Wikipedia:Teahouse

PrimeHunter, 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

Can't find that many good references

I am trying to make a page on Major Hans Freiss, but the only references I have are in German. It is very hard with so little info. Some sources say he died, others say he is alive, but since he was born in 1910, he is probably dead. Here is a link to my draft: ​​​​​Draft:Major Hans Freiß - Wikipedia Deerare2good (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The interweb seems to think he is Frieß, not ei. German refs are fine; as for other reference sources I suspect a newspaper archive might be your best bet. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

can you help me find one Deerare2good (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Spelling the subject's name correctly makes it easier for a search engine to find sources. Maproom (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I have been doing that, but besides the german refs, which might work, there is nothing besides some axis history forum that is not reliable. Deerare2good (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

How about this search? (I can't read german so I don't know if these are all for the same guy) 47.188.8.46 (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It's two or three guys, but the Major seems to be the most prominent. Note on the comments to your draft: Major obviously is a rank, and the difference between Frieß and Friess should be respected, but it's basically the same name. The "bayrisches musikerlexikon online" has some biographical information, but without context.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Feedback on article I created?

Hi all, hope you’re all well.

I recently created the article Sheth Ghoolam Hyder and I would like some feedback from experienced editors as to how it could be improved and also would like to see new contributions to the article as well!

Kind regards Ixudi (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article. Well-sourced. Encyclopédisme (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Ixudi Given that thisis your first effort at creating an article, I would have recommended going through the Articles for creation (AfC) process described at WP:YFA, as that would have resulted in you submitting a draft that a Reviewer would then past judgement upon. For your having bypassed this process, New Pages Patrol (WP:NPP) will probably be reviewing your article within next 90 days. It is possible that it will be accepted, converted to draft, or tagged for deletion. Only after NPP rules or 90 days pass without an evaluation will it be 'visible' to search such as Google or Bing. Last - "Good article" is actually a formal rating that requires nomination and review. Lesser ratings, typically shown on the Talk pages of articles, are Stud, Start, C-class and B-class. An editor has rated it C-class. My criticsm is that you have included content that is not about Hyder. David notMD (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I hope when I get an article it will be rated "Stud". AndyJones (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Stubs (the editor made a typo) are articles which typically have a single sentence and have little information, you should aim for C-class and above. Wikipedia:Content assessment has more info on article ratings 115.188.140.167 (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Length in FA articles

Article: Letterpress (video game)

So I want this article to become FA status; I feel as though it has potential. However, I believe that there's a criterion for FAs that it must be comprehensible. Therefore, I have doubts on whether or not this article can become a FA. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 19:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: Hi there! Congratulations on having the recent successful GA review. If there are parts of the article that are incomprehensible, you can mark them with {{clarify}} and discuss them on the article's talk page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I suppose you mean that the article needs to be "comprehensive", since your title asks about the length of the article? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The "proper length" of a featured article depends largely on its subject: if it can be comprehensively covered in 2,000 words, then that is a potential 2,000-word featured article. From what I've read about the process, featured articles even about very broad topics rarely need to be longer than 10,000 words—past that point, content should likely be split into "subpages" instead. Remsense留 22:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to say comprehensive. Thank you for answering. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 23:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, my brain isn't working today. I swear I said the right thing but another word just comes right out... TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 23:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Believe you me, we've all been there! I know I have. Cheers! Remsense留 23:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey, @TrademarkedTWOrantula. There is a list that contains FAs by word count that you might find interesting: Wikipedia:Database reports/Featured articles by size. The current shortest article is Tinder Fire, which was promoted to FA in 2023. See the nomination here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tinder Fire/archive1. ArcticSeeress (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed! A point to see about this list is the vast majority of FAs are shorter than 7000 words, and about half are shorter than 4000. Remsense留 20:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

If earnest Hemingway were alive

He would make one uber-duber Wikipedian!!! Comintell (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't you mean humorous Hemingway? dubious Hemingway? verbose Hemingway? See For sale: baby shoes, never worn for anecdote about Ernest Hemingway (note spelling). David notMD (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

good one. Maddiemarshall (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Silly spelling is my superpower. But seriously he would never make edits that are crap.

No puffery. And..... perhaps while not adhering to strict grammar, he still wouldn't make spelling errors of other authors' names!!!! Comintell (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Position vacant. Lion Tamer. Always Hiring. BlueWren0123 (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello from Risjjius

hi Risjjius (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Risjjius, and welcome to Wikipedia! If you have a specific question about editing Wikipedia, please feel free to return and ask. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hoor Al-Qisimi

Hello,

I'm working on a draft about Emirati art curator Hoor Al-Qasimi. I've included citations from reputable journalistic outlets and primary sources. I believe the subject of the article is of interest due to her activity in the art world, especially as a very well-known biennial and generally due to her public status as a Sheikah/member of the Emirati ruling family active in civil society as a cultural figure.

Draft:Hoor Al-Qasimi

I would appreciate support on this article and to work with "Visual Editor."

Kind regards,

CAE ~~~~ Contemparteditor (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Contemparteditor. References to primary sources and interviews and passing mentions and coverage by organizations that she is affiliated with and coverage generated by press releases are of no value in establishing notability. When it comes to references, quality is far more important than quantity. It is not a good idea to make a reviewer wade through mediocre sources searching for better sources. Based on my quick scan, you only have two really solid sources, Artforum and the second New York Times article. Those two sources are reliable, independent and devote significant coverage to her, which is exactly what is needed. Trim back the worthless references to emphasize those two, and try your best to find a few more of comparable quality. Cullen328 (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear Cullen328, Thank you for taking time to look at the article. I appreciate your point about quality over quantity. It's a good one. Ironically, I increased the amount of citations after another community member commented that the article did not have enough sources. I've now deleted Vogue as a source. However, Artnet, a reputable publication, is important as a source, because the citation provides information not found elsewhere. Further, E-Flux is a journalistic outlet and source repeatedly present on Google Scholar. As a finer point, I referenced content from institutes she is affiliated with as primary sources but only use them to support information. I have not used them to establish notability or narratives; they only support facts. Finally, I'd like to point out, I'm dedicating time and energy to writing on Wikipedia and came to the Teahouse to seek "friendly advice." Language like "Trim back the worthless references" is incindiary. I think a) there are more respuectful/constructive ways to convay that message and b) such utterences undermine your otherwise constructive ideas. Do rember that it takes time to write articles and that the Teahouse is a place where people should feel comfortable to ask for help and ideas. I think it's hard to say a bad word against constructive approaches. Thank for your help, I hope I may consult you on some general questions again in the future, Contemparteditor Contemparteditor (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Contemparteditor, when I used the word "worthless", that was shorthand for "worthless for the purpose of establishing the notability of this topic". If that word bothers you, consider instead synonyms like "unhelpful" or "inadequate" or "insufficient". My purpose is to assist you with getting your draft accepted into the encyclopedia, and in helping you understand which references help and which do not help at all. The Artline source has some useful information but it is a timeline, in effect a database entry, that contains no prose. It does not establish notability. Consider the E-flux source. It is an obvious reprint of a press release with many clear hallmarks of a press release, including the "Announcements" header, the group's phone number, website, Facebook, Twitter and even "Media requests" press contact information. It is not an independent source and therefore does not contribute to notability. So, if you want to leave in many unhelpful sources that do not contribute to notability, then that is your prerogative. My advice remains the same: Maximize the references to sources that help establish notability and minimize those that don't. Make of that what you will. Cullen328 (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear Cullen328, Thanks for taking time to explain your point of view. Concerning the Artnet source, it establishes that Hoor Al-Qasimi was born in 1980. That information, for one reason or another, is not widely available. I believe that I could find it in a newspaper archive, but do you find it inappropriate to cite a source without prose? I find that information useful. I get your point about notability, but surely sources don't all need to convey notability. Sometimes simple factual information is needed and helpful? Contemparteditor Contemparteditor (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Contemparteditor, in my view (which may not be shared by other editors) is that it is not necessary for an article to be fully developed before submission to Articles for Creation. That is leaving aside the question of whether Articles for Creation is even necessary. It isn't necessary for experienced editors. Personally, I do not use it myself and have written over 100 new articles and none has ever been deleted. But for less experienced editors, I recommend submitting to AfC, in effect, a lean "stripped down" version, making it crystal clear through its prose and especially through the quality of its references that the topic is notable and ought to be in the encyclopedia immediately. After the article has been accepted, it can then be expanded, appropriately using reliable sources that are either not independent or do not contain significant coverage. Volunteer AfC reviewers are overworked and dealing with large backlogs. It is advisable to make things as easy and as obvious as possible for them. I am giving you pragmatic advice. Cullen328 (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Nice point, Cullen328. I think it's useful advice to remember that not everything must be fully developed for submission. Thank you for this point as well as the others you have shared with me here. Contemparteditor (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Citations on a new entry

Hello all,

I'm new to editing so have lots of questions!

I'm creating a new entry with a very challenging subject. I have recently gained access to primary material relating to Iraq's only internationally-recognised contemporary composer, now deceased. Primary material includes letters written to him by notable composers and musician of his time (original letters and postcards which are also scanned for easy digitale upload). The inheritors of the material are currently in correspondence with an institutions in France as well as the Gulbunkian Foundation in Portugal to archive and keep the material for scholarly access. My interest is in preserving Iraqi culture which is hugely challenging for many reasons. Language is just one of them war and loss of archives of many notable institutiosn is another. In presenting material for a wikipeadia article, I'm working with source material in Arabic, French and Russian (I'm a linguist with, primarily, good experienc ewith Russina and Arabic - and just for the record, I'm not paid to do this work). Quotations from these letters is currently in the public domain via secondary sources (primarily in the many online articles on his life written after his death in 2007). Do I cite these as links? They are all in Arabic. Can I cite his biographies which are in the public domain on the websites of notable institutions? These last are on the website of the websites of the Contemporary Music Centre Ireland and on the Iraqi Syphony Orchestra. Are they sufficient as sources? If I wish to include scanned versions of source material can I do so? This of course with the permission of the family. The same applies to pictures held by the family of the subject. If I try to include this material, how do I go about ensuring copyright of these for the family? Or is this even necessary as these pictures are a primary source.

I'm also finding it difficult to understand how to present citations. Are links to external online material sufficient or do I need to provide a reference note as well?

As you can see, I have a lot of questions.

Cheers! Sue Cosgrave (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if this is about Solhi al-Wadi. I see that he isn't in Category:Iraqi composers, I don't know why. Maproom (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It´s about draft Farid Allawerdi Sue Cosgrave (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Sue Cosgrave, and welcome to Wikipedia and its Teahouse. Lots of great questions there. I'll try to address a few of them for you:

I'm assuming you're asking about Draft:Farid Allawerdi?

It's best to think of Wikipedia as being a distillation and collation of what has already been published about a person by reliable sources (see this shortcut for what that means.) That allows anyone in the world to WP:VERIFY something that has been added is correct by (theoretically) visiting or ordering a book via a library/checking reliable websites online/finding an old newspaper or academic journal.

Unfortunately, most primary material such as letters and handwritten postcards cannot be used directly within Wikipedia to support factual statements. But if you can work with archive offices or museums to get them to publish something based upon those archives, then that publication can be used as a citation to support a factual statement on Wikipedia. Just making your own website and posting images of archives isn't enough - it needs to be something done with the approval or oversight of an institution. This rule is there simply to prevent anyone from making hoax websites and using it to create a hoax article. That rule applies to everyone, even though in 99.999% of instances, there is no intent to intentionally mislead.

Having found such independent scholarly articles, books, or past newspaper accounts, you don't have to worry about the language they're in. We accept good sources in any language, even though English ones are preferable.

Yes, you asked about things published about a person after their death. To be honest, some people only ever become NOTABLE in Wikipedia's eyes after they've died! Their passing tends to bring newspapers and journal editors out of the woodwork to create valuable obituaries. Only then can we demonstrate notability when major newspapers write about important, but previously overlooked or unappreciated people. It may sound like an oxymoron, but obituaries often are the lifeblood of Wikipedia!

You can reuse one obituary as a source of information about a person in multiple places within one article without having to re-enter the details again and again, which ends up really messy, with scattered duplicate entries in the References section. The 'Cite' button in both of our optional editing tools allows you to easily reuse one reference, and for it only to appear once in the 'References' section.

And, yes, you can cite biographies on websites of notable institutions - just not a website that some unknown person has written on their personal blog. Again, it doesn't matter if it's not in English.

Here are two shortcut links to help you come to grips with using either our WP:Source Editor, or the Visual Editor: WP:REFBEGIN and WP:REFBEGINVE. Most beginners now seem to prefer Visual Editor, though experienced editors find Source Editor much more powerful and effective. You can switch between them, even whilst editing.

