:: In this context, "published" means no more than "visible to the public (if they know where to look)". [[Special:Contributions/27.134.45.168|27.134.45.168]] ([[User talk:27.134.45.168|talk]]) 04:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:: In this context, "published" means no more than "visible to the public (if they know where to look)". [[Special:Contributions/27.134.45.168|27.134.45.168]] ([[User talk:27.134.45.168|talk]]) 04:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|Michalsuz2}}, your draft [[User:Michalsuz2/sandbox]] is entirely unreferenced and cannot possibly be accepted without a major rewrite. It looks like you are writing the article backward. By far the best way to write an acceptable Wikipedia is to ''first'' identify the reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic, and ''only then'' start writing prose that summarizes what those sources say about the topic. Please read [[Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward]]. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 04:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|Michalsuz2}}, your draft [[User:Michalsuz2/sandbox]] is entirely unreferenced and cannot possibly be accepted without a major rewrite. It looks like you are writing the article backward. By far the best way to write an acceptable Wikipedia is to ''first'' identify the reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic, and ''only then'' start writing prose that summarizes what those sources say about the topic. Please read [[Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward]]. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 04:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes I just have to go back to the places where I found the info - which are reliable and independent - and list them.
::::That is how I did it, forgetting that the references are IMPORTANT!
::::All good, shall get on to it. [[User:Michalsuz2|Michalsuz2]] ([[User talk:Michalsuz2|talk]]) 05:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
@Agnieszka653 I'm afraid that Teahouse hosts tend to be generalists who provide advice about editing, and are not specialists in arcane literature. On the other hand, that list has 85 page watchers, who are, presumably, interested in it. You should use the Talk Page to ask your question and perhaps mention you have started a discussion on the Talk Page of the Horror Project which relates to it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a fan of the Mythos, I think your 'standardisation' plan for this article is an excellent one, and I don't think overall length is a problem, since the Contents box enables easy navigation. I encourage you to continue. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.235 (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Approached by a company offering free consultancy for Wikipedia articles
Hello all, I recently received an email from a company sharing that they can provide free consultancy services for drafting and editing Wikipedia articles. I also noticed that their company name is listed on this Wikipedia workpage here under the "List of paid editing companies." I am uncertain if this is an acceptable practice. May I seek some advice? Thank you! Ccyfferent (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ccyfferent, undisclosed paid editing is prohibited. Disclosed paid editing is allowed, however very few of us actually think it's a good thing, it is mostly just tolerated, begrudgingly. Any paid advocate would still be editing for their client as an individual editor, and would have to abide by all the rules same as everyone else, plus a few more:
They need to disclose their client and employer.
They may only submit drafts and make edit requests on the talk page of articles. Direct editing of articles would be limited to fixing typos and vandalisms.
Incompetence and time-wasting is tolerated less. They may not, for example, keep rehashing the same issues, keep posting walls of text and demand that volunteers review their proposals on their schedule.
If you do hire a paid editor and their conduct is poor, it will forever tarnish the reputation among Wikipedia editors of whichever topic they happen to be working for. If the topic is of wider interest, the misconduct is often even picked up by the media. The subject will invite closer scrutiny in the future. For example, a new article on a borderline notable topic is much more likely to be tolerated or not urgently sought deletion of, if created by an independent volunteer with some track record, than if it has prior history of having been pushed by paid editors or single purpose accounts with apparent conflicts of interest. Generally, I would advise that you refrain from hiring a paid service to write for you unless you are okay with losing your money and getting no results, with some likelihood of it getting back to you and tarnishing your reputation in real life. That is the most common outcome. Regards! — Usedtobecool☎️04:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Free" can be bait-and-switch, meaning they offer a "free" service, but for a fee can assign you to one of their more experienced editors. And so on, and so on. David notMD (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am attempting to create a draft article for "andamiro" (https://www.andamiro.com/global/), as it is a red link on many dance-game related articles.
However, the article seems barren without a proper company logo beside it. I am unsure how to add this, due to the process of actually adding the image talking about sorts of "CCL"'s that i personally have no idea about. HyperNover (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andamiro logo@HyperNover: Welcome to the Teahouse! I've uploaded the logo to Wikimedia Commons, the media repository used by Wikipedia. Since this logo is simple enough, it falls doesn't meet the threshold of originality and is considered to be in the public domain, free to use. It's now located at File:Andamiro logo.png, so you can add that to your draft article using [[File:Andamiro logo.png|thumb|Andamiro logo]] to achieve the result shown here. Hope this helps—let me know if you have any further questions! Bsoyka (t • c • g) 00:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HyperNover: Sure! The main issue here, from a quick look, is that you haven't added any sources to the article that would establish Andamiro's notability. Per our general notability guideline, A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Andamiro has to pass this test before an article about it can exist. Out of the four references in your draft so far, two are links to the company's website (not independent), and two are to user-generated content (a forum and Wikipedia itself, not reliable). You'll need to do more research to find better sources before your draft will pass a review. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 00:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me some examples of what to look for?
Not really sure what independent sources i'm supposed to reference, i thought that meant like personal discussions separated from company
i got the alert that i wasn't supposed to reference wikipedia itself.
Is this like, news articles?
The whole company seems pretty notable to me, i'm not sure how to prove that either.
@Hoary@Bsoyka How's this for references? I tried to stick towards articles and news postings, rather than forum pages and alternate miscelanious websites. Other than what i've found, and basic knowledge that would be confusing to challenge, it's been difficult to find other references. HyperNover (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My submission was declined for not enough references
while this is unfortunate, i'm seriously at a lack for finding what i'm actually supposed to add
the pages regarding referencing and high quality sources are far too advanced for my english skills, and i'm not exactly sure what else i'm supposed to reference HyperNover (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HyperNover, remove any reference to Wikipedia. Remove any reference to the company itself for any achievement (such as that the company "was qualified as a military supplied security measurement company"). Remove any remaining reference that isn't what en:Wikipedia regards as a reliable source. Make sure that all the content does have a reference to what en:Wikipedia regards as a reliable source, and that the draft has references to sources that discuss the company in depth. When you've done that, submit the draft. -- Hoary (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My (personal) quick guide to successfully creating an article:
Find at least three reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. Critically evaluate each one against all three of the criteria in WP:42.
If you have found at least three (and not otherwise), forget everything that you know about the subject, and write a draft summarising what those sources say and nothing else. There's room for some editorial discretion here as to what is appropriate, but make sure you don't leave out something just because you disagree with it.
