Wikipedia:Teahouse

Marchjuly, 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

New stubs to edit

Hi, I mainly edit stubs of footballers but I was getting pretty sick of it. I will keep doing it but I wanted try editing stubs on other articles, though my knowledge of a lot of topics isn't great. What stubs could I edit and what resources could I use? Thanks :) RossEvans18 (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@RossEvans18 Well, at Category:Stub categories you'll find 19,108 categories of stubs, pick something you like. As for resources, have you tried The Wikipedia Library? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

If you choose a topic area covered by one or more WikiProjects (you can find them via an article’s talk page), you’ll find that those Projects have an Article Assessment Table. These show ‘Importance’ as well as Quality, allowing you to focus on improving the highest priority articles. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@RossEvans18, you might be interested in the backlog drive that's starting in three days, WP:FEB24. Finding a reference for a totally unsourced article is often similar to expanding stubs. -- asilvering (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This sounds really good, I'm not sure how much I'll be able to contribute but it's a lot of what I do anyway, adding references to articles with very little in them. Thanks for letting me know about this, I didn't know about this :) RossEvans18 (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

List of fruits is a good place to look for unsourced articles. Casper king (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

List of fruits - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is the actual link Casper king (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Help me with my article

Hey Guys, what do you think of my text to wikipedia?

Sandbox text without citations - better to use link below

'Rebecca Victorino Faria Silva, born on December 11, 1992, is a Brazilian entrepreneur and wellness influencer with a focus on lymphatic drainage and health. She is known as the founder and owner of 'Detox By Rebecca.' Carrer Rebecca began her professional journey in Brazil in 2010, offering lymphatic drainage services in a makeshift space. Over the years, she specialized in the field and, by 2017, worked as a massage therapist. In 2018, Rebecca expanded her expertise by studying Oriental Medicine in Sydney, Australia. Subsequently, she established a specialized spa in the United States, emphasizing lymphatic drainage and gained notoriety by developing her own technique. Rebecca has gained recognition, having been featured in various magazines, including Forbes, POOSH and others. She has worked with a diverse clientele, including individuals such as Hailey Bieber, Kim Kardashian.'

See text and citations at User:OffBeat.us/sandbox

Is it ok to publish here? OffBeat.us (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, OffBeat.us, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that, as usual for people who try to create an article before they have spent time learning the craft of writing for Wikipedia, the answer is No, not in its present form.

You have done better than a lot of people: you have actually got some sources. The problem is that none of them meet the golden rule that is required to establish that the subject is notable: most of them are not independent, and one of them doesn't mention the subject at all.

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.

My advice, as usual in these circumstances, is to forget about your draft entirely for a few months, while you learn about Wikipedia by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles; in particular, learning about verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view and notability.

Then once you've got a hold on those, you can read your first article and try again to find sources with the necessary qualities. ColinFine (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks A LOT, really, you were the only person that told me that at all <3 thank you a lot OffBeat.us (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - For context, this is a WP:SPA for spam. This account is likely a sock, and they tried to create and recreate this article in the pt.WP several times until their account got blocked.--Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 16:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Unlike the pt community like YOU, the en community is helping me, if it was SPAM, I wouydnt beeing here asking for help OffBeat.us (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Puffery word

I just read the MOS:PUFFERY, where i didn't find the word 'Highly'. Have a look at this, It is written "He was born on 26 February in Sufi City of Safipur, in a highly religious Sufi family. May i remove the word highly or not? Kindly help. -- QuadriSyedSahab(T · C 09:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should reflect what reliable sources say. Does that statement reflect what is stated in reliable source? If not it can be removed. The listed MOS words are only examples of puffery, and there are many more that are not listed there. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Shantavira The subject belongs to a Sufi family but i don't think it can be 'Highly', there are many Sufi family in India. -- QuadriSyedSahab(T · C 15:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, QuasdriSyed, and welcome to the Teahouse. In this context, I don't see the word "highly" as making a value judgment, so I wouldn't call it puffery.

Much more serious is the fact that the paragraph is unreferenced. Until I just edited it, it had the appearance of being sourced, but the reference was to a website about the location, which did not mention the subject of the article at all. So I have removed the ref and added {{citation needed}}. ColinFine (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@ColinFine, I understood and Thanks for welcoming me. I fixed and refilled some of the Bare URLs. -- QuadriSyedSahab(T · C 15:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you are misparsing the sentence: the epithet is highly religious which is another way of saying very religious. It has no evaluative content. ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@QuadriSyedSahab: "highly" isn't exactly puffery, it's a rather meaningless intensifier word, similar to "very", and can be removed without changing the meaning or impact of the sentence. As Mark Twain supposedly once said "substitute 'damn' every time you’re inclined to write 'very;' your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be." So "the sun is very big" becomes "the sun is damn big" and someone will remove the word "damn" and everything is fine. The same could be said for "highly" in this context. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe that helpful advice came from William Allen White, not Mark Twain. (Like Winston Churchill and Sir Thomas Beecham, Mark Twain is one of those names whose gravitational pull attracts unattributed or wrongly attributed quotations in staggering numbers :) — Crawdad Blues (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Need help

How to edit Wikipedia? I’m a recently created editor and wanted any welcome for me. What about Signpost? Plotogate3-7 (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Plotogate3-7: Welcome to the Teahouse! I added a welcome message to your user talk page. The Signpost is available for everyone to read, but doesn't have a section to welcome new editors. Thanks for joining Wikipedia! GoingBatty (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep, what about creating drafts? Plotogate3-7 (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Plotogate3-7: Creating a new Wikipedia article draft can be quite challenging, especially if you do not have a lot of experience editing existing Wikipedia articles. To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction, and then spend a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article and summarize what the sources have published, and be prepared for a process that may include waiting for review, declines, and rewrites before an article is accepted. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

That’s good, I know. Plotogate3-7 (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

If you want technical help starting a draft, you can head over to WP:ARTICLEWIZARD. Professor Penguino (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

How do you start out with editing in Wikipedia? More specifically, how can I practice concise editing?

Hi everybody,

I'm very new to Wikipedia, and I want to help, however I can, in making better this vast source of information. I've started out with copyediting, but more often than not I find myself getting stuck and making errors. I've done about 5-6 copyedits now, and now am venturing into more advanced edits, but then again, I find myself getting stuck and having trouble with finding out what to write. Can someone help me out with this?

Thank You!!

:))

InGoodlyFaith (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@InGoodlyFaith See if Wikipedia:Task Center and Wikipedia:Requested articles have anything you find interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

InGoodlyFaith, hello! Here are a few ways to augment your editing practice:

1. Often the best way to cultivate concision is simply to understand the topic better. For a given topic, compare the different ways in which the same material is digested and summarized across all the secondary and tertiary sources you have access to.
2. Read our Manual of Style—there are many good habits and conventions there that either directly or indirectly promote concision and economy in writing.
3. While "trimming every redundant word from a sentence" isn't always the best way to write precise prose, it's still a worthwhile exercise. Here is a page where an editor provided numerous examples you can practice with, which I found very helpful.

Best of luck, and happy editing! — Remsense诉 19:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll try these out, I wasn't aware. Thank You!! Have a good day! InGoodlyFaith (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the best place to start editing Wikipedia?

Main Page Incastudent (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Anywhere you see something in need of fixing. Be bold. TypoEater (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Incastudent Someplace reasonably calm, don't dive straight into areas like Israel/Palestine conflict. See if there's anything you like at Wikipedia:Task Center. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

You can also try Special:Homepage. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Incastudent. I started with, and still continue, just editing pages I have a special interest in, for it’s a lot of work searching for proper references and rewriting awkward paragraphs, and I need motivated to put in the effort. I just decide to check if there’s an article about (insert topic interested in) and if there is, and it needs improvement, that’s my next project. As you were already advised, don’t start out with big, popular articles, for lots of people are already working on those ones. Focus on the lesser known articles with a smaller number of daily views, for you may be the only one to come along willing to put in the effort to improve things.

Best wishes on your upcoming volunteer endeavors. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Image

how to rename this jpg file Abundant Possess (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Abundant Possess It seems at [1] that you figured out how to ask. You have to wait for someone with permission to do it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

...which I did. DMacks (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I want to ask you one more question. Can I reference the British Raj to create a new article page Abundant Possess (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand the question, but WP:AGE MATTERS and WP:RAJ may be of some help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Which just happened. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page Creation

I am looking to create a wiki page for the artist Nathan Jarrelle Management but I have no clue where to start. Nathanjarrellemanagement (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, first off, based on your username, please read WP:COI. Second, practice in your sandbox, then talk to the Article Wizard. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Hells Bells (Talk Page btw))} 20:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nathanjarrellemanagement: Hi there! WP:AUTO explains that Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies. 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 you, and determine whether they demonstrate that you meet 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. Hope this helps. GoingBatty (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

And if you do manage to write something that passes muster, please bear in mind that it will never be a wiki page for the artist, because there can never be such a thing. It will be an article ABOUT the artist. And anybody will be able to come after you and edit that article--and if those edits are relevant and properly supported by reputable sources, they'll stay. And if either you or (?) the artist doesn't happen to like those changes, well there won't be much you can do about it. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

You guys are a hoot. There's a difference between constructive info and fluff and from what I've read none of this has been constructive information. I appreciate the help you attempted to give, it passed "muster." Nathanjarrellemanagement (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This was incredibly helpful, thank you. Nathanjarrellemanagement (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

He seems to be the person at linktr.ee/nathanjarrelle (a website that's blacklisted, no doubt for a good reason). There's not much there. (And if there were substantive claims there, in order to appear in a Wikipedia article they would of course have to be cited from a reliable source.) It's rather obviously too soon for a Wikipedia article. -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I asked a question for help, not to be shit on. Also, you don't have to talk about me, I'm right here. Talk to me. My linktree, isn't blacklisted, it's a hub for all of my links in one place but feel free to google me. There is more than enough information out there about me in my decade of a career as an independent artist. I appreciate what little help you attempted to give. Thanks. Nathanjarrellemanagement (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

So you are writing about yourself- why did you not indicate this in your initial post above? 331dot (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

"I am looking to create a wiki page for the artist Nathan Jarrelle Management..." So, your name is Nathan Jarrelle Management??? David notMD (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, whether you consider it "constructive" of "fluff," it is very important to understand that anything you write for a Wikipedia article won't be either yours or the subject's (whether they're two different people or not). Anybody will be able to come after you and edit it beyond your recognition. Uporządnicki (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Nathanjarrellemanagement, you're complaining. Above, I wrote that linktr.ee was "a website that's blacklisted, no doubt for a good reason". If it's about this that you're complaining, fair enough. "No doubt" was an overstatement; "presumably" was what was meant. But more importantly the reason for the blacklisting could very well be entirely unrelated to your use of the website. And so I apologize for that thoughtless comment of mine. Still, it does seem that this is too soon for an article. If it indeed is too soon, there's no understanding that at least X years must pass before the quality and quantity of available sources will suffice for a good article. -- Hoary (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Nathanjarrellemanagement: the artist's name seems to be Nathan Jarrelle, and if 'Nathanjarrellemanagement' represents an agency or business that is not a sole proprietorship (and possibly even if it is), you will have to change your username. I will leave you a message explaining this at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like User:Anachronist beat me to the punch. Please read their message on your user talk page (here; towards the end) regarding changing your username. Mathglot (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

How to link translated article to original

I have just translated my first article Sabine Fischer (Political Scientist) , but I don't know how to attach it to the original article: [2] Also it doesn't seem to show up if I look it up on Google. Does it have to be reviewed first? Thanks Зэгс ус (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Зэгс ус: Welcome to the Teahouse! In the Tools menu, choose "Add interlanguage links". (For a more detailed conversation, see the #Link articles into "languages" section above. Articles do not show up in Google until 90 days have elapsed or they have been reviewed by the WP:New Pages Patrol, per WP:INDEXING. GoingBatty (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright! Thank you very much! Зэгс ус (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Зэгс ус, congrats, you were successful in linking it to the German article, as reflected in this edit at Wikidata item d:Q111684861. Well done! Mathglot (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject creation

Hello all! I am wanting to create a Wikiproject page for the Gilmore Girls site because the current project group has been archived. Would anybody be able to help me with this?

Thank you! Imroberts (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess this is connected with Gilmore Girls, but I don't know what a "Wikiproject page" is, nor a "project group". Are you aiming to create, or resurrect, a WikiProject? Maproom (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I am looking for a forum that is discussing Gilmore Girl page edits, how would I locate this? Thank you. 148.88.245.66 (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Imroberts. Welcome to the Teahouse. ... and your enthusiasm is to be greatly welcomed, too!

However, you do have an account that is just 2 days old and only 9 edits under your belt. Someone with that limited amount of editing experience, rushing in to create a WikiProject from scratch, is quite likely to end in a waste of time for all concerned. My advice would be to get some real, demonstrable experience of editing Wikipedia and of contributing to articles relating to that topic over at least the next 6 months or so. Along the way you would probably encounter other like-minded enthusiasts for the subject who might be interested in collaborating with you - or you might singularly fail to find any others. Who knows?

Once you've done that, that would be the time to raise such a suggestion, not right now. I can't see where you say a project on this topic was 'archived'. One was certainly proposed back in 2011 but the proposal was not met with enthusiasm, and was rejected. See WikiProject Council/Proposals/Gilmore Girls.

Whilst not wanting to dampen your enthusiasm, experience shows that many new users simply don't stick around for long after their initial burst of enthusiasm. So, to avoid people starting WikiProjects that simply don't get off the ground, it's best for a few active editors to come together to put forward any proposals for any new WikiProject. Some guidelines have been produced on the proposal of any new WikiProjects to join the couple of thousand that apparently exist already. See WikiProject Council/Guide. I hope this helps and doesn't put you off from editing or creating new articles under the WikiProject Television banner. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Imroberts:, thanks for your interest in discussing Gilmore Girls. The place to start discussing this topic is at Talk:Gilmore Girls. If it turns out that there are tons of editors there that are interested in discussing the topic in greater detail, you could get together and create a WikiProject for it, if it hit critical mass. But I strongly suggest starting out at Talk:Gilmore Girls, first. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Biography of living person ; Academics

What is required to establish notability for academic. Is the number of citations for their publication, and an h index and i10 index sufficient? What range do they need to be for academics working in the field of philosophy ? 2. For being a holder of named chair in a university, is there a further criterion , in terms of level of recognition of university etc? Rprakashmathur (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rprakashmathur The accepted criteria are listed at WP:NACADEMIC. Note that they are expected to meet only one of the listed conditions. If you tell us the name of the person you intend to draft an article about, we can probably give you more advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Acharya Dr. Sthaneshwar Timalsina .This is the draft article.

and this is his profile page on Google Scholar. https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=RkSKtKcAAAAJ

Cited 444 times. h index 9. He is also an endowed chair in Stony Brook University, at NewYork.

Request your guidance Rprakashmathur (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

See the comments on the draft, which has recently been declined. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The draft contains direct external links, which will need to be replaced or converted into citations. Maproom (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Rfc

Did I use the RFC template correctly? A bot removed it in a subsequent edit following my edit here: Special:MobileDiff/1201278346. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The first timestamp after the rfc tag tells the bot how long to leave the RfC "active". You added the tag right before a December 2022 timestamp, so the bot figured it was time to remove the tag. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, appreciate the advice. I'll put the RFC at the bottom then. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Didn't work. Can you help me fix it? Thanks, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

How to declare a COI without financial involvement?

