate as a "fair use" justification.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to close out the copyright question, each map in that publication is marked "copyright Paul Robert Magosci" leaving zero doubt that they are all protected by copyright. All of the maps were created for the book; none is a historical map reprinted, for instance. It's a a fascinating book, available on Internet Archive should anyone want to take a look. https://archive.org/details/historicalatlaso0001mago ... great find, Bird244. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

il check the books bibliography to see what the maps are based on (if theres contemporary maps magoscis maps are based on)

are there any maps from the paris peace conference that have been used on wikipedia pages? or contemporay maps from news articles form the time period? and would it be worth adding said maps to the page for the treaty of trianon for example? it would make sense to show what the yugoslavs wanted from the conference, but i dont know if thats sufficient context

i originally found the book while looking for sources for an alternate history map project. Bird244 (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Bird244, you're going to have to explore the subcategories (and subcategories of subcategories, and subcategories of subcategories of subcategories, etc) of commons:Category:Maps; and perhaps also the much shallower commons:Category:Paris Peace Conference (1919–1920). Whether or not it has already been used in a Wikipedia article, any map that you find in Commons may be used in a Wikipedia article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

thanks. il check out the page. Bird244 (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Lightning Ridge

PLEASE HELP Hi, Im new to Wikipedia. I'm trying to update the Wikipedia page Lightning Ridge, every time I do, it gets removed or I get a message stating to add more source's (which I do), latest message states "Please stop. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Lightning Ridge, New South Wales, you may be blocked from editing. Your contributions and your username give the appearance that you are here to promote Lightning Ridge rather than to build the encyclopedia." All i'm trying to do is add factual information, interesting fossil & Opal finds, New Laws on Fossicking etc. I need help as I don't know what I'm doing wrong Kind Regards LightningRidge (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I suppose the sources you are applying to the encyclopedia article are not reliable or are promoting the article not adding factual information. Whoever is sending you the "you may be blocked from editing" message, I suggest you go to their talk page and discuss it their. Your pleasure, MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Three times you added large chunks of text without adequate referencing and three time all you additions reverted (work of three editors). Wikipedia advises that if reverted, open a discussion at the Talk page of the article, invite those who reverted you, and seek to reach a consensus. David notMD (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Additions like Lost Lightning Ridge is a great resource for local news, funeral notices, history etc or Lightning Ridge Opal Centre is a wealth of information on Opalised Fossils are plainly promotional, that is what you are being warned about. MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@LightningRidge: You do seem to be getting rather a lot of pushback; I'm sorry to see it. I think a couple of editors have been wrong and discourteous in their revert messages and their notes on your page. It looks to me as if the text which user:Materialscientist reverted was not supported by citations to a Reliable Source. The text reverted by user:C.Fred and then user:MrOllie seems to include a section which did have what looked like a reasonable reference; and then a long section on Steropodon Galmani which seemed to me to be off-topic ... it was all about the fossil and not about the place, but it is the place that is the subject of the article, not the fossil. My best suggestion is to improve the references you've used, and to do more to indicate which reference supports which part of the paragraphs you're adding. Adding a large chunk of text and five refs at the end of the large chunk does not allow users to understand which reference supports which part of the paragraph. You need to make sure your references are reliable; so "Lightning Ridge Historical Society" does not work at all; a society is not a valid reference. The Lightning Ridge Book is self-published so, again, is not a reliable source. Writing for Wikipedia is difficult. There is an expectation of very high standards of referencing, and I think this is most of the problem. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi thank you for your message

I learning to use this platform and trying to do do everything right but now i'm blocked who can I contact to get unblocked and guide me through this. Kind Regards LightningRidge (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You're not blocked. If you were blocked you wouldn't have been able to post here. MrOllie (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@LightningRidge: You are not blocked. Blocked is a word in wikipedia which means "the user it not allowed to edit". Instead, what has happened is that your work has been reverted ... you did some edits; other people undid those edits. Here is what I suggest: put together some edits on User:LightningRidge/sandbox. Add your text and your references there. I'll have a look and give you feedback. If good, the text and references can be moved to the main page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Re --

-- The Opal Centre it is a national museum being developed in the outback opal mining town of Lightning Ridge, to preserve, display and research the greatest ever public collection of Australian opal, opalised fossils and the colourful history and heritage of the Australian opal fields. Is this not a realible source?