In regards to the selection of edits, should I try to stick towards topics i know about? or should I just help where I can with as many articles as i can HyperNover (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can do either, as you prefer. ("Knowing about topics" isn't as helpful as "knowing how to find reliable sources about topics".) Maproom (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HyperNover, Monoid ring is an example of an article that's on a topic that I don't understand and that I therefore avoid. In the state it was in when I first encountered it, Kościuszko at Racławice was an example of a draft (now article) on a topic of which I have close to zero knowledge but of which I think I have a degree of understanding that can help. Piotrus has a far better understanding of it than I do, but I think (and hope) that I too contributed to improving it. I suggest getting stuck in to one article at a time, each in a topic area that you understand; and always, as Maproom suggests, depending on reliable sources for any additions. -- Hoary (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Junurita a suggestion I give to new editors is to start out with simpler tasks, such as the ones listed at Wikipedia:Task Center. Writing a good quality article is no easy task. If you still want to do it, I would pick a topic in which you are familiar and for which you have access to sources. Broc (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are creating new wiki entries for several Canadian artist with the aim of bringing visibility and recognition to artists who, for some strange reason, do not have a wiki.
Draft:Victor Arroyo Declined four times so far, all for not adequate references. IMDb is not considered a valid ref. Refs that he has lectured at several institutes of higher learning do not contribute to establishing notability. Also, each Wikipedia account must be for one person only, so no "we" allowed for actual editing. David notMD (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the feedback!
Arroyo is notorious, as stated in several secondary sources. Being exhibited at the CCA (twice) and other museums, art galleries, and film festivals is not a small feat.
- In this particular case (visual artist and filmmaker) IMDB is a necessary source. Would you recommend then, removing altogether IMDB as a source?
- Would MUBI be considered a reliable secondary source?
https://mubi.com/en/cast/victor-arroyo
- To your knowledge, is there a dispute process for declined wiki entries?
- Is there a process for requesting a different reviewer, probably, specialized in fine arts?
Hi @Aguilaosol: your sources are almost entirely primary, and therefore cannot establish notability according to our general notability guideline WP:GNG. Unless you can find multiple sources which meet that standard, your only other option is to show that this person satisfies our special notability guideline for artists, WP:ARTIST. In so doing, you must produce evidence that clearly proves they objectively meet at least one of the four criteria in that guideline.
And no, there is no process for requesting a different reviewer, as such; in any case, two separate reviewers have already declined this draft for the same reason. Also, a reviewer does not need to be a subject-matter expert in order to assess whether a draft meets our guidelines and policies; as reviewers, we don't judge whether the subject "deserves" to have an article, but whether the draft satisfies our core requirements for publication. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aguilaosol, what we're looking for are secondary, independent sources on the artist or their work. This is a good one - you want more like that.
When you submit your drafts, make sure to tag them for WP:CANADA on the talk page. This will increase the likelihood that you get a reviewer who knows what you're talking about, and also will probably increase the likelihood you'll get someone who won't skip the draft because it has French-language sources. (Reviewers can review from the pile in any order, and most tend to stick to areas of interest/competence.) -- asilvering (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Aguilaosol . Please note that "with the aim of bringing visibility and recognition to artists" is called promotion, and is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article titled "2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel" has a section in it that I believe to be vandalism. It reads:
"This article is about 2023 attacks on Israel from Gaza. For American attack on Afghanistan in 2001, see United States invasion of Afghanistan. For the war initiated by the attack, see Israel–Hamas war."
The bolded sentence is obviously not something that could be confused with the article's subject. Where can I report this to someone with WP:XC edit permissions? JohnR1Roberts (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this handy plugin states that that's a "Generally unreliable source", which means it's on WP:RSP. The listing there states There is consensus that Daily Kos should generally be avoided as a source, especially for controversial political topics where better sources are available. As an activism blog that publishes user-generated content with a progressive point of view, many editors consider Daily Kos to inappropriately blur news reporting and opinion.CommissarDoggoTalk?17:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. So here is where you have to use your judgement. Other people's judgement may differ from yours, then you can talk about it. However, context matters. What from Vox do you want to use as a cite for what content on WP? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now daily used at golf courses and resorts worldwide, this is the documented history and introduction of the first Golf Car Beverage Unit. Bobbrewer1000 (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to write about the "Golf Car Beverage Unit", you would benefit from using references other people have wrote to support your writing. Wikipedia:Your first article is a place to start. Otherwise, your user pages will continue to be deleted. Reconrabbit18:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frozen902 as fellow editors mentioned in the previous thread, you don't fulfill the minimum requirement for participation in an RfA, which is to have an extended confirmed account, that means 500 edits and 30 days of activity. If you want to be an admin as you state in your profile, I suggest you start working on Wikipedia as an editor, find areas in which you enjoy contributing, and learn the various policies and mechanisms. Broc (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Henri Mercier and Edouard Mercier are easily confused, because Henri's first name is Edouard; he is known by his middle name, Henri. I could not meet the challenge of inserting "not to be confused with" at the top of each article. Is another editor up to it? Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
P.S. Edouard Joseph Mercier has an accent over the "E" in the Wikipedia article, but not in the title of the article. Edouard Henri Mercier does not have an accent over the "E" in his article, and the title of the article does not use "Edouard." I don't know in which cases an accent is appropriate.Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had my first submission declined due to not being supported by reliable sources. See article attached Draft:Alina Stanila I have edited the article since it's been rejected. I would very much like to get someone to proofread/guide/help with this article. Thank you very much Artyschool (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee thank you very much for your reply - would you be able to let me know if recognition from MP , newspaper and award certificate are considered as being reliable sources, also in which format should I upload this? should this sources be aded as jpg attach, pdf, or link? Thank you very much for your help. Artyschool (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on the newspaper and the length of the story, maybe. You can read more about what are and aren't reliable sources at WP:RELIABLE. Recognition from a member of parliament, generally not. Awards such as an Oscar or a Pulitzer or a Nobel, certainly; if the award doesn't have a Wikipedia article, highly unlikely to help support a claim to notability. Sources should be added as citations, which you can read about at WP:CITE. Valereee (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Valereee , again thank you very much for your replay. I had a read through the links shared and looked up the award and the newspaper on Wikipedia and found that both the award, the person who awards the award, the newspaper and the MP who represents the Minister for Culture, Communication and the Creative Industry have Wikipedia pages. See ref. ;
World of Wearable Art - World of Wearable Art - here it is noted that World of Wearable Art is a competition; " The competition features wearable art entries, which are judged on durability, the safety and comfort of the models, and the impact of the design on the stage". The living person who awards the award too has a Wikipedia Page Suzie Moncrieff .
Oxford Mail - Oxford Mail - this newspaper was first founded in 1928; the article was featured both digitally and in print on the 6 June 2014. The day on which the article was released coincided with the commemoration of 70 years since the D-Day.
On the advice given by @David notMD I have stared the article from scratch. I have cut out any phrases that may sound laudatory or promotional and give a neutral point of view on the article. Would you be able to help with readproof and advice on the notable resources provided?