Please don't try to use scanned documents as sources unless including one as a photograph directly adds to the encyclopaedic value of the article as an important or significant image (e.g. Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan.) Always try to add inline citations at the end of sentences, rather than simply adding an External Link. If citing a large book, you should specify page numbers to help anyone verify the statements you add.

Finally, creating a new article from scratch is actually the hardest task anyone can perform here - and it's especially so for a brand new editor like yourself. If you can, we always recommend starting off by editing and improving existing articles in small ways first, then maybe adding citations to those articles before taking the plunge to start a new article. You might wish to check if an article already exists on him in the Wikipedia of his native tongue.

I hope some of this might help, and I apologise if I've missed any key questions. Feel free to seek further clarification, if you need it. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick for your very detailed reply! Yes, the article is on Farid Allawerdi who was Iraq´s only avant garde composer. Being an avant garde composer as opposed to popular music means that his presence in popular articles was scant until his death. Tracing sources since the invasion of Iraq is virtually impossible. Many physical archives perished and those online in the present day Iraq are unreliable.

Perhaps you can advise me on one issue; There is a mention of him in a thesis publication on the work of an unrelated composer. Can this be used as a citation?

I´m studying other articles to understand how to best go forward but it appears that citation and reference practices have changed over time.

Regards, Sue Sue Cosgrave (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Guidance on using theses and dissertations as sources is available at WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Sue Cosgrave. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Cordless Larry. Will examine carefully. Sue Cosgrave (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Sue Cosgrave, I've converted one of your links into an inline citation using a template and a named reference.[1] Templates are completely optional and you are free to hand write your references within the <ref> tags if that is more natural. On Wikipedia, you can cite things to primary sources and even personal materials if they've been made publicly available, but Wikipedia's policies don't allow for entire articles based on primary sources or interpretation of primary sources. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Rjj, thank you; I see the conversion although it shows as Cite Error. I will go to the edit page and see how it looks and maybe learn a new trick. Sue Cosgrave (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I see it as an edit and I can´t undu it or add and insert the relevant info. Sue Cosgrave (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Vector logo progress

I am trying to make the vector logo of WTVF, could you help me? This is my progress so far.

User:Yardwave Logo Maker/sandbox#/media/File:Wtvf 2010 logo prototype-svg.svg Yardwave Logo Maker (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Yardwave Logo Maker: You may be interested in Wikipedia:SVG help. Cheers ‍ Relativity 20:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Citation vs Reference section

Is there a standard across Wikipedia for this section or are the two used interchangeably?

Artwhitemaster (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Artwhitemaster,

Let me quote the following two things from a wikipedia's content guideline

1. "A citation, also called a reference"

2. "Words like citation and reference are used interchangeably on the English Wikipedia."

So, hence we can conclude that, yes, they can be used inter hangebly.

Yamantakks (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Artwhitemaster, in practice, calling such a section "References" is much more common than calling the section "Citations". Cullen328 (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 is correct. If you would like to see the standard for Wikipedia for this section, please feel free to consult the Heading names paragraphs at MOS:REFERENCES. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

What do I do now?

A few days ago, I volunteered to advise or correct articles specifically in biology (and within that aquatic biology). I believe I finished my initial work to start but I don't know if there's something else I need to do and who do I report to. Brian Quelvog Brian Quelvog (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Brian Quelvog: It would be nice if you pointed us to what you're talking about, because from your contributions, this Teahouse post is the only editing work you've done so far on Wikipedia unless you were editing from another account. ‍ Relativity 20:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I recently volunteered to be an advisor on subjects in biology (aquatic biology), but I haven't received any feedback. So I was wandering if there was something else I needed to do to get this process moving. Brian Quelvog (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Brian Quelvog: Was this on Wikipedia? Because if it wasn't, we can't help you here. Cheers ‍ Relativity 20:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Brian: welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

There is no process you need to go through to become an editor; but as far as I know there is no formal concept of an "advisor on xxx subjects" in Wikipedia.

I suggest you find some articles in areas of interest to you - perhaps start with Category:Biology, but I'm sure you'll want to drill down into subcategories - and look for ones that you can improve.

The other thing you can do is join a WikiProject, such as WikiProject Biology, or an associated WikiProject. Add your name to the appropriate Participants' list or page, and then get to work. You can look at what the current tasks are that people have identified in that area, or watch the WikiProject's talk page, to see if there are questions there you can help with. ColinFine (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Brian Quelvog. I am assuming you're a retired biologist with experience in the U.S. fish and game sector. A bit like you, I'm a retired naturalist, and for the last 10 years I've found working on Wikipedia and encouraging experts in their fields to contribute here is really rewarding. So thank you for offering to advise others.

As you can tell from the replies so far, none of us here can determine from your contributions where or to whom you offered your experience. Was it to a University department who were trying to get their student to work on Wikipedia? Or perhaps another editor working in the Education sector?

I'd certainly be happy to guide you 1-2-1 if you do want to help others here, yet find yourself getting stuck in understanding our guidelines and policies. A year or two ago I 'adopted' a retired professor emeritus in marine geopyhsics from the University of California who wanted to put some of his experience and knowledge to work and to share it with others on Wikipedia. It was fascinating to see the difference in approach. In academia, students and researchers cite primary sources in their studies, and credit every member of their team, whereas Wikipedia is predominantly a collation and summary of secondary sources, with each factual statement in an article ideally based on a reliable citation. Thus, Wikipedia is a great starting point for scholars, but it's the References section at the bottom which are most helpful to them in acting as a springboard for their own studies.

I would politely suggest that you can best contribute your skills to whoever you offered it to on Wikipedia by first gaining a little practice of editing, yourself. For example, I found 299 articles relating to the Category of 'freshwater organisms' which also contains a flag ( = a template that looks like this: ) highlighting that further supporting references are needed. (See here) You might find some of these worth looking through to see if you can understand our process of adding references to Reliable Sources to improve articles.

I've left a 'welcome message on your talk page with a link to learn more about editing, which I'd thoroughly recommend. We have two choices of editing tool you can use, though you can easily switch between them. If you need any help whilst you are yourself trying to help others, by all means drop me a message on my own talk page (see the link in my signature). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Typo in uploaded image file

Resolved

I uploaded this image: File:Don Schlitz, January 2024.jpg There is a typo in the name. It should read Don Schlitz instead of Schits. Will you either delete this and let me upload again, or just correct the spelling for me? The intention was to use the image in the article Don Schlitz. My apologies, Thanks Eagledj (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

We can rename (or, more accurately, move) the file to the correct spelling, with the assistance of a file mover or a sysop. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I have tagged the file description page with {{rename media}}. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eagledj All set, moved to File:Don Schlitz, January 2024.jpg now. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Mercy Alu

I am logged into my account. What I am saying is that the "reviewer" stated exacly the decline reason: that the references need to be from verifiable sources independent of the artist/ambassador. It doesn't make sense that ALL the National Newspapers with articles on this Artist are not verifiable? Please we need to be careful to maintain the quality of not only publications but review that we profess. Even a chat response telling me that declining was not far-fetched, without being specific doesn't make sense. The chat comment stated the article is unreferenced and appeared some parts copied from one of the sources, while the reviewer is saying the references need to be from reliable sources independent of the subject; indicating the article is actually referenced? If you believe it "appears" copied, if the same information is carried by different sources about the artist, and you see that I wrote similar about her, should I then make up things about her so as to make my article different? Or shouldn't much of the information online about her be able to be verified as similar? For example, this Major Newspaper of Imo State, Nigeria, that is the flagship Newspaper of the State and writes about Nigerian Artists, including interviewing them etc, with this article about this woman, is considered a passing mention? An unreliable source not separate from her? https://www.imotrumpeta.com/?p=37355 National Nigerian Newspapers who write about Nigerian artists are also unreliable?

Is the source you actually mention which is the Intercontinental Music Awards Website where she is noted to be an Ambassador, also an unreliable source that is NOT separate from the subject? I still say the same thing, you are not clear in how you select articles to improve on, and those you completely decline. Even Awards that are verifiable and relevant, backed by Hollywood, and published in these articles with the actual Award links shared, are still not verifiable by your editor? Artist Notability according to you, NEED to include ONLY one thing: Winning a relevant award, representing something significant in that area, Being published in major reliable independent sources. This artist meets all three. You are saying that the Major Nigerian Newspapers are not reliable, since their articles are included. You are saying, that even the United Nations is not reliable, since the link included showing this woman is also a UN/SDG's ambassador with Globcal International, with both the Globcal webpage link, the UN webpage link, and her designated Ambassador page unverifiable? I think something is wrong with your assessment. There are references in all that I have submitted, which verify at least ONE of your listed criteria, even if you choose not to acknowledge the rest. Jewels of Africa

Jewels of Africa (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, User:Jewels of Africa. I assume your referring to your draft article, Draft:Mercy Alu, which was recently declined by an AfC reviewer. I have to confess that I don't entirely understand the first paragraph or so of your complaint. It is not clear what you need help with, but I'll give it a shot.

and appeared some parts copied from one of the sources

Yes, it appears you copied some content from a source, this has been removed. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously; in the majority of cases, you can't copy text directly off a website. It isn't a matter of using the same information, it's using the exact same words. That's plagiarism and copyright violation and it's universally frowned upon. See Wikipedia:Copyright.

For everything else, it's best you discuss it with the reviewer, User:Ratnahastin. I hope this helps, at least a little bit. Cheers, 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, I suggest you calm down, and take a break. Stay cool when the editing gets hot. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Finally, I see that you've asked the same question at the AfC Help Desk. Please don't ask the same question in multiple places; it splits editor assistance. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your assistance. I just feel some people don't read or go over material and decline for the right reasons. It is simply annoying that "no references that are reliable and independent of the subject" turns into "copying of material" from a reliable published source. So the irony is that the subject is then an actual published figure? I thought there wasn't much on her except for passing remarks, which is exactly what the article was declined for in the first place. If an artist requires only one criteria to have a Wikipedia page, and the references show even one of those criteria, should the response not be rather an acceptance with a highlight of errors that need to be corrected? I wrote on an individual that has impacted many lives positively and is highly esteemed in the industry and beyond as an Ambassador. It took a lot of research to make sure I am selecting the right material, not material that could be termed blogs, or social media etc. There are many Nigerian artists only known mainly in Social media and those still get Wikipedia pages. Finding the right United Nations pages to support my carefully written article was tedious. I am an English major with years of writing experience. I do not think that Ratnahastin went over all the references at all. As far as I am concerned he would have had more feedback than not being published in reliable third party sources. It seems to me people are just happy to press the decline button in general. One would think Wikipedia is doing notable figures a favor by publishing them, yet they are already making impact in the areas they are making impact in, which is not made or marred by Wikipedia. Jewels of Africa (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure what point you are making: there can be multiple problems with a draft, not just notability. One of the problems with yours is that you copied passages directly from sources, which does not do justice to the subject of an encyclopedia article. Remsense留 22:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jewels of Africa, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The requirements of an article in Wikipedia are not easy for a newcomer to understand, which is why I always advise new editors to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles before they ever try the challenging task of creating a new article.

There are indeed several different kinds of problem which often turn up in new editors' drafts. Copyright violations are something which must be removed immediately, as they may have legal implications: they are not permitted anywhere in Wikipedia, not even in drafts.

But then there are other criteria, most significantly about the quality and indepedence of the sources. Looking at the first few sources cited in your draft, I see that the references 2,4, 5 and 13 are clearly cut-down versions of the citation 1. Why do you think that there is any value at all to a draft to cite multiple versions of the same article?

But in fact the original article, in The Witness, while it may be a reliable source, fails the other two tests for a quality source, that of independence, and that of Significant coverage: half of what it says about her is quoting her (not independent) and the introductory paragraphs say almost nothing about her.

Citation 3 The Independent, has one introductory paragraph, and then goes on to report an interview. This is not an independent source.

Citation 6 and 7 are mere listings, and cannot contribute to establishing notability.

Citation 8, Trumpeta, I think is fairly useful: it's partly an interview, but there is some editorial material about her first.

Reference 9, to the UN SDG, does not even mention her, as far as I can find, and therefore adds nothing whatever to the article. Even if it did mention her, it would not be an independent source.

The remaining citations are all from her or organisations she is affiliated with, and so are not independent.

This means, as far as I can see, that the only information which comes from independent reliable sources is the tiny bit in the introduction to 3, and a little more in the first half of 8.

That is the main reaon, I think, why the reviewer has not accepted the draft. You need to remove all the external links from the text as well, but frankly, unless you find some more sources that meet the triple criteria in the golden rule, you will be wasting your time putting any more effort into this draft. ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your response in breaking down the citations. I had a reviewer respond that she received an award from the Intercontinental Music Awards, where she works at? That was super weird, because I reviewed the competition requirements, and realized the ambassadors were previous winners who were awarded this title from their representation of their genre within their localities. This doesn't sound like a job to me. And Ambassadorship, as far as I know, is really an award or appointment in general, for an entity to represent through their brand, usually given to someone already notable. Just like Angelina Jolie for instance, would be given an ambassadorial title, much like a Nobel Peace designation, to represent whatever positive thing it is through her work. Also, saying materials I saw some being from the subject I wrote about was also weird. I went to check, and none of the organizations are owned by her in any way. Even the sources I found about the UN work (I have noted various presentations in this capacity), I find no evidence other than ambassadorial appointments. I can see you consider these affiliations: https://alu.globcal.net/homehttps://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/partners/?id=7214https://www.globcal.net/

Your review is the only review that makes sense in how you have broken down each component to explain it. I think just like you said, unless I find time to research additional material, then it is pointless. I could research other notable people in West Africa, or Africa in general, but then again, it might be pointless because Wikipedia standards are not meant to be biased, but ultimately translates in this way because it only uses one lens based on a particular Western location standard. It is just like when people bring in transcripts to school from foreign countries with different forms of accreditation; they may not fit what is done in another country etc, but unless the examiner looks at that other perspective, none of the credits will count. I don't think Wikipedia can ever represent a World encyclopedia of anything notable, except people who really are already noted well in other Western webpages that have direct information meeting all these hoops and hurdles.

The reason is, much of the world may have notable people, but without access to constant online presence or observing similar criteria in how they write articles. In Nigeria for example, if you write about an artist as an editor, you must present some views from the artist. Some end up quoting what they didn't hear from the artist, just to inject that artist authenticity demanded there. In the Wikipedia world, it is rather maybe not objective. I am sure editors that write about people who have been notable from the past when digital online presence of news, media etc was not as rampant, would most likely have nothing to submit at all today. Therefore, Wikipedia effectively precludes much of the world and history from being able to submit anything at all. It is therefore NOT a World encyclopedia and practically likely precludes most notable people worldwide from being listed. Not sure how reliable students and other people who want to learn about different parts of the world including whatever is meaningful to people from different cultures should find Wikipedia. This is because the criteria is extremely narrow and based only on Western Standards which may not exist in the same capacity everywhere.

Not every news outfit in every country publishes the same way, including online, etc. Even those on TV shows, how does one submit information about them if not online? Maybe take a video of the tv segment? Then you might get into issues of copyright, plagiarism, or an unoriginal shot etc. Meanwhile how do people from different parts of the world show proof of those things? So basically, sections of the world are cut out due to all these. Not sure whether you are able to really vet information from all around the world based on all these nuances. Jewels of Africa (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Jewels of Africa, you say: I do not think that Ratnahastin went over all the references at all. I don't think that any reviewer would have done so. Going over all the references for a draft isn't something that reviewers do. Rather, they sample a few of them. You also say: Her music has won several awards including Best Upcoming Female Artist, Africa, Hollywood and African Prestigious Awards When I first read that, it seemed very strange. "Best Upcoming Female Artist" where? What about "Africa"? Which prestigious Hollywood or African awards? But then I realized that Hollywood and African Prestigious Awards (also called HAPA) seemed to be the name of a set of awards. If this is noteworthy, I'd expect there to be an article about it. But there is no article. If HAPA is notable (by Wikipedia's definition), you might create an article about it first. Although it's a good idea to be fairly skilled in improving existing articles before embarking on any new article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

NOT every noteworthy Awards is listed on Wikipedia. For example, the International Acoustic Music Awards is well recognized and many artists like Miley Cyrus and others have featured in it or won in it. Sony and other notable companies are sponsors etc. It does NOT have a Wikipedia page. I might create an article about some of these awards. It's just irritating right now so may have those organizations do it themselves. I'm just a researcher in the genres I love and am interested in. Soulful African artists I love, maybe some beauty queens that sort of thing, are areas of my interest. But back to these awards, IAMA is NOT on Wikipedia. In fact, there are quite a bit of Grammy winners NOT on Wikipedia. Even the BMI and ASCAP music registers use the IAMA awards to support their artists from all around the world, yet it is not listed on Wikipedia. Maybe they are not listed because some people find it too tedious to attempt to submit anything to Wikipedia. I don't think even Universities are as tedious as Wikipedia folks in submitting anything. This effectively limits the quality of what does make it into Wikipedia, and make it less robust and resourceful. You seem to think everything notable in the world must be listed on Wikipedia to actually count as notable. https://www.ascap.com/news-and-events/calendar/event-details?eventid=d3737210-d04b-4c60-9aef-e2504d02d45e Jewels of Africa (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Jewels of Africa, Wikipedia editors work very hard to expand coverage of Nigeria and all of Africa. Category:Nigerian artists and its subcategories contain hundreds of articles. Category:Nigerian musicians and its subcategories contain hundreds of articles. Category:Nigerian politicians and its subcategories include roughly 1000 articles. Category:Nigerian businesspeople and its subcategories include several hundred articles. Category:Nigerian writers and its subcategories include hundreds of articles. If you explore Category: Nigeria and its complex structure of subcategories, you will discover that Wikipedia has many thousands of articles about every imaginable aspect of Nigeria. Cullen328 (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Carlos Knight page

There is a wiki page about me, Carlos Kennedy Knight, and the information is incorrect. have attempted to upload corrections, but they have not been changed. How do I verify that the new information is correct. I have never done a music video with Young Thug and my birthday is incorrect as well. 2603:6080:5306:7400:B8C0:A4E:ABAB:6B35 (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Carlos Knight. Deor (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The claim about the Young Thug music video was unreferenced, and the article about the song did not verify it either. The date of birth was not verified by the cited source. I removed both. Any other changes can be be requested at Talk: Carlos Knight using a formal edit request. Cullen328 (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

What do you do when a url has a global block

I'm trying to cite an article using scrip but for some reason I am not allowed to. What do I do when the information published in this journal is critical for an article Citation. I can't even post the doi here Heatrave (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The url and journal are likely blacklisted, which does not reflect kindly on its reliability. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, Heatrave, the journal is junk and the "information" that it presents could well be junk. If this is so, then the block is beneficial. Anyway, once a source is blacklisted, the onus is on anyone wishing to cite it to explain how doing so would benefit Wikipedia. See WP:Spam_blacklist. -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Heatrave: You said "scrip" but I guess you meant scirp: Scientific Research Publishing. The spam block list log [2] shows you have tried to add https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=107865. See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September 2022#scirp.org for the latest discussion about the site. Exceptions for specific articles can be requested at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist but it may be declined. scirp has a very poor reputation. It appears their business model is to charge for publication and accept almost anything as long as they get paid. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Ahhh – I assumed it was a typo of "script" referring the VisualEditor's "generate a reference" tool. Thanks, PrimeHunter. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter thank you for the breakdown. It is quite unfortunate. The link paper contains information i know to be true but unfortunately published on the wrong platform Heatrave (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Turn off your vpn. Gamboler (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gamboler I do not use VPN Heatrave (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

About Commons:Freedom of panorama

Hello Wikipedians,

How does Freedom of panorama work in practice?

Why is this image nominated for deletion because of "Freedom of panorama" but images that follow the same logic are actively used everywhere on Wikipedia, e.g. – here, here, here and here? And many other examples.

Why do some images "violate" FoP, while others images of the same type do not?
The force of ikigai (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello @The force of ikigai! This question is better suited to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama. Cheers ‍ Relativity 01:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The force of ikigai (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The force of ikigai, the short answer is that various countries have very different laws about Freedom of panorama, and Commons will comply with the law in effect in the country where the photo was taken. If the law is lenient, the photo will be kept. If the law is stringent, the photo will be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Citations outside or inside of parentheses?

I know that you should put inline citations after the comma and dots, but do you put the citations inside or outside of the parentheses?

Is it like this (blah blah blah^[1]) or (blah blah blah)^[1]? RandomGuy3114(talk) 4:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC) RandomGuy3114 (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If what I'm referencing is within the parentheses, I put the note there too. -- Hoary (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It depends. If the citation applies to the entire parenthetical statement, I will put the footnote outside. Putting it just inside can look odd, so usually I will look for a way to rearrange things to avoid that. Will adjust my habit own per below. Remsense留 06:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@RandomGuy3114: MOS:CITEPUNCT says "Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis" (my emphasis). Deor (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I remembered about a help article saying the exact same thing but couldn't look for it to confirm it! RandomGuy3114 (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

How do I find easy to edit Wikipedia articles for beginners?

I am a new editor on Wikipedia, and most articles I am trying to edit are highly complicated for me. When Wikipedia is such a vast directory of articles, how can I find one article that needs editing, corrections, or contributions from my side? Or, to put it simply, where do I get started? Yashrajkarthike (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! I like WikiProjects, which devote themselves to improving articles by topic, and collaborate to do so. On most WikiProject pages, there's a chart that shows roughly where articles are at in terms of quality, and on their talk pages people often talk about improving articles within. Do you have any particular interests or areas you'd like to edit within? There's likely a WikiProject for it. Editors often use this third-party tool to look at articles with certain problems within WikiProjects.

You can also potentially browse Recent changes and see if there are any articles being worked on that also pique your interest. If you want more ideas, let me know. Cheers! Remsense留 06:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If you have Special:Homepage activated, it also suggests articles to edit or improvements to implement. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea of using WikiProjects; it's going to be way more effective than using the traditional methods. I am thankful for your help; this is exactly what I was looking for. Yashrajkarthike (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome Yashrajkarthike! I've been mostly making minor edits to articles I happen to read. If you're a regular user then there will be lots of opportunities, and it's been a good way for me to pay more attention to what I'm reading. It's got to the point where when I'm reading other websites I'll think "I want to fix that!" before realizing I'm not on Wikipedia. Gamboler (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Those websites likely have some contact information for you to submit corrections to (e.g email). Blueskiesdry (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

There is also the WP:Task center which has some things to do and whether they are suitable for beginners 115.188.140.167 (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I also used the Random Article link in the panel under the logo for quite some time when I was a new user. I still find its use entertaining. BusterD (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Trying to create a page about a company Gigwing and stating facts based on independent references

I'm trying to create a page about a company Gigwing and stating facts based on independent references and yet I'm getting speedy deletion alerts Gwmt24 (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Gwmt24. Is the "Gw" of your name perhaps short for "Gigwing"? What's your connexion to the company? Well, it's written in reverent corporate-image-copywriting-ese. Sample: The idea for GigWing was sparked when one of the founders experienced a delay in window washing services at their two-story home. The window washer, inundated with gigs but lacking helpers, highlighted a significant gap in the market for both job seekers and small businesses. This incident underscored the need for a platform that could efficiently match skill sets with gig opportunities, leading to the creation of GigWing. Try: [Name], who would later co-found Gigwing, had to wait for the windows of their house to be washed. The person they contacted was overworked. They got the idea of a database cum website to match jobs with would-be workers. (And I'm sure that others here could improve on that.) Backed up by reliable sources, of course. -- Hoary (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:GigWing

Hey there—as the editor who added the speedy deletion tag in question, I'd like to mention that my reasoning is about the same as Hoary's above. The article text sounds like something from a corporate website, and that's simply not what Wikipedia is for. Articles here need to be written from a neutral point of view, not like an advertisement. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 08:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If none of the content was copyright protected, then "If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator." applies. See WP:NCORP for what makes a company potentially notable, WP:42 for quality and independence of references, and per Hoary's question, WP:PAID if you are an employee. David notMD (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Gwmt24, and welcome to the Teahouse. The thing to realise is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

The main question you need to ask is "What have truly independent sources published about the company?", and base your article on those, not on what the company says.

The other thing I will say is this: If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.
I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles.. ColinFine (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

How to cite a quotation in a cited work?

Suppose the work I want to cite (call it A) contains a quotation from some other work (call it B) and I want to include the quotation with a citation. If I simply cited A, it would appear as if the words are those of the author of A, while in fact the words are those of the author of B. In academic works I have seen handled by adding the words "quoted in" or the abbreviation "qtd. in". What is the recommended way of handling this in Wikipedia? Dsiedler (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dsiedler. I'm not sure what the best way to recommend would be, as I've never needed to do it. But my approach would be to ensure the text prior to the quotation set the scene correctly, and used our 'blockquote' template. Example:

Smith in his seminal work (=publication A), referred to remarks that author B had once written about him, stating:^{[ref A]}

"I once read in one of his books that author B distrusted me, and referred to me as 'a lying toad'. I found his remarks hurtful and not appropriate for an academic of his stature."