--the Lost Lightning Ridge mention, sadly the Ridge does not have a newspaper Lightning Ridge is a small outback mining town hence using social media like so many other towns around Australia. Bourke newspaper is fantastic but over three hours away from Lightning Ridge

-- The fossil post I'm happy to edit down

Thanks for everyone suggestion LightningRidge (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You should put that in your sandbox User:LightningRidge/sandbox and our fellow editor Tagishsimonwill give you feedback. MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you everyone seems Wiki doesn't want local people to update and add & correct information

I might give the a miss for the time being

Sincerely xx (I very sad over this) LightningRidge (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Lightning Ridge, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia wants everybody to update and correct information as long as they follow Wikipedia's rules and policies, which can be hard for newcomers to get familiar with.

(Almost) anybody can edit any article, and because Wikipedia articles are based on reliable published sources, not on personal knowledge, you don't usually have to be an expert on a topic in order to edit an article on that topic. Having said that, obviously people often do edit articles on subjects where they have an interest, and articles about places are very often worked on by people who are local to the place.

But what can sometimes be a problem is that people local to a place know things about it (from their personal experience, or from hearing from others) and want to share those things. This often brings them into direct conflict with the fundamental principle of verifiability: if a reader anywhere in the world has no reliable way of checking information in an article, then the information should not appear in the article. (It doesn't necessarily have to be easy to get hold of the sources, but in principle it must be available). Note that information published by somebody with a vested interest (eg a tourist board or even a local historical society) cannot necessarily be taken as reliable.

Unfortunately it quite often happens that a a person with a lot of enthusiasm for some subject does a lot of editing rapidly, some of which is not adequately supported, and more experienced editors see some problems and revert the whole thing rather than taking the time to unpick it and see which bits are acceptable. They may also be less than kind in their messages. If you watch Special:RecentChanges for a bit, and see just how many edits are made that are spam, pure vandalism, pushing minority views, or attacks against people, ethnicities, religions, political positions etc, you will understand why those who patrol new edits don't always spend as long as they might looking at the details.

I urge you not to be discouraged by this, but to take it as a step in your learning to work with this huge machine. Engage with the editors who reverted you, and if you don't understand, ask. ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

How many redirects pages to create to an page?

The page Krew (Youtube group) was just approved through AFC today, and so it only has 1 redirect page to it excluding the draft page. I added the redirect page Itsfunneh because I'm sure about that one being necessary. However, there are many other possible redirects that could be made like ItsFunneh, or Krew (YouTube group) or Krew (youtube group) or Krew (youtube)... the list goes on. With so many possible redirects, how do I know when enough is enough? AKFkrewfamKF1 (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, A redirect that points to another redirect is called a double redirect. These pages are unwanted, because Wikipedia's MediaWiki software is currently configured to not follow the second redirect. The MediaWiki feature which would have allowed it is declined as too hard to implement. If someone is redirected to a redirect, the chain stops after the first redirect, like in the example. These situations create unpleasant experiences for the reader and make the navigational structure of the site confusing. I suggest you choose the most necessary redirect. Only choose 1 redirect. Your pleasure, MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

AKFkrewfamKF1 is not suggesting that double redirects be created. I think you're giving very bad advice here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I disagree if you create another redirect that will be a double redirect. The MediaWiki feature would have allowed it is declined as too hard to implement. Disagreed, MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Can confirm what Tagishsimon said. All of the proposed redirect would link directly to the page, not other redirects. AKFkrewfamKF1 (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