When there is no monetary transaction or financial relationship but the person is known to you, though not related. How should a COI be declared ? Rprakashmathur (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Lectonar (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

You can declare it in your user page, the talk page of the article(s) you are editing, or in the edit summary. I recommend using WP:edit requests if you want to change something, rather than editing the CoI article directly. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

My article was declined

@Jeraxmoira My new article about an upcoming malayalam actress was declined and the reasons were unclear to me. please help Arjun Dayanandan (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, the reason for decline was clearly stated as "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" Also be aware that IMDb is not a reliable source because it is user edited. Theroadislong (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link Draft:Sravana T N. Theroadislong (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Arjun Dayanandan. The reason for the decline is that there are no reliable sources or sources with significant coverage on your draft. A WP:BEFORE search on Google News has nothing useful, so I would not recommend resubmitting it for another review. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there anything I can do to avoid this and resubmit it? 27.57.29.11 (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

you need to find reliable sources that gives an in-depth coverage of the actress. One such example would be a decently long biography of the actress. However, if the actress is too new, no one would have really written about her much. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

what if I can find a brief biography of the actress? Will that work? Arjun Dayanandan (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

A "brief biography" may help, but it may not. If it was written by Sravana or her associates, (whoever published it) then it is of no use for this purpose. 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. ColinFine (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

by brief biography, I meant in websites like IMDB which has published her work in movies. Arjun Dayanandan (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Hells Bells (Talk Page btw))} 15:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

What would be a reliable source for a movie actress who has acted in 4 movies? She is the daughter of a movie director as well. Arjun Dayanandan (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

IMDb is a user generated site, so we dont use it. see THIS page on reliable sources. when you click on it, it should send you to the IMDb section. Babysharkboss2!! ^{Green Day (Talk Page btw)} 16:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

How about bookmyshow? It is a movie ticket booking application and it is neither self published nor user generated site. Will that work?? Arjun Dayanandan (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Sadly also not reliable. All it tells us is that it is possible to buy tickets to see a movie, which tells us nothing about your subject.

What you are looking for are things like articles in respected newspapers/magazines/journals/online sites, books about her, things like that. And it has to be about her, not just the movies she's been in or about her parent.

Perhaps you could have a look at the Category:Actresses in Malayalam cinema and see what kinds of sources those articles are using. Keep in mind not all sources are reliable, and for your draft you will want to choose three or four really good sources. You might also like to look at the relevant WikiProject, especially the Featured Articles and Good Articles listed there, to get an idea of what the best articles of this kind look like and what sources they use. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Its Arjun here by the way from my phone 27.57.29.11 (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

you can sign in on mobile. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Hells Bells (Talk Page btw))} 14:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Any article on someone who is "upcoming" is invariably premature. See WP:UPCOMING. You will need to wait until they have actually "come up", if they ever do, and of course most aspiring actresses never do. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Having problems getting a small company page approved.

Urgh - first time writing a new article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Reveald,_Inc. I used another small company as a prototype https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SecurityScorecard and I *think* I sited the appropriate independent sources for various things the company has done but I've been rejected twice now - any suggestions? I am not seeing how the Scorecard article is more independent than the Reveald one (other than I could remove the PR Newswire references - they are now duplicated with the third party references). Advice? @Infosecwiki Rockpool (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for following proper Conflict of Interest procedures. However, I'm afraid the article you used as inspiration is a poor one. The cited sources barely talk about the firm SecurityScorecard at all.

Articles on companies require especially higher levels of sourcing since they often have a PR team that carefully curates their image. The cited articles seem to be an example of churnalism, and uncritically repeats the company's word at face value. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rockpool: When looking for better articles, see articles at the higher end of Category:Company articles by quality or Category:Computer Security articles by quality. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

on turning tables into tables that look cool

i was doing some test things on my sandbox with tables, and didn't find out how to change cells' width (height is automatic, so eh), color, and orientation on the visual editor. switching to the visual editor and back, with or without actually doing anything, broke the tables completely, and also the rest of the page one time

is there currently a way to change anything besides text with the visual editor? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. You are given some options in the properties pop-up, but nothing else. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

source it is :(

thanks cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

How to capitalize name in article title

Article Toni Beaulieu is titled Toni beaulieu. Can the b be capitalized? The article is a stub owing to miscommunication with co-author/editor. My apologies to readers . . . Ganellia (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Toni Beaulieu. Move has now been performed by Significa liberdade (to whom thanks), leaving T— b— as a redirect. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.103.187 (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ganellia, and welcome to the Teahouse. You appear to be writing the article WP:BACKWARDS. If you don't start citing reliable independent sources pretty quickly, somebody is going to move it to draft space, as it is not acceptable as a mainspace article as it stands. Also, please note that external links are not normally permitted in the main text: they should be removed or (if appropriate) converted to citations. ColinFine (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

See Help:How to move a page for another time. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Copy-editing Program

Hello, I first started editing in August, and I remember a program (not a list) that would give me pages to look over, but I can't seem to find it now. If anyone knows where or how to find this, I would be very happy! Thanks in advance! Seltzerbubbles (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Seltzerbubbles, welcome to the Teahouse. Was it Special:Homepage? PrimeHunter (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello PrimeHunter, that was the correct page. Thank you very much! Seltzerbubbles (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk page assessments of Wiktionary redirects

Hi folks. I am trying to clear the backlog of articles that are currently unassessed. Running into some issues, namely with Wiktionary redirects that have a talk page that put them in a specific wikiproject scope. Looking at the category a lot of the articles don't have talk pages at all. But some of them do like Deflagrating spoon and All bets are off. Should they just be classed as redirect? Templates removed altogether? Thanks! (Edit: Just noticed that the articles I listed are already class=redirect, but it doesn't work. The page still shows up when searching all articles with quality=Unassessed-Class.) Reconrabbit 18:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Logos & Help

Is there a way to upload logos to Wikimedia? I am looking to upload a logo for a draft I am working on, Draft:40-Mile Air and I am unsure about the rules regarding uploading logos.

Also any advice for my draft is welcomed. Thank you! Phantomb1 (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia, @Phantomb1. In my opinion, you shouldn't be worrying about uploading logos until your draft gets accepted. In its current form, your draft is a long way away from being accepted, According to our notability guildines for companies, you need multiple reliable, secondary sources that provide significant coverage. Your draft does not have any independent sources. You need to find those sources or your draft will never be accepted. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 19:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Phantomb1 General advice at WP:LOGOS. If the logo in question is subject to copyright (as many are) you are not allowed to include them in drafts, only in accepted articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Phantomb1, I looked at 40-Mile Air's website and that logo seems highly likely to be protected by copyright. If so, then it should not ever be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, where copyright protected content is not permitted. If your draft is accepted as an article, only then should the logo be uploaded here to English Wikipedia. Please review and comply with the policy on Non free images. Cullen328 (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Phantomb1, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that, like many many new editors, you have plunged into the challenging task of creating a new article before spending any time learning the craft of editing Wikipedia. (I know your account is not actually new, but this appears to be the first editing you've done).

In house-building terms, you have thrown up a few walls without either surveying the site to check that it's suitable, or familiarizing yourself with the local building regulations. And now you're asking for help in putting a decorative moulding on the roof (asking about the Logo).

My advisce is always to put aside your draft for at least a few months, and learn about Wikipedia by making improvements to existing articles, learning in particular about the core policies of verifiability, neutral point of view and notability, as well as reliable sources.

Then when you've learnt enough about all of those, read your first article and come back to the draft. You will then start by finding reliable, independent, sources for the topic, so that if you can't find any you'll know that it's not worth spending any further time on. ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Question about citing multiple books from the same author

Hi

When you cite a book you would write something like this under the bibliography.

(cite book |last=Doe|first=John |title=Whatever |publisher=Whoever publishing |year=19xx |isbn=xxxxxxxxx)

and then to cite it in the article you would put this as the cite

(sfn|Doe|19xx|p=31)

But what if I wanted to cite another book from the same author, publisher and date in the same article?

Like

(cite book |last=Doe|first=John |title=Blah Blah |publisher=Whoever publishing |year=19xx |isbn=xxxxxxxxx)

If I put (sfn|Doe|19xx|p=39), it would be the same as the other cite. How can I seperate the two citations?Wikieditor9117 (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wikieditor9117 The documentation at the template {{sfn}} shows how this can be done. Alternatively, you could use two {{cite book}} templates with named references and then use the page template {{rp}} to indicate the pages in each. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

As Mike Turnbull said, this is detailed in {{sfn}} under the heading "More than one work in a year" (Im just spelling out just in case you miss it). You just add a letter suffix to the year in both the sfn and cite book templates.Polyamorph (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

OK thanks.Wikieditor9117 (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Question about level of detail in comic articles

I found this article and I'm unsure what to think of it - Achewood. It seems excessively detailed, especially in regards to the characters which are only cited to the comic itself. Is this kind of stuff allowed for fictional content? Any recommended ways to improve or clean up the article? Thanks, StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

StreetcarEnjoyer per WP:PLOTSOURCE plot itself doesn't have to be cited, and that presumably extends to descriptions of characters. Any analysis of the plot or characters should be cited, however. I would recommend starting with removing excessive detail that is not relevant to the article. For example, Roast Beef had a desperately unhappy and impoverished childhood, ranging from simple lack of food due to poverty to an incident where he overheard his mother killing his father, apparently in self-defense. can be shortened to Roast Beef had an impoverished childhood. The reader can probably get some events related to his life from the plot summary, if it is important. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Participate on Wikiprojects.

Hi editors, may I please participate on Wikiprojects, such as years and modern arts? I wanted to join, but how could I be qualified for the program? Thanks on your recommendation. ArtForDecades610 (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@ArtForDecades610: Welcome to the Teahouse! There is no qualification process to join a WikiProject. See WP:WikiProject Years and WP:WikiProject Arts for more information. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@GoingBatty Right, if I joined the WikiProjects, what could I do in there? Any activities I can use? ArtForDecades610 (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@ArtForDecades610: Each WikiProject has items on their page indicating things they want to do or pages they want to monitor. Each WikiProject also has a talk page for discussions. There are also WikiProject Cleanup Listings which can help you find articles to improve based on WikiProjects. GoingBatty (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

a drink I invented

I invented a mix drink cocktail and I'd like it to be searchable on wikipedia - is this possible to do? I see every other cocktail and the recipe such as white russian (cocktail) is on there. I haven't published it anywhere else Markmyles1 (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Markmyles1: No, this isn't possible. Wikipedia articles may not contain original ideas – your drink would first have to be reported on in reliable sources. Tollens (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

read this

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day

Babysharkboss2!! ^{Green Day (Talk Page btw)} Babysharkboss2!! ^{Green Day (Talk Page btw)} 01:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Every drink ever invented was made up one day so your comment makes no sense. Most cocktails have wikipedia articles. Mine was invented over 20 years ago and has been enjoyed by hundreds. 72.53.50.33 (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The thing is that Wikipedia isn't intended to keep an article on every possible subject. Instead, it seeks to cover notable subjects, where notability is a specific Wikipedia term that roughly means "covered in-depth in multiple reliable sources". That's the difference between your drink and a White Russian--many people have already written about White Russians in reliable sources, and when they do the same about your drink, it too can have a Wikipedia article. But not before then. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for an actual useful explanation. The baby answer before was useless Markmyles1 (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Please be civil in your responses. The link Babysharkboss gave you contains the answer to your question. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Fruit probelsm

Hello today I was looking through the list of fruits.  I noticed that tons of the articles are very bad like no citations at all and poorly written. I read the first four articles, and they were all like this. I am not knowledgeable about fruit, nor am I particularly interested in fixing the problem to be honest. None the less it is a very bad look what should I do about it? Casper king (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I spelled problems wrong! sorry.  Casper king (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is the list List of fruits - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Casper king (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia is a different project.

You're welcome to edit the articles and make any improvements you see necessary. If you're not "particularly interested in fixing the problem" then you don't need to. We're all volunteers here. DS (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Here on English Wikipedia (as opposed to Simple Wikipedia) we have this List article: List of culinary fruits, and this list of Tropical fruit. How do some of those articles come across to you? Nick Moyes (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Eppley Airfield table fix

Hello. Go to above article, scroll down to Annual Passenger Traffic 2000-2023. Just align the data with the proper decade, move columns to left. Must be simple, cant figure out how to fix problem. Thank you.Theairportman33531 (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Theairportman33531:  Fixed! GoingBatty (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Next Generation (Alpha - Beta)

Hello!

It probably is incorrect, but I have seen an overall consensus on many websites that 2024/5 is the last year of Gen Alpha. 2025/6 is Beta until 2039/40. I understand that Alpha has no agreed end date yet, but because of the overwhelming volume I published the Beta page with updated cites, etc.

I have no idea how to change the .svg file, but maybe it should be done soon. (I known, only admins!) But I wanted to bring this to everyone's attention that a great majority of websites say 2024/5 is the end of Gen Alpha. Orastor (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Orastor: Welcome to the Teahouse! Maybe you're referring to commons:File:Generation timeline.svg? This file isn't protected - anyone can upload a new version. Or, you could contact one of the previous editors of this file to see if they'd be willing to update it. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Question on whether a line is puffery or not

Hello, I had a question if one particular line is puffery or not neutral in anyway.

In the lead paragraph of this page Henley & Partners -

It has been criticised for its core business model, which detractors believe to threaten the fight against cross-border corruption and crime. Henley's immigrant investor programs in Malta and in St. Kitts and Nevis have stirred controversy. According to a report by the International Monetary Fund, the program has helped St. Kitts and Nevis come out of a four-year recession.

To the existing text, I have added a line (which I have marked in bold just for clarity) which I got from a WP:RS citation source - https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/st-kitts-and-nevis-citizenship

Another editor felt this line is puffery and not neutral. In my understanding, this is not puffery in anyway.

I just wanted to make sure I seek opinion here if it is coming across as puffery in anyway.

ANLgrad (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It strikes me as blatantly biassed. The article cited is based on an interview with Christian Kälin, chairman of Henley & Partners, and so cannot be regarded as an independent source. Nevertheless, it makes it clear that in its author's opinion, they're a bunch of opportunstic crooks. Yet you have picked the one statement from the article that presents them in a positive light. If you have to cite that article, how about "Christian Kälin has changed the world – he thinks for the better, many other people think very much for the worse." Maproom (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The bolded sentence contains no puffery, but its inclusion in the lead may be undue. See also MOS:LEADNO. Perception312 (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Articles that dont exist yet

Hello, i was wondering where can i find article ideas that haven't been written yet in Wikipedia, to be able to write an article of them.

Best regards, Nameclips (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

hi @Nameclips and welcome to the Teahouse! I advise you not to go straight to creating articles, especially if you don't have any article ideas, and instead work on improving one of the numerous articles that currently exist. making an article is difficult for a beginner, and it is best to start by editing and improving existing article than taking this difficult task. if you still want to write an article, you can check out suggested articles, and I also recommend reading reliable sources, notability, and your first article. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 02:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Nameclips As long as you are looking for stuff to do, I recommend you tag for deletion your declined draft Draft:Nekesistema about an imaginary micronation. David notMD (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the answers above, we have Wikipedia:Requested articles, sorted by topic. Lectonar (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Bot edits are driving me crazy - can I avoid notifications about their edits?

I have a few thousand articles on my watchlist. I occasionally fix vandalism and bad edits on them. But there is a bot, Qwerfjkl, that appears to be making minor edits to the talk pages of every article on my watchlist, and I'm getting hundreds of emails about it. I care nothing about whatever this bot is doing, but I have to look at the change in order to keep receiving notifications about edits. Is there any way to tell the Wikipedia software not to notify me when a specific bot modifies an article or its talk page? I would still want to receive notifications about edits done by other, human editors, of course.

Thanks for any info! PopePompus (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

You can add the filter "Human (not bot)" to your watchlist. Hopefully that would also stop the emails. Perception312 (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't even know those filters existed. PopePompus (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Another thing to think about, PopePompus, is turning off email notifications for every edit to pages on your watchlist. I have been editing for almost 15 years and have over 58,000 pages on my watchlist. If I had email notifications enabled, I would be getting emails several times a minute. Cullen328 (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

But if I turn off email notifications, what's the point of having a watchlist? I thought the entire purpose of putting an article on your watchlist was to get email when the article is changed. PopePompus (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

An alternative would be just going to Special:Watchlist and skim that instead of getting an e-mail notification for each one. Umimmak (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

For my Watchlist of about 40 articles it appears that I chose an option that does not include emails. Instead, I see activity only after I log in and click on Watchlist. For people with large lists (Cukken328!!!!) filtering out bots a great idea. David notMD (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Trust me, skimming your watchlist every once in a while is a lot better than being inundated by a deluge of emails every day. Wikipedia activity isn't so urgent as to require near-constant attention. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@PopePompus: If you want to receive notifications about other bots but not the bots changing the WikiProject banners, you could also exclude the "Talk banner shell conversion" tag from your watchlist. There are other options discussed at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Flooding watchlists. GoingBatty (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

am i biased?

i love isopods and the bathynomus jamesi doesnt have a page, should i make one or would i be biased? Porridgeluver (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Unless you are an isopod, I don't believe you would have a conflict of interest in creating Bathynomus jamesi!

When writing your first article, I'd recommend reading this helpful guide for article creation in its entirety, and experimenting with editing at your sandbox (you can click that red text to create it). Additionally, you can ask somewhere like WikiProject Arthropods, WikiProject Biology, or WikiProject Animals for some potential reliable sources & help writing the article from other editors interested in biology. Happy editing, and welcome to Wikipedia! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 06:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Porridgeluver. If simply having an interest in a topic and loving to write about it was a major problem, then Wikipedia could not exist. That is what motivates all productive editors. If you are paid to edit by the World Isopod Association, then there may be a problem. Just write neutral, well referenced content about isopod species, following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and all will be well. Just be aware that you need to write in a more formal tone. Cullen328 (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I for one welcome our new tetrakaidecally-limbed overlords. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.215 (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

What should I generally do if I'm unsure about a tag?

I've done a small bit of weasel word extermination. As of far, if I am not sure I've gotten everything in an article, I'll simply leave the tag for someone else to look over. Is this correct, and, if not, what should I do instead? Endersslay (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Greetings @Endersslay - Two suggestions that may be helpful:

1. Look at the article's History (alt-shift-h) to see if other editors may have done any prior weasel-word edits, or are currently contributing.
2. Leave a message (new section) on the article's Talk page, noting what you have done so far, any questions remaining, etc.

Thank you to helping improve Wikipedia. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Endersslay. Here's my opinion although others may disagree. You seem to be editing in good faith. If you reasonably believe that you have resolved the issue that caused an article to be tagged, then go ahead and remove the tag. I do that all the time. If someone disagrees, discuss the tag on the article talk page. In general, I think that there are too many maintenance tags remaining on articles that have been improved. I favor removing several year old tags unless the issue remains obvious. If so, fix the issue, or move on. Nobody can fix everything. Cullen328 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

How to go about a Merge/rebuild of a page?

There is a page for the Retroid Pocket 2. I think it probably meets notability, it's a big name in the emulation world. However, it doesn't really make sense to make a page for it by itself as it's an ongoing product line with new versions coming out every six months or so. It should, most likely, have a page called "retroid pocket" that lists everything in the series or maybe a page for the company iteself, Retroid, with a list of devices or something. What is the process for migrating the information to a new page with more information, and should we get a more senior editor involved? Arthurbarnhouse (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Arthurbarnhouse, you don't "migrate the information"; you simply "move" the article to Retroid Pocket, and add material to this about Retroid Pocket 1, Retroid Pocket Platinum Edition, Retroid Pocket Turbo, Retroid Pocket for Dummies ... umm, one or two of those might not actually exist. If "senior editor" as in "senior citizen", then I'd qualify; but you really don't need a senescent or even an experienced (but youthful) sidekick. Be bold (but level-headed), and DIY. -- Hoary (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

New article submission!?

Hello experts, I am new to wikipedia editing and I tried to publish a new article about Huzzle which was not available on wikipedia. But I am not able to understand what should I do to imrove it or if I really want to write about a new topic how can I get it approved? Erricyash (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Your text was a blatant advertisement only sourced to the company itself. Any article about Huzzle must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Such sources do not include the company website, press releases, staff interviews, brief mentions, annoucments of routine business activities, or other primary sources. As a declared marketer you may be too close to the company to write about it as required.

"Startups" almost never merit articles- see WP:TOOSOON- a company must become established and recognized in its field to draw the significant coverage needed to merit an article. Please read Your First Article. Companies trying to force the issue of creating an article are rarely successful- articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject in any way. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Quote: By fostering meaningful connections and simplifying event management, Huzzle is poised to make a significant impact on the academic and professional landscape, offering a brighter future for all involved. Simply wait until reliable sources describe how it has made a significant impact. Then disinterested editors will volunteer to write it up (based on what they've read in reliable sources, of course). -- Hoary (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Meet criteria for B-class Article

Hi there, i had created a battle article related to the war between afghanistan and pakistan in 1960-61.

now that in the talk page Talk:1961 Pakistani Bombing of Batmalai the reviewers ticked 4 criterias needed for it to be B-class and one was left unmet. *Coverage and accuracy not met.

1.how can i fix that so it meets the criteria ?, 2.also does a article need to be B class to be reviewed in order to be indexed. Rahim231 (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I did not take a look at the article yet, but have you tried contacting the reviewer who rated your article? They may have some valuable feedback that you can incorporate into your article, and I'm sure they would be happy to help! Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually (MILHIST checklist assessment) was added by a bot on the page which was under the scope of Military history WikiProject., which checked the criteria and just left 1 criteria crossed. As a newbie in this zone what should i do inorder to meet criteria (Coverage and accuracy).? Rahim231 (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Rahim231, I will answer your second question 2.also does a article need to be B class to be reviewed in order to be indexed.? The answer is "no". There is no connection between the rating of an article, which is highly subjective for lower ratings, and the process of reviewing an article for search engine indexing. If not reviewed first, all articles are indexed after 90 days. Cullen328 (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

thanks for your cooperation. Rahim231 (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rahim231: You may wish to ask the bot owner what logic was used to assess the article. Presuming the logic is sound, you could then ask the Military history WikiProject for assistance at their talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Rahim231 (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rahim231 I don't think you need to go to the trouble of asking the bot owner anything. One look at your article, and it's clear that it probably merits either a Start-class rating, or the 'C' Quality Assessment currently assigned to it, but absolutely nothing higher.

Now, I'm not decrying your efforts, but a B-quality article needs to have a lot more detail in it! Yours simply does not yet, and could also do with some cleanup for spelling, over-use of wikilinks (such as repeated an unnecessary links to weapons and to ammunition), plus inappropriate use, or ommission, of capital letters on occasions.

But those are minor points. When it comes to gaining a higher assessment rating there simply isn't enough detail in that article yet to leave someone feeling they've fully understood the events described. Was it a bombing campaign lasting one day, or one month? When did it start and end? Who were the insurgents, and why was the bombing necessary? Who ordered it? How many were killed and injured? What other damage was done? Civilians impacted? How did it end? What impact did it have? ...and so on. So either Start class or C-class is appropriate for it (it's often very subjective, anyway).

To improve your article, either re-read your sources and extract more detail from them, or go find better sources which give more information to form a fully rounded picture of what happened, when and why.

Oh, and you should not repeat the same reference again and again, as you've done. You should 're-use' it so that it only appears once in the Reference list, despite being inserted in multiple places. To learn how to do this, see WP:REFBEGIN if you're editing with our Source Editor, or WP:REFBEGINVE if you're using our Visual Editor. Both editing tools let you re-use a reference, thought they operate slightly differently.

See WP:Content assessment which states:

• START: An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources. Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use.
• C-class: The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems.
• B-class: It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. See WP:Content assessment/B-Class criteria.

I hope this help. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your brief guide, i truly appreciate it. Rahim231 (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Inactive work groups on new articles

I am working on various articles such as American Sable rabbit, Velveteen Lop, Golden-backed tree-rat. These variously do or do not have the Pocket pet work group applied in the talk page. Is it appropriate to add work groups even if they are inactive? Thanks. Reconrabbit 13:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Reconrabbit, I don't see why not! In my view, never making an inactive WikiProject or work group visible on new pages is a good way to ensure that they won't be reactivated! — Remsense诉 14:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit I fully support Remsense's reply to you. A key point to add is that, even if an WikiProject or one of its sub groups/task forces appears to be inactive, its Quality Assessment Table nevertheless remains an inordinately useful tool for seeing all related articles, and their importance and quality levels. This can be immensely useful to someone who wants to work on the most important Stubs or Start class articles to improve, or perhaps find a GA article to bring up to Featured Article standard. So, even though this was a very small task force, with a very small assessment table, I earnestly recommend you add the template to any relevant articles that don't have them! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I have some concern over this because some work groups, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Cuisine, merge the name into something like "This article is included under inactive work groups: view" when added. Reconrabbit 22:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Question about copyright

Hello, i have a question about Copyright

I don't know how to use and get. I want Creative Commons CC0 Licence and i don't have an computer. I use my smartphone for everything and please I'm waiting for the answer please leave a reply here about CC0 Licence. Thank you from, Akhinesh~ Akhinesh777 (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Your question is unclear. Have you read the message on your Talk page regarding Wikipedia_and_copyright? You can find more information by following the links in that message. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ahkinesh777. It sounds as if you think that a CC licence is something you have to apply for and get. If you are thinking that if somehow you get a CC licence, that allows you to use other people's copyright material, then I'm afraid it doesn't work like that.

If you own the copyright to something (say, some text or images that you have created) you have the legal power to grant a licence on it - that is to say legal permission for other people to use the material in ways specified in the licence you grant.

Creative Commons is a particular collection of licences which you may choose to release your material under. The one that most material in Wikipedia is released under is WP:CC-BY-SA, and if you look at that link you can see the particular wording to use in releasing material under that licence. ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

i don't really understand, i don't know how to use CC0 Licence. I received some text code to copy i don't even know where to paste it Akhinesh777 (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Akhinesh777: The license doesn't matter unless you are uploading something you created to which you own a copyright. Then when you upload it (like a photograph from your phone) you will be prompted for the license at that time. Otherwise you don't need to worry about it. By creating an account here, you already agreed to release any text you write under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license, and this is automatic. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe the author of this question is asking how to indicate that text they used in a draft article Draft:OPPO A5 was released under the CC0 license. I don't know how one would do that and if the text actually was under CC0, but it was deleted as a copyright infringement. Reconrabbit 22:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't really know how to deal with CC Licence and Copyright Infringements on Wikipedia. Can someone help me by making an tutorial video of "How to upload an picture to Wikimedia Commons" so i can easily do everything.

I know how to edit but don't really know how to upload an picture to Wikimedia commons. I deleted the picture of Oppo A5 because i don't know how to use CC licence and i thought i did a mistake here so i deleted the picture that i uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Please explain, how exactly use CC licence Akhinesh777 (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

and forgot to say, i don't really understand why i received notification about Copyright Infringement. Actually it's my own work Akhinesh777 (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Biography Death Policy

Wikipedians, what is the policy on how the death section of a Wikipedia article is written? Do we delete any part of the section if it is too much like an obituary? Ex. (A1139530 passed away yesterday... he is survived by his mother and his three children). Would we delete the "he is survived by..." section as it seems to be too close to an actual obituary rather than an encyclopedia article? Thank you for the help. A1139530 (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. We don't use euphemisms like "passed away" or obituary-like wording such as "survived by" in articles. Manual of style actually disrecommends such phrases: MOS:SURVIVEDBY. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Change the wording and state "according to A1139530's June 10, 2010 obituary, at the time of his death his mother and three children were still living." Then add the obituary as your reference. Karenthewriter (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Surviving spouses can be named but not children. David notMD (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

dasrules3

Hello, you did approved my article because there weren't any sources for it. I didn't put it sources, because I created the math theorem myself and I researched it and it hadn't been a thing before. That is why there is no source because I helped make it. Dasrules3 (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dasrules3 Welcome to the Teahouse! See replies at Wikipedia:Teahouse#a_drink_I_invented. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This is about Draft:Dylan Right Triangle Theorem. Dasrules3, the relevant content guideline is Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. If your theorem receives significant coverage in several peer reviewed academic journals covering mathematics, it may then be eligible for a Wikipedia article. Otherwise, no. Cullen328 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

See WP:TOOSOON for why this is too soon. After you publish your theorem in a valid maths journal and people with no connection to you have written about it, one of them may decide to create a Wikipedia article about it. David notMD (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Who can help me to write my wikipedia?

It seems that, articles can't be written by yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors than someone from Wikipedia need to write so is anyone out there can help??

Meera Yogi Meerayogi (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

you can write a Wikipedia article yourself. anyone can make a Wikipedia article. What do you need help with? Babysharkboss2!! ^{Green Day (Talk Page btw)} 17:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but people who try to write WP-articles about themselves almost always fail per WP:COI etc. Especially if they are WP-newbies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

oh, is that what they mean? then yeah, don't do that. My bad, i thought they meant something else.

Babysharkboss2!! ^{Green Day (Talk Page btw)} 17:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Meerayogi, Which are the 3-5 best sources you can think of that are at the same time reliably published (WP:RS), independent of you and about you in some detail? This excludes blogs, wikis, your websites, social media, etc, etc. See also WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Meerayogi, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

To emphasise what is said in the article Gråbergs pointed you to: if there is an article about you in Wikipedia (whoever writes it) it will not belong to you, it will not be controlled by you, you will be strongly discouraged from editing it (though you will be welcome to suggest edits) and it won't necessarily say what you would like it to say. ColinFine (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This is part of a long standing history of conflict of interest editing at Sockalingam Yogalingam user says she is his wife. Theroadislong (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

If you are in fact his wife, you can propose changes on the Talk page of the article. Asking "...is anyone out there can help??" at Teahouse is useless, as is asking on your own Talk page. Hosts are here to advise on how to edit, not to be co-authors. David notMD (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

My first edit war: Am I in the wrong?

Hey! I am currently in a little edit war with the user Energymeat. They are introducing (what I believe to be) incorrect information. They keep citing this one article, [3], which is the only source I could find that says AFM Gousal Azam Sarker is a victim of a conspiracy. On the other hand, the source they are trying to supress (which appears to be more reliable, though they are removing the content and the source) is The Daily Star ([4]), which is the largest circulating newspaper in Bangladesh (Source: The Daily Star (Bangladesh)), so I trust their word, and other sources confirmation on the topic. Can someone else give some input here if I am wrong? I believe the editor might have a COI as well, but I don't want to jump to conclusions, and of course, AGF. OnlyNano 18:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, OnlyNano, and welcome back to the Teahouse. With regard to edit warring: it doesn't matter whether you are in the right or not: do not edit war.

I see you have started discussing it on User talk:Energymeat; but "I'm right and you're wrong and you need to stop doing it" is not discussing, even if you're right. Please see dispute resolution, and consensus. ColinFine (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. My intentions are to have them stop editing that article, specifically with that piece of information, as they are just editing it back several times, without resolution. Thanks for those resources, I'll check them out! OnlyNano 18:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

OnlyNano, edit warring is a blockable offense so you must stop now to avoid being blocked. You are simply not permitted to edit war even if you are convinced that you are correct. I notice that you have not engaged in any discussion at Talk: AFM Gousal Azam Sarker which should be your first step when there is a content dispute. Please start there, and explain your reasoning in detail. Cullen328 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

In addition, OnlyNano, it is not a good idea to repeatedly threaten the other editor with a block when you are engaging in behavior that could get you blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello I am not in an edit war, i have merely appended the information in the source I provided in addition to all the prior information reinstated preserving all sources. This is the perfect balance of providing a full picture. Thanks! 103.72.212.51 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

OnlyNano, you have been edit warring at AFM Gousal Azam Sarker, and have made no attempt to discuss the issue at Talk:AFM Gousal Azam Sarker, so you are clearly in the wrong. The same goes for Energymeat.   Maproom (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Updating my page independent help needed please

Is anyone willing to help me please as minor updates are needed to my page and it is not god practice for me to do them as its my page about me. Is anyone willing to help please, see below. Thanks. I am hopeless at posting this request in the wrong places - it was on Talk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Patricia_Bowling

Extended content

At the sub-title Books I need to insert ‘(selected)’ as below. And at end of Books I need to insert a recent 3rd book as below: Books (selected) [edit] ·        Bowling, Ann (2017). Measuring health: a review of subjective health, well-being and quality of life measurement scales (4th ed.). London: Open Univ Press. ISBN 978-0335261949. OCLC 951645229. ·        Bowling, Ann (2014). Research methods in health: Investigating health and health services (4th ed.). Milton Keynes. ISBN 9780335262755. OCLC 887254158. ·        Bowling, Ann (2023). Research methods in health: Investigating health and health services (5th ed.). Maidenhead Open Univ Press McGraw Hill.ISBC-13 9780335250929 ISBN10 9780335250929  eISBN 9780335250936 At the end of my Wikepedia page at External links three of my four links need updating: please delete these 2nd and 3rd links: ·     Older People’s Quality of Life Questionnaire (OPQOL) summed scoring and reverse coding ·     OPQOL-BRIEF questionnaire Links accessed 17 June 2018 and insert instead: ·        https://eprovide.mapi-trust.org/instruments/older-people-s-quality-of-life Link accessed 1 February 2024. ·        https://eprovide.mapi-trust.org/instruments/older-people-s-quality-of-life-brief-version  Link accessed 1 February 2024 The 1st link is correct and should remain as: Ann Patricia Bowling publications indexed by Google Scholar The last link web location has changed and needs updating to: "Chief Medical Officer annual report 2013: public mental health" The definition and measurement of well-being and quality of life in mental health promotion and outcomeshttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/chief-medical-officer-cmo-annual-report-public-mental-healthRetrieved 1 February 2024.

(AnnQoLAge (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC))

@AnnQoLAge: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see that you've added this request to Talk:Ann Patricia Bowling four hours before posting it here. Please be patient, and someone will eventually respond to your talk page request, especially since Primefac added the {{edit COI}} template for you. GoingBatty (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you I STUPIDLY REPLIED TO MYSELF AND THEN couldn't find it in Talk so hence duplication in Teahouse. A kind user has done the updates for me perfectly - am delighted. Hopeully their updates stay live without my amateur intervention. Thanks Ann 2A00:23C5:3F19:9601:7C0F:C45D:D2C3:30E2 (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@AnnQoLAge You have made a perfectly acceptable EDITREQUEST on the talk page of the article about you. That should suffice, and an editor will be along shortly to address it. There are currently 66 such requests pending. No need to post it here, as Teahouse volunteers don't usually get involved in answering such requests. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Editor apparently dodging a question

I'm in a midst of a discussion/dispute with a long-time editor. From my point of view, he appears to be dodging the question, i.e. not willing to answer the central question clearly. I have repeated the question 3 times.

Without a clear answer, the discussion doesn't make any sense to me. Either I'm not understanding something, or the other editor is being unfair.

I'm talking about the last few replies here.

What should I do now? Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know I'm writing a reply to the conversation on the talk page to answer your concerns. Dionysius Miller^talk 00:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you you have been so helpful - GREAT. Ann 2A00:23C5:3F19:9601:7C0F:C45D:D2C3:30E2 (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad if I have succeeded to clear up the confusion. I don't know what is "Ann". Z80Spectrum (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh that was an unrelated issue where I updated a BLP article in response to the subject's request. It's a little confusing to anyone other than us two given its placement. Sorry for that confusion. Dionysius Miller^talk 15:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Greatly appreciated. Ann AnnQoLAge (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Z80Spectrum As an administrator who has tried (in the limited time available to them) to wade through that battleground talk page and other posts from you, my view is that:

a) it was wrong to delete a proposal to split or merge an article. That should be reinstated and discussed (preferably without the wall of words with which you and others seem to manage to create, nor the accusations of liars and scammers I've seen from you elsewhere.

b) Although I know little about computer graphics, I believe they were quite right in removing all your lengthy discussion and personal research from the talk page. Wikipedia is not a 'how to do it' platform. It looks like an old thread from 2021 got answered at huge length by you and an IP with detailed WP:OR, and this strayed well into WP:NOTFORUM territory. If you believe it is relevant to any discussion here on Wikipedia, as opposed to on Commons, then why not put it in one of your user sandbox pages and simply link to it? That would have avoided a lot of kerfuffle and hot air that you have so successfully managed to generate or contribute to.

c) there are 13 'citation needed' templates in that article. I suggest you would be better off addressing finding sources to support existing content, rather than going down a rabbit hole of seemingly highly technical personal investigation and research which is out of scope of this Project.

d) {{cot}} and {{cob}} templates sometimes have their uses on talk pages, too, though not to collapse detailed investigative chit-chat which is better off being kept to other more specialised, dedicated forums. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

My question here was about another editor either not understanding my question, or dodging my question. I wasn't asking you to produce an opinion about entirety of this complex case in a small amount of time.

I.e. you haven't answered my question. Z80Spectrum (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The other editor has been responding to you, please assume good faith and keep in mind that no one is required to respond to your exact specifications. MrOllie (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course, but I felt that the situation needs clarification, because the reply was missing the point by a substantial margin.

So, I clarified in order to better explain my question, and to avoid future misunderstandings. Z80Spectrum (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Newbie issues

Hi, I'm having some issues in regard to drafting my first article. I'm attempting to improve Wikepedia's range of information on the Irish legal system and courts, but I don't understand how to fill out the references properly. All of the explanations I find when I search for help just further complicate it and confuse me unfortunately. Would anyone here be kind enough to explain the drafting process in simple terms? I am very much not used to online resources. Very helpful person singular (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Very helpful person singular Welcome to the Teahouse. Using one of our two editing tool options (called Source Editor), I have fixed the formatting of your draft and corrected the first citation. You weren't far off, but you unfortunately added the 'retrieved date' in a format incompatible with the template (02/02/2024, as opposed to 2 Feb 2024), which caused all those scary red warning messages to appear.

If you use the 'Preview' option when entering a reference in the Citation template popup, you can easily check how the reference will look, see a problem and fix it before inserting the individual reference into the article. Only when you've done that preliminary preview of the single citation need you insert it and then preview the entire page. Does that address your concerns? Nick Moyes (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much for you help. Very helpful person singular (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Species box not autopopulating, how to fix?

Hi, trying to create a species article, normally the template box autopopulates, but not in this case for some reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cudonia_lutea

Any ideas on how to fix?

Thank you! Emrosie (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Emrosie Welcome to the Teahouse. Just a very hasty response before heading off to bed: The problem with the failure to autopopulate is that this is a fairly esoteric taxon and the relevant template needs to be created first, with a link to the parent rank. See documentation at Template:Speciesbox, and the 'fix' link in your draft. Alternatively, copy the non-automated taxobox template from a related article and edit accordingly. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

fixed, thank you! Emrosie (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

General question about notability (any article, but maybe specifically one)

If this isn't the right page to talk about these sort of things, direct me to the right place. I'm well aware it could go in a specific talk page, but the talk page is empty (as in, I did post something in it, but nobody seemed to be focused on the page ever since I came across it). This seems like a good place to go when you were curious and there's nobody around.

I've came across a article about Starmad. To be quick, it's basically a software mentioned back in 2008 made for space mission analysis, as in, it calculates space related things such as Delta-V budget. I made previous edits to the article already, because some sections were more focused on how great/improved the software was rather than what it was in general.

What I wanted to ask is that, how can you tell if Starmad fits WP:N, and if it does (I'm pretty sure it is? But I'm a newcomer, so I can't know everything), then how seriously should it be taken? Sure, there's a paper regarding it, but that itself was made by the original creator, Davide Starnone. As for everything else, I think most of it is primary sources, since it's straight from the creation itself. There's nothing I can see from outside sources and there's no coverage on it. Some editors attempted to add new sources, but, when I came along the citations weren't formatted properly; there was no link to click on.

If, specifically, an article like this, what should be done? If it isn't notable and there's no sources able out there to prove that it is, should it be left alone, or should it be deleted? In general, how can I tell to leave a article alone for others to search for sources, or proceed with making a path to deletion?

Thanks, and sorry if this isn't the right place to discuss this. DoNot87 ^{🡵 talk} 00:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, a topic reported solely by its author/creator and/or their organization is not notable. I'll take a look now at the "attempted" sources but that's the gist. Dionysius Miller^talk 01:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't find a thing more on it than the stuff from the developer, so I've proposed it for deletion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast replies! Sorry for not being WP:BOLD, I was hesitant to nominate deletion mainly because I don't want to undo something someone else has worked on, and I was worried if the article could have future edits to improve it. DoNot87 ^{🡵 talk} 01:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

In its current state, the article is worthless. The question to ask is of whether there are reliable sources for what it says. These don't need to have been on the web, let alone still on the web; and they don't have to be in English; though for this subject I'd imagine that if they had ever existed they would be on the web and in English. ¶ Even dud Wikipedia articles bring minor pleasures. I enjoyed reading that the software was/is "officially owned under the company 'SSBV'": I hadn't previously considered that a distinction could be made between the official and unofficial ownership of software, or that, say, the computer at which I am typing this is owned under me. And I'm amazed to learn that Windows software can "[assist] in spacecraft subsystems design, considering Attitude Control" among other things. -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess I should have known that from the start. The article was mainly made with strange wordings, and even copy and pasted from the official site (explains the weird list of strange terms... like, what even is Mission Operation Complexity, from the point of view of Mission Design and Planning?) and it makes me possibly believe that it might have either been laziness or attempts to get a article created to advertise the software (but not saying it must be, it's just weird nevermind, damn you, David).

I added the little "SSBV" thing because the start of the summary didn't fit a proper lead that all articles start with, so I wrote my own. I'm the one to blame for the usage of the term under. I possibly should have have used the words owned by instead. Oh well.

It was fun to attempt to edit this article, and I'll try to improve my skills for the future. DoNot87 ^{🡵 talk} 01:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Haha, I finished writing a proposal for deletion and before I could publish, @Seraphimblade beat me to it. I'll settle for seconding. Dionysius Miller^talk 01:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Pseudohistory

Can I use this source for the Pseudohistory article?: https://beastrabban.wordpress.com/2022/08/12/explaining-simon-webb-history-race-and-the-manipulation-of-history/ DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

DaRealPrinceZuko, that is a self-published blog. These are generally not considered to be reliable sources. Read the page linked to learn more about verifiability, something we need when judging the reliability of sources. Cheers! — Remsense诉 02:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, DaRealPrinceZuko. With very rare exceptions, which do not apply here, blogs like this are not reliable sources for use on Wikipedia.

Blogs by journalists working for reliable news outlets, or by previously published subject matter experts may be accepable. Cullen328 (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

How to add Template:Anchor

I tried to read how to add an anchor when changing the name of a section, but I didn't understand much.

If I want to change the name of this section from "Growth of the cartilage model" to "Formation of the cartilage model", what code should I write? User579987 (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

If you really want to use an anchor the code would look like == Formation of the cartilage model{{subst:anchor|Growth of the cartilage model}}==

If there aren't too many incoming links, I prefer to just adjust all the links to use the new section title, rather than use an anchor. You can see all the pages that link to the article here, and a ctrl-f search says nothing links to the section in question. You can just change it and not use an anchor. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Firefangledfeathers. Much appreciated! I also wanted to ask how to check if there are wiki-links to a section or not. This says to use the tool (Show redirects only) available from the What links here page, but when I opened the page, I can't seem to find this tool. I only have " External tools (link count, transclusion count and sorted list)". Not quite sure what's wrong? User579987 (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you paste the url of the page you're referring to? Hoping I can see what you're seeing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers Here it is : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere?hideredirs=1&namespace=&target=Endochondral+ossification

What appears to me is " External tools (link count transclusion count sorted list) "

Is there even a tool named (Show redirects only)? User579987 (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Underneath the "External tools" line, do you see the results? I see a list of 50 articles. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Yes, indeed. But those are links to the whole page; how to find if there are links to a specific section of the page? User579987 (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I usually adjust the option so that it displays 500 results at a time and then Ctrl-F search for the word "section". There usually aren't that many incoming section links. If I find a lot, or are if there are many pages of search results to sift through, that's when I start to think an anchor may be needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Political point of view

How is Arabic Wikipedia allowed to have a political point of view on its front page... I thought Wikipedia was required to have a neutral point of view and could not endorse any viewpoint about any topic... The rich get richer and the poor also get richer (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Each Wikipedia has its own rules and policies. If you have concerns about the Arabic Wikipedia, you will need to discuss it there. RudolfRed (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

How do I nominate a page for deletion?

Hi, I am not familiar with the process for recommending the deletion of an article here on wikipedia. I tried reading about them but could not understand much. Can someone please guide me through the process? I will not link the article in question here for now in case it is against the rules. Yuthoob (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yuthoob: See the page Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process for info on that. RudolfRed (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The article in question can possibly be redirected to another article. Is there a process for that? Yuthoob (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yuthoob The outcome of a deletion discussion can be the decision to redirect instead. (See WP:Deletion process). This often happens, for example, when an article on a non-notable member of a band becomes a redirect to the band itself. It is certainly not "against the rules" to mention the title of the article you had in mind, so we can give further advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

the Bible and Quran are fiction?

Dear Wikipedia experts, I use and support Wikipedia monetarily a lot but contribute very little content. I have found my latest contribution (on the article Jezebel) rejected by Dimadick, probably because I added it to the main text of the article by mistake. Dimadick correctly advised me to add my comment to the talk page. But was my comment deleted there too? I see that Dimadick wrote "Deleted nonsense. Complains about the Bible not being a reliable source". Could you clarify for me please? Is it the consensus of Wikipedia that the Bible and the Quran are fiction? Thank you very much for your clarification, and my apologies for using Wikipedia wrong. MinuteSoul MinuteSoul (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Suggested read... WP:Myth versus fiction. Moxy- 05:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Moxy, thanks for the reference to the article about myth vs fiction. I see the references to "fiction" have been removed from the article "Jezebel". Wikipedia self-heals! Yay! My apologies for my incorrect useage of the platform. -- MinuteSoul — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinuteSoul (talk • contribs) 05:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Religious scriptures are not considered reliable sources. Please see Wikipedia:RSPSCRIPTURE. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@MinuteSoul: The inappropriate content was added by an unregistered user [5] an hour before your edit [6]. You are right the content was bad but adding your comment in the article was also bad. You could have checked the page history, seen it was a recent addition with no good part, and reverted the edit, as somebody else did 20 minutes later.[7] Your talk page post [8] sounded polemic and was not written in a good way for a Wikipedia discussion but it seems a bit hard that others just reverted it. However, the content you objected to had already been removed from the article when you made the post. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter and Shantavira, as I said I am new to this and was completely unaware of how to check edits, etc. Sorry for my outraged tone, I'm learning gradually. Thanks for your patience. MinuteSoul (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

How do i improve or help for the page

Are you all having a good day? 46.208.249.75 (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Your list of recent contributions suggests that you're having a fun day. Please continue it at some other website, e.g. your own blog. -- Hoary (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

All contributions reverted. David notMD (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

how do i improve my draft?