I think it's more important to give citation A, than to attempt to cite source B (as that can/or should be found within source A. But, if that isn't sufficient, it looks from the documentation for Template:Blockquote that we permit nested quotations. I've not tried that, but see here for further advice. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps an example would make my problem clearer. Here is a block quotation that originates in work B, but which is quoted verbatim in work A. That is, the quotation is not the words of Grey Owl's biographer Smith (A) but of Grey Owl himself (B):

Grey Owl's big hopes for the summer film are evident:

You see canoes driven at high speed ... leaping to the rhythmic throbbing of the drum-fire of the rapids.

Somehow the citation should indicate that the words are not Smith's but Grey Owl's. I suppose I could write the reference as this:

You see canoes driven at high speed ... leaping to the rhythmic throbbing of the drum-fire of the rapids. (qtd. in )

Looks ugly to me! So I'm looking for a better solution.

A blockquote in a blockquote isn't a solution here since the quotation doesn't include any text of A except the verbatim text of B. Dsiedler (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dsiedler. That is how I have seen this done before (not in Wikipedia AFAICR) - except that I don't think the abbreviation "qtd" is common enough to be clear. I would do exactly as you have done, with the word "quoted" written in full.

If you think that is too ugly, you could move the "quoted in" from the text to the citation, by putting it within the <ref>...</ref> but outside the {{cite book}} or whatever. ColinFine (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a good idea and puts the words "quoted in" in the right place, as part of the footnote, not as part of the text in which the footnote occurs, but I use named references, which require that the body of the reference be defined in at most one occurrence of the reference. I'd have to split the references to Smith's book into two lots, one with the words "Quoted in" and one without. Not very attractive.

Actually, the Cite software template should provide a way of handling this. Dsiedler (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Dsiedler, you can use the {{harv}} shortcite template within a <ref> tag, to produce something like

You see canoes driven at high speed ... leaping to the rhythmic throbbing of the drum-fire of the rapids.<ref>{{harvnb|Smith|1990|pp=177–178}}, quoted in {{harvnb|Doe|2005|p=12}}</ref>

↓

You see canoes driven at high speed ... leaping to the rhythmic throbbing of the drum-fire of the rapids.

This seems to do what you want! Let me know if you have questions. Remsense留 04:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Dsiedler, each of the templates used on Grey Owl have a way of handling this.

• {{blockquote}} has an |author= parameter where you name the author of the quotation even if you cite it to another author's book.
• {{rp}} has the |quote= parameter which will show in a tooltip that pops up only when you hover your mouse over the page number. Most readers will not see the tooltip but it would allow a fuller and messier quotation if needed.

I don't think it's necessary to include full citations for both Grey Owl and Smith, as long it's clear that Grey Owl is quoted and Smith is cited. There is also a template specifically for citing a quotation within a {{cite xxx}} template, but again it's likely not needed. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Sultan Ali Bin Hamoud Al Busaidi ( 8th Sultan Of Zanzibar )

Hello Wiki, regarding of my great grand dad ( Sultan Ali Bin Hamoud Al Busaidi ) he had two Sons and its not even mentioned on this wiki i wanna clear put my grand father name and my family names in Wiki ... -The great Grand Son Farid Al SAid 188.135.48.183 (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I removed personal info from this query. David notMD (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy:: Ali bin Hamud of Zanzibar is described as the 8th Sultan of Zanzibar. He was succeeded by his brother-in-law. The names of Ali bin Hamud's wife and sons can be added to the article in a Personal life section only if a reference is found and added naming them. David notMD (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.royalark.net/Tanzania/zanz5.htm names his two sons, two daughters, and his wives, so can be used as a reference. David notMD (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It appears that there is consensus that royalark.net is an unreliable self-published source, so I don't think it should be used as a reference. CodeTalker (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion you linked to, the conclusion at the top is "After over a week's debate, consensus is that these self-published ancestry sources should not be used as sources in biographies of living people." In this instance the question is about adding the name of at least one son of Ali Bin Hamoud. Both sons are long-dead. Any addition should not go on to grandchildren nor great-grandchildren (this query). David notMD (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Novelty accounts

Can you just make one, or do you have to get special permission first? Blueskiesdry (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. I'm not sure what you mean by "novelty account", but legitimate uses of additional accounts are listed at WP:LEGITSOCK. You don't normally need permission to create one. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Stuff like Bishzilla. Blueskiesdry (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The Ben Gurion Canal Project

Content dispute

This page has been deleted with not much discussion and obvious little consideration of the sources available for the project. A search on "Google Scholar" shows sources back to 1950 from academia and other official sources. The deletion by @Daniel seems to be too quick and without much consideration. The users participating in the discussions were made around 20th December 2023 and deleted by 28th December 2023. As a former employee in Middle Eastern projects in the Shipping Industry 2 decades ago, I also happen to have insights in how this project stands today from insiders in the region and globally in shipping. I find it hard to accept a deletion of this article in the light of the events that goes on in Eastern Mediterranean p.t. The article is more relevant than ever, since it has been under detailed planning for 70 years. With the screenshots I managed to get before User:Daniel deleted it and the approach he used when I did an effort to start a discussion, makes me question if said user is biased. The latter because of the amount of academic- and professional records from the shipping industry. Talk is here Talk ¦ The Ben Gurion Canal The article should be reinstated and the known paid false editors, paid to edit Wikipedia according to their employer's agenda, should be banned or observed with focus rather than speed. Kind Rgds @Captain8lue Captain8lue (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC) This is the Teahouse, a place to discuss Wikipedia in general, not really for specific help with specific content disputes: on average, Teahouse hosts will not be informed on specific topics like this. I recommend having the discussion on the user's talk page you have linked, or somewhere like WikiProject Israel. Also, it's not required to take screenshots, as every edit is saved in a page's history. Remsense留 23:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)  Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Gurion Canal Project Please note that asking people to support/oppose a deletion can be considered WP:CANVASSING. The correct place to challenge a review (but please come with good arguments/sources) is Wikipedia:Deletion review. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC) If you have a question regarding policy or editing, feel free to ask. Geardona (talk to me?) 23:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Lets run through this statement by statement... "This page has been deleted with not much discussion and obvious little consideration of the sources available for the project" - an extensive discussion occurred at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Gurion Canal Project, in line with Wikipedia processes, "A search on "Google Scholar" shows sources back to 1950 from academia and other official sources." - these academic sources were dismissed by a consensus of Wikipedia editors in the AfD. "The deletion by @Daniel seems to be too quick and without much consideration. The users participating in the discussions were made around 20th December 2023 and deleted by 28th December 2023." - the 7-day period is in line with Wikipedia's deletion process, and therefore this statement is factually incorrect and should be withdrawn. "As a former employee in Middle Eastern projects in the Shipping Industry 2 decades ago, I also happen to have insights in how this project stands today from insiders in the region and globally in shipping. I find it hard to accept a deletion of this article in the light of the events that goes on in Eastern Mediterranean p.t. The article is more relevant than ever, since it has been under detailed planning for 70 years." - this sounds a lot like original research. "With the screenshots I managed to get before User:Daniel deleted it and the approach he used when I did an effort to start a discussion, makes me question if said user is biased." - The discussion was archived, not deleted. I am free to manage my user talk page as I so desire per talk page guidelines. The statement that I am "biased" should be withdrawn without equivocation. What is the relationship between this editor and LtCdrLaForge (talk · contribs), who also contributed to my talk page discussion (in breach of WP:SOCK if they are the same person or acting in close concert with each other) and has previously posted a similar diatribe to the Teahouse? Daniel (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Respectfully, I think this needs to be moved to AN/I at this point, the teahouse is a question forum. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC) I'd prefer the accusation of bias to be withdrawn or struck before such a move occurs. If this is a question forum, then there should be even less tolerance for that than anywhere else. Daniel (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Of course, by move I meant a cut out and then bring it there. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I've collapsed this discussion, since the Teahouse does not seem like the best place for it, as it is a specific content dispute where emotions are running high. @Captain8lue: if you would like to have this discussion, I recommend bringing it to a venue like ANI, and reframing the discussion as sounding less like personal attacks. Thank you. Remsense留 00:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft article at Draft:AfC submission

I'm sure this is not the place to report it, but this does not seem to be intentional. The page has no history besides this. This may be a misplaced draft or a misplaced name.

I found the page Draft:AfC submission when viewing Template:AfC submission, as it had a warning that read "This page should probably be moved, but a page already exists at Draft:AfC submission."

The actual draft article seems to be at Draft:Advance Street Name Plaque. Vanillyn (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vanillyn I have marked it for speedy deletion as a test page. Thanks ‍ Relativity 00:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

And I've requested creation protection since it's been created and deleted just too many times. ‍ Relativity 00:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

alright, thank you! Vanillyn (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking for input on rephrasing a long article name

There's an list of notable works that include Mickey Mouse after he entered the public domain in the US; it's currently titled List of creative Mickey Mouse works after entering the public domain. I thought that was both too long and slightly misworded; to me, it sounds like the works were made by Mickey Mouse. I commented on the talk page and the article creator admitted they'd had trouble with the phrasing and would be fine with a move. The problem is that I couldn't think of anything better, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what Wikipedia's style guidelines for something like this would be. Anybody here want to take a crack at it, or direct me to people who would? Tisnec (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

One simple suggestion - Drop the first three words. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

also maybe change 'after entering the' to 'in the'

Wikipedia:Article titles Geardona (talk to me?) 01:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

"Mickey Mouse in the public domain" is a good length, but does it do enough to explain that he's being reworked into new copyrighted material? Tisnec (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

What about "Mickey Mouse in public domain works" Geardona (talk to me?) 01:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

That makes it sound like public domain works that have Mickey Mouse in them, which is the other way around. Blueskiesdry (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

How about "Mickey Mouse works after public domain status"? Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like Disney works with Mickey after his public domain entrance.

What about "Works incorporating Mickey Mouse after public domain entrance” or something like that? Blueskiesdry (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse works in public domain ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Once again, makes it sound official, which it isn’t. Blueskiesdry (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Also I think this might be getting slightly out of the Teahouse scope; maybe it should be moved somewhere more fitting? Blueskiesdry (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd be fine doing that if you have a specific place in mind. My understanding was that the Teahouse was a place to start if you don't know where to start. Tisnec (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

What about the article talk page? Blueskiesdry (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I can take what I've learned back there and continue. Thanks to you and the others for feedback; feel free to follow me there. Tisnec (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Something I considered on the talk page was "List of non-Disney works featuring Mickey Mouse", which is a slightly larger list but one that includes all the current material as a subset. The other stuff would be things like the Disneyland Memorial Orgy and Mickey Mouse in Vietnam. Tisnec (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, drop "List of". HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I thought lists were supposed to have "list" in the title? I.e., List of American films of 2024. Tisnec (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:LISTNAME says it’s a common practice, but I don’t think it explicitly advises against doing it. Blueskiesdry (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Too me a non-Disney works featuring Mickey Mouse seems to broad in scope, Are we mentioning every parody of the last 100 years? Does this include multiple South Park-episodes. I am honestly not in favor of this because the list will lose its focus then. Jonastav89 (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

To me non-Disney works featuring Mickey Mouse seems to broad in scope, Are we mentioning every parody of the last 100 years? Does this include multiple South Park-episodes? I am honestly not in favor of this because the list will lose its focus then. Also it disregards the recent trend and uptick in media related to Mickey Mouse. I maybe then prefer seperating it in two different lists (even if it is in the same article) Non-Disney works featuring Mickey Mouse before 2024 and Non-Disney works featuring Mickey Mouse after 2024, so that January 1st 2024 remains a pivitol date seperating the works. Jonastav89 (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I like that. Blueskiesdry (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Jonastav89, Blueskiesdry, try Non-Disney Mickey Mouse works before 2024 and Non-Disney Mickey Mouse works after 2024]. (Few words as devoid of meaning as "featuring" have had so much recent success.) -- Hoary (who hopes to read more about Mickey Rat) 22:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that works, should I start the move request yet or wait for further input? Blueskiesdry (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Blueskiesdry, neither "XYZ before 2024" nor "XYZ after 2024" covers XYZ of 2024. The combination "Non-Disney Mickey Mouse until 2023" and "Non-Disney Mickey Mouse after 2023" would do it; but (unless within the title of a pop song) "until" seems to be avoided in titles (though for no reason that I can think of). Better wait a little for more comments. -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"until" to "Prior to"? Geardona (talk to me?) 23:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Should I mention the Gold Derby Awards?

Hello Teahouse! If a subject has been nominated/awarded with a Gold Derby award, do you think it is okay to mention in the subject's article? I don't know if it's notable enough to mention, though I'm leaning towards no. Spinixster (chat!) 02:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

To me, there should be a mention in an independent source(not the awarding body or the awardee) if it's notable enough. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be the problem here. There's none (if not, little) independent sources announcing the winners other than the official website. However, I still see Wikipedia articles mentioning the Gold Derby awards (search "gold derby" on the search bar for some examples). Spinixster (chat!) 02:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Are there guidelines for specific types of articles?

My question involves U.S. State articles. The New Mexico page has a tag suggesting that it should be trimmed down (from ~21,000 words) and I see in the guidelines that it should be <10,000 words. If I was to work on this I'd want the result to be consistent with other state articles, in terms of length and formatting, and with Wikipedia guidelines. I got to wondering about the word count and formatting of other state articles in comparison, which got me wondering if there are guidelines for state articles or if this type of article is a subset of a broader kind of article which has its own guidelines. If I work on this I want to make sure I'm not wasting time or causing problems. Or maybe I should take on another project from the list of high priority projects. What do you think? Gamboler (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

There's no firm standards—in fact, there's been an ongoing discussion regarding the article length guideline on the corresponding talk page. (I personally think that 10k is a good ceiling for almost all articles, and really a bit high most of the time, and that articles longer than that should almost always have 'sub-articles' split off or otherwise cut down.) What 'state-specific' guidelines were you thinking about? You could take a look at WikiProject United States and the list of WikiProjects for U.S. states, perhaps. Also, Virginia is a featured article, and featured articles are often used as models for people trying to improve related articles. Cheers! Remsense留 02:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

wikipedia submission

Hello, Wikipedia friends. Let me introduce myself. I'm Nana Sarna from Central Java, and I am currently writing Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Markus_Soegiarto . My vision and mission revolve around conveying balanced information about Indonesia to a global audience. Even though Indonesia has the fourth largest population in the world, I have identified differences in recognition between Indonesian figures and other world figures. By providing balanced information and comprehensive understanding, we can contribute to making the world a better place and reducing misunderstandings.

Journalists carefully selected several Indonesian figures, so they received comprehensive coverage in various media in Indonesia. Despite receiving awards in Indonesia, only a few public figures receive international recognition. But I found Markus Soegiarto in a Google Scholar search, and he meets Wikipedia's criteria for being recognized as one of the notable people.

I respectfully request assistance submitting it to Wikipedia, and I welcome any input to address potential deficiencies in my content. Your guidance in this matter is greatly appreciated. Best Regards

Nanasarna.pers (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I recommend following the advice given in the message declining your draft. The sources you have provided do not establish notability for the subject: they are either close to the subject (e.g. their profiles on various websites, pages from organizations they are a part of), are from unreliable sources (e.g. YouTube videos), or are not actually about the subject, either only mentioning them in passing or are about something else entirely (like this article, which does not mention the subject).

Generally, biographies require multiple reliable sources following the above criteria to establish notability. See the links provided in the declining message for the relevant site policies and guidelines.

(Also, this isn't the reason for declining, but there are numerous style problems, such as the bolding of first-level headers. Use sections as described on this page. The draft also reads as promotional material, and should be written in a more encyclopedic tone.) Remsense留 02:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nanasarna.pers Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing! . In Draft:Markus Soegiarto you received feedback on why it was declined at this point. Countering Wikipedia's WP:Systemic bias is important. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft reviews

Hello, teahouse. Today, I have a few drafts I might scrap but wanted a review before abandoning them. And before any Wikipedians badger me on how I'm supposed to find citations before putting words, I know, they're just a placeholder.

1. Letter of Apology - The trouble I'm having with this one is not of sources but of specification. There aren't many sources discussing the history of apology letters, and certainly not enough to prove notability. I was wondering if this would work better merged into letter.
2. Jschlatt - Currently redirects to OTK and almost feel it should stay that way. Created before looking for sources which was definitely a mistake in retrospect.
3. List of coincidences - A stupid, stupid idea looking back, but I still want editors' thoughts. The idea was to set up barriers to make the list manageable- namely only put noteworthy coincidences, but even that could be abused and arbitrary due to lack of clear definition for 'coincidence'.
4. List of shipwrecks by depth - Another one that would be very hard to manage, but this would at least be doable. I would revive this if interest is shown.
5. List of video game modes - My first draft, and one I'm still proud of. I think with my newfound Wikistreet-smarts I could prove notability but wanted to consult Teahouse first. Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

   UnexpectedSmoreInquisition, here's my take on each:
   

   1. Draft:Letter of apology – I'm not so sure! It borders on WP:NOTDICT to me, but I'm sure there may be sources that deal with the topic specifically, so that a full article that is not an improper synthesis could be written.
   2. Draft:Jschlatt – I agree, should probably stay a redirect.
   3. Draft:List of coincidences – So, I think you could take a step back here. People aren't required to use articles any particular way, or write them for any particular purpose, but if you ask yourself "research on what topic could be started by reading this list article?", that could help you focus your thoughts. The idea does seem very, very broad, and I think if there's a book titled "The Big Book of Coincidences", or whatever, that you should take a look at it to try to get a handle on what the scope for the article could be.
   4. Draft:List of shipwrecks by depth – I like this one, it seems very doable.
   5. Draft:List of video game modes – This one could use a lot more focus: it seems like multiple list articles could be made instead, as yours seems to presently be List of first-person shooter modes, and does not consider other genres. A reasonably complete list with this subject would be very long, possibly too long.

   
   (And since you've anticipated my 🦡ing, I suppose I'll still 🦡 a bit: it's often important to work from sources from the beginning, because if you write first and source later, it can often become a lot of work trying to track down cites for certain concept, or even result in a sourced article that nevertheless is not balanced in its presentation of the topic.)
   🦡 Cheers! 🦡 Remsense留 05:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

   @David notMD@Remsense Thank you two for your thoughts! (As for Ramsense: how do you do all of that crazy coding stuff like your name and page!? I would malfunction if I even attempted that!) UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

   Lots of trial and error! If you have specific questions about a specific thing, feel free to ask on my talk page! Remsense留 21:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

No, No opinion, Really no, Meh and No. David notMD (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I wanted to see previous in the news posts!

Here is a link of what I am referring to, to see! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news

So for example what was there last week? And the week before that? Thank you and have a nice day haha! 24.7.63.175 (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. To the best of my knowledge ITN doesn't operate on a weekly basis; you'll have to go to Special:History/Template:In the news to see when items were added or removed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Some clarifications on draft submission

I am creating this page - Draft:K._K._Kochukoshy, since its my first time i am running into a few confusions. It'd be nice to hear from others.

1. The first reviewer mentioned that its not worthy of Wikipedia, i did read up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, and i dont think thats applicable, since the person in question is checked upon for sources/works quite frequently. I believe having an open body where others can add would be very helpful.

2. I am related to the person and have contributed most of it, i do not mind expressing that as a disclaimer. Is there something i should do about it? There is already a badge for autobiography and i think thats relevant.

3. I have cited most of it, some are from physical books - which i am happy to provide scanned copies or photos. if needed, when and where should i showcase these?

4. There is a mention of birthday and place, in the infobox - how can i cite them?

5. Is there anything else you would like to see be corrected, please do let me know. As in if there are any glaring issues which might lead it to be declined again.

Thanks so much for your time and efforts, happy to learn! Koshyviv (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Koshyviv.

1. I do not see where any reviewer said that the topic of your draft is not "worthy" of Wikipedia. All I see is comments on the current state of the draft when those comments were made.

2. The best place to disclose your conflict of interest is on your own userpage, where you currently say nothing about it. If you are not actually the person in question, then WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY does not apply unless this person is instructing you what to do on Wikipedia. But the specific details about your relationship with this person are very important, and you need to disclose them fully and frankly. Be honest.

3. There is no need to and no benefit to sharing scans of any book pages. Just provide a reference with complete bibliographic details. Scanning a page of a contemporary book and uploading it is a blatant copyright violation which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

4. To cite birth date and birthplace, provide a reference to a reliable source that verifies that information, and add it to the article as an inline citation.

5. The very best thing, by far, that you can do next is to indicate which of your references are to reliable published sources completely independent of Kochukoshy that devote significant coverage to Kochukoshy. Such references are the essential precondition to writing an acceptable Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the response!

1. Im sorry, i meant, it was written in one of the banners that it does not "qualify" for an article (but not in the comments)

2. Thank you, i'll update this.

3. Got it, i have provided the complete details along with the page numbers. Just thought it would difficult for others to review.

4. Thanks, i'll update this too.

5. I see, should i create up a table on the talk page of the site? I have mostly used verbatim content from the sources. And, only his publications and his personal website(which was used for education and birth dates/place) are by authored by him. But i do understand, this may cause confusion for other reviewers too - so im happy to improve it. Koshyviv (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

D-ID and Perplexity.ai

Hello, yesterday I wrote two articles about companies dealing with artificial intelligence (D-ID and Perplexity.ai). Apart from being a teacher who uses these programs, I have no connection, business or otherwise, with them. As I presented in the sources, these are two articles that I understand from using Wikipedia for years, should exist here. I cannot reasonably be expected to "prove a negative" and demonstrate my lack of affiliation with these companies. How do I transfer these two drafts to the article space? I would appreciate your help.Galamore (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Galamore: welcome, and thanks for your contributions! I would strongly recommend that you don't publish these directly, but put them through the Articles for Creation (AfC) review process, where experienced editors will assess the drafts and either accept them or provide feedback on further development required. I will add the AfC submission template to your drafts; when you're ready to request a review, just click on the blue 'submit' button. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. I will work on the articles a little more and then pass to review.Galamore (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Which cleanup template should be put in the Stroad article.

A lot of references in the Stroad article are ultimately cited from the same source, Not Just Bikes. I believe a template in the set of Wikipedia:Template_index/Cleanup#Individual_message_boxes:_Issues_with_citations_and_sources should be put there but I do not know which one. Jothefiredragon (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jothefiredragon, and welcome to the Teahouse. {{one source}} seems to be the template you want here. ContributeToTheWiki (talk • contribs) 10:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

How to edit vandalism on pop-up?

Hi all, the pop-up for Coloumb's constant's in the Geiger-Mardsen Experiment article shows the text "You know you don't know this Jennifer" instead of showing information pertaining to Coloumb's constant. How do I change it and if the article pop-up can not be changed easily, then where/who can I go to get it fixed?

Imbluey2 (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. It was vandalism on the article Coulomb's law, reverted after two minutes and thirteen seconds. It may have taken some time for the reversion to propagate to places like pop-ups. ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Imbluey2: I have purged Coulomb's law. This fixed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi dude's Happy Monday

my name is ARAVIND i am from india especially tamilnadu I would like to be a friend to all just I information I say about me. If you like be a friend with me say hi please. Aravindkumararjunan1986 (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Aravindkumararjunan1986 Teahouse is a place to ask for help with Wikipedia editing problems, not for chat or making friends. I see that you started your account almost a year ago, and currently have four active drafts. Do you have any questions about those? David notMD (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok understood Aravindkumararjunan1986 (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Kindly help me to find how to get approve my Draft

Hi there I was write 3 articals in English all are decline due to less coverage and notability even I provide more reference would you please help me to what is the issue

Draft:Harishankar_Narayanan Aravindkumararjunan1986 (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Aravindkumararjunan1986, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have converted your external link above to a wikilink.

You have been given abundant advice on that draft. What do you not understand about it?

More generally, I always advise new editors to spend a few months making improvements to existing articles, and learning how Wikipedia works (especially about notability, verifiability, neutral point of view and reliable sources) before they ever try the challenging task of creating a new article. I suggest you forget about your draft for a while, while you learn the craft of editing Wikipedia.

Also, judging from your use of English in your question above, I wonder if you might be more successful in, say Tamil Wikipedia?--ColinFine (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Talking to other editors

Is there a way on Wikipedia to send private messages to other editors or is the only way to communicate to them publicly through their Talk page?

Also, is there some kind of a forum on Wikipedia where various topics and interests can be discussed with others? Ellegony (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Ellegony, for the first question, you can email a user. As Wikipedia is not a forum there is no such general discussion board; however, you can ask questions at the reference desk. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

For you're Forum questain; Each article has a talk page. so, for example, if I wanted to ask if "XY from Aliens X could be added..." to the Xenomorph page, I'd ask "Can the XY from Aliens X be added?" in the Xenomorph talk page!