(ec) It is possible to have as many redirects as you wish, pointing at a single article. A double redirect is when redirect A points to redirect B. The user here is wanting Redirect A through to Redirect Z each to pointing to Article A, and that's fine and dandy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought 1 redirect would be the most necessary redirect. Plus if it's a double redirect a hot would automatically fix that. I guess you can spank me now. (my mistake) Made a mistake user, MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Bot* MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

t/y. Fetches the trout. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the general view is Redirects are cheap and need for them can be construed from a hugely long list of purposes, and thus you might as well add as many as you fancy. Ideally, give some thought as to whether it's credible that anyone will actually use the redirect as a search term. Is someone really going to rock up to wikipedia and type in Krew (youtube group)? --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

thanks AKFkrewfamKF1 (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

AKFkrewfamKF1 I doubt it needs many if any, especially as it's just one name, and shows up in the search box when you type that one word.

With IMDB, I occasionally add a lot of nicknames to profiles which have more than just a forename and a surname, double-barrelled names, initialisms, along with names which can be abbreviated, and have been credited by at least 2 different names already.

Small things can make a big difference with searches on IMDB like the use of a full stop (which was always needed until around a year ago), which Americans like to use in names/titles, whereas British speaking countries don't, especially for people who don't realise you can just copy and paste their profile number in a title instead of typing their name.

For example, for my name you could have, Daniel Gardecki, Dan Gardecki, Danny Gardecki, Daniel Francis Gardecki, Daniel F Gardecki, D.F. Gardecki, DF Gardecki etc and much much more, plus if it was double-barrelled you could have Daniel Francis-Gardecki among others too.

Wikipedia doesn't seem to need that many, especially with the fact it has disambiguation pages, with little descriptions of each entry, to make things easier to find. Danstarr69 (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

My first major edit, how did I do?

This is my second edit ever, is there anything I did wrong, or could have done better?

My Word Coach (+3,373 bytes)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_Word_Coach&diff=prev&oldid=1184028350

Steven Spaglagucci (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

It all looks good and fine to me. tbh, few second edits would include a successful use of {{efn}} which kind makes me wonder about whether this is your second edit,a nd why you have come here for feedback. But WP:AGF, yes, very good, much better than my second edit. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, that is a very good constructive edit. I would not be able to do that when I started editing Wikipedia. You did a good job removing the unsourced tags. Seeing you adding citations to relevant sources that edit is factual, well done. Your pleasure, MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

That's an improvement! Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback.

Steven Spaglagucci (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

My pleasure. "I'm Always happy to help"!MrFlyingPies23 (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

rejected article

An article I submitted was rejected. The reasons stated for rejection are factually incorrect. How do I appeal such a rejection? Thank you. Sylvan1971 (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sylvan1971: I would not worry about the wrong comment. The ref supports the assertion. However do any of the references support notability? I'm not seeing any. Which of the refs are to independent sources which discuss the subject - Draft:Laura Bliss - in depth? Merely linking to work she has done is not enough. See, probably, WP:GNG. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Sylvan1971, if you mean Draft:Laura Bliss, this was declined, not rejected. (The distinction may seem insignificant, but in this particular context it is significant. Rejected means "Stop", declined does not.) I note that the photograph of Bliss was pretty obviously made with her cooperation, and that you say you were the photographer. Please read and digest Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. -- Hoary (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Sylvan1971, if you mean Draft:Laura Bliss, the reason given for the decline is factually correct. The draft does not establish that Bliss is notable by citing several reliable independent sources with extensive discussion of her. Most of the sources cited are by her, so clearly not independent. This is a pity, as her work is (to me) fascinating. I wish you success in finding a few sources that are about her. Maproom (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Infobox Template

Hello good people!

I’ve been trying to edit an infobox template… to no avail. There’s a pre-existing one, so I tried to add to it. Nope. So, I copied the code from the infobox template and tried to edit it… nope, no success. What am I doing wrong?