The draft was Declined (not Rejected, which is more severe), but subsequently Speedy deleted by an Administrator, so it and its history of edits can no longer be viewed by a non-Admin. You have the option of starting over, but content needs to be neutral point of view facts, not laudatory. And refs need to meet the standards mentionned above. David notMD (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not yet see a new draft. It matters not that the person who awards the reward, the newspaper that announced the award, nor the MP have Wikipedia pages, only the award itself. David notMD (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artyschool, I'm still not finding your draft. From your previous draft, it looks like she was runner-up for the "first-time entrant" category of this not-very-notable award? It's highly unlikely that would make her notable. What we really need are three instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All of those are clickable links. Valereee (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary I am not sure I understand your question? The photograph represents the designers in question work - garment / the photo which you have find on njal represent a garment which was made by the designer , if the photo has been taken either by the person in question or by photographer with agreed w full comerciale reales of the photo back to the designer and or free used for adv. etc. I am not sure what are you trying to dig? I am really sorry but I do find everything on here being passively sceptical about absolutely everything. Rest assured that I am not in the game for fame without work! Hope I have answers your question. Best Artyschool (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Artyschool, the question is very simple: Was it you who took the photograph? (I'm not sure what you mean by "passively sceptical", but yes, I'm sceptical about many matters, and one of them is the copyright status of this photograph.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artyschool, Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons have very strict policy about not violating copyright. The person who took the photo (or the person who commissioned them to take it) owns that photo, and it is their property. No one can use it without their permission, and in order to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, they have to give up almost all rights to it -- that means anyone in the world is free to use it however they want -- which means the photo would be less valuable to its owner. So when we see professional-quality photos, we try to make sure the person who uploaded it (and gave up those rights) actually does own the photo. Valereee (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am new to Wikipedia. The page Africa Social Impact Summit is yet to reviewed; it was created about 9 weeks ago. Please can it be reviewed, it is taking so long? thanks. Nnamdi93 (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nnamdi93 You either created the article in mainspace or you moved it from draft straight to mainspace, either way it doesn't seem to have gone through the articles for creation process.
If you create a page in mainspace then one of two things will happen before it can be shown on search engines; either a new page patroller comes along and decides whether it's ok or not, or 90 days passes, after which it's automatically shown on search engines.
Although both new page patrol and articles for creation are both formal reviews, if you want to have the page be reviewed through articles for creation (which is the normal process for newer editors), I will happily move it to a draft so it can go through the articles for creation process, however do note that that process can take up to 3 months due to how backlogged they are. CommissarDoggoTalk?12:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nnamdi93 Welcome to Teahouse! Africa Social Impact Summit is already published. It is still awaiting a review, which is more an additional quality assurance. I notice a heavy reliance on WP:PRIMARY sources, and fewer secondary sources. Some citations link to empty websites, for example msn.com. You are encouraged to continue making quality improvements to the article in the meantime. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nnamdi93. The draft reads very much as what ASIS wants people to know about itself, with a fair bit of meaningless PR-speak. 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) 14:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Ive gotten feed back that every asserted fact needs a source. Some info like his date of birth and things he did during his early career are going to be difficult to substantiate. Also his television work is all on imdb which is not a reference. I feel the article is merited because he was a key player in the development of one of the most important incubators for comics during the mid 2000s, and at one point had a wikipedia page that was lost due to expired links. Can I get someone to review more specifically and help me pinpoint the troubling errors with what needs a reference. Also just a general opinion on whether or not being cited as an important part of that Comedy movement in two sources is enough to be considered worthy of notoriety. MickeyGray85 (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MickeyGray85: can I ask, if you cannot find a source to substantiate this person's DOB, how do you know it yourself? What we're asking for is that you tell us where you got the information from, by citing your sources. If those sources are reliable, great. If not, then a better source needs to be found, and if that's not possible, then the information in question needs to be removed.
Also noting that this draft currently cites two sources, both against the same statement, with the vast majority of the information unreferenced. So my example of the DOB is really only that; an example. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if you think without that first summary paragraph. Ie with just the television work available on imdb and then the summary of the events at the Lyons den do I need to reference the television work again? MickeyGray85 (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
he has a website that has his personal biography on it. i dont mind truncating that first paragraph almost entirely its basically summerizing the biography on his website, but we cant reference that. Basically the fact that he was referenced almost 12 years after the fact as being a key player at the lyons den is the entire i guess "arguement" im making that he is a notable person, considering he at one point had a wikipedia page. so I'm happy to remove all the personal stuff and keep it related to that. MickeyGray85 (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
unbelievably complex and multi-layered rcat question
@Cogsan. I'm not sure what you mean by "get the r", but as far as I am aware, all redirects are manually created and no templates are involved. Does that answner your question? Shantavira|feed me16:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the Mathew Grimson page it describes "Question Everything Records" as being Curphey Forrestall's record label. I release material on this label as well but it is Greg Kendrick's label. I am Curphey Forrestall I should know. Greg Kendrick was in ther band Skinned Roadie with Mathew. Matthew_Grimson - Curphey Curphey (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like the sentence in question has a reference to anything so it can probably be deleted. If you have an article or some other source that details the 2024 release and/or the ownership of the record label, that would be great - I can't find anything, which is exacerbated by a very similar record label owned by members of Brockhampton. Reconrabbit19:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Curphey Curphey, your edit was the right thing to do. Wikipedia has loads of policies, and the relevant one here is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (BLP). It says, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Take care, Rjjiii (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Error: unknown archive URL"
Hello, I just added a lot of sections to the article "Line drawing algorithm", which I translated from the german version. A couple of the references (which I also took directly from the german article while only fixing the formatting of the dates) have "Error: unknown archive URL" displayed behind them. I couldn't quite figure out how to fix this, is this an issue and if yes does anybody know how to fix it? Yoneda-Emma (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, is there a way I may edit the subtitles of an audio file (.ogg)? I was reading one and saw an error I desire to correct. Thank you! ButterCashier (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the message that was left on your talk page about why User:Grabup reverted your edit (I did not linked his username as it will ping the user and they will get a notification). If you have questions about it, respond back to this user on your talk page by pressing the "Reply" button. Soafy234 (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for drawing my attention to the article John da Silva, which, in view of the number of more or less dodgy edits recently made to it, I have just now semi-protected. (Incidentally, I sleepily cited the wrong reason for doing so. This is not a living person; it's a matter of poorly sourced additions.) You are welcome to use Talk:John da Silva to ask for specific improvements to be made to the article. -- Hoary (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also thought it was a BLP. The IP was adding unsourced strong allegations against the person, which is why I instantly removed it. Even if it is not a BLP, adding unsourced allegations like this is not acceptable. GrabUp - Talk03:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edit was not unsourced; it included the text "as evidenced in the Royal Commission into the Abuse in Care report". Note that the article already included The [[Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care]] reported in 2024 that "young people's lives were ruined from the abuse they suffered" at Whakapakari.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.abuseincare.org.nz/reports/whanaketia/case-studies/case-study-whakapakari/executive-summary/|title=Boot Camp: Te Whakapakari Youth Programme A case study of State-funded violence and abuse of children and young people needing care and protection—Executive summary|publisher=Abuse in Care - Royal Commission of Inquiry|access-date=25 July 2024}}</ref> Survivors reported physical and sexual abuse from supervisors and da Silva.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.abuseincare.org.nz/reports/whanaketia/case-studies/case-study-whakapakari/chapter-3/|title=Chapter 3: Nature and extent of abuse and neglect at Whakapakari|publisher=Abuse in Care - Royal Commission of Inquiry|access-date=25 July 2024}}</ref>Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits13:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pigsonthewing, it was indeed sourced, but here's one addition that I think is written far too sloppily: He routinely abused children and young people as cited in the Royal Commission into [https://www.abuseincare.org.nz Abuse in Care Inquiry.] The report also reveals he appeared on a rape charge. This subject requires careful thought and careful writing. (Yes, more care than I displayed when selecting a reason for s-protection. Mea culpa....) Would-be editors are welcome to suggest changes on the talk page; none has yet done so. -- Hoary (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Population density values in Wikipedia articles are very often wrong
I've observed this in many articles over the years. I can understand that population varies over time, but to be honest, sometimes I don't understand where they get the values, because they are often way off. I think the solution to this is to modify the Geography template we currently use to one that just divides the population into the area.