And, some users can be contacted through email. Hope this helps! Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talking Heads) (Weezer) 14:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ellegony: The various talk pages on Wikipedia are to discuss how to use Wikipedia and improve Wikipedia articles, not to be general discussion forums. For example, if you were interested in the Wonka (film) article, you could use Talk:Wonka (film) to discuss issues with the article or your suggestions for improving the article, but not to discuss how much you enjoyed or hated the film. Likewise, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film is an example of a place to discuss things such as the format of Wikipedia film-related articles, but not to discuss which films or actors you like. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Help! Accidentally created article instead of Draft

I accidentally created the article Electronic Theater Controls. First of all, I spelt it wrong. Secondly, it's not nearly finished. I only have the references from the website. Is it possible to set it as a draft?

P.S. is it ok to use references from the thing im writing about if it is data specs? (I am also writing an article about the Source Four fixture that ETC makes and I dont know if it is a COF.) Hugtrain (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It already exists as a draft here Draft:Electronic Theatre Controls where it has been declined 8 times and finally rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Hugtrain, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please read about notability and verifiability. An article must be almost entirely based on sourcces unconnected with the subject. You can use non-independent sources in a limited way (see WP:ABOUTSELF) but generally speaking, if you can't find an independent source for some information, then it doesn't belong in an article.

Furthermore, the fact that that the draft has been declined multiple times and rejected strongly suggests that several people have looked for, and failed to find, suitable sources to establish notability. In this case, the only activity you can do on it that has even a possibility of being worthwhile is to look even harder for such sources: unless you find some, anything you do on it will be a waste of your time. ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

nooooooo HHSharkBoyBackup4 (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

should I bring this to articles for deletion?

I thought that this subject wasn't notable, and the article felt a bit promotional, so I proposed it for deletion. Another editor contested that, with the summary saying "significant coverage in cited sources." The sources are 3 links to the site itself, and a link to a listicle that 404s. I think that's a pretty weak case for notability. Would it be appropriate to bring this to Articles for Deletion at this point? Or am I obligated to try to find better sources myself first? 4.16.149.14 (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Yes indeed, in light of those sources alone there is insufficient evidence of notability. But if you wish to take this to AfD, you need to first check whether better sources can be found, per WP:BEFORE.

As for the "a bit promotional" part, bear in mind that AfD is not cleanup. Articles should not be deleted for issues which can be resolved with editing. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

how to rename sandbox?

how to rename sandbox? JustPalmira (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@JustPalmira: Welcome to the Teahouse. Pages can't technically be renamed, but the content can be moved to be under a different title. This can be done when an account is autoconfirmed (10 edits and created for longer than 4 days). I see a button to submit it for review is already present, but as it is it will be a guaranteed decline with how it sounds like ad copy. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@JustPalmira Welcome to the Teahouse. May I ask why do you wish to rename your sandbox?

You have a draft article (which is not yet ready for submission) at User:JustPalmira/sandbox. Until you submit it and await for someone to review it, you can simply create a second sandbox page to work on something different at, say, User:JustPalmira/sandbox2, or User:JustPalmira/sandbox3. You can have any numbner of sandboxes on the go at once, of course.

BTW: Be aware you are not permitted to copy and paste copyrighted content as you have done (I will shortly be deleting some of it!). You absolutely must write content in your own words and avoid any form of WP:ADVERTISING or WP:PROMOTION. All content must be based on properly published, reliable sources, not personal or commercial websites. I do not feel, at the present time, that your draft would be deemed as meeting Wikipedia's Notabilty Criteria. to have an article here. More work and more sources would definitely be needed. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

thank you for your reply, I don't understand if that after correction will become an article or not, I don't want it to be name with my nick name. I have made some correction could you advice if it's better now? JustPalmira (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Your draft has been deleted for [m]isuse of Wikipedia as a web host. There is a button in Wikipedia:Your first article that will help you create a draft in draftspace, but please review it to make sure that it isn't blatant advertising or promotion. If you have any conflict of interest with the product's company, paid or otherwise, please disclose that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@JustPalmira Once you have submitted a draft article for review, another editor will be responsible for changing the title by moving it to the most appropriate one. Of course, this is all rather academic now, as I see another admin has already deleted your sandbox draft for being purely promotional, and not in the spirit of this encyclopaedia. I have to say I find little to disagree with them on that - sorry.

Should you wish to continue editing, make sure the topic meets our Notability criteria and that there is already sufficient coverage of it in independent sources, and base all content on those in your own words. Any connection (=conflict of interest) or paid editing must be declared - see WP:COI and WP:PAID for how this is done. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

thank you so much for your advices. So if I want to create a page about a liquor it has to be described in my own words and not have pictures that are copyright protected right? And one I send it for approvale it will be Title correct by one of the admin. Thank you for clarification JustPalmira (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Can't make pages

I can't make.pages ok? How.to help HHSharkBoyBackup4 (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. New accounts cannot directly create articles, but you may use the article wizard to create and submit a draft for review. Creating a new article is challenging, it is highly recommended that you first use the new user tutorial, and edit existing articles first, to learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you the same person as User:Hugtrain? I ask because you both are involved with Electronic Theater (or Theatre) Controls and Hugtrain has been indef blocked. David notMD (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

This may be my error. You commented above on a thread started by Hugtrain about ETC. However, you do not appear to have edited either ETC with Theatre or ETC with Theater. Editor 331dot correctly answered that new accounts cannot make articles, but can make drafts to then be submitted. As to Hugtrain and Segatari, both have been blocked, but it is possible that both were trying to create separate drafts as Theater/Theatre was just a coincidence, in which case Hugtrain and Segatari may both be able to succeed in appealing a block. David notMD (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Online forums a reliable/secondary source and what date format?

For example, lets say I need to post an update to the Midland Main Line upgrade article page. Would UK Railway forums be a good source in seeing when the MML would be complete or the Network Rail website? How about something like the Railway Magazine Railway Magazine or the Rail Engineer or this

Also with regards to date format, which is acceptable (for 2024/01/08, todays date in UTC) and can you use Jan instead of January? Given that using the bottom two may cause confusion.

• 2024/01/08
• 8 January 2024
• January 8, 2024
• 08/01/2024 (dd/mm/yyyy)
• 01/08/2024 (mm/dd/yyyy)

Breathinkeeps32 (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

As most/all information on these forums is user-generated, no, this would not be reliable.

As for the dates, the article you linked says to use dmy dates (so the fourth one in your list). Blueskiesdry (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit: when I say dates, I mean whether it is used normally, or in a citation/reference Breathinkeeps32 (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure it’s a blanket guideline. Blueskiesdry (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, since it is tagged as DMY (and YYYY-MM-DD is not used in the article currently), it should be the second in the list, 8 January 2024, for both prose and references (but 2024-01-08, not 2024/01/08, would be acceptable in references if that is the style of the page) since it's unusual in prose to do an all numeric date and WP:CITESTYLE says Although nearly any consistent style may be used, avoid all-numeric date formats other than YYYY-MM-DD, because of the ambiguity concerning which number is the month and which the day. For example, 2002-06-11 may be used, but not 11/06/2002. But it should be consistent as much as possible with other references while staying within our style guide. See MOS:DATEFORMAT for many more examples. So abbreviated months are fine in some cases as long as it's consistent within the article and I think the general preference is full month names. Skynxnex (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

When to use categories and subcategories?

When adding categories to an article what is the advice on putting both category and subcategory e.g. Public baths and Public baths in the United Kingdom or Sauna and Day spas. Isn’t the former implicit in the latter for each pair? Specifically I am looking at Royal Baths, Harrogate and replicating these categories across other baths listed in Victorian Turkish bath where appropriate. Markmclellan (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Markmclellan: Hello! If the page is in the subcategory, then it shouldn't be directly in the parent category, the only exception to that is non-diffusing subcategories, but it's not the case here. Please read WP:SUBCAT. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That is very clear and helpful. I can make my edits now :-) Markmclellan (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

HELP!

I am new here and dont know a clue about editing but I volunteered for a big project. ANY TIPS AND TRICKS WILL BE HELPFUL!!

(I dont have access to YouTube though sadly) Junipernose (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Help:Editing has a large library of resources, you can ask any questions you have here.

happy editing, Geardona (talk to me?) 19:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

Wikipedia:FAQ/Editing can also help you.

 Thanks Geardona (talk to me?) 19:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome. Is there any reason you can access Wikipedia but not YouTube? Do you have parental controls on or something? Blueskiesdry (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

are academics no longer allowed on wikipedia

I started a page for Dr. Skip Rizzo from USC and it was deleted under the premise that it was advertising. I'm here to build an encyclopedia. Should I delete all academics I see on wikipedia or was this a mistake? Orcid.org0000.0001.8849.2780 (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Orcid.org0000.0001.8849.2780: Welcome to the Teahouse. As I am not an admin I am unable to see what your draft originally contained, but if it's been deleted under the G11 criterion, I presume it presented Rizzo in a non-neutral manner or ended up looking very much like a CV. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

(in this case, the latter) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Draft:Dr. Albert "Skip" Rizzo consisted entirely of bullet points and was essentially a CV. There was no prose content. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Orcid.org0000.0001.8849.2780: Hello! Should I delete all academics I see on wikipedia or was this a mistake? Don't delete all academics, that would be disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Your article was speedy deleted under the WP:G11 section for speedy deletion. You might want to contact Ben MacDui who removed the page. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of articles exist about academics. Criteria for notability is explained at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). David notMD (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

See University of Southern California, section on Faculty, for many examples of faculty who are topics of articles. Albert 'Skip' Rizzo may qualify, but the burden is on you to use neutal language and valid references. David notMD (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Orcid.org0000.0001.8849.2780, as an administrator, I could read your deleted draft and can therefore attest that the draft bore no resemblance to an actual encyclopedia article. You are welcome to try again, but I encourage you to read and study Your first article before you start. Cullen328 (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

article scenario

Let's say i'm making an article on a video game I have really grown to love, is the information more important or the references? Jude marrero (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Jude marrero, hello! all information in an article needs to be verifiable with reliable sources, and it's while it's not disallowed to add information without a reference, it's much easier to make sure the information you're adding is verifiable if you're adding the sources at the same time. Also, information without a citation may be challenged and removed, up to the discretion of fellow editors. Remsense留 21:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, an article should be informative, with trustworthy sources. So, try and find a reliable source, with good information, then use said information in the article, and cite it using the sources. Babysharkboss2 was here!! X♡O 21:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jude marrero: The information in the article must come from references not your personal experiences. Start by finding the references before you start writing the article. See WP:BACKWARDS RudolfRed (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. You are asking a question that seems to be like asking "what's more important when building a sandwich, the bread or the meat?". You need both. You need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic to summarize in an article, showing how the topic is notable. For video games, that includes any sources that discuss the creation of the game, anything that makes it significant/important/influential as a game, and unsolicited reviews of the game. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jude marrero Our criteria for whether or not a video game is worthy of having a Wikipedia article about it can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (video games). Just because you like it doesn't make it notable. Finding reliable sources that demonstrate notability (i.e. that the wider world has taken note of something) is the main thing to consider.

But you might also like to think about 'cutting your teeth' by improving existing Wikipedia articles about video games. Again - don't write from personal experience; write from published sources. See also: WikiProject Video games. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Nick! I'll give it a look Jude marrero (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Jumma Miyazaki

The footballer Jumma Miyazaki has a link on the article I'm not sure where it leads. I know it's very unlikely to be a virus, but I'll post the article here so someone with anti virus software can check it out. Jumma Miyazaki Thanks! :) RossEvans18 (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ross. I guess you mean one of the external links in that article: which one? And why do you think it's dodgy? ColinFine (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I have checked all the links in the references, no virus threat found. The link in the body of the article is not dangerous, I think someone mistakenly use the ref tag. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

OpenGL Citation Needed (Maybe I found a good one?)

Hi, I'm currently trying to find a citation for the OpenGL article for the 'citation needed' tag on the version history table. I found this fine paper on the topic, but it doesn't explicitly mention the date that OpenGL released. It has a copyright date of the same year, but that's just about it.

So, is this source good enough? Coulomb1 (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Coulomb1. (I fixed your external link, which had some rubbish on the end). No, I don't think that will do. That sort of reference is generally OK for things like release dates - but since it doesn't mention a release date at all, there is no way that it can be used to support the claimed date of 1995!

If you can't find another source, either remove the date, or I suppose you can just about get away with "before March 1997" (that's technically original research, but I don't think anybody would quibble). --ColinFine (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I turned something up on Google Books and added a cite. MrOllie (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Zaverbhai H. Patel

Dr. Zaverbhai (1903-1989, PhD Uni. of Illinois 1933) was a wheat research scientist. After retiring from a high position in Indian government, he started wheat experiments, for 30 years, at his own expense for no personal gain but for the benefits of poor Indian farmers. He rented farms or his experiments, and developed a wheat variety which gave 17% more yield than any other what variety developed by the Government scientists. He was modest so he named the variety LOK-1 (Lok = common folks), instead Zaver-1 as suggested by many. His research was of Nobel Prize category.