Thank you, merci, gracias, spaciba :) Researchiseverything (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Researchiseverything, your list of contributions doesn't show any, other than your plea immediately above, since July. So I don't know what you're talking about. -- Hoary (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s probably that you need to disable your browser firewall. Fotzendurchfall (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it probably is not. Please do not give unfounded and bad advice. There's zero evidence that the issue the user faces has anything to do with a firewall. The best supposition is that the user has not got an inforbox change to work in preview and so has not saved the page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Researchiseverything, would try out the template in your sandbox:User:Researchiseverything/Sandbox and post back here. It's hard to give advice without seeing the problem. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Researchiseverything. Infoboxes are WP:TEMPLATEs and templates can be tricky to edit. Templates only work when you use them according to their documentation and any changes in a template's syntax need to be made on the template's page. So, if you can give the name of the template you're trying to edit, then someone might be able to help you. Please understand though that heavily used templates tend to be WP:PINKLOCKed because even what might seem like a minor change of the template's syntax can have a huge ripple effect throughout Wikipedia. For this reason, only certain users are able to directly edit such templates, and everyone else needs make edit requests on template talk pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly,

I am trying to edit this template: Template:Infobox organization. So, for the moment I’ve managed to put in a few elements (formation, headquarters, website, location], but when I try to add a new entry it gives me an unknown parameter warning (I’m trying to add director_general). Now, I am not sure if this is because I am not allowed to deviate from the code for any reason, or—if as you suggested—it’s because I need to request to edit this.

I haven’t submitted any changes because effectively the code I’ve entered is giving me exactly what is already on the page: Charities Directorate of Canada

Any ideas? Thank you all for your help! 132.205.229.214 (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Charities Directorate of Canada

Formation	1967
Headquarters	Ottawa
Location	Canada
Director General	John Doe
Website	www.canada.ca/en/services/taxes/charities.html

Hi there! Instead of trying to edit the template to add a |director_general= parameter, have you considered using |leader_title=Director General and |leader_name=John Doe, like the example on the right? GoingBatty (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Raktabeej deleted again and again

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pacho_Master/sandbox please find the issue of this page and why its deleted again and again? Pacho Master (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Most recently, it has been declined. I quote: "This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Raktabeej, which is also waiting to be reviewed." And Draft:Raktabeej has been promoted to Draft:Raktabeej. (Shouldn't it have been?) -- Hoary (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

.t has never been deleted, and is now an article. There is a defective version of it at User:Pacho_Master/sandbox. Maintaining rival versions of the same draft often causes confusion. I see now that the rival versions of the draft were created by different editors, and BhikhariInformer's version was accepted by a reviewer. Maproom (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Changing the first-sight summary when searching articles

Was wondering how to change the summary when searching for an article on Wikipedia, or does it automatically generate the summary? Ex. Elephant: Largest living land animals. I wanted to change the Foxton Fizz article's summary to make it look better because there's no text, but I don't know how to change it. Shanshansan (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Template:Short description might be the place to go. Happy editing!! Leoneix _(talk) 08:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Shanshansan I use Wikipedia:Shortdesc helper, it's very helpful. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

How do I get the analyzepage permission in order to run the InternetArchiveBot on a single page?

Hello! This question is identical to the one posted here by User:Shalso in 2019 (Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 923).

The reason I'm asking it is because the aforementioned thread does not answer how did Shalso solve their problem. I am trying to run the InternetArchiveBot on a single page, in order to archive links, but whenever I try (using the Single page analysis tool at this link), I get a permission error here.

Permission error The action you are trying to perform requires the analyzepage permission. This permission is obtainable with the following groups: basicuser, user, admin, root, bot.

Why, as a user, don't I have the permissions to do analyzepage despite the fact that I am a member of the following group:user? This is a problem I already had months ago by the way.

Annex question: according to the bot's FAQ, I should also be able to use the bot queue system and queue several pages for it to run through.

Q: How can I run the bot on a set of pages I need it to be run on?

A: You can use [<tvar name="rbq">https://iabot.wmcloud.org/index.php?page=runbotqueue</tvar> the bot queue submission tool] to do just that. If you have a list of pages that need to be analyzed by the bot, put the list of articles you want to send to the bot, an article on each line, and click submit. You're already done. Your submission will be assigned a job ID, and will be placed in the queue until a process is able to work on it. It can then be tracked in real time on the interface.