I'll give you one example of what I'm talking about. Let's look at this article: Morocco. In the template it says that the population density is 50. But if you divide the 2022 population into the area, you get 85. It's way off. Where did they get the 50 value? 12qwas (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't vandalism. It's about how to treat the disputed territory Western Sahara. The infobox showed two areas at the time but only one population and density. Somebody changed the density to match the other area. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Account creation question
There seems to be some code/bot that is creating accounts at assorted wikis (multiple languages) by copying from
meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:... I came across this as someone thought I had just joined the swwiki and sent me a welcome message. It is continuing, and via my global account info I was added to sw.wikipedia.org on July 23 and ka.wikipedia.org on July 25. Does anyone know what is going on here?
N.B., this may not be the best place for this question, I am just starting here -- suggestions for better locations would be useful.
@Ldm1954 AFAIK, local accounts for each project are created automatically when you first log on to that wiki. Some wikis, such as swwiki, have set up auto-welcoming systems. There isn't really a way to delete your local accounts or opt-out of the welcomes. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs)09:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CanonNi, I was not clear enough. I did not sign into or log into either swwiki or kawiki. These (and many others) user accounts were created without asking me. By searching the global creation logs and selected pages it is clear that the information was copied from metawiki.
As an illustration, did you create an account at zh.wikisource.org on July 17 as well as the many others, see your global accounts. Perhaps you did;
N.B., I only found out because a newish user was doing swwiki welcomes to what he thought were newly registered users, but are buggy bot creations. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ldm1954: If you are logged in at any Wikipedia language or other Wikimedia wiki when you view a page at another wiki then your account is automatically created there if it doesn't already exist (unless something prevents the login from being detected). If a wiki imports a page with page history from another wiki where you edited the page then your account can also be created even if you have never visited the wiki. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did, but IMHO that should not have automatically created an account for me, I think that is a bug. Anyone, now I know what is going on so I will move on to my never shrinking "To Do" list. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ldm1954: I think it's a nice feature that you automatically remain logged in when you visit another Wikimedia wiki. It for example means that your IP address isn't revealed if you make an edit, your Special:GlobalPreferences are applied, and you can get notifications from other wikis. But welcome messages to your local talk page can be annoying. I have a proposal at meta:Welcoming policy to disallow it for users with no edits. If a system could be made where you could remain logged in without creating the local account unless you edit or log in with your password then that might have merit too. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to create a wikipedia page for someone else, whom I admire. Can I do that?
Gaurav Kishore Rungta, "admire" is a very vague word with a very broad meaning. If you simply read about a notable person, found them impressive with no further connection, and want to write a Wikipedia biography about them, then no problem. On the other hand, if you have a close personal connection with the person, such as being a relative, a close friend, a colleague or joint members of the same organization, then you have a conflict of interest which you need to declare openly You should then use the Articles for Creation process where volunteer editors without a conflict of interest will evaluate your draft article. Cullen328 (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gaurav Kishore Rungta, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.
It's great that you want to contribute, but I would advise you to go slow. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.
Hi, relatively new Wikipedia editor here. I've created a page yesterday for Sierpiński's theorem on metric spaces. In the citations, I'd like to give pointers like "Theorem 1.9.6" or "Exercise 7.12" in addition to page numbers (this is often easier to use when reading the book as PDF, since PDF readers can jump to the n-th page of the PDF file, but often cannot jump to the n-th page in the book's own numbering, in the absence of metadata). What's the preferred way to do this? I didn't find a suitable parameter for it in templates like Template:Cite book. Thanks! Jean Abou Samra (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jean Abou Samra Another possibility is to provide a Google Books link as the |url= parameter in the cite and then arrange things so this points to the section (or keywords etc.) of the book you want to highlight. Whether this works depends on Google allowing "search inside" but is often successful. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Vandalism
Hey! I recently went onto the task-center page, and I found out I can do anti-vandalism. Is there any way I could join the CVU? WhoIsBean (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WhoIsBean Almost all long-term editors here will notice vandalism and revert it. Those who join the WP:CVU are volunteers like the rest of us but want to highlight that more of their time will be spent on that task than alternative ways to use their time here. Note that we have a special definition of what we mean by WP:Vandalism, so reading that page should be your first step. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have submitted a few comments on the Up TV talk page. I have not made direct edits to the article due to COI (noted on talk page). It has been a few days. Is it likely someone will reply, or will my comments go stale? Austinchrps (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the appropriate template to your first request. An editor will eventually review it. Your second request is blatant advertising and I declined it. CFA💬14:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Austinchrps. Thank you for being open about your status as a paid editor.
Generally, it is best to use the edit request mechanism in cases like this, because the template will put the request in a list of requests waiting. That doesn't guarantee that it will happen quickly, but if you don't do so, then it's possible that your request might not get noticed.
Notice also that page also advises you how to construct your request. Your second request is neither specific, nor supported by an adequate source.
While I see that your first request is uncontroversial factual data and has already been actioned, your second appears to be pure promotion. Unless you can show (by citing it) that somebody wholly unconnected with Up TV has been sufficiently interested in its 20th anniversary by writing at some length about it (not merely noting it in passing), why on earth should an encyclopaedia be remotely interested? ColinFine (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Colin - I have submitted another request on the talk page (unrelated to those you reviewed previously). This time, I believe I have used the proper edit template. Can you confirm this was submitted correctly? Thank you! Austinchrps (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i am not having strong relivent source online but i have hard copy and books which is not more popular as it is in reginol language nagpuri so my draft is declined every time what should i do Nagpuri writers (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." do you not understand? Your draft has paragraphs without references. Also, you copied content from ref #1, which is a copyright infringement. David notMD (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Virtualiter, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Some of your sources may be acceptable, but it is hard to tell, because you have not formatted them with the important information (title, author, publisher, date) easily visible. Please read WP:REFB.
Since the purpose of a citation is to provide verification for a piece of encyclopaedic information in an article, there is not usually any point in citing library catalogues. ColinFine (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has 4+3 excellent citations. I have now formatted them - as best as I can - although Citation-Bot can probably do a much better job of this, as I have seen.