His invented wheat variety is known to most researchers and farmers throughout India. Many articles by eminent Indian writers have been published about his work and his sacrifice.

His life story is inspirational.

I have his biographical article, in PDF, in Wikipedia format of similar biography (10 pages). It has main photo with dates, education etc. It has other related photos with wrap around text. It has 23 independent references and 14 article of further reading. References are from eminent writers and other scientists.

I believe he meets the notability criteria.

I am not good at uploading articles, with photos etc. in Wikipedia.

So, I need help.

Can I send the PDF article so that your editors can help publish the article? Quitesage (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if this answers the question, but i do see a request at AFC for this article to be created, so it is actually in the wiki already. The reviewer had some feedback, such as reading this, that article could be helpful, and resolve some of your issues.

Further reading:

1 Summary: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

2: adds to 1,

3 Summary: This page explains how to create the Footnotes section for Wikipedia articles. In this context, the word "Footnotes" refers to the Wikipedia-specific manner of documenting an article's sources and providing tangential information, and should not be confused with the general concept of footnotes. This how-to does not cover the formatting of citations within the Footnotes section, which is reviewed in Citing sources.

Happy Editing! Geardona (talk to me?) 23:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

To be clear - Teahouise hosts are here to advise, not to author or co-author. David notMD (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

STATUS: Quitesage has used AfC to create and submit Draft:Zaverbhai H. Patel which was Declined on 7 December. David notMD (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Chalcatzingo references cleanup

These last few days, I've been slowly but steadily working on trying to clean up the Chalcatzingo article's references and bring them in line with Wikipedia standards. I have added page numbers, corrected some citations, and introduced sfnp and cite templates, among some other things. However, I'm not sure about how to do regarding the article's general methodology for references. Most use sfnp, but some use <ref>. Is this permissible or should they all use sfnp (or all <ref>)?

Relatedly, are the references up to standards or is there something else that needs to be done? Still-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Butter (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Still-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Butter it's perfectly fine for references to be a hodgepodge of different styles. It's only at the Featured Article level where consistency is enforced. -- asilvering (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Still-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Butter, I disagree with asilvering. While it's not disastrous if references are in two or more styles, it risks disorienting the reader and so is not "perfectly fine". Most of the references in this article use sfnp; conversion of the remainder would be desirable. -- Hoary (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Transparent background for image

Currently improving this article. How do I get rid of the white background for the game's cover art? Thanks, TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 04:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: Welcome to the Teahouse. With .jpegs you can't do transparent backgrounds. It'd have to be a file type like .png or .svg. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh okay. So I'm assuming I have to convert the file type to one of those then reupload the image? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 04:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The old-school way would be to:

1. Download the image to your device
2. Open an image editing program or app like paint.net
3. Delete the white background (it will appear checkered when this is done)
4. Save as .png
5. Upload that as a new version of the file

These days there are sites that can offer the use of AI to do it for you, but results may vary. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Inserting "under dispute"

How do you insert the "this page is under dispute" template at the start of the article? 80.80.52.239 (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Does {{disputed}} suit your needs? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I think yes. I think it does, but I don't know for sure. If you want, you can take a look:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes 80.80.52.239 (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

a green dancing Octopus with PhD in English Lit

Please write a short story of 5-7 or more sentences about a green dancing Octopus with PhD in English Lit. Set the story in Sam Bankman-Fried's FTX offices on November 8, 2022. 2601:19B:D00:A990:C026:A63A:36C3:D7FF (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here not to do others' homework, but merely to aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems.
Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. You can search Wikipedia or search the Web.
If you need help with a specific part of your homework, the Reference desk can help you grasp the concept. Do not ask knowledge questions here, just those about using Wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The content in this section (Zainuddin Makhdoom I#Early life) has been plagiarized from a blog post (https://historicalleys.blogspot.com/2010/03/). May I remove all of it and rewrite it entirely from scratch? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• I guess so, but be careful about references. Bduke (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@LeónGonsalvesofGoa: Mathglot reminded me recently that the best thing to do is "to place a {{Copyvio}} template on the article page itself; this will both immediately hide the suspected offending material, as well as signal an admin to have a look at it and assess the situation for further action. Users should not be told to simply remove the content themselves, or to rewrite or summarize copied content, because that masks the continuing problem of copyrighted content which remains accessible in the page history; it's best just to flag it for admin action with the template." GoingBatty (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Understood, how swiftly will this investigation proceed? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

LeónGonsalvesofGoa, promptly enough. The queue is actively patrolled by volunteer administrators, who take this issue seriously. Remsense留 07:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if it isn't dealt with inside of 24 hours. By the way, if hunting for plagiarized content is something that interests you, there's lots of that to do here! Admins handle the deletion of identified copyvio very swiftly, but there are significant backlogs of suspected copyvio at WP:CCI. It's not a very easy task for a new editor to get into, but if you lurk there for a while you'll get the hang of it eventually.

If you need to mark copyvio for deletion on individual articles like you did here, there's a handy script that makes it much easier: User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel. -- asilvering (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Contributing to M.C. Escher's Gravitation page

I would like to contribute to the page on M.C. Escher's art work titled Gravitation about his lithograph of the same name. May I upload a GIF and Jpeg of a model Escher's art that can be constructed from a geometric net and a link to a youtube power point with examples of other similar stellated polyhedra?

BPCarpenter (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, BPCarpenter. Sorry for the long wait for a reply.

Your edit to Gravitation (M. C. Escher) was reverted. Firstly, the 'See also' section is only for pointing to other Wikipedia pages. Anything off-wiki that's relevant to the topic of a page should go in an 'External links' section. See WP:EL. Either way, your edit didn't actually include a hyperlink to any video, so was non-functional. I assume you're referring to this video you uploaded? TBH, I'm not sure this is relevant to the article. It could better to discuss this on the article's dedicated Talk page, if you really believe it is. But we do not want links to external websites being added just because they've been been inspired by something - or Wikipedia would become a site for promoting links to non-encyclopaedic content.

Theoretically, however, yes, you are permitted to upload GIFs and JPEGs to Wikimedia Commons of work you have produced, providing it's all your own work, and no copyright infringements occurred. But that's not the same as inserting those images into that particular article. I hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Query about a draft article

Hi. At the end of December, 2023, I attempted my first upload of an article. I was told it was in the queue for validation. I cannot now find the article and the system seems to suggest I have not got a proper user name. How can this be?

James Aeroplane James Aeroplane (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

James Aeroplane Hello. What is the title of the draft? 331dot (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Air Cargo Week James Aeroplane (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Air Cargo Week has not been submitted for review. (It was last submitted for review in 2018, but the submission was declined and the draft deleted.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, James. It is at Draft:Air Cargo Week. You appear to have created it while not logged in, so it's not in your contributions (Special:Contributions/James Aeroplane).

It has not yet been submitted for review, and in my opinion it would not be accepted in its present form. It appears to have been written WP:BACKWARDS, (as is often the case when new editors attempt to create articles without having spent time learning how Wikipedia works). ColinFine (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Colin for pointing out this good advice. I am never precious about my writing so have no problem in 'reversing' my work. James Aeroplane (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit's to the Jacky Fisher page

Hi I want to add edits to the Jacky Fisher page (I thought I had posted about this yesterday but I can't find it)

I noticed there were a few errors in the family history part based on my recent research on his wider family (I am a descendent of one of his brothers). I made a few edits that I found good references for and they have been accepted.

However the article states that Fisher's father died when he was 15. I know from records I have bought that Fisher's father died in 1866. This would make Fisher 25.

I have posted the information I have here: https://commonancestortales.co.uk/2024/01/09/updating-the-jacky-fisher-entry-on-wikipedia/

One reference is a link to a newspaper article from Sri Lanka. Would that be sufficient evidence to change this age?

The article also states that Fisher never saw his mother again. This not a fact and is not backed up by reference. His mother lived in England from 1867 until she died. Can I delete that information?

Thanks Lisa Chimp17 (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Lisa, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, if you have reliable sources (which that looks to be), you can edit the article, citing your sources. If you are not sure how to do it, you could bring it up on the article's talk page. ColinFine (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Afc

Hey there, can I review articles, even though I’m not in the afc team? TheTeam219 (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! TheTeam219 (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Not yet. See details on your Talk page. Once you qualify, you are very welcome to take on AfC reviewing, as there is often a backlog of drafts awaiting review. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Becoming a Wikipedia administrator

I really like to edit on Wikipedia, it's like a time step for me, but a question how long does it take to become a wikipedia administrator, is it either automatic or do you give it? 4BOTOX (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 4BOTOX, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, it is not automatic, and is not granted unless you persuade people that there is something you want to do as an editor that requires Admin rights: I have been an editor for eighteen years, and have made over 23 000 edits, but I have never asked for Admin rights.

Note that there is no hierarchy or special status: administrators are like janitors: they have been given the key to the cupboard where the cleaners' tools are kept. That's all.

See WP:RFA for more. ColinFine (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

4BOTOX, although there are no formal written requirements, successful candidates for administrator will normally have well over a year of experience, many thousands of edits, deep practical knowledge of policies and guidelines, significant content creation, ongoing participation in administrative support areas, and a record of being friendly and helpful to other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding additional language

When accessing the English language page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schist), I noticed that a link to the German language page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiefer was not present. Likewise for a link between the French language page https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiste, where I was able to add German to the Language links by clicking the "Ajoutez des langues" option under the language dropdown. I tried to do the same by adding the ISO 639 language code 'de' to the English page and tried to publish, I came up with the following error message 'The save has failed. The link dewiki:Schiefer is already used by Item Q9394813. You may remove it from Q9394813 if it does not belong there or merge the Items if they are about the exact same topic.' Q9394813 is a wikidata page for schistose rock, which does not have a corresponding English Wikipedia page. Should this page be merged with the enwiki:Schist page? Can this even be done? This wikidata page seems to be creating all sorts of problems to link different language pages dealing with the same subject. Thank you, Cfosp1 (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The English article on Schist seems to take a narrower approach than the German article, which is more broadly related to all forms of shistose rocks, with slate being a subsection within the German article. Whilst both are metamorphic rocks, as a non-expert I do tend to regard slate and schist as different subjects, with different levels of metamorphism. The solution is probably a discussion with geological experts, so maybe this is worth raising at the talk page of WP:WikiProject Geology. Yes, articles can be merged after a discussion. Were that merge to happen, then I guess there would be no issue in reassigning wikidata item numbers. But this isn't an area I'd want to jump in to without good, current geological knowledge and some understanding of a range of languages! Nick Moyes (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply, Nick! I did not pick up on the subsections in the German article which are covered in separate articles in English, the English Schist being one of them. The English terms are already quoted in parentheticals within the German subsections and could be linked to the respective English article. From what I read, it doesn't seem to be possible to link back from the English article to the subsection within the German article, am I correct?

Thanks again, Cfosp1 (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cfosp1 This is known as the Bonnie and Clyde problem on Wikidata, see d:Help:Handling sitelinks overlapping multiple items ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Shushugah, this is exactly what I was looking for! Cfosp1 (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

How do I add coordinates to a page? Cyprus76 (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Please read Template:Coord/doc Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank You Cyprus76 (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixing Errors

I run IT for Blumont, Inc., a firm that was created out of the ashes of another firm IRD that was plagued with various scandals. At this point, IRD does not exist as a going concern and Blumont is new non-profit entity working in the humanitarian assistance space. Our first problem is establishing Blumont as an entity unto itself. When you search for Blumont, IRD is returned, but IRD is not the same thing. How does one go about establishing a fresh identity (i.e. creating a "Blumont" page where information about Blumont can be seen? Thanks! Svickland (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: International Relief and Development Inc. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Svickland: Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new Wikipedia article can be quite challenging, especially when you have a conflict of interest (COI). To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. When you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple published independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the company, and determine whether the sources demonstrate that the company meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could create an account and declare your COI on your user page. Then follow the instructions at Help:Your first article and summarize what the sources have published, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting for review, declines, and rewrites, before an article is accepted. If you are successful, then you could never edit the article directly due to your COI, but could submit edit requests on the article talk page.

You may also post edit requests at Talk: International Relief and Development Inc. to share any suggestions to improve this article. Hope this helps. GoingBatty (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Svickland. Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a business directory. An article does not cease to be relevant because its subject no longer exists, and helping anybody to "establish a fresh identity" is no part of Wikipedia's purposes.