Hello, I just made few edits in the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:T_S_Nandakumar) adding few links and sources. I have submitted it for review and it got declined. I just wanted to know as how can i improve this article furthermore or should i delete some sentences of this article where there is no link and if any one would provide me some path or specifics as where in this page should i improve and flaws. it would be much appreciated. And i see there are many sources about the person but need some help or direction on how to go with it . I just need help in not getting this page deleted. Thanks in Advance for your help. Thank You! Ashvik08122023 (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ashvik08122023: Welcome to the Teahouse! The gray box at the top of the draft provides the answer to your first question, with lots of links to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I also suggest deleting anything that is unsourced. Good luck with the draft. GoingBatty (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @GoingBatty , Can you please help me in adding appropriate sources to this page as i am a newbie. If you think i need to delete something can you please point me out specifically. Just need little help to get this subject's page published. Thank You! Ashvik08122023 (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ashvik08122023: No, I will not be looking for appropriate sources for you. Finding appropriate sources is what you should do before writing the draft. Please read Help:Your first article if you have not already done so. If you find appropriate sources and decide to continue with the draft, then add those sources and then determine what unsourced information should be deleted. GoingBatty (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@GoingBatty , I have found reliable source online from Google Books , Academia , Media etc. and i have read that link before starting my article creation. I have appropriate sources but just need some help specifically in identifying any unwanted sentence in this article and point out poorly sourced sentence. Thank You! Ashvik08122023 (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ashvik08122023: You have not added any sources since the article was declined for not having appropriate sources. I believe the reviewer User4edits was trying to tell you that many of your sources are primary sources, and that appropriate sources are those that "show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Again, the process is

1. Find the appropriate independent published sources
2. Write the draft based on those sources (not your own knowledge)
3. Delete anything you wrote that is not based on sources (i.e. sentences that don't have a footnote)

GoingBatty (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ashvik08122023 Please see Reply to your message on my Talkpage. User4edits (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

article editing

hello folks I am trying to edit an article for school assignment would you please guide me on how to find a list of articles that need to be edited. Abdallah2211 (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your willingness to help, Abdallah2211. It's rather hard work, so choose a subject area that's of interest to you. (However, don't depend on your knowledge when you correct or add factual material. Instead, rely on, and cite, reliable sources.) Now surf around articles in that area of interest to you until you land on an article that has a template at the top warning of one or more defects in the article. It shouldn't take you long to find such articles. Try editing one of these. (Although a huge number of articles that don't have warning templates also have serious defects.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Abdallah2211 (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Abdallah2211: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you like, you could review the CleanupWorklistBot listings for the areas of interest to you to find articles that have been tagged for needing updates. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. Abdallah2211 (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Abdallah2211: You can also try the Task Center Polyamorph (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

thank you for replying Abdallah2211 (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Usually, a teacher who assigns Wikipedia editing also lists articles the students can select from. Not for your assignment? David notMD (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

no we are free to chose Abdallah2211 (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Abdallah, and welcome to the Teahouse. I hope your teacher understands that there is no guarantee that any changes you make will necessarily be kept, and so they will assess you on your editing and not on the results of your editing.

If you think this might not be clear to them, please show them WP:Education program/Educators. ColinFine (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Abdallah2211 Many articles need improvement. (Some should be nominated for deletion. Some are so controversial that they are locked against editing by new editors.) I recommend you select an article because it is about a topic you know something about - review the article to find what can be improved or added - then do so, adding references at the same time as you add content. Consider practicing in your Sandbox until you think it is good enough to be pasted into the article. David notMD (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

Greetings everyone, I recently created a wikipedia account and have never edited articles before, and I want to edited something. Do you have any helpful tips and trick to use in wikipedia. Dimka12d1sa (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello there, you can start learning about editing and the policies in Wikipedia in this article. Please note that you can read more about the policies in their respective articles. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 11:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dimka12d1sa On how to edit in general, see WP:TUTORIAL. Some inspiration on what to do, see WP:TASKS. Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

unusual formatting

i was reading the page on touchscreens, and i noticed some unusual formatting in the history section where it seems the editor was attempting some sort of named list.

how exactly do i go about fixing this odd formatting while keeping to the editors original intent? 216.100.95.82 (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! The best place to ask this question is on the article's talk page: Talk:Touchscreen. Feel free to invite those editors who formatted that section to the discussion. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

How do I update the results in the bracket of the Asian Cup 2024?

Thank you very much 14 novembre (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@14 novembre: Welcome to the Teahouse! What article are you referring to? There isn't an article called Asian Cup 2024. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@14 novembre: I guess it's about 2023 AFC Asian Cup which is currently playing after being postponed to 2024. If you try to edit 2023 AFC Asian Cup#Bracket then it says {{#lst:2023 AFC Asian Cup knockout stage|Bracket}}. The code means the displayed content is taken from 2023 AFC Asian Cup knockout stage. If you try to edit 2023 AFC Asian Cup knockout stage#Bracket then check the result carefully with "Show preview" before saving. It's easy to break the whole thing. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Yes, that's what I meant. Thank you very much for your answer, it is exactly what I wanted. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Loja

Como sbri uma loja Clavim (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Clavim: Welcome to the Teahouse! Google Translate says your question is "How to open a store". The Teahouse is "your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia", so we are unable to help you open a store. GoingBatty (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Se você estiver interessado em contribuir para a Wikipédia, você pode querer ver a Wikipédia em português. Blitzfan51 speak to the manager 20:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Template descriptions

Hullo friends. I use the VisualEditor for basically all of my edits, and when using templates in the VisualEditor, they often have template descriptions, for example {{citation needed}} or {{current}}. However, a few, such as {{char}}, have no VisualEditor description. I was wondering how I could submit a description for some of these templates. That's all. Thanks! Antrotherkus (Talk to me!) 18:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You could post on the template's talk page, e.g. Template talk:Char for the one you've given. Remsense诉 18:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@antrotherkus: the VisualEditor description is called templatedata. the linked page gives instructions on how to add it. ltbdl (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Antrotherkus: You could also be bold and add the TemplateData yourself. Copy the code Template:Citation needed/doc#Template data and add a similar section to Template:Char/doc. GoingBatty (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Antrotherkus (Talk to me!) 18:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Page about Wikipedian tasks

I can clearly remember a Wikipedia page about solving tasks to help the encyclopedia, but I do not remember the name in any way. I think it went along the lines of "task centre" or something along the lines of that, but I'm not sure. 2A02:2F0E:512:F500:891C:1AAF:22DE:6924 (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I'm going to create an account, so don't expect to see me on this IP address too much. I'll still check on this page, though. 2A02:2F0E:512:F500:891C:1AAF:22DE:6924 (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia:Community portal is a good place to start finding tasks to do. Cullen328 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, thank you! Also, I just realised that was a really quick reply. March on, Wikipedian!! Usersnipedname (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Usersnipedname Sometime these pages (or something close) have somewhat intuitive redirects, in this case WP:TASKS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of the Wikipedia:Task Center (which has a redirect at Wikipedia:Task Centre). GoingBatty (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :–) Usersnipedname (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Help with editing Patrick Hanks

Someone removed died from COVID because they think COVID doesn't exist. I don't edit Wikipedia much but I like to read the policies and edit history when I'm bored so I know about some of them, and calling COVID a hoax is WP:UNDUE. I tried reverting it but they restored it, I don't want to argue with them through the edit history so I'm not sure what to do about this, does anyone know what to do? 134.215.176.89 (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP editor! You've done the right thing to revert it, but please don't get caught up in an edit war. That will just lead to both of you getting in trouble. There's a whole list of things to do at WP:EDITWAR; I have left a warning on the other editor's talk page for you, and I hope you will cease reverting them as well. If they continue, you (or I or any other editor!) can request page protection or report them for edit warring.

The best thing to do is just stay calm, try to resolve the conflict if you can, and then let administrators know what's happening so they can handle the situation. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Local news

Are there any policies, guidelines, or essays on the use of local news stories in general. I know WP:AUD exists, but that seems to be for companies. I'm aware of WP:LOCAL, but that seems to be about geographic locations. Are there any that discuss whether or not regional or national coverage is required for establishing the notability of a subject? TipsyElephant (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Nothing immediately comes to mind. I would be wary of using local sources for GNG purposes simply because very few of them are likely to meet all the criteria. A small local paper may not have experienced teams or real journalists working for them for them to have an acceptable level of integrity and accuracy. A local paper of a small town may not be independent of any subject they cover, since everyone knows each other in small towns and everyone is likely to be closely involved with and affected by anything that goes on. They also have a hard time being objective, neutral or critical of anything local that they cover. Etcetera. So, evaluate case by case, but start with skepticism, I reckon. If you'd like to read the history of discussions on this and related issues, start at WP:TOWN maybe. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this draft good enough?

I started a draft Draft:Lil Guardsman, and came back to find someone else moved it to Draft:Lil' Guardsman and wrote a bunch of stuff in it. So, is it good enough to submit now?

The IP formerly known formerly as 147.133.116.16, 107.9.59.59 (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse. The best way to know is to submit it. With the draft in its current state, I believe it would probably be approved, as the 5 sources I've added seem to me like more than enough to establish notability. It's just really short and I think more information could possibly be added.

I don't normally reply to others in teahouse, except this time I'm the contributor you're talking about. AKFkrewfamKF1 (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The draft has a couple comments stating "work in progress". I suggest finishing the work and removing the comments before submitting. Good luck with the draft! GoingBatty (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I was planning to try adding more if possible. I just think it would be approved in its current state with the comments removed and probably be a stub or, at most, start class article. But I think it can be better. I just stated editing it today after all, so no harm in improving it further before submitting. AKFkrewfamKF1 (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Can i help

I can do this Kal-ELRules (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kal-ELRules: Welcome to the Teahouse! To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction. Then you can find ways you can help at the Wikipedia:Task Center and Wikipedia:Community portal. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Kal-ELRules See WP:YFA for how to create and submit a draft to reviewer. David notMD (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Major revisions to existing article

If I want to make significant changes to how an article is structured, what's the best way to make a personal copy for myself to edit until it's ready? I've heard that the way to do it is to make a userspace draft as a subpage of your user page, but WP:USERFY says that copy-and-pasting articles is bad because it doesn't keep attribution. Is the ideal way to copy-and-paste it and say something in the edit summary like "copied from such-and-such, see there for attribution"?

As a slightly related question, once I've finished working on the copy, what's the procedure to get it merged back into the main article? IrisPersephone (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I also went through this process when I started making major edits, as described. This issue did crop up for me: I had a parallel draft copy of the article that I iterated on privately. When I copied my changes over, in addition to potential attribution issues it was also difficult for other editors to review what I had actually done, since the edits were so monolithic.

Moreover, if you do want to ensure attribution, the draft page has to remain in your userspace indefinitely, rather than you being free to delete it as you'd normally want for your userspace—which I see as an unnecessary logistical stumbling block.

My advice would be to make partial or limited use of draft pages as you wish, but always ensure that edits to the article itself don't require this attribution, i.e. they are done in logical, navigable chunks that appear like normal edits to others. This notion turns out to be more important than the concerns I had about leaving the article page in a slightly imperfect state while I was working on it.

Cheers, and good luck! Remsense诉 07:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for answering me! However, I'm not sure that editing in chunks would work in this specific case - the article is a list article (specifically List of architectural styles) and I was planning on re-categorising the list items as it's really jumbled currently. It's a long article so I didn't want to do it all at once, but obviously an inconsistently-sorted article is worse than a badly-sorted one. Do you have any suggestions for this specific case? Should I just edit it in one go and avoid copying it anywhere? IrisPersephone (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I would just make sure each individual edit can be easily looked over by others—which is much easier with list articles, luckily! :) Remsense诉 08:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

MAybe already answered, but I copy a section at a time into my Sandbox, work there, then paste it back. Repeat, repeat, repeat. This way, your entire effort is less likely to be reverted because someone took umbrage at part of it. David notMD (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Creating an article.

I made an article and it got declined for having bad references but it´s hard to find good sites since what I´m writing about is fairly new.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Milkor_380&action=submit Yeieh (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Milkor 380. Your first ref, which provides verification for the specifications, is the company's own website. The other is Janes, which appears to be based on an interview with the company. What is needed is independent published reviews about this drone, perhaps after actual sales and implementation. David notMD (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Yeieh, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you can't find good (i.e. substantial, reliable, and indepedent) references about a topic, that is a good indication that the topic may not at present meet Wikiepdia's criteria for notability, and you should give up on this draft, at least for the moment. Also "fairly new" immediately points to it being WP:TOOSOON. ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I really appreciate it! Yeieh (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

draft article

Draft:Keep Refrigerated

while editing i got an alert as follows : m Draft:Keep Refrigerated ‎ just gonna hijack this draft for a bit current

(just gonna hijack this draft for a bit)

the use is listed as an editor - Antrotherkus

now the draft is locked, "This is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. To help avoid edit conflicts," — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Gompertz (talk • contribs) 12:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed via the Wikipedia Live Help Channel on IRC. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Unnecesarry Watchpages

Whenever I edit any page, whether it is reverting any edit, warning user or else, the page gets added to watchlist for 1 month. How to 'off' this setting? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Or see Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Default watchlist options for edits made with Twinkle. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Or Preferences > Watchlist > Hide my edits from the watchlist. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

"Hide my edits" doesn't prevent addition to the Watchlist. It only means the watchlist doesn't show your own edits to the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I tried the twinkle one, as pages edit using those were added to watch list, and it helped. Thank you. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

About cite the resources' author

If I cited the resources has more than one author, how to handle this situation? Thank you. Lizzy0213 (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Lizzy0213 Please see the documentation at {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} and {{cite web}}, depending on what type of source you have. All these can use |last1= |last2= etc. to list the various authors, or you can use |vauthors= to create a full list in one Vancouver-style entry. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Article Rejected

Hi All, Nice to meet a community of Editors!

My rejoin eu party article was rejected, I think because there were not enough primary and secondary references. there are loads online and from newspapers about the party existing but I’ve no clue on the html jargon needed to input in. Can anyone help? Alexpkerr (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Alexpkerr Your draft was not rejected but only "declined" (i.e. it could be re-submitted if improved). The main issue is that you only quote one, unreliable, source. There need to be several meeting these criteria. Here is one to get you started. See this help page for details of how to do citations. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Alexpkerr I have removed the unreliable source and added 4 reliable ones for you. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Sandbox Issue

Hi. I created a sandbox which shows my user name followed by Sandbox. I spent several days making entries, but when I attempted to Publish (or store) the work-in-progress, I keep getting the message "No stashed content found...." The message box that appears below that signage has some action links that appear to put you in a loop of creating a new sandbox, or editing the sandbox (which doesn't solve the problem). When I went to the help and clicked on it, it asked if I wanted to leave the page. (It looked like there was not other choice if you wanted help, So I did that.) Then when I tried to get back into the sandbox, the several days of work seems to be gone.

Did I create a fake sandbox originally? How does one create a real sandbox? Is there a way to recover my worrk? If it was a fake sandbox then why did it correctly display my user name followed by sandbox? Thanks. Flightbook (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Flightbook: Welcome to the Teahouse. Were you using the visual editor, and did you happen to leave it on for a very long amount of time? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I was using the visual editor, and everything happened within the course of a day. I've been trying to make progress on this in my spare time for the last 3 or 4 days. One of the problems I'm having is trying to figure out where I am in the Wikipedia roadmap. I'm not sure I understand where the Sandbox resides in the big scheme of things, and why it doesn't let me publish (update) my work-in-progress. As I understand it, if I don't update, it doesn't count as an edit, and I will not be able to reach the metric needed for an eventual submission. Thanks. Flightbook (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Flightbook I'm really sorry you lost all your edits. As with all other word processors and computing tasks in life, it is advisable to save your work every 30 minutes or so, or at least at a point where, should the power go off, you wouldn't be pulling your hair out over how much work you've lost. Although when editing your Sandbox you will see a big blue 'Publish' button, don't be sacred of it. Within your sandbox (and other userpages) t's effectively just 'Saving' your work to that online page, and is not actually publishing an article at that point into the main part of the encyclopaedia. Confusing, I know.