I have shortened the first paragraph further. (ref #1)
Can the quote about his early repertoire from an unpublished interview with M. Alpert from 1990 remain? I have no idea how to paraphrase this. --Virtualiter (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now pasted together paragraphs that apparently have no sources - although I would find it more pleasant if events in Tashkent, Lodz and LA were easier to distinguish. Is that better? --Virtualiter (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On July 6, 2024 the Wall Street Journal published an article online titled: "It was the last slave ship to reach the U.S. Or was it a Hoax?" Sub deck: ""The Clotilda wreck brought global attention to Mobile. But now there are questions"
The story appeared July 13 in print as: "Ship Divides Historians." Sub deck: "The Clotilda wreck put Mobile, Ala, in headlines. But now there are questions."
The current Clotilda site presents a history of that ship that several prominent historians have disagreed with. I want to make a few edits to flag the presence of this disagreement. I'm a former editor and foreign correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, and a former writer for Fortune Magazine. In 2007 St. Martins Press published my book: "The Wanderer: The Last American slave ship." It was updated in 2021. Ericorlando (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Talk page of Clotilda has a discussion about whether the Clotilda history is true or not, settled at that time as true. It appears that the WSJ story is (very) recent. Consider starting a discussion on the Talk page before editing the article itself. And maybe waiting to see what responses there are to the WSJ article. David notMD (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The author of the book "The Wanderer: The Last American Slave Ship..." is Erik Calonius, as is the author of the WSJ article. You state that you are the author of the book. If you are also the author of the WSJ article disputing the Clotilda history, then you definitely have what Wikipedia describes as a conflict of interest (WP:COI). I now strongly recommend that you not edit the article directly, but instead propose, with independent references, changes to content to dispute the facts in the Clotilda article. Do not use as references your book or your WSJ article. David notMD (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, David. The author of the WSJ story is Cameron McWhirter, a nation writer for the paper. He interviewed me for the piece. The Wanderer book is not connected to the Clotilda inquiry. I'm not making any money from Clotilda and have no products to sell. Ericorlando (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ericorlando. Whether or not you are making any money is not the point. Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest is intended to preserve the neutral point of view , which is a core policy. Citing your own work or you own research - or an interview with you - is something that a Wikipedia article might do, if it is published somewhere reliable; but you should not be the one to add the citation or the text which the citation supports. ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Colin. Whoever posted the present Clotilda article did not, in my judgment, express a neutral point of view. They said that the Clotilda was a real ship that brought slaves from Africa. That accounting is not neutral. It does not included the critical point: Several prominent historians disagree, and believe that the Clotilda slave ship was a hoax, perpetrated by southern extremists, and not a real event.
So I want to note the Wall Street Journal article of July 6 and 13 ("Historians disagree," etc) and name the historians and their books. I'm trying to establish neutrality in a Wiki story that, at the present, is not neutral! Ericorlando (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, No. Given your conflict of interest, you are to not edit the Clotilda article. Rather, you are permitted to propose what you believe needs to be changed on the Talk page of the article, for a non-involved editor to either implement or refuse to implement your proposed changes. And given that the WSJ article is an interview with you, you should not use that as a reference. You can reference other historians and their books. David notMD (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Help please
I find that the Wikipedia content regarding the GOP-led Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 legislation is seriously inadequate and misleading. I've spent a mountain of time on the subject and I'm preparing some edits, and I hope to have a chart included in Wikipedia. I hope that somebody out there could help mentor me, I've never tried to edit anything in Wikipedia. BRUCE NORVELL
Norvellb (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, thank you for reaching out. We grew up in the same region, Pontiac for me. Woodward Avenue I think was the world’s first paved road, I used to take the trolly between Detroit and Pontiac.
I’ve sent a 688 word (without footnotes) to several publications, and I now don’t know what I’ve sent to Wikipedia for consideration. I sure appreciate your guidance, as I do not understand key Wikipedia instructions.
Your apparent suggestion of directing my concerns to your suggested link has me puzzled, because there is no info of consequence a that site. See attached screenshot.
a) I would start a new paragraph with the word “Some”, and
b) I would end the new paragraph with the following text “Also, the TCJA creates wid disparities in taxing “Specified” and “Qualified” business income.
I would include the attached chart to illustrate the sharp disparities in tax reductions for what I call “Favored” and “Disfavored” income, and I’d include narrative discussing examples of disparities.
Wikipedia seems to want me to learn from its “Teahouse” website re how to edit an article, but I am simply incapable of understanding content at that site.
Thanks for reaching out, Onorem – I feel like I need some direction.
I composed two Excel sheets that quantify the consequence of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 to all income groups, and a chart. Both of which I attach. I would love to put these items in my Dropbox account but doing that radically goofs up both the chart and the Excel sheets.
I would love to get your suggestions on proceeding. I believe that the TCJA is of high importance to many in the USA community.
You've been pointed to the policy on original research because it sounds like you're looking for a place to publish materials that you have personally come up with - but Wikipedia is not a venue for doing that. Wikipedia only summarizes what published sources have to say, and those sources must be published in ways that meet Wikipedia's requirements. We cannot use Excel sheets you have composed or charts you have made as sources - not until those materials have been published elsewhere, such as in a academic journal or a newspaper. MrOllie (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Norvelib People new to Wikipedia often find their edits to articles reverted (reversed) not because the added content was not true, but because it was not verified by valid references added at the same time. In general, Wikipedia advises editors to be bold in their edits, but if reverted, start a discussion at hte Talk page of the article in an attempt to reach a consensus with other editors. What qualifies as valid references is described at WP:42. How to format a referance at Help:Referencing for beginners. You have mentioned a chart and spreadsheet of your creation, which clearly sounds like original research, which is forbidden, per the above advice. Last, you mention attaching stuff, but there is no evidence you have attached anything anywhere. I suppose that if you want people to look at something you could put it in your Sandbox, but again - original research. David notMD (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My first article wasn't accepted, I guess I need more links. But where I am going to get more links if related info is not available online. Mongolia is kind of new to online thing and most info is only available in paper. Please advise me how I can get it accepted. Naila Oto (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When describing a bill that was introduced in a prior Congress and not approved, is it better to say the bill "would do" such and such, or the bill "would have done" such and such? Can bills sit for years and get passed without being reintroduced? Seananony (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grammatically, "would have done" is the correct tense for the circumstance you describe, because the bill was rejected and therefore cannot ever "do" what it "would have". As for your second question, while the rules may vary by locale, in the U.S. Congress, bills expire at the end of each annual legislative session and must be reintroduced before they could possibly be passed. Al Begamut (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The teahouse is only really here for help with the English edition of Wikipedia. For creating a whole new Wiki you might want to look at mw:Hosting services for a list of services that specifically host the MediaWiki software. -- D'n'B-t -- 05:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be asking how you can have a Wikipedia article published about you, not how to create a wiki, which is an entire platform like Wikipedia itself. If so, you should be aware that most people do not meet Wikipedia's guideline for topics that should be covered, which is based on whether reliable sources have already written a significant amount about you (this is called notability on Wikipedia). It is also strongly advised that you do not write an article about yourself (see Wikipedia:Autobiography); if you are notable as defined here someone else will write about you eventually. Tollens (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse Template semi-technical request
Have used Template {{collapse top|}} {{collapse bottom}} in nested fashion (two collapse templates in one collapse template -purpose keeping content well organized and presentable) at a user sandbox talk page. (sandbox talk page history). User:Louis P. Boog communicated me, "attempted to add a cite to Proposed additions of text 1 and now it won't open.", "Correction. checking the history I found earlier Proposed additions of text 1 do not open either! Can you fix this??"