What you should do is:

• First and most importantly, make a formal declaration of yourself as a paid editor (see that link for how to do so). This is mandatory as part of Wikipedia's terms of service.
• Then you should open a discussion about the issue on Talk: International Relief and Development Inc.. Note that you should on no account edit that article directly, but you may request edits to it.
• If there has been enough independent writing about Blumont specifically to make it meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then there could be a separate article about it. Ideally you would not write it because of your conflict of interest, but you are not forbidden to do so - as GoingBatty explained.
• If there is not yet enough material for a standalone article, then a separate article is not possible; but something can go into the existing article. A quick look suggests to me that people have tried to do this, but in a cack-handed fashion. When I get a chance, I will have a look and see if I can improve it. But note that, even here, we should be constrained by what has been published in independent sources.

ColinFine (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

When its own mission statement is a string of buzzwords, it makes me wonder whether it has changed since its corrupt past. Maproom (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

its free to ask

I am a student editor and I have reworked a section that was tagged as needing revision. I have had another more experienced set of eyes help me but they don't know wikipedia standard. Can someone here take a look? Mater Matuta is the article. In the talk page it was specifically noted that the Temple section needed work -which I have done. Can someone have a look to see if the revision might satisfy the editor who tagged it? Thanks WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@WikiTikiTavi63: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see that the article uses "BC", "B.C." and "BCE". Per MOS:BCE, please pick "BC" or "BCE" (without periods) and use it consistently throughout the article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Noted and corrected. WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Correct citation form

Please look at User:Deisenbe/sandbox/Ethiopian the section Further reading. Is there any way to fix this so it doesn't produce an error message? deisenbe (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

You need to add a URL to the template for it to fully generate.

Happy editing! Geardona (talk to me?) 18:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Deisenbe, the URL lacked "https://". I added that which eliminated the error message. Cullen328 (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

on being sure images are in no way owned by disney

is there a way, here or in commons, to upload images directly into the public domain (like with cc0 i guess)?

i really don't want all this complicated credit stuff clogging up a picture of my cat cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Cogsan. Images and animations created by Walt Disney and his employees and businesses in 1928 or before are now in the public domain. Steamboat Willie is the best known example but there are several others. That material can be freely shared by anyone for any purpose. Anything created more recently is still protected by Disney copyrights until 95 years has passed since publication. If you are the indisputable copyright holder of your cat picture, then you can freely give up your copyright and put the image into the public domain. But if the cat picture is derivative of a cat image created by Disney's businesses, then you have no right to do so. Cullen328 (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

yes, the matter is how i can punt the cat picture (which is mine, no chance of disney owning it) straight into the public domain

unless i was mistaken, and the commons license is basically just "public domain but you can't say you took the picture" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Cogsan, when you release any of your copyrighted material into the public domain, you give up the requirement of attribution to you. If you want the image to be attributed to you, then use an acceptable Creative Commons license instead. Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

yes, and what i want is specifically to not require the image to be attributed to me cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

nvm i figured it out

thanks cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Just some copyright confusion.

I am trying to wrap my head around image copyrights, what can and cannot be used here, and I've read a few pages but It's just not getting through. I have this image here that I want to use for this page on the respective fly. Could someone tell me if this image is okay under the copyright?

Also, I keep forgetting where I am supposed to sign.. here? Parameci (talk) Parameci (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

There's two of me! I think there's an automatic signage here. My bad. Parameci (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Parameci. That image is licensed under "CC BY-NC 4.0 DEED - Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International". The critical factor is "NC" which is the abbreviation for "NonCommercial". That license is not acceptable on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons because our stated goal is to allow anyone to re-use as much of our content as possible for any use at all, including commercial uses, such as books, magazines, movies, advertiser supported websites, posters, t-shirts and the like. So, if you see "NC" in a license, it is no good for use on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand, thank you! Parameci (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

you can sign at the end of your posts using ~~~~ to form a signature, although it is normally appended automatically. Geardona (talk to me?) 18:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Orange Hill 67.71.150.211 (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

High G 67.71.150.211 (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Please use WP:SANDBOX for test edits. RudolfRed (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh Cana(pown)

Rhymes and Memos 67.71.150.211 (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

McDuffie 67.71.150.211 (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey there—welcome to the Teahouse! Is there something we can help with? Bsoyka (t • c • g) 20:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Any good articles out there?

Hi i'm wondering if there are any good articles in Wikipedia, if so mention them! Thanks! =D Jude marrero (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jude marrero: Hey there! You're not gonna believe this one; we actually have an entire list of articles that have been thoroughly reviewed to meet the "good article criteria"! Happy reading/editing! Bsoyka (t • c • g) 20:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

In addition there is also the Featured article list which are better than the good articles NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 20:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

GA and Fa together are a bit less than one percent of all English language articles. David notMD (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to download a table?

I would love to be able to download the Supreme Court Justice's table of information. As seen here.

List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States

It would be great if there was a way to download the table as a CSV or similar file, so that if i wanted to work with that data, I could download it in a workable format, instead of as a PDF, which is the current option. 2600:6C88:B140:A4:D94C:4CED:D1CC:2424 (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

For instance, the Library of Congress has a table of supreme court justices that you can download. Could wikipedia implement something like this?

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/supreme-court-justices/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C88:B140:A4:D94C:4CED:D1CC:2424 (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is a way to do that directly. I am not sure if there is an easier workaround, but I know Microsoft Excel allows you to import tables from the web. Ca ^{talk to me!} 23:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

TWL

I've never used the Wikipedia Library, but today I've decided to try it out.

I'm completely baffled.

I've made it to this page – how do I read the paper? Is there something I don't understand? Thanks, 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you provide the DOI/other reference for the paper in question? Sharing TWL links, in my personal experience, is clunky. Remsense留 21:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Title: "Phylogeny, historical biogeography and body size evolution in Pacific Island Crocodile skinks Tribolonotus (Squamata; Scincidae)";doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2010.06.005. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much: here are the exact steps I took to get the PDF of your paper. These aren't the required steps by any means, but they're sure to work:

1. Paste Phylogeny, historical biogeography and body size evolution in Pacific Island Crocodile skinks Tribolonotus into the search bar on the TWL landing page.
2. Click on the first result.
3. Click on "Full Text Finder" on the left hand side of the page.
4. You should have arrived at ScienceDirect, where you can click the "View PDF" button.

Sorry if that's not helpful in general. If you have more questions let me know! Remsense留 21:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Haha, it works! Thank-you! 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome—TWL is a bit clunky, and it takes a little time to get used to what you can and can't put where to get what you're looking for, but once you do it becomes pretty easy.

Often, you can replace the beginning of standard vendor URL with the "TWL URL": e.g. if you have https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1055790310002642?via%3Dihub, you can change it to https://www-sciencedirect-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S1055790310002642?via%3Dihub so you don't have to search through the TWL system. Cheers! Remsense留 22:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Edited a page for the first time

Hello!

I am new here, and I added some information to the page of the video game DemonStar. I've added a new paragraph about the newly released remastered edition (at the very bottom of the article).

I've read through all the guide lines and I think (hope  :) ) I did everything right.

It's my very first edit though, could someone please take a look before it gets published?

All the best, Ray Ray011982 (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ray011982: Hello! We can't see your edit before you publish it. I guess you are in preview mode right now. Just be bold and publish it, if there is something wrong with it, it will be easy to fix. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

) Okay, I've published it! Ray011982 (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: DemonStar § Remastered version Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ray011982, and welcome to the Teahouse. Well done for making an edit and citing a source.

The problem with your edit is that it is cited to Mountain King Studios, the developer, and so is not independent. While non-independent sources can be used for some things (eg if you had an independent source that discussed the release but did not give the date, then you could supply the date from that source.

But what you have added is basically marketing hype: Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. You need to find an independent source - perhaps a review of the new version (as long as it is published in a reliable place). Without it, the most that should be said is that a new version was published in 2023 - and personally, I think that if you can't find an independent source that talks about the new version, I don't think it belongs in the article at all. ColinFine (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear Colin, thank you for your feedback!

I see your point and understand what you mean. It was not my intention to do advertising, even since I only reported technical details of that game - similar to the informations given in the paragraph Gameplay ("The game features eighteen levels, a two-player local co-operative game mode, and a unlockable level editor.") and the paragraph Development and release ("DemonStar was re-released in 2003 as DemonStar: Secret Missions. Released in two parts, Secret Missions used an enhanced version of the original engine and new music."). And my text does not contain any personal opinions or even recommendations.

Those technical informations can be proven correct not only by the developer's homepage (which is also quoted as a source for the aforementioned information given in "Gameplay" and "Development and release"), but also by YouTube videos showing actual gameplay. Unfortunately there are no official reviews in gaming magazines or gaming homepages yet, because the release happened very recently.

My intention was solely to keep the DemonStar article up to date and to submit new information related to it. I am sorry if I violated any rules with my first edit - and if I did, it was definitely not on purpose! Ray011982 (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Seeking unbiased editor input

I'm looking for a second set of editor eyes to weigh in on the tags on the article on Amy Karle. The article had issues. Editor Netherzone has now almost completely re-written the article with the exception of 4 lines, see the Talk Page. The issue that I see that remains is regarding the NFT section, the sources are bad and it reads promotional. Would someone with editing status to do so review and remove or update? Once that has been done, can these tags now be removed? Would you please weigh in to establish consensus or boldly remove if it's time to do so?

Note: Editor Hipal has been continually adding and re-adding tags and unhelpful comments, not sure if this editor is unaffiliated or neutral. I am not affiliated nor paid, I choose to edit as an IP editor. Mentioning this as there seems to be bias against IP editors mentioned on the talk page.

I'm seeking to improve the tag situation and want to ensure that it is done correctly. Thank you 205.220.129.27 (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

Sorry for the late reply, im not entirely sure what the question is, but I would recommend trying to find consensus on the talk page. If you still have a specific question we can answer it here.

Hope this helps. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, The specific questions are:

1) Would someone with editing status to do so review and remove or update the NFT paragraph on Amy Karle? That seems promotional and has poor refs. Page is protected in a way that I can't make that edit.

2) The page has been almost completely re-written since the tags were added. Can these tags now be removed? If so, would unbiased editors please remove or weigh in on the talk page to establish consensus?

205.220.129.27 (talk) 205.220.129.27 (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I've trimmed down the paragraph, how does that look? Remsense留 00:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Remsense.

What do you think about the tags on the article? The article has been almost completely re-written since the tags were added [3] Do you think the COI tag still applies or can it be removed since it was rewritten? If so would you remove the tag or weigh in on the talk page?

205.220.129.27 (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I would remove the COI tag, but perhaps put a {{POV}} tag if you think it is still biased. Remsense留 01:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@ Remsense留 would you please share this message you just wrote / your opinion on the Talk:Amy Karle page at the bottom for discussing consensus? 205.220.129.27 (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Question

How am I going to rename the account If the reename policy requires The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct?? O Combatente Dourado (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any "bad conduct" so far in your two edits, so all else being equal, you would be fine to rename your account. Could you give more information as to what your concern is? Remsense留 00:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Since you've only just started, it's easier to just abandon this account and make a new one. -- asilvering (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Default appearance changes

I've been a user for about a decade, and I've most often used themes like Monobook when logged-in. Only in recent weeks I've noticed what Wiki looks like when logged out now, and ummmm... while it's not a total redesign, there seems to be way too much whitespace even on Desktop mode, like the site is trying way too hard to fit smartphones and current trends. I have remarked upon this a few years ago on MediaWiki, with its own little ramble, and my points still largely stand (perhaps a bit more nuanced).

Most simply put, I believe to fit within our own guidelines, Wikipedia should look timeless (no theme pun intended) and not overly flat and eye-glaring (note that app aside, WP:DARK mode isn't even "official" policy yet). Depth is good, shading is good, skeumorphism is good, looking a bit authoritative and not cheap tabloid site or social media-y is good. That doesn't make things outdated (and if anything, ultra-minimalism is beginning to seem dated now), it just gives roots fitting the Gestalt and teleology of what we are striving to do as a wellfount of learning. At the very least, the masses need some relief for their eyes, my goodness.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 02:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sigehelmus: This isn't really anything anyone here can help with – you might instead like to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Evaluation of Vector 2022. Tollens (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and I'm pleased yet slightly embarrassed I mentioned your dark mode project explicitly haha.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 03:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

user page in more than one language

Hi,

I can see my user page in the English Wikipedia but not in the Hebrew one. Any solutions?

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/משתמש:Kagmot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kagmot

Is there a way to see my user page in both Wikis

Thanks, Guy Kagmot (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding a tab to a Meetup page

Hi, I'm working on editing a Meetup page with some existing tabs along the top and would like to add another tab. I looked at the markup text and didn't see anything that showed the specific list of existing tabs. I appreciate any advice! Chrysanthemum123 (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)