By saving small amounts of your work as you go along, you'd easily reach the 'metric' of having an account that is at least 4 days old and has made 10 edits or more. That means you'd then be AUTOCONFIRMED, which lets you do stuff that a total newcomer is not able to, such as creating an article, or renaming a page. But, for new editors, it's still strongly advised to go through the Articles for Creation process which lets you submit a draft when you finally think its ready, and then to receive feedback on it. See also this page of advice. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick. But my basic problem is that it would not allow me to publish at all... Ever. from the time I created the sandbox...despite trying to update and save the work every couple of hours, as you would with any word processor. 24.224.87.173 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you try saving every 15 minutes and see if you're still having the problem? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I copied and pasted the Word version of what I had lost, and the publish feature seems to work now. I still do not understand what I was doing wrong. 24.224.87.173 (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, IP user and welcome to the Teahouse. The important thing to realise about that message is that it is a technical message in the software. You didn't do anything wrong, except possibly leaving unsaved edits in your browser for too long. ColinFine (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Colin. I am now having another difficulty I wonder if you can shed some light on. It appears that when i pasted the lost text from MS Word, I may have left out the tail end of my references. There is a standard box that appears at the bottom of my sandbox that I thought might be blocking me from seeing the missing references. And below that a greyed in link that says something like "edit references below this line." When i pressed that it did not make my missing references reappear. However, when i now insert a reference anywhere in the text the numbering is messed up. (Restarts counting from 1, rather than adding the new reference to the end of the list! How can i correct this enumeration problem? Thanks 24.224.87.173 (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I've no experienced with the Visual Editor ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Flightbook Maybe just a glitch (often worth re-startng one's computer if that kind of thing happens. I can't say I've heard others reporting that issue, unless using a VPN, or a browser with one built in, like Opera. But I'm glad it's working for you know. Good practice to keep a draft in a word processor, too, as you did! Nick Moyes (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick. 24.224.87.173 (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I need help with listing references for a page I have submitted

How do I properly list references for a page I have submitted? I provided links to a youtube video (interview) and a webpage of another interview. Drumandstage (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi there Drumandstage, and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume you're referring to Draft:Ron Wikso. As we have two optional editing tools, we therefore have two sets of guidance on how to add references. If you're using our Source Editor (where the edit tab actually says "Edit source", please see THIS PAGE. But if you're using Visual Editor, then please see THIS and subsequent pages. Note that you can easily switch back and forth between editing tools, as each has their advantages and disadvantages.

On the key point of 'Notability' you might wish to read THIS PAGE of guidance about notability for musicians, and this page about other notable living people.

I should also make you aware that we don't accept interviews with the subject of an article as being a proper RELIABLE SOURCE. Instead, we look for what other, independent media or music outlets have written about that person.

In the event that you happen to be writing a draft about yourself, please see COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for extra guidance in that area. I hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Musical artist page

Hii team I’m fanindra bhardwaj i need artist page on Wikipedia please help me to create the article or page about Fanindra Bhardwaj Fanindra dev bhardwaj (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

You have written here [[9]] that “I need my artist page because I’m a musician artist band so i need this for my public presentation” that is of no concern to Wikipedia which only has articles about notable people. See WP:NMUSICIAN for the criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles written about notable people (notable as defined by Wikipedia). It is not social media, where anyone can post anything. If in time you become a famous musician then people with no connection to you will write about you, and a person with no connection to you can decide to create an article about you. Right now, not. David notMD (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

My Submission

My submission was rejected. Will you please take look at my submission and tell me what I need to do to get this ready for Wikipedia? I prefer visual editor for your reply.

Dawn D. Bennett-Alexander

Copyright violating material removed
Copyright violating material removed

Since retiring Dr. B-A is still teaching the message of "[./Practical_Diversity_https://www.practicaldiversity.com Practical Diversity]" to professionals on a global scale. She has also begun writing cozy mystery fiction novels named "[./The_Quilt_Journeys_Mystery_Series_https://www.quiltedhearts.world/ The Quilt Journeys Mystery Series]" with her niece Renée T. H. Patterson. Vdolphinv (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! The reviewer, Drmies left you at User:Vdolphinv/sandbox that begins This is a memorial of sorts for a living person, full of promotional/non-neutral/celebratory phrases...? The second sentence provides some instructions: the draft first has to show that the subject meets criteria for a standalone article ("notability" in Wikipedia parlance), either generally or specifically for professors. If there aren't secondary sources showing that, the time is not right for an article.

Furthermore, Bennett-Alexander may not want an article about herself on Wikipedia.

Also, a friendly reminder that if you have any conflicts of interest, please declare it in accordance with policy. If applicable, you can just write a sentence on your userpage to that effect. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Vdolphinv. Most of the article has copied this university webpage which is copyrighted. For legal reasons Wikipedia takes such copyright violation very seriously. The copied webpage is part of the public relations material of the university, and as a result is written in very promotional, unencyclopedic language. You must write everything in your own neutral words, even if your wrote the original webpage. It is fine to use it as a reference. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Would it be okay to translate a Scots language page into English?

Since the Scots Language is mutually intelligible with English, would it be appropriate for me, a non-Scots speaker, to translate a page from Scots Wikipedia into English?

The page that I thought I would like to translate is this one. All of the words seem to be cognate with an English equivalent, and the references seem adequate, so it passes that criteria.

Lastly, I would like to clarify that I would of course provide attribution to the original page in the edit summary.

Thanks, Slamforeman (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Slamforeman, most likely. If you need to, you can just machine-translate it and copyedit the result. Note that notability must still be established on English Wikipedia, since these are two separate Wikipedias. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• Just a little interjection; avoid machine translations if possible (see WP:MACHINE...many languages require at least a basic understanding by oneself to do a good copyediting in their English version. Lectonar (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sungodtemple just to be clear, this is true even though WP:CXT disallows machine translation? I asked here to make sure that guideline does not apply in this circumstance. Slamforeman (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a very short article with four sentences, most of which I can already understand. Common sense tells me it should be okay. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 21:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that’s good to know. Thank you for your advice! Slamforeman (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Slamforeman, Thank you for your interest in WIkipedia and in translations. You might want to familiarize yourself with this controversy a few years back when an editor who did not speak Scots performed thousands of inaccurate translations creating massive inaccuracies in the Scots Wikipedia.[10], [11]. Given that history, it may be best to proceed with caution, and consider collaborating with other editors who do speak Scots. You might want to reach out to Wikiproject:Scotland for some advice. Netherzone (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I’ve heard about that controversy, and I find it fascinating. I think that what happened there is unlikely to happen here because the controversy was that the user mangled the Scots Wikipedia with false words and incorrect grammar. Since I would be translating from Scots into English I would not be inserting false words into the article, and I try my best on the grammar aspect.

Of course, should I need to, I will not hesitate to contact Wikiproject Scotland users for advice. But I think in this case, as Sungodtemple points out, the page is much too simple for that to be a worry.

Cheers, Slamforeman (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

You also have the advantage that several of the sources are in English. :) Netherzone (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Slamforeman, one other thing: per Wikipedia's licensing requirements, translating or copying from other Wikipedia articles is permitted, but you are required to provide attribution to the original authors in the edit summary field and provide a link to the original article. See WP:TFOLWP for a boilerplate example you can copy-modify-paste into the edit summary when you save your English version of the article. Mathglot (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I have done so; please see The Cundeez article. Thank you for the reminder, though. :) Slamforeman (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Adding images to templates

Hello, everyone! I'm trying to clear some backlogs, and I need to know how to add images to templates so I can attempt to clear Category:Wikipedia requested images of dinosaurs. 8UB3RG1N3 (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi 8UB3RG1N3. It depends on the template. Do you have an example? The template page often has documentation showing image parameters, if they exist for that template. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @PrimeHunter! Thank you for responding. I'm sorry, but I can't put a template here. Is it ok if I link an article with one of these templates? It's a taxonomy-related one, if that helps. 8UB3RG1N3 (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@8UB3RG1N3: You could just write the name of the template. An example article is also OK if it's obvious which template it's about. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think the template name is Template:Automatic taxobox 8UB3RG1N3 (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@8UB3RG1N3: See Template:Automatic taxobox#Add an image. It refers to Template:Taxobox#Images. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!!!! 8UB3RG1N3 (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Corrupted reference numbers

Hi. In the course of editing and pasting in backup text from MS Word that I had lost in my sandbox, reference numbers seem to have gotten corrupted. When I now enter a new reference somewhere in the middle of the text, it starts renumbering as (2) rather than adding the reference to the last one at the bottom (with a number that should be more like...(9). How do I correct this please? I use the visual editor... Flightbook (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Without looking at the Draft in question, it's difficult to be sure, but are you aware that the reference numbers are automatically generated and changed by the underlying software, not manually assigned? They are numbered in the order they (currently) first appear in the piece (bearing in mind that the same reference can be used more than once), and usually references in the Infobox (if there is one) are numbered first because the Infobox code usually comes first.

When you add a new reference somewhere in the piece, it will automatically be given the next number after the latest one preceding it, and all those first appearing after it will be renumbered.

Similarly, the list of references in the Reference section (which might be called something else) are ordered automatically in the order they are first cited in the main body, and (re-)numbered as appropriate. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.185} 90.199.208.215 (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Flightbook Looking at your sandbox, I noticed that the issue is that you're not using the reference templates at all. You've manually numbered the sources, so it doesn't update as you edit. On visual editor, you should get a "cite" button at the top, which is a convenient way to generate citations, and you can use <references> or Template:Reflist in the References section to generate a list. Also see HELP:CITE for how to use the footnotes used by Wikipedia. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 23:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I obviously made some major errors in using the user interface and will need to study it again before my next document. For the moment, I have figured out how to correct the jumble I created using the source code. I'm sure it's a lot more work than the Visual editor, but it appears to be straightforward.

The one problem I haven't gotten to yet is that one reference appears below the blue box at the bottom of my Sandbox page, and was renumbered "1" by the Visual editor! I am hoping there's a straightforward way to find and get rid of this in text editor.

Thank you! 24.224.87.173 (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It pops up at the bottom because it's the only reference made using the <ref> format while the rest are manual. Once the rest are fixed it should appear fine. Cheers, ayakanaa ( t · c ) 02:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Great. Thank you! Flightbook (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

re: Rollback appeal

My publication was rolled back on spurious grounds. Brief history first.

In November I published a substantial amount of content. The topic is an accomplished scientist and inventor named Eric Lerner. The material was all highly referenced from scientific journals (IDEAL sources according to Wiki sourcing guidelines).

At the end of January I attempted to re-write the intro section. I was in the process of adding footnotes and editing it down to meet Wiki length guidelines. But the whole section I published was summarily Rolled Back, though some was later restored.

Then someone named BROC took down the ENTIRE publication saying that he " reverted the page back to an earlier version from September 2023. You added a lot of unsourced or primary sourced..."

Primary sourced material is IDEAL material... and furthermore, I DID have a secondary source to some claims as well as citing the scientific literature. I've responded to BROC... but now I have to appeal to someone. I'm burning hours with someone who is ROLLING BACK material from primary sources that is fully in compliance with WIKI standards.

In addition, The Sept 2023 version contained many errors or misstatements or linked references that didn't work.

HELP! Posa51 (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Posa51: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see you're discussing this on Talk:Eric Lerner, which is the right place to have this discussion per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The fact that you've only edited the Eric Lerner article over four months (and your passion about the reversions) makes me wonder if you have an undisclosed conflict of interest. On Talk:Eric Lerner, you wrote "Writing a Wiki article shouldn't be root canal." It can feel that way sometimes, when there are multiple people involved trying to come to a WP:CONSENSUS, and you only to each other except on wiki. When you find yourself WRITING IN ALL CAPS, it might be time to take a break. Large edits can come with large reversions. It seems counterintuitive, but making small incremental progress can be more successful when trying to build consensus than large edits. When you see an error or misstatement, you may find it helpful to discuss those one at a time on the talk page (with supporting references). When linked references don't work, editors may be able to find archived versions at the Internet Archive or other locations that can be added to the citations. If you can't find one, then that's another thing that can be discussed. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

1) I was for many years a science writer... as a journalist I like to get facts correct; and having understood the significance of Lerner's work and having put in many hours documenting my Wiki publication I am a more than a little miffed at having it summarily rolled back.

2)What I am finding is that self-assigned editors actually don't know Wiki standards. Ironically, Broc sent me to the Identifying reliable sources (science) page.

There it states what and Ideal source is:

"Scientific information should be based on reliable published sources and should accurately reflect the current state of knowledge. Ideal sources for these articles include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies.."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)

So according to Wiki standards listed above, the Journal of Plasma Physics, is an Ideal source. That Journal was the referenced source. And yet you want to continue arguing and arguing. Furthermore I also had a secondary source too. Posa51 (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Posa51: Nope, I don't want to argue. I'm giving suggestions (without commenting on the suitability of any source you provided), with the understanding that you will choose whether to take my suggestions. For example, I suggest providing the details of the Journal of Plasma Physics source and your secondary source on Talk:Eric Lerner to make it easier for other editors to read them. GoingBatty (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually the source for the claim that Lerner's experimental fusion device established a world record for highest temperature in such a machine was the journal "Physics of Plasmas"...

A scientific journal that Wiki says:

"...is a peer reviewed monthly scientific journal on Plasma physics published by the American Institute of Physics, with cooperation by the American Physical Society's Division of Plasma Physics, since 1994."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_Plasmas

That makes it an ideal source. Posa51 (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Posa51. You said that "Primary sourced material is IDEAL material", but actually, that's not the case. reliable, independent, secondary sources are ideal: so no journal articles, and nothing written by Lerner. In contrast, primary sources may be used in a limited way and come with a basketful of constraints and caveats, one of which is you cannot interpret anything you've read in the source, but must leave that to secondary sources. You can use bald statements of fact from the primary source (where the research was carried out, who is the lead author, when it was published, size of the population involved) but no interpretation or summarization of anything about the actual research topic—i.e., nothing about the most important aspects from the paper; that leaves you either quoting a brief passage from the paper word for word without comment, or searching for some other source that discusses their publication.

Finally, I would worry about whether there are sufficient independent, secondary sources with significant coverage of Eric Lerner to establish WP:Notability and a separate, standalone article about Lerner, apart from the existing article about Plasma cosmology which is clearly notable and has a page; it could be that Lerner is not notable (notability is not inherited) or only marginally so, and the content should be merged into a section at Plasma cosmology. Mathglot (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

1) I was for many years a science writer... as a journalist I like to get facts correct; and having understood the significance of Lerner's work and having put in many hours documenting my Wiki publication I am a more than a little miffed at having it summarily rolled back.

2)What I am finding is that self-assigned editors actually don't know Wiki standards. Ironically, Broc sent me to the Identifying reliable sources (science) page.

There it states what and Ideal source is:

"Scientific information should be based on reliable published sources and should accurately reflect the current state of knowledge. Ideal sources for these articles include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies.."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)

So according to Wiki standards listed above, the Journal of Plasma Physics, is an Ideal source. That Journal was the referenced source. And yet you want to continue arguing and arguing. Furthermore I also had a secondary source too. Posa51 (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Mathglot gave you some excellent advice on Talk:Eric Lerner. The editors here are trying to help you without intervening in your dispute. If talk page discussion does not satisfy your concerns, please see available dispute resolution measures.

You came here to ask advice, you have been given it, you will either follow it, or not. You seem very personally invested in this topic, if you have a conflict of interest that needs to be disclosed(you were asked this above but do not seem to have responded); I would concur that if you are writing in all caps and attacking other people for allegedly being self-serving, it's time to take a breather and step back. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

WP: Scholarship, what's with this secondary source preference?

I am a professor who conducts research and publishes in academic journals. The WP preference for secondary sources, such as a reviewer's piece on a published article or book, makes no sense to me. The research community disseminates knowledge by publishing primary research. Journal manuscripts typically include a findings or results section followed by a discussion section. When we cite a paper, the material we are sourcing usually comes from those sections. Reviews and editorials are typically excluded as references. The WP caution about predatory journals is great, but the majority of academic journals are not predatory.

On the other hand, review articles can be published anywhere--including predatory sources and DIY websites-- and are sometimes solely intended to discredit research findings simply because a "reviewer" has an opposing view. Transgenic plant research and vaccine trials are two examples that come to mind. Also, unpublished dissertations and theses are accepted sources in science, including use of their results and findings in meta-analysis and systematic review, so it doesn't follow that these sources are discouraged as references here.