1) Can some one well versed with 'Collapse Templates' help test and confirm if 'Collapse Templates' are functioning properly to you.
Hi, I have made a version of Template:At_school where I added 2 new options ("vocational" option for type and a new option called occupation). I would like someone to check my spelling and help me decide the best name for the occupation option. Also, I am unsure if I should merge my version into the original template. I am new and don't feel comfortable immediately merging the pages without someone reviewing it first.
My version: User:ArttuErland/At_school. Thanks, ArttuErland(talk) Leave me a message!He/Him (alt. they/them)08:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArttuErland: Looks OK to me. Here's a tip: In future, when you're forking a template in that manner, start by saving an exact copy of the original. Then, we can use diffs to see what changes you have made. Please be sure to update the documentation when you merge your edits into the original template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits09:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having an discussion and argument that does not seem come up with a resolution with other Wikipedia Editors, can some of you go to Olivia Rodrigo talk page, please?
I opened up a discussion regarding her Infobox: Instruments of what to include or not, Olivia can play guitar and piano. I tried to add ukelele and electric guitar but other editors said that it is not applicable, citing the reason as WP:Coatrack but we allowed the other musicians biography - infobox-instrumentals to put all the instrumentals on their biography from vocals to guitar to piano to bass guitar to drums to ukelele and so forth without any objection. Now, one of the editors removed on Olivia's - Infobox: instrumentals -- the guitar and piano and only retaining"Vocals" but when i viewed other musicians biography, these are not happening on others artists. Why are some editors are citing different rules and impose strictest rules when it comes to Olivia Rodrigo biography but not on others?
Hi @Forgiveandloveoneanother, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you're getting into WP:CANVASSING territory here - getting other editors involved is a good idea, but you need to leave neutrally worded notices. Also, the Teahouse is not really a place to leave such a notice, though asking for clarification about Wikipedia's often confusing labyrinth of rules is fine. 57.140.16.8 (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'd like to ask a question, but I'd like to add context. In the following pages: List of diplomatic missions in Indonesia and List of diplomatic missions in Jakarta, IP user 118.136.39.87 keeps on making disruptive and unconstructive edits on both articles since the end of last month by adding Israel to the list of embassies. What's worse is that his edits are poorly sourced because his source (https://www.rri.co.id/internasional/752779/damaikan-israel-palestina-prabowo-dukung-two-state-solution) doesn't even state that Indonesia has recognized Israel now or if an embassy is established with a Charge d'affaires A.I appointed. The first time he did this, both articles were protected for a week. Today he is here again doing the same thing. If you look at his contributions, you can see that he has vandalized a number of articles by adding Israel having a representative office in Tunisia or a commercial office in Oman, as well as the UK having a consulate-general in George Town, Malaysia, without a single source. He (and I) broke the 3-revert rule in June, and he doesn't want to discuss the topic at hand in the talk page. I don't want to break the 3-revert rule again which brings me here on why I want to ask this question. How can I request an administrator to block this user? Underdwarf58 (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Underdwarf58 and welcome to the Teahouse. IPs can be taken to WP:ANI, just like users with accounts, and the procedure is the same; just read and follow the instructions at the top. Be sure to include links to some of their disruptive edits. If they're using a range of IP addesses, include that in the report so a wider block can be imposed if necessary. 57.140.16.8 (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be Ok to ask to delete a redirect so I can make an article through Afc?
If I wanted to submit an article through Afc as a technically different page from a redirect that occupies its place, then would I be allowed to ask for the redirect to be deleted? Abdullah raji (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abdullah raji: Welcome to the Teahouse! Assuming your draft is accepted, the reviewer will take care of all that, requesting deletion as needed. Until then, there's no need to delete the redirect. I hope this helps, and happy editing! Bsoyka (t • c • g) 14:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I too have been confused by that help page. Through exploration of articles using the template and trial and error, I learned that if an efn tag is used in the body of the article, you must add to the bottom of the article body the notelist tag in order for it to work properly. I am not an expert, but I hope that this information helps you to understand. Al Begamut (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does CTOPs mean?
I have requested for article protections before, and sometimes an admin would say "Semi-protected indefinately, or Extended-Confirmed-protected" followed by "Will log as a CTOPS action". what does CTOPS mean? 74.14.6.233 (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tanji an Minna no Rasanji dan Tengoku (tusu Minna no Rhythm Tengoku) Saxarana Xi Qiunji tsunkanaxu Tarananku (Dekahanutsu Karinji hebo turu) Sana Senjenji janji Karanji? (Sana ken tsuko rexaqinji ba tuso) — Preceding unsigned comment added by QeedVann (talk • contribs) 18:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English language Wikipedia. We cannot help you in other languages and Google Translate cannot make sense of what you wrote. Cullen328 (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text appears to be a mix of phonetic spellings and transliterations of Japanese words, along with some invented or distorted phrases. Here’s an attempt to identify and decipher it:
Eseteka danji haranda Fuso Nawajiu Sunaxaranja?
Eseteka danji haranda: This seems to be gibberish.
Fuso Nawajiu: Phonetic distortion of "Fuso Nawajiu" could mean "Fuso" (a term for Japan) and "Nawajiu" which might be "Nintendo" in a distorted form.
Sunaxaranja?: This doesn’t correspond directly to Japanese but might be distorted or creative.
Tanji an Minna no Rasanji dan Tengoku (tusu Minna no Rhythm Tengoku)
Minna no Rhythm Tengoku: This is "Rhythm Heaven" or "Rhythm Paradise" (a Nintendo game series).
Saxarana Xi Qiunji tsunkanaxu Tarananku (Dekahanutsu Karinji hebo turu)
Saxarana Xi: Could be "Sakurai-san" (a common name).
Qiunji: Could be "Kiyuuji" but doesn’t fit well with standard names or terms.
tsunkanaxu Tarananku: Seems nonsensical.
Dekahanutsu Karinji hebo turu: Might be trying to say "Dekahane Tsu Karinji" (possibly referring to something large or grand, with "Karinji" being unclear).
Sana Senjenji janji Karanji? (Sana ken tsuko rexaqinji ba tuso)
Sana Senjenji janji Karanji?: Seems nonsensical.
Sana ken tsuko rexaqinji ba tuso: Also nonsensical.