And yet, clicking on the provided link gives me this. Is bot queue really disabled on the entire English Wikipedia? I feel like this should be mentioned on the bot's FAQ.

Bot queue disabled Sorry but access to the bot queue for this wiki is disabled. Please use the Single Page Analysis tool instead. CodemWiki (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @CodemWiki I'd not used this tool before, but I did manage to get it to work on a single page.

I've also managed to queue an analysis of 10 article I'd created and got back the message that I'd: "Successfully queued the bot.". About 5 minutes later it reported that it had done them all successfully, though none had any bare urls to start with: (see https://iabot.wmcloud.org/index.php?page=viewjob&id=16066)

Doing a 'What links here' from Template:Cleanup bare URLs, I then scheduled c.10 articles that did have bare urls. This is still running as I write this.

l notice that you did have a self-requested block a couple of months ago, and maybe (just maybe) that could still be triggering some sort of filter based on cached, old data, as you otherwise seem to have a valid user account. All I can suggest is that you post your question and suggestion to the bot's own Report a Problem page.

I did notice at Template:Cleanup bare URLs that there are a couple of other tools you could consider using if you're really stuck. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. So there is indeed a problem with my account, I posted my problem where you suggested. CodemWiki (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@CodemWiki Please 'ping' me when you get a response, or drop by my talk page. I've learned to use a new tool today because of your question, and I'd be keen to hear the outcome in due course. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Could someone please help with Draft:Ami Dror?

Could someone please help with Draft:Ami Dror? It keeps getting rejected, unjustifiably from my vantage point. --Omer Toledano (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, seems like the subject is notable but due to lack of secondary sources the draft gets rejected. I suggest you to go through Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources and find secondary sources independent of the subject, if Hebrew sources are available you can use them too.Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. Happy editing!! Leoneix _(talk) 12:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The overkill of references in the first sentence suggests that you've misunderstood how notability is established. If you cite a total of four reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of the subject in the whole article, that's plenty enough to establish notability. Sources are judged on quality, not quantity. The use of four sources to support a simple uncontroversial statement suggests that you're trying to hide your inability to find even one good source.

Incidentally – I suspect that "leader of the ongoing protests against the judicial reform" is no longer true. The news reports I've seen say that in the current unfortunate circumstances, those protests have ceased. Maproom (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

biographical notability for actor

This draft got declined Draft:Zhou Yiran After the recent decline, I revised the draft, updating the contents and references. Can you provide feedback on what else I should add or revise? Thank you! Unleashgift (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Unleashgift Hello and welcome. I fixed your link, we don't need the whole url. You have very little prose in your draft- the main purpose of an article is to summarize what independent reliable sources say about the person- not merely document their work. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Unleashgift: Hi there! Do you have sources for the information in the infobox? GoingBatty (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Article

Good day to you. My article was rejected. And I need your assistance on how I can modified the article to be accepted. I want to learn more, This is the link to the article Draft:Ceemahn Infinitydigi (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Infinitydigi It is written like an advert and is a clear copyright violation with almost 60% similarity, both of which are strictly prohibited in all Wikimedia projects and will be speedily deleted. Kindly go through Wikipedia:Writing better articles to get an idea on how to write an article. Leoneix _(talk) 13:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I will thoroughly go through the article. Infinitydigi (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Infinitydigi: please note also that articles should summarise what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about the subject, not what you want to say about your client. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Scanned document

Hello I need help. Is it considered piracy if I upload a scanned page of a document from a music report and then link to that scanned page here on Wikipedia? 2A01:599:81F:5D08:E9F7:A35A:D793:D22B (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Why do you want to do that? If you want to use it as a reference, you simply need to provide enough information for someone to locate this document themselves(publication, author, page number, etc.). You don't need to provide a copy. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

No way this is actually happening... (Is this notable enough?)