Bottom line, I'd like to contribute to WP but this secondary source guidance is troubling.Could someone clarify this guideline, please? Clatlas (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Clatlas. When you write The research community disseminates knowledge by publishing primary research, you are correct, but Wikipedia is not "the research community". Academics publish new research findings. Wikipedia summarizes existing widely accepted knowledge, and is quite deliberately a lagging indicator for new discoveries. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a reference work, which is a tertiary source. Wikipedia is the #7 website worldwide and by far the most comprehensive reference work in human history primarily because of our core content policies. The reasoning for the strong preference for secondary sources can be found in the core content policy WP:No original research and the shortcut to the specific section about primary sources is WP:PRIMARY. You will see there that the use of primary sources is not forbidden, but they should be used with great caution. Cullen328 (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Clatlas, I second what Cullen328 said. In addition, you mentioned meta-analyses and systematic reviews, and these are by no means discouraged as references here; they are the gold standard for many topics; see for example, WP:MEDRS. Not only are they by definition secondary sources, they are among the highest quality sources available for use here, because a well-done meta-analysis or systematic review will attempt to be as comprehensive as possible within the constraints of their selection criteria, and thus tend to give a proportionate view of the universe of reliable secondary sources about a topic. This is invaluable for giving an impartial view of what the majority and minority views are among reliable scholarly sources, especially when the total number of sources is vast, and where Wikipedia editors might be tempted to cherry-pick only those secondary sources that agreed with their viewpoint, a meta-analysis or systematic review would combat this tendency and provide a solid mooring for assigning due weight to differing views. WP:MEDRS in particular relies on this for editing biomedical topics.

As far as poor sources, there are a number of ways we deal with this: see for example: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Original research noticeboard, Perennial sources, and The Wikipedia Library, for starters.

One thing that often trips up scholars with publications to their credit is the very different environment at an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source. Your journal publications are primary (unless they are reviews); your college textbook on Intro to Klingonomics is secondary, but Wikipedia is tertiary: we would rely on your textbook (and other reliable secondary sources) but avoiding primary sources as much as possible. The same originality and groundbreaking new theories that won you the brilliancy prize or Nobel in Klingonology, will eventually get you booted off Wikipedia for engaging in original research if you keep it up. Bottom line: Wikipedia tends to avoid the bleeding edge of new research; we follow, we do not lead, and we never engage in original research, which when spotted is removed instantly. I hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Local Culture Photo

I would like to share with you my local culture photo how do I do that? 2600:8801:3500:9C60:9500:19B4:F99B:2CD5 (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello IP and welcome to the Teahouse! Thank you for volunteering to share your photos: I would like to direct you to Wikimedia Commons, where you can upload said photos (see Commons:Contributing your own work). Once you've uploaded the photos on commons, an editor can add them to a relevant article. Cheers, ayakanaa ( t · c ) 23:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

suspicious account

Hi Teahouse, I have recently run across an account that has made very few edits (9 edits. Account created on 26 January 2023), but all those edits are perfectly formatted with citations etc. I suspect this is a sockpuppet of another user, but do not have evidence to take it to Wikipedia:CheckUser. Nothing malicious had been done. Is there a very low-level way to flag this, or is it not really a problem and I should wait until there is an issue? Not urgent, and I realize I can just add them to my watchlist. Thanks in advance. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

From what you say, there is no reason to even be suspicious—many users spend time editing as IPs before registering. Remsense诉 01:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WomenArtistUpdates, are they editing a contentious topic? Do their edits seem overly biased? If so, then it is likely a sock. Sometimes newbies actually know what they are doing, though, in which case you can ignore and move on. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

WomenArtistUpdates, before I started editing way back in 2009, I studied Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and procedures for many weeks, and added references properly from the very beginning. Cullen328 (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Remsense, Sungodtemple, and Cullen328, Thanks for the sound advice. I shall ignore and move on :) Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

on not flashbanging myself

minor curiosity thing, only really important for the few seconds where i'll absolutely have to get my feet on other wikimedia projects

is english wikipedia the only project with a proper dark mode (give or take warning icons not being transparent)? during my few seconds on them, i didn't find the option around commons or br*zilian wp cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 01:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cogsan: You should be able to set up a dark theme across all Wikimedia wikis using your global.css (and sometimes global.js) files over at Meta-Wiki. If you're looking for the same one as the gadget on the English Wikipedia enables, there are instructions at User:Volker E. (WMF)/dark-mode – there are some other options as well at WP:DARK. Tollens (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry Content Deletion?

Hi Teahouse,

I have a question regarding this page in its current form. A user had in the past couple of days added significantly to this article. Without enough references, yes, but still what appeared to be substantive & constructive editing. The account was then flagged & suspended for sockpuppetry, and their edits were deleted. Is it policy to delete a sockpuppet's work? Sure the account was itself breaking the rules but aren't the edits it made somewhat separate from that, given they are constructive? I don't see anything on Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry that outlines this consequence directly, but maybe I'm missing something. I would like to reinstate what was written, including the photos uploaded, if possible, but I wouldn't want to interfere with any guidelines. Thank you in advance! SSR07 (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BRV:

Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.

Later, in WP:PROXYING:

Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.

I have many times reviewed sock edits, found them to be worth keeping, restored them, and taken responsibility for them. You can too; just exercise some extra caution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@SSR07: Reverting material added in violation of a ban or block is permitted, without needing any other reason (see WP:BANREVERT), but there's no requirement to do so. If you would like to restore the content, you can, but you will be responsible for the content as if you had written it yourself, as with any revert that adds content – you should make sure it conforms to the relevant policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc.). Tollens (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why the comment above didn't appear until after I hit reply. Apologies for the extra ping. Tollens (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

In addition to what Firefangledfeathers and Tollens mentioned, the specific account that you mentioned above is a sockpuppet of someone who was blocked for extensive copyright violations and who has an ongoing CCI where even more violations have been uncovered. So please take extra care before reinstating any of their edits. (Personally I would not do so in this case, given the reason for the previous block.) DanCherek (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SSR07: the text in the revision you point to has citations; I reckon you'd be fine to restore it, make sure the source backs it up, and rewrite it to ensure it's not a copyvio from some other source. – SJ + 04:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like some tips on how I could further improve my draft.

The subject of the article is Crystal Ann Tymich, a missing person since June 30th, 1994.

Draft:Crystal Ann Tymich Goldside852 (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Goldside852, the notability of Tymich is not well-established. It seems like she was notable for only one event, which means that English Wikipedia probably should not have an article on her. You should provide reliable, independent sources with significant coverage, showing that she had a long-lasting impact and is thus notable (WP:10YEARS). Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 04:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Whoops! I suppose I should make an article on something else. Anyway, thank you for your help! Goldside852 (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Melbourne Shuffle Inventor controversy

I have come across some Indonesian websites saying the inventor of the Melbourne Shuffle has been found but the English Wikipedia is blocking attempts to add him. Here are the sources from another Wikipedia.

https://el-espanol.news/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/IMG_7344-scaled.jpg

https://radarkaur.disway.id/read/651452/menyelami-gerakan-halus-wing-chun-kung-fu-sifu-maurice-novoa-maestro-di-balik-fenomena-melbourne-shuffle

https://beritasidrap.com/read/1558/terungkap-asal-mula-melbourne-shuffle-perpaduan-seni-bela-diri-dan-revolusi-tari Naga Bintang Biru (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Naga Bintang Biru: Welcome to the Teahouse! There have been some attempts to update the Melbourne shuffle lately that have been reverted. The best place for you to discuss this is the article's talk page, Talk:Melbourne shuffle. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

How to change username style

How do I change the username style like other users such as Liz? 0x16w (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @0x16w and welcome to the Teahouse! I believe you're referring to signatures, which can be customized (there's even a tutorial, WP:SIGTUT). Cheers, ayakanaa ( t · c ) 04:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! 0x16w (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

News articles written by contributor Editor/ freelancer generally considered reliable?

FYI

 – Moved to new section. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 05:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

"Are news articles written by contributor editors or freelancers generally considered reliable sources for inclusion in Wikipedia articles when published by reputable news websites?" like can we use it as a source in wikipedia if it is written in a neutral point of view? Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Syed Sadique Hussain, welcome to Wikipedia! Yes, usually freelance articles published in reliable sources can be cited (some examples of reliable sources are in green on the page linked). In these situations, the articles need to have the same journalistic standards as non-freelance articles. For example, National Geographic's pieces are all written by freelancers, but because of the stringent editing process, it is a reliable source.
Some exceptions to this are Forbes contributor articles and The Guardian blogs. These should rarely be cited as editorial quality of the contributor pieces is lower. Hope that helps! — Frostly (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

What to include in talk pages for major edits

Hi, I am currently in the process of proposing major edits to talk pages, and I have made these edits on my sandbox page. Yet when proposing them, should I insert the edits directly into the talk page, or merely describe them? A brief example, I wish to replace the collage image in the section in the Dictator article with a multiple image template, with two different proposals. These proposals have already been prepared in the sandbox, but should I just describe the changes I'm proposing in the talk page, or should I insert them for them to see?

Thanks, @Grettoonist (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Grettoonist, you can just link people to your sandbox. It's usually better to show exactly what will be placed in the article rather than describing it, with the latter opening up room for speculation. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know! @Grettoonist (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

AD or CE?

Hello everyone,

I'm a bit confused about when to use "BC"/"AD" or "BCE"/"CE" when referring to dates. In Italy, we usually use "BC" (a.C.), but I noticed that on Wikipedia, sometimes "BCE" is used instead. Could someone please explain to me when it's customary to use each one?

Thank you, Mariamnei

Mariamnei (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@mariamnei: it really doesn't matter, but don't switch between the two in one article. see here for more. ltbdl (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @ltbdl! I'll take a look at the link you shared. Mariamnei (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know the copyright info of a file, nor do I know how to include it.

Sorry if this is a bit of a stupid question, but I uploaded a file, didn't include the copyright info, and now I need help before it's deleted in a week. File:DogMan.jpeg Goldside852 (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Goldside852 see Template:Non-free use rationale (or Template:Non-free use rationale book cover in your case). Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, check it out now! Hopefully it won't be deleted. Goldside852 (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Goldside852 Irrespective of whether it survives deletion, you should remove it from your Draft. Under Wikipedia's WP:NONFREE guidelines, such images are only allowed in accepted articles in mainspace. The presence or absence of the image will not affect the acceptance of the draft, which will mainly be whether the book is notable enough. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

photo licensing

I have a photographic portrait of the subject of my biographical article, provided by a descendant of the subject, that I would like to include in my article. It is probably a commercial photograph, taken around 1943, but there are no identifying or copyright marks on the front or back of the photograph. I have no idea who the photographer is. How do I proceed with this? Draft: Anna Istomina 57.140.161 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anna_Istomina Boat Scherzo (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Boat Scherzo: The image is in the public domain (assuming the photograph was published in Canada or the United States, which seem to be the most likely cases based on the draft). Images published in Canada before 1949 are in the public domain, and images published before 1977 in the United States with no copyright notice are in the public domain as well. You should be perfectly OK to use the image without any sort of restrictions. Tollens (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Graphic imagery as the leading visual

Greetings. I am commenting to impart a thought I've held for my many years on this site. Is it absolutely necessary to include graphic images (open body parts, etc.) as the first image in an article? I enjoy perusing articles discussing physiology or anatomy but admittedly have a weak stomach when it comes to blood, viscera, etc. In addition, I have scrolled through unsuspecting pages and accidentally moused over a link to a medical article, prompting a pop-up of a "gory" photo accompanying a summary. For this reason, I don't believe it's fair to tell a wary reader to stay away from medical articles.

I imagine I'm not alone here, and it would be fantastic if Wikipedia were to implement a censor warning or the like on pertinent imagery. Zyploc (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The concern you have is a common one, but the solution you propose is an absolute non-starter. It is 100% reasonable that an article called 'X' will start with and possibly have several other pictures of 'X'. And it's a widely-known slippery slope or form of cultural bias what one thinks someone else will find disturbing in any of various ways. So WP:NOTCENSORED is the stanard. But there are some personal settings you can make that hide images in general in certain contexts. See Help:Options to hide an image for some ideas. DMacks (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The best solution would be to not have preview images of internal organs. I think that is definitely a starter... Zyploc (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid DMacks is right and it's definitely a non-starter. But on any individual article, you might be able to go to the Talk page and argue for a less stomach-churning image. In a lot of cases, it's frankly not the best possible image we have and shouldn't be there. The lead image ought to be clear and useful, and something super gory is only sometimes going to be the most clear and useful option. When it is, though, you're totally out of luck, sorry. -- asilvering (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

But I do understand the rule. Feel free to just send the link to that page next time Zyploc (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Creating a page

Hello, Wikipedians! I'm trying to create an article but I don't know how (; - w -). Could someone help me? 8UB3RG1N3 (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 8UB3RG1N3, and welcome to the Teahouse! You'll probably want to create your article as a draft to begin with – to create the page itself you can use the article wizard to do so. I would also recommend reading Help:Your first article, which has some information that may be useful. Perhaps the most important thing to keep in mind while writing your draft is that reviewers will check that the content in the article is supported by reliable sources: it is typically far easier to make sure that the draft is this way by finding the sources you will use first, and starting to write after that, using only the information in those sources – even if you already know a lot about the topic. Tollens (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Massive changes to an article

the article for the Nokia phone series is written very much like an advertisement, with a tag marking it as so for a long time. Other people have worked to make it a bit better, but because it is so widespread, the entire article (or most of it) would have to be changed. Before I would rework the article completely, I wanted to check to see if there was anything I had to do or request before making these changes, because the last thing I would want on my hands is an edit war Random IP User (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Nope! You're allowed to WP:BEBOLD and edit the article yourself. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you！ Random IP User (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

how list illustrator in citation

I want to cite a book that has both an author & an illustrator. How do I enter the illustrator's name? Below, I listed her (Vey) as the 2nd author, but that's not quite right (using source editor). I read the help page for citations but I did not see it addressed. Partial citation:

cite book |last1=Moore |first1=Lucile |last2=Vey |first2=Evonne

Sunandshade (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Sunandshade, you can put that information in |others=. From {{cite book}} :

• others: To record other contributors to the work, including illustrators. For the parameter value, write Illustrated by John Smith.
• Note: When using shortened footnotes or parenthetical referencing styles with templates, do not use multiple names in one field, or else the anchor will not match the inline link.

Umimmak (talk) 02:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

That worked great. Thanks a lot. I now have (partial citation):

cite book |last1=Moore |first1=Lucile |others=Illustrated by Evonne Vey

Sunandshade (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

rave about Judge Judy

I am not sure if I have the right page I want to just let Judge Judy know that I watch her show all the time and thanks to her she has helped get through the past 2 years of my ex husband and I split up I got clues and ways and what to keep for all of our court battles my husband said he wants me dead or in jail for the rest of my life and thanks to watching Judge Judy I knew what to keep and present. I know I would not of been able to get threw this past 2 years without Judge Judy wise and amazing words. we had hopefully our last court case and I won The Judge I had was so impressed with my evidence and how I put it all together and this was because of all the great wisdom and words from you. I actually got a new kitty 5 months ago and I named her Judy after you. I am so proud of what you have done for me and keep up the wonderful work you do. and my name is Reba you are a remarkable women. Smileyreba (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

[Admonition by another user has been removed by an experienced Editor (not myself).] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.215 (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

And in case you're still wondering about it: you have left a text evidently addressed directly to a TV show personality on a Helpdesk in an encyclopedia that just happens to have an article about that show amongst its 6.7 million other articles.