Overall, the text is a playful or distorted use of Japanese phonetics combined with some recognizably Japanese words, particularly related to "Rhythm Heaven." It seems like the text is not meant to be taken as a standard language but rather a creative or playful usage.
Al Begamut (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well spotted. I see that you have commented on the Talk Page of Wikidata. The Wikidata page is locked, so I can't add the link but hopefully someone with the correct level of authority will do so. There is a template wikidata:Template:Edit request that will draw attention to your suggestion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@5tgiilytyjn2 You have not added any images to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. Can you please be more specific about what you are trying to do and what error messages you are getting? Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5tgiilytyjn2, this is your most recent edit to en:Wikipedia. Perhaps you might put more effort into intelligible, constructive text before you attempt anything involving images? -- Hoary (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An automatic filter stopped you from uploading the images. It looks like you are trying to upload images about video games; please note that screenshots or images of packaging are usually copyrighted and can't be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. MKFI (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In General
I'm curious about how the fact checking gets done on this site and what is the process of making sure you didnt misdirect yourself when researching? Ex) current event or political events were their are equal justification on both sides
Hello. It's up to you to examine the sources provided in an article, both to see if they are summarized accurately with a neutral point of view and for you to judge them for yourself in determining what to believe. Wikipedia does not claim that what is presented is the truth, only that it is verifiable(see WP:TRUTH). Wikipedia makes no guarantees of validity. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add the point that it would be reasonable and even best to present both sides of any moderately disputed matter, to avoid neutrality issues in the Wikipedia article. Al Begamut (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's very frustrating. Primary sources and YouTube are not considered. Likewise with books or articles which are not digitised. I'm running out of options. BuffyO'B (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BuffyO'B, if you go to that youtube video and look at the description, the list of sources for it is given there. Your answer is probably in one of those. -- asilvering (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A blanket statement that YouTube is not a reliable source is not true. YouTube is not a source, just as a bookstore or a library is not a source. YouTube is a video hosting platform. The reliability of an individual YouTube video needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. A large majority of these videos are unreliable, but the content on YouTube channels operated by reliable media companies are just as reliable as their print editions. Cullen328 (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to read the revision history for Wikipedia:Content removal, but it's got so much vandalism. I can filter out reverted edits by putting mw-reverted in the "Tag filter" field and ticking "Invert selection", but the reverts are still there, so I want to filter out mw-rollback and mw-undo too. I tried commas like mw-reverted,mw-rollback,mw-undo but that didn't work. I also tried semicolons and spaces.
I skimmed WP:Tags but didn't see anything helpful. (Note to self: "edit filter" is something else.)
By the way, how do I search for a tag in the "Tag filter" list? I type something in but nothing happens; instead I have to scroll through the whole list to find the tag I want. I thought typing something in would filter the list of tags. As a workaround at least, I can Ctrl+F on Special:Tags.
I just want to know why it was declined. It was an article on Minecraft Consulting Pty Ltd, who they are, and people accidently going to "minecraft.com" and seeing their companies website. 60.227.148.47 (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure this organisation wont be notable enough for an article, if the only thing to say about it is that it has the same name as something else. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel for you, but please keep in mind that Wikipedia is neither a social media platform nor an online therapy session. It is a project to build an encyclopedia, nothing more and nothing less. Many editors with a wide variety of mental health issues are able to contribute productively because they do not let their issues derail their positive contributions. I hope that you can follow a similar path. Please do so. Cullen328 (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; especially if you want someone to talk with you about something, an IP-only "account" here is prone to reassignment and would make it difficult for you to ensure you can see any such communication. Al Begamut (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles not appearing on search engines
Hello everyone,
I have noticed that two articles I have created, Subhūticandra and Vāgīśvarakīrti, are yet to appear on Google search results. If possible could these be re-reviewed so that they could start to appear on search engine results?
@Ixudi articles will be indexed by search engines (such as Google) when they are marked as reviewed by a new page patroller or when 90 days have passed since its creation. Please be patient; there are over 15 thousand unreviewed articles in the queue. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs)11:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ixudi Ok, so here's the process for making an article straight into mainspace. If you do that, you either have to wait 90 days or have a New Page Patroller come along and review your articles in order to have them appear on Google searches.
If you're asking why a a Status Quo (band) album is on 1972 in heavy metal music but their albums aren't in not in other "[year] in heavy metal music" articles, it could be a variety of reasons. It could be reliable sources don't consider the other albums to be in the heavy metal genre. It could be that Piledriver (album) is in the 1972 page by mistake. It could be that there are reliable sources, but no one's gotten around to adding the other albums to the other pages. Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 23:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what little it's worth, I have been a fan of heavy metal since 1970, and also like Status Quo, but I would never have characterised any of their albums, including Piledriver, as heavy metal. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.235 (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scratchinghead Forgetting for one moment the actual subject matter, and talking in generalities: it's OK to add a Wikipedia article to a List article if it can be proven to meet the criteria of said list. To meet that, the criterion either has to be mentioned in the Wikipedia article, or a citation has to be supplied within the List article to allow anyone to VERIFY that its inclusion is valid.
Failing any evidence to support inclusion, I would advise leaving it out. The fact that someone has asked you to include it, without being able to demonstrate the validity of that inclusion should be grounds enough to leave it out. Once your List article has been reviewed and accepted, you could always post on its talk page your desire to include it once evidence to support inclusion surfaces. It might encourage others to look for such sources. It is, in my view, unwise to include anything in an article or List page simply because someone else says it should be. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... I did realise that
But then, the person who posted an article request (he didn't ask me, i fulfilled it out of boredom) has ONLY posted the article Karachay-Cherkessia. He hasn't posted Post-Soviet states which i'm pretty sure contains 90% of all significant entries. There must be something about that article which can be proved?
@William Martin Boyce To quote from the link just given to you, "If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later, but creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged: we want biographies here, not autobiographies"
The notability criteria that have to be met for a person to have a Wikipedia article about them can be read HERE. A quick search on Google yielded a few results about deceased people called 'William Martin Boyce', but nothing in the first few pages of an extant one by that name. Without sounding rude, you might wish to supply us with links or references to sources that have about you and we could assess whether or not you would be likely to meet our notability criteria for inclusion in this encyclopaedia. Exclusion from Wikipedia is not a sign of failure in life, nor is inclusion always a good idea. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We can't help with stuff on Roblox. We're a different site. Please contact their support department. Did you also have a Wikipedia account hacked by any chance? -- zzuuzz(talk)19:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, a project dedicated to build an encyclopedia. If you're talking about external accounts please refer to respective support teams. Please search "Roblox support" on the web, not here on Wikipedia. Thanks. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I use a paid obituary as a source for an academic who died in 2018?
Paid obituaries, or those that are published by private individuals, are self-published sources that are wholly or primarily about a third party (the deceased) and which may be partly about other third parties as well. They should never be used as third-party sources about living people. (WP:BLP applies, in some cases, to the recently deceased.)
Can I use a paid obituary source for an academic who died in 2018? I see that the university's in memoriam page repeats some of the claims made in the paid obituary, so would that make those claims more reputable?