Brief background: So apparently, the US president and the state governor are supposed to be visiting my school tomorrow, 11/9/23 Friday. I'm not joking, dead serious. Apparently its related to giving funding so the old chysler building in belvidere can open up and people can get there jobs back there. Would this be notable enough for an article lol? 131.156.56.55 (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm skeptical that this presidential visit merits a standalone article, but it could possibly be included in an existing article(though I don't know which one) about say, the school or community- if enough independent reliable sources write about this event and its signficance.

Also be aware that this is a global website, and many users will not know what you mean when you say "the old Chrysler building in Belvedere". 331dot (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

oh right i keep forgetting that lol. i'll just wait and see what happens then. thanks for the help 131.156.56.55 (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

IP editor. The article Belvidere, Illinois#Business mentions that production at the plant was suspended earlier this year, so that would be the logical place to put any new information, once reliable sources are published. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Content may also belong at Belvidere Assembly Plant. Cullen328 (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

It's already at List of presidential trips made by Joe Biden (2023)#Future trips. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi there! Wikipedia's definition of notability means that the answer to your question depends on the quality of the coverage by independent published sources. Something significant would have to happen to have to sustained coverage from reliable sources needed for a stand-alone article about the visit. However, adding a sentence (with a reference) to the article about your school might also be an option. GoingBatty (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Japan National Route 24

Hello, I want to translate into Russian language (in ru-wiki). This is article short (little text). Need to add info\ text with japanese wiki or sourses, please. In ru-wiki got has rule: point. (p.) С:1 Very shorter article or non-enclypedian content (in English A3: No content). Admins-ru can speedy delete this article on ru-wiki. Thank you. СтасС (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• I want to translate this article right now.--СтасС (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

СтасС, this Teahouse is for en-Wikipedia. I doubt any ru_Wikipedia admins will see your request above. Maproom (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, I will be translate into Russian now. Thanks.--СтасС (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@СтасС: Questions about ru Wikipedia should be asked there. It looks the the help desk is at ru:Википедия:Форум/Вопросы RudolfRed (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

my donations

I'm trying to find out if I am still donating via my discover card or what. I can't find any info on my monthly support. I have recently had some financial changes and had some accounts to close. But I want to continue a monthly donation, even though it is small.

Thank you in advance.

Linda K Squier Buffalogirlofwy Buffalogirlofwy (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Buffalogirlofwy We editors have nothing to do with the donation process; please email donate@wikimedia.org to make inquiries about your donation. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Buffalogirlofwy I think you need to look at this page where problems with donations can be fixed. Your money goes to the Wikimedia Foundation, while the Teahouse is mainly used to help new editors with their editing issues. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Good Article Review

I have finished a good article review (which I rarely do), and passed it. What do I do now? Manually add {{Good article}} under the short description? TwoScars (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@TwoScars: Follow the instructions under step 4 ("finishing the review") at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions RudolfRed (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

article heading change

how can i change article's heading spelling or article name KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@KhanQadriRazvi: Welcome to the Teahouse. You can change section headings by editing the page like you normally do; if you're using the source editor they're enclosed in == == for the biggest headings. If you're changing the article title it would need to be moved (if it can't be moved for technical reasons, you can drop a request at Requested technical moves). If you're thinking of moving it yourself, determine whether or not it would be controversial to do so, and if it is, leave a message on the article's talk page to gather input from other interested editors. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Am I allowed to upload images of something I bought to wikimedia commons

I recently purchased an antique Japanese id card from the Meiji era from eBay. I intend on taking photos of my own but I’d like to at least use the photos from eBay as a placeholder on the article. Can I upload it as a non free image? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 18:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

A quick google of Japanese copyright terms suggests that in cases where the work bears the name of a corporate body, the term is "until the end of a period of seventy years following the making public of the work" and so a Meiji era ID card would be public domain. As such it could be uploaded to Commons (whereas, were it in copyright it could not, since Commons does not do non-free. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon well the issue is whether the seller owns the rights since presumably they took the pictures. My guess is they inherited it from their great grandfather or something.