If you want to send a message to the Judge Judy show, Wikipedia's article is at Judge Judy, and at the bottom of it is a link to the show's official website, which is at www.judgejudy.com. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.215 (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Help with a page

Hi, I would like help in writing a Wikipedia page. Recently I received a notice about deletion criteria... WOW, I would like to ask if someone could advise on the sandbox page? I have removed all the links and phots after receiving the wiki speedy deletion notification... Could anyone help or give advise on this page? thank you Yumesaki Himeji (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Link: User:Yumesaki Himeji/sandbox

I will leave it to the more experienced people here to give you exact guidance, but my biggest concern is that you have provided no references for the information in your article. Wikipedia needs reliable sources independent of the subject to support anything written about them. Reconrabbit 03:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

WOW, OK.... Now I am confused. Sorry. We had a meeting and reviewed the page content with links, and publications... But, then Wiki notification stated that the article maybe Promotional??? WOW... We believe the information was correct and factually addressed with links to universities etc. The article has taken a lot of time we admit, but that was because we had to wait for confirmation and additional information. We think (pretty sure) Government publications are a high standard of proof. In addition, A MOVIE has the subject (person) in it, with a photo from the National Government NHK TV productions... All excellent references. But, we still received the wiki notification for speedy Deletions.. So, we just spent maybe 2 hours deleting all the photos and references for the page information.... a lot of time and work has gone in to this project, so we honestly are trying to understand W Yumesaki Himeji (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Who exactly is "we"...are there multiple people involved? Is Chayne Ellis involved? DMacks (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Writers (Japanese) in our Japan group, When a project (Any Project) is started which has a written component, WE, meet and talk about how to portrait the information. WE, also read rule of Wikipedia to help minimize errors such as todays notification for deletion from WIKIPEDIA. WE, honestly believe that the reference comply to the Wikipedia page rules. So, we have deleted all reference (please see deletions) because we have no idea what or which was the problem. So, now following the Wikipedia help links, WE are here... Asking for help and a clear identification of what are the problems with page content... Thank you Yumesaki Himeji (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Dr. Chayne Masaki-Ellis is involved. Copies are to his email address. Yumesaki Himeji (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Note. Dr. Chayne Masaki-Ellis has a long history (over 20 years in Japan) and has had a significant contribution to the Japanese Medical practice which was focused on prevention, intervention and education. This has been the focus for 20 years, however, the UK Government has also started this similar system. There are several websites including dept of defence, New Zealand Police (in uniform) with his photo in Tokyo and publications. Please advise how to process. Thank you Yumesaki Himeji (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

You can contest the Speedy deletion. If you do not, it will soon be gone without a trace. David notMD (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Each account is for one person. More than one person can work on the same draft, but each must have their own account. "We" is forbidden. David notMD (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that you confirm Masaki-Ellis is involved, the creator of this draft must declare at conflict of interest on the User page. See WP:COI, This does not prevent a person with a COI creating and submtting a draft. David notMD (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Sentences such as "Ellis's dedication to fostering interfaith dialogue and promoting global understanding is evident in his invaluable work with the Oomoto International department. His exceptional contributions to the field of religious studies and cross-cultural communication have garnered widespread recognition and deep respect within academic and spiritual communities alike, for which Ellis received an award for his outstanding dedication." are promotional, and are valid grounds for Speedy deletion. I strongly recommend letting the Speedy deletion go forward and start over, with all factual statements verified by valid references (see WP:42). David notMD (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This is unfortunate, WE !! think that any person who has dedicated 20 years of his life on the prevention of cancer should be recognized, and it was a foreigner that help the change. However, if wiki deletes the page, it is excepted. However, we will try again. Thank you Yumesaki Himeji (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Chayne Masaki-Ellis may have had a career that justifies a Wikipedia article. However, the person(s) trying to create the article do not understand Wikipedia guidelines and rules. David notMD (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, yes, it would be true that WE (Japanese) do not fully understand the vast rules, regulations and by-laws on how to use Wikipedia, even in Japanese. However, our culture is to do our best to ensure WE don't offend or cause trouble to anyone. "I" am the writer and "I" will be held responsible for my actions. Not the other 12 people assisting me in creating this page or helping me to understand Wikipedia procedure. However, Mr. David, I along we the other 12 people are not professional Wikipedia editors that has a high editorial skills like you. This project is not common, however, the Japanese society give credit were credit is due. Thank you for all of your kind assistance and advise. Yumesaki Himeji (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to know every rule, and policy to just start editing on Wikipedia.

When I started, I barely knew what notability, or an infobox was. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 08:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yumesaki Himeji, start by reading Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, thoroughly. {The poster formerly known as 8781.230.195} 90.199.208.215 (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

You may also want to read WP:PUFFERY. Understanding that page may help you write more neutral content in the future. CodeTalker (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Usage of new pictures in an article.

Hello,

While looking for pictures to use in my expansion of the article for the ship MV Rapana I came across this website, which seems to contain multiple pictures of the ship which would be useful in the article (as it show the ship before its conversion).

After reading WP:IUP, I decided to try and look for the source of these pictures. I managed to find one picture used in these (Newspaper 1 Newspaper 2) old Dutch newspapers articles. I also found this separate picture of the ship in another page, which I believe could also be useful.

Since neither of the pictures provide an author (and one of them is embedded in a newspaper), I am unsure as to their suitability for use in Wikipedia, and would like the input of more experienced Wikipedians on this issue.

Thanks! SpanCan (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

SpanCan, "old Dutch newspapers" is not so helpful. I clicked on the links and found that they are to material published in 1935. commons:Template:PD-anon-70-EU may be applicable (depending on such matters as whether the photographer is named, and if so then when the photographer died). Please read commons:Template:PD-anon-70-EU/doc to determine whether it is applicable. If you have further questions about this, or other questions about copyright status or applicable templates, please ask them at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright rather than here: you'll be more likely to get knowledgable answers if you ask over there. -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I apologize for not being specific about the age of the newspapers. Even still, thank you very much for your help. SpanCan (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you join this discussion?

Can you join this discussion on a suggested edit to Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources?

Thank you! User579987 (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @User579987, what's your question? Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 16:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

need adivice about corporate notability for wiki page submission

I received the below comment for my wiki page submission for my company page, "Odessa":

Comment: This draft is written from the viewpoint of the company, focusing on what the company says about itself. Corporate notability is based on what independent reliable sources have written about the subject. Not every business corporation is notable, and this draft does not establish corporate notability. You may ask for advice about corporate notability at the Teahouse.

Could you please advise the suggestion to resolve the same?

Mentioning the submitted content below for your reference:

"Odessa, established in 1998, is a software company headquartered in Philadelphia, USA. It is focused on providing software solutions for the asset finance and equipment leasing industry. Odessa opts for a customer-centric approach for its product, namely Odessa Platform, which can be customized to suit their clients on a requirement basis. Odessa Platform caters to end-to-end leasing requirements including but not restricted to lease and loan origination, portfolio management, lease accounting, asset and equipment finance, and so on. Company Overview[edit source] Odessa was founded by Madhu Natarajan and Jay Mehra. As of May 1, 2023 co-founder and Chief Executive Officer, Madhu Natarajan transitioned into the role of Executive Chairman with Eric Bernstein taking his place as the Chief Executive Officer. Simultaneously, co-founder and Chief Technology Officer Jay Mehra transitioned to the role of Vice-Chairman with Odessa's Managing Director in India at the time, Roopa Jayaraman stepping into the role of Chief Technology Officer. Additionally, the company has also promoted Sumit Maheshwari for Senior Vice President of Finance to Chief Financial Officer. Awards and Recognitions[edit source] ELFA - Operations and Technology Excellence Award, 2014 Best Tech Work Culture, Timmy Awards Inc. 5000 Monitordaily, Most Innovative Companies: Reinvention Affiliations[edit source] Odessa is a member of leasing associations such as: Equipment Leasing and Finance Associations (ELFA) Leaseurope Certified Lease & Finance Professional (CLFP) Foundation ^ ^ Jump up to:a b ^ ^ "Odessa and CLFP Foundation Collaborate to Drive Innovation in Certification Program". Odessa. 2020-02-25. Retrieved 2023-08-28."' LeasingExpert (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@LeasingExpert, have a look at WP:NCORP. -- asilvering (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

LeasingExpert, your editing history (limited to a draft on a single company), your username, and your description of the draft as "my company page" combine to give the impression that you are an employee of or intern at the company. Please read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure before editing any further, and read it carefully. -- Hoary (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Confirming names of officers of the company and minor awards do nothing to confirming notability. David notMD (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Need advice

I am waiting for the reply from a user for weeks, where the user left a messege "replying soon" and haven't made a reply yet. What should I do here. I am not sure if this is the appropriate place for asking about this. Imperial^[AFCND] 10:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Please name the article, article talk page or editor talk page involved. David notMD (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This happened at Talk: Lalitaditya Muktapida. Imperial^[AFCND] 18:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

While making no comment about the lengthy discussion on that Talk page, I see that you have just now reminded the editors who were participating in the discussion that you felt a reply was still necessary. They both continue to be active editors, so you should hope that they rejoin the fray. David notMD (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Can I edit in English Wikipedia?

Hello, my name is Hanoifun. I was a member in Vietnamese Wikipedia before I got banned from a Vietnamese Wikipedia administrator who accused me of sockpuppetry few days ago (even though I am not a sockpuppetry, I was like a noob when I edited Wikipedia page about 2 and 3 years ago) (reason I got banned written in Vietnamese). I think maybe he had some confusions and thought I was a professional sockpuppetry and tried to hide identity before socking. I want to edit in English Wikipedia, in Vietnam topic, add some information and make people know more about Vietnam country and Vietnamese culture. And I also want to prove to Vietnamese Wikipedia that I am not sockpuppetry and at that time, I was a beginner, not good in edit Wikipedia and maybe too childish (like I did spam in some page to buff my contribution, used Google to translate some pages at that time). Can I edit in English wikipedia? Thank you! Hanoifun (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hanoifun: Bans and blocks (in most cases) only apply to individual projects, and we have no policies which prevent you editing here just because you're blocked elsewhere. Your edits may receive increased scrutiny, and your edits on other wikis can be examined for recent misbehaviour - if for example there are indications that any problematic behaviour is likely to occur here. At this time I see nothing to say you should be blocked and can't edit here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz Well, I'm so happy that I can edit there! Thanks! Hanoifun (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hanoifun Just be aware that the rules on English Wikipedia are not necessarily the same as on other projects, and that we hear our rules and policies are generally much more strict and stringent too. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Any help?

Any help? use this section! Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 16:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Shalomie, I am unsure what you are asking. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? Please clarify. TypoEater (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Shalomie. What's your question? ColinFine (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources list template

The Après moi, le déluge sources list is a template. Is there a way edits (titles, publication details, page numbers, URLs, etc.) for all the items can be made using VisualEditor rather than Source Editor?

I'd be happy to know if there's a more appropriate page for this question. Mcljlm (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mcljlm, you can edit links with using Visual Editor by change its name or author. However, you cannot change links as the viewer missing its link by yours because you changed the link. In Source editor, find the links that start with "www.", "https." etc. Do not change the link in both editors without finding yourself on Google. Consult WP:LINK for more. Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 16:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If you want to add a wikilink, go to the upper center, see these link sign, thats where you add som wikilink. Highlight the words ^{(or anything)}, click the "Link" button and you can select from Wikipedia or external (by inputting the URL). I hope this helps! Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 17:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Shonyx, I think you've entirely misread the initial question - and this response makes very little sense. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@57.140.16.1, thanks in advance. Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 17:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Mcljlm you should be able to edit the underlying templates in Visual Editor. Click on the Sources section and 'edit' in the top right. For each citation template under the Sources header, you can edit the details of the citation, which should show up once saved. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 17:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mcjlm: Although your English is not very excellent, I believe you are asking how to edit citations. Please refer to Wikipedia:Citation templates and also see Wikipedia:Template Documentation for details on each type of citation template. Because the source editor is more convenient, faster, and doesn't lag when editing citations, it's preferable over the visual editor.

@Shonyx:, you're not really providing a helpful response to the query, as the IP suggested above. The user wants to know how to edit the citations in the sources section. 20 upper (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I asked about using VisualEditor since earlier today I tried for over an hour to change a title and add an Internet Archive link using Source editor but access-date=, |via= and |url= as well as the URL kept appearing in the preview. A few hours ago I was able to change the URL but was able to substitute one for the other in the box using VisualEditor.

BTW "not very excellent" doesn't sound idiomatic to me. English is my mother tongue. Mcljlm (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

What sites to use for album review?

I am make a draft for Dirty Shine and one of the biggest things about it was its critical acclaim. However, all of the reviews are from sites not on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Do I just not include reviews or can I do something else? Thanks! Rockboy1009 (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Rockboy, and welcome to the Teahouse. WP:A/S says This list is not exhaustive. Additional websites and print sources may also be used, provided they meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:MOSALBUM#Critical reception. However, if you can't find any reviews that are in a source mentioned there, that is certainly a reason to be cautious.

Reviews are the most common kind of source for an album, but sometimes there can be other sources. But, particularly for such a recent release, reviews are probably all there are. If you cannot find adequate sources, then do not spend any more time on the draft, because it will not be accepted. It may simply be WP:TOOSOON. ColinFine (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

can I use information from Wikipedia for my own published texts

Can I use information from Wikipedia for my own texts I intend to publish? Ronnybaraf (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ronnybaraf: Welcome to the Teahouse! See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. GoingBatty (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Wikipedia may also be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Unique section names

I'm currently trying to reorganise a list article (specifically List of architectural styles) into being sorted by geographic area first and then era underneath it. However, I'm at a bit of a loss as to what I should name the location-independent third-level era section headings (i.e. "Modern day" or "Prehistoric", as opposed to "Medieval period" or "Three Kingdoms era").

MOS:HEADINGS states that for technical reasons, you should always make sure that section names are unique in the entire article to ensure that links to that section from other articles go to the right place. However, it also says that headings should not refer to higher-level headings, which leads into a catch-22: How can I unambiguously refer to the same eras in different geographic areas without referring to the area in question in the section title? Doing so would also be clunky from a readability standpoint. Is there a way around this on the technical level to ensure that the link still goes to the right place?

IrisPersephone (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It’s more important that each heading be unique. If the best way to do that involves using slightly longer heading phrases or having them be somewhat redundant by including some higher-level text, that is okay. Better to avoid actual breakage that interferes in reader usability at the expense of style and linguistics. DMacks (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

That's helpful, thank you. IrisPersephone (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@IrisPersephone, fwiw, I don't think "Three Kingdoms" is really "referring to higher level headings" in the spirit of that guideline. -- asilvering (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I gave that one as an example of a "location-dependent" header that wasn't problematic (because it could only refer to one area when taken out-of-context, as opposed to "Modern era" which could refer to anywhere). The issue I was having was that I couldn't refer to all eras using descriptive titles like that, leaving me unsure what to call the rest without breaking that guideline. However, since it's more important to have unique headers, it's likely best to say something like "Modern Chinese architecture" and accept the fact that wording refers directly to the location heading above. IrisPersephone (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes sorry, I misread you. Agree that "Modern Chinese architecture" is probably the best fix. You could also use specific years in the instances where that's applicable, but that might look pretty wonky if most of the headings are era names. -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

hello happy monday + a question

hello everyone! hope you're doing good! where is the good articles link? I have asked this same question on "Any good articles out there?". Thanks! =D Jude Marrero \=D (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jude marrero: Welcome to the Teahouse, and happy Monday! See Wikipedia:Good articles. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a ton! =D Jude Marrero \=D (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The handy shortcut is WP:GA. Cullen328 (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Page history

Generally when I clicked on a revision history on a page (e.g. [12]), I would get to see the changes made and what the whole page looked like after the changes (so [13] + [14]) - now I only get to see what changes were made to the page, and not what the page looked like after the changes, when clicking on a revision history. Any idea of how to fix this? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It is a bug. There is some discussion happening at VPT. I am working on a bug report over on Phabricator as well. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 22:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Addressing repeated rejections of my Wiki submission

Hey there! I submitted a new article for an AI security company that has over 20 citations--largely news publications and scholarly research which are all independent. I am still having trouble getting this approved and would greatly appreciate some expert help on this! Draft:Robust Intelligence Emanton (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Emanton. Your draft over-relies on the company's own website and other non-independent sources. An acceptable Wikipedia article about a company needs to be based on summarizing what reliable sources completely independent of the company say about it. Also, your draft is not currently submitted for review. I recommend a re-write first. Cullen328 (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, your draft has been declined not rejected, and those are very different outcomes. Cullen328 (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey Cullen, thanks for the helpful feedback. Only a few of the citations link back to the company website, the rest are all publications or research. Do you recommend entirely eliminating citations back to the company website? Thank you! Emanton (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

New logo of Deadpool 3 and title confirmed

There is a new logo of Deadpool 3 (an upcoming Matvel Studios movie), upload it please [15]https://www.instagram.com/p/C2-bvyqvFkt/?igsh=MWJsZHZoNnhua3Bwdg== And also, the title is confirmed by the director himself [16]https://people.com/ryan-reynolds-and-hugh-jackman-will-save-the-whole-marvel-universe-with-deadpool-3-says-x-men-director-8553683 152.230.125.226 (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)