Self-published sources can be used for non-contentious information such as full name, place and date of birth, place and date of death. See WP:ABOUTSELF for exactly what they're used for. So long as the article also has plenty third party sources for other statements, you should be fine.
I don't think there's a specific way to guide readers to click read more when they're checking a source but the at= field can be used to direct them to where they should be looking. In this case at=Sylvia Osborn. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can a paid obituary be used as a source? Absolutely, for non-contentious facts, as stated above. Does it contribute to notability for a subject who doesn't have an article yet? Definitely not.D'n'B's suggestion of the |at= parameter is a good one, and the general case is that we don't have specific template parameters for how to access information in a cited source. For complicated situations, instructions can be left after the citation template but within the <ref>...</ref> tags. Most are like "search for X" or "click Y", but I've seen instructions as complex as "select Z from dropdown 1, select W from dropdown 2, select the top radio button for variable 3, etc. ... submit". We should be able to rely on readers to try to find information in cited sources on their own if they've gone through the trouble of clicking through, but I've also seen editors tag sources {{failed verification}} because the information wasn't immediately visible without interacting with the source website in any way, so it's a judgement call. Folly Mox (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, hi, hello, hi. So, I'm looking at translating some pages to swedish, and a common theme i find is this error/warning saying "Template unavailable". what do You do in these cases? Miyunya (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Miyunya, welcome to the Teahouse. Templates from other Wikipedia languages cannot be used. Translate the template (helper templates may also be needed), find a similar local template, or avoid using a template. I don't know the Swedish view on translating templates. This is a help page for the English Wikipedia. We have no authority over other languages. Template pages often have interlanguage links where there might be a Swedish template but other languages usually have much fewer templates than us. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there Wikipedia tags that are to be used in mainspace only?
I have an article in draftspace (awaiting review) for which I used the stub and BLP tags. I see another editor modified the page to remove both tags saying that these tags are for mainspace only.
Thank you. That link seems to be details about tags that can be added to an article requiring cleanup. It assumes the article is in mainspace and doesn't explicitly mention draftspace or mainspace.
My question is more along the lines of whether an article in draftspace should avoid using certain tags in the first place? I see that draftspace articles are not included in search results unless explicitly asked for, which means it shouldn't really matter? CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CoolAndUniqueUsername See Wikipedia:Content assessment for information on quality assessment tags such as 'Stub', 'Star, 'C'->'FA'. These are all intended for Wikipedia Articles, and are not relevant to Drafts, as these are not (as yet) proper articles. Give it time to be reviewed and accepted, then feel free to add a quality assessment. Personally, I would never rate one of my own articles beyond a C-rating - at least not until other editors had had a good chance (6 months or so) to assess it for themselves.
Ah, I see. I was under the impression that an article in draftspace that has been submitted for review should be as complete as possible, including adding tags that another reviewer would add.
The three linked "related articles" at the bottom of each article page are showing their thumbnails in photographic negative for me. A temporary glitch, a problem on my end, I don't know -- standard images in-article look fine. I wanted to let someone know in case there is an issue to fix, but if there's a better place to post such a note, please let me know. Al Begamut (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ss0jse. Well done for starting with finding sources. Unfortunately, none of your sources are of any use for the essential first step of writing an article, which is demonstrating that the subject meets Wikipedia's criterai for notability (this is the first step, because if you cannot find any suitable sources, then you will know that there is no point in spending any more time on and article, as it will never be accepted).
The sources you need to establish notability must all meet all three of the criteria in WP:42: they must be reliably published, independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject.
The sort of sources you require in the case of a game are usually reviews, but they might also be serious articles about the game or its development. Links to sites that sell or distribute the game have no place in the article under any circumstances.
Remember that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. If you can't find several such sources, then there is no point in trying to continue, as you will be wasting your own and other people's time. ColinFine (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just used the template for new wikiprojects. Thank you, I'll make a requested edit at {WikiProject Anthropology}, have a good day Kowal2701 (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome. The answer depends on the copyright of the photo; Did you personally take the image with a camera(i.e. didn't take it from the internet), or does it explicitly have a copyright that allows for reuse by anyone for any purpose with attribution? 331dot (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Encyclomason, and welcome to the Teahouse.
If you're talking about Draft:Accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 777, I suggest you don't worry about pictures at this stage, but concentrate on getting your draft into a state where it can be accepted as an article. At present it has not one single source cited, and therefore cannot possibly be accepted as an article.
But even if you find and sources for each item you list, I'm not convinced that this would be accepted as an article.
First of all, it largely duplicates the existing section Boeing 777#Accidents and incidents - if there are incidents missing from that section, it might be better to add them in, rather than making a new article.
Secondly, normally articles are accepted only when the subject of the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and that would require sources which were about "accidents involving the 777" as a topic, not just about individual accidents. Having said that, it is possible that an article like this could be treated as a stand-alone list - I am not very familiar with the requirements for that kind of article.
But before spending time trying to create an article which largely duplicates a section of an existing article, I strongly advise you to open a discussion on Talk:Boeing 777, and get consensus for the idea of creating a separate article. ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick review of my draft!
Hey all! I was wondering if someone could give a quick look over of my draft before I submit it for review. Thank you for your time!Draft:Eiji Yoshikawa (boxer)
REgisatering for an account is useful but not a requirement. Smart for putting in months improving existing articles before wanting to create a new article. David notMD (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the Special:BookSources page individual libraries & library systems are listed to source the books. I'd like the Timberland Regional Library system added under Washington State in the United States under Libraries. The library system covers Grays Harbor, Lewis, Mason, Pacific, and Thurston counties within the state.
(i haven't edited before and don't know how to work with protected pages so i'm chucking the request here!) EndDragon438 (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How to create redirect for former name?
Hi, I'm currently editing the article Katong and at one point, there was a plot of land between Sandy Point (present day Tanjong Rhu) and Deep Water Point (present day Katong) designated as a shipyard. I want to create a redirect link from Sandy Point to Tanjong Rhu but I can't figure out how to do so and the article redirection help page wasn't that helpful in my opinion. I'm on mobile view, by the way. Imbluey2 (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just submitted a new page about the author Evelyn Toynton. One the one hand the notice 'Published' comes up, but I thought it would be subject to some editorial control first.
When do I hear from anyone about this?
Thanks
Michalsuz Michalsuz2 (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Michalsuz2, your draft User:Michalsuz2/sandbox is entirely unreferenced and cannot possibly be accepted without a major rewrite. It looks like you are writing the article backward. By far the best way to write an acceptable Wikipedia is to first identify the reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic, and only then start writing prose that summarizes what those sources say about the topic. Please read Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward. Cullen328 (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I just have to go back to the places where I found the info - which are reliable and independent - and list them.
That is how I did it, forgetting that the references are IMPORTANT!
Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1229 § Admin For what I assume they're mentioning. CommissarDoggoTalk? 19:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Fixed! 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 04:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg#globalusage){kind=link}
Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)