Was the id made public in 1873 when the id was issued or yesterday when it was listed on eBay? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 18:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

IMO you better wait until you can take your own photos. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon Yeah, but does that mean one should upload the eBay-seller's (I assume) photos to Commons? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The work was made public when the ID card was issued. Someone taking a photo of a public domain work is not normally considered to have created a newly copyrightable work, so yes, the ebay vendor's images can be uploaded to commons. It is commonplace for images of PD objects to be uploaded to commons, where the photographer is part of a museum or publication, or auction house. A private vendor on ebay is no different. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon I just uploaded the photos. Currently they are the sole photos present in commons:category:Ujikofuda Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Good work; thank you. I have changed the licence tags on Commons, fwiw. For ID cards, they look lovely :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

SIGCOV second opinion

Hi all, I have had my draft article FKP Scorpio rejected twice now. I'm satisfied that I resolved the issues of the first decline, but this second time I'm just not sure. I've resubmitted it as per advice from the reviewer but would appreciate discussion about whether the article falls under WP:NMUSICOTHER and if so whether the cites meet it. Otherwise I'd appreciate what markers I should look out for in citations to meet this rigorous standard. Music promoters are rarely written about and I feel like I've hit the bottom of the barrel in terms of sources about a company that is, in my eyes, more than suitable for a Wikipedia article. Thank you in advance. daylon124 (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Daylon124: It does not look like you made any changes between when it was declined Nov 7 and when you resubmitted it today? RudolfRed (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Hi, yes, this was on the advice of the reviewer: User_talk:Vanderwaalforces#Regarding_Draft:FKP_Scorpio. daylon124 (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Getting a Person Article up for a President of a University

Any tips on getting Vanya Quiñones approved.

The past presidents of California State University, Monterey Bay all have one and I modeled it after them

• Peter Plympton Smith
• Dianne F. Harrison
• Eduardo M. Ochoa

NQAD (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. You only have two independent sources(her official university bio is not independent); three or more would be better. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, NQAD. Your draft only has three references, and only two are independent. I suggest adding more references to reliable, independent sources, such as this or this or this. She clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics) #6. Cullen328 (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Interesting as the others didn't have additional sources. I will add a different one. NQAD (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

NQAD, Smith has six references and Harrison has ten references. Ochoa only has two. Perhaps you can improve that article as well. Cullen328 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Correct way to reply in discussions

Hi friends. Purely curious here just trying to learn how certain things work: When an editor contributes to a discussion in a space like Wikipedia:AfD with a "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect", etc and the accompanying justification, is this done by pressing reply on the initial top comment regarding that article, or editing the source and adding the contribution at the bottom? Is there a difference? Is one better etiquette than the other? Waterfelt (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Waterfelt: Welcome to the Teahouse. Either way's fine as the result's the same, though !votes like that are indented by one level from the top comment by convention or placed in an unordered list. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha thank you! <3 Waterfelt (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

WikiLove

If I have enabled WikiLove in my user preferences section, where would I find the little heart to give WikiLove on desktop view? I want to test out how it works on my own user talk page. I saw it on another user’s page, but can’t seem to find it on mine.

Thanks, Shadestar474 ^(talk) 00:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Shadestar474, the WikiLove heart does not appear on your talk page, as you cannot give yourself a Wikilove message. It only seems to appears when you are on someone else's talk page. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 00:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, ok. So where can I test it out? At Example, perhaps? Shadestar474 ^(talk) 00:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Excessive hats

I'm noticing that the top of Grenache and Gouais blanc have a great deal of {{REDIRECT}} happening. I wanted to clean it up, but I'm honestly not knowledgeable enough on the subject matter to clean up or see opportunities to move pages/create new disambiguation pages. Is there a template that I should stick on to help alert other editors, or is there at least a relevant part of MOS that talks about this? Or are these two articles actually fine as they are? Thanks! Ancients and Antiques (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)