Wikipedia:Teahouse

Nick Moyes, 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

Average Admin Edit Count

I'm just curious I'm reading a book on Wikipedia titled Wikipedia: The Missing Manual from 2008 and I am wondering what is the average, min, and max of admin edit counts? ScientistBuilder (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

No idea about the average (I'd guess somewhere in the 10k-100k range), but the lowest and highest edit counts that I am aware of are Lustiger seth (725) and Ser Amantio di Nicolao (4591220). —Kusma (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this statistic is a bit misleading: Lustiger seth contributed 43,723 edits to DE Wikipedia. Using the same logic, one could note that administrator Lustiger seth has only 27 edits on RU Wikipedia. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Lustiger seth is not an administrator of RU Wikipedia, though. casualdejekyll 19:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. Where can I see whether person is admin or not on a particular Wiki? Anton.bersh (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Anton.bersh I used XTools.. see how here "Is administrator" is ticked as yes, but here it's ticked as no casualdejekyll 00:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Special:CentralAuth/Lustiger seth gives a table of edit-count and admin-status on every WMF site. DMacks (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, ScientistBuilder,

Edit counts are constantly changing and increasing. At what point in time do you want this data? Edit counts for individual editors can be seen by clicking on Edit Count at the bottom of an editor's contributions page but not every editor enables this feature. Editors in different user classes are not tracked for edits. Admin statistics can be found at User:JamesR/AdminStats and are updated on a daily basis but they don't include edit counts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit count is not a meaningful measure of user's experience or contribution. I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Editcountitis (it's a humorous essay, but the points are valid). Most users with very high edit counts employ some level of automation. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

You can get a comparison of administrator admin actions (not edits) with this tool. You can get editing statistics for individual admins with this tool or this tool. The last one only has limited data if the user does not sign up to it. I don't know of any tool that compares all admin edits. SpinningSpark 11:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: You could also look at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits and focus on those users that have "Ad" in the "User groups" column. GoingBatty (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Anton.bersh@Kusma@Casualdejekyll@Liz@Spinningspark@GoingBattyI'm just curious but is there anything like, "If you get 1000000 edits, you can apply to be an admin automatically or something" ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: no, there is nothing like that. Becoming an admin is (ideally) a function of sound judgment and the community's trust in an editor, which cannot be guaranteed at any raw number of edits. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to become an admin by the way because you have to deal with vandalism. ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there something like an admin for a WikiProject? ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @ScientistBuilder:! No, most WikiProjects are fairly informal: they serve more like a bulletin board where people can coordinate work on articles related to a topic. I personally use them mostly for content assessment tables when I want to find something to improve. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi ScientistBuilder, not all admins are needed to deal with vandalism, we have admins dealing with copyright violations, the DYK queue, spammers, AFC and several other places where you are unlikely to encounter vandalism. As for edit counts and adminship, it used to be said that if you haven't become an admin before your 10,000th edit you were unlikely to make admin. Nowadays I'd be as surprised at someone passing in their first three thousand edits as I would be if someone passed in their first 12 months of active editing. Oh and as for admins for Wikiprojects, MILHist elects some people, but I haven't heard of any other Wikiproject doing so, though whether this is a matter of MILHist scale or culture I wouldn't be sure. ϢereSpielChequers 00:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I had a look with the API. Excluding 4 adminbots (Edit filter, ProcseeBot, ST47ProxyBot, TFA Protector Bot) and one 'rename' (Khaosworks101), you get this: Count: 1,050; Min: 725; Max: 4,598,060; Mean: 75,218; Median: 35,931 -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way to be an admin and mostly focus on editing well and less vandalism patrol, or is the role of an admin to enforce the pillars of Wikipedia? ScientistBuilder (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a controversial point, actually. The thing about RfA is that it's a horrible, terrible, place. At least in my opinion. The thing about adminship is that it's kind of biased to those people who work behind the scenes - simply because it's much more useful to them. There's a reason they call it the mop, you know. Admin tools are mainly used for cleanup rather then actual writing, and if you just want to write, then there's very few uses you'd have for the toolset. (Not that everything admins do is vandalism patrol - there are many many many many other things admins do as well.) casualdejekyll 00:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

According to User:JamesR/AdminStats, in Wikipedia history more than half of all admins have never blocked a single person. But when asking for a toolset, people are going to ask, "why do you need that and what are you going to do with it?" -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

According to that same source there have been 4,257 admin accounts, about two thousand admins more than we think. Some of those are stewards, WMF staff and others with admin rights, but hundreds of the accounts with 1 or 2 admin actions allocated to them are non admin accounts with an admin action credited to them due to a bug. There are also an unkown number of admins from the early days who performed all their blocks before December 2004, but at least one admin action afterwards. Unless things have changed since I last looked into those stats and admin history, that bot has no access to admin logs from before Dec 2004. There may also be some accounts that got the mop to do something that we have since unbundled such as Rollback. I looked into this several years ago to check the myth that lots of people pass RFA and then never use the tools. As I remember it the myth was pretty much busted, and new admins who don't use the tools are very very rare. However, adminstats does make it look as if we have lots of never active admins. ϢereSpielChequers 19:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks WereSpielChequers. I had better look. Of current admins, 53 have made zero blocks, and only half have made more than 179 blocks. 61 have never protected anything. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It should also be noted that there are also a lot of former admins, a number that has been growing much faster in recent years due to a change in policy where inactive accounts with the admin tools are de-adminned semi-automatically; we also have a number of former admins who have either voluntarily given up the tools, or had them taken from them. Furthermore, many of the things the admin bit allows are unlogged actions, especially for things like editing through protection and the like; there are likely several admins who "use" the toolset every day, in the sense that they couldn't complete their tasks without it, but who do not regularly block or protect or delete things. --Jayron32 17:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The edit filter is a bot? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Not really, but the edit filter owns an account (User:Edit filter) which it can use to block and change user rights (theoretically, long story). It's described as an admin, sort of: Special:UserRights/Edit filter. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Are unattributed verbatim quotes okay, even when permitted by the original source?

I'm curious what others think. One of today's "did you know's" is Potamophylax_coronavirus. The article contains a statement at the top of the references that "This article incorporates text from this source, which is by .... available under the CC BY 4.0 license". There is no attempt to state what text was derived from the article. This alarms me greatly, but I can't quite put my finger on why. (1) It paves the way for WP to become a mere mirror-site, copying great chunks of whatever anyone can find on cc-by-4.0 licenses. To my mind, we don't write in our own words merely to evade copyright, but because we're summarising and combining sources, and presenting an overall picture. Once people start copy-pasting, much of the thought underlying that summarising-process has gone. We're not synthesising, but WP writes in its own voice, it doesn't just echo others. (2) At the very least, it creates a bias, where authors who release their work on a cc-by-4.0 licence are likely to see their own words mirrored here, and creates a risk of very lazy self-citation, where unscrupulous authors can simply plaster chunks of their text into WP articles, which is harder to see and deal with than mere excessive external references/links. (3) And because of the lack of any link between the licence-statement and the text, it's not always going to be apparent what text is covered by the licence, unless you go to the trouble of doing a side-by-side comparison of the WP article and the original. This means our readers don't know when they're reading Wikipedia, and when they're reading, in this case, the Biodiversity Data Journal through a mirror. (4) There's also, weirdly, a copyright problem. If, subsequently, someone comes along and edits the text that's been nicked verbatim, so it's no longer a verbatim copy, then we're misrepresenting what the original author said; the cc-by-4.0 licence gives us a right to requote provided the source is attributed, but I think it comes with an obligation to indicate where changes have been made. Since it's not obvious what text in Potamophylax coronavirus is quoted, it means if anyone edits this article, they are quite possibly breaking the original copyright agreement, and we won't know. The normal copyright tools won't help, because they're designed to look for similarities, not differences, and the editor will have no idea what they've done. This makes me very uncomfortable. Elemimele (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Elemimele (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Elemimele. I think you're mistaken in saying "There is no attempt to state what text was derived from the article." Reference 1 immediately below the statement is obviously sourced to that article, and is cited in 7 different places (superscipted a, b, c, d, e, f and g). I haven't performed a side-by-side comparison between the 7 cited parts of our article and the pennsoft.net article, but it seems not unlikely that the language used there was already well formulated, so would be disimproved by paraphrasing.

If some text is quoted verbatim, then I'd agree that it might be appropriate to indicate this with quotation marks, or otherwise. I see that you have already stated your concerns in several edit summaries: perhaps you should move to engaging with the relevant article editors, such as Leomk0403, on their Talk pages. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}~

• @Elemimele: I think you see a problem where I see none. I realize there is a question of philosophy about attribution/reuse at the bottom of this, so I doubt I can convince you, but I will at least try to present the opposite view.

I view (1) as a feature rather than a problem. The whole point of having Wikipedia under a (relatively) permissive license is that others can copy-paste and reuse our content elsewhere; conversely, reusing stuff from elsewhere if allowed is a good thing. If the text is not good Wikipedia content for other reasons (NPOV, V, etc.), that can be dealt with by standard editing, just the same as if the text had been written from scratch.

(2) is not directly a problem either. If the text is good, it’s great that we can use it! The only problems come from WP:REFSPAM, but adding a chunk of text with citation is clearly easier to detect that adding a barely-relevant citation.

(3) I agree that what part was copied should be apparent; it usually is in the edit history. (But as the article evolves, no close tracking is really feasible.) That being said, whether the content is Wikipedia’s original content or a repackage is IMO irrelevant (assuming the quality is ok, see point 1). It is a basic tenet of Wikipedia as a project that what counts is verifiability ("it has a matching cite to a serious biomedical journal"), not origin brand ("it was written on Wikipedia, it must be true").

(4) is incorrect. In the case at hand, [1] is under CC-BY 4.0. That license only requires acknowledgement of the source and whether changes were made, but not the detailed list of the changes. You might be thinking of ND licenses (no derivatives) where no changes whatsoever can be done (even if mentioned). I cannot find the page right now, but I am pretty sure we cannot reuse ND (or NC, non-commercial) works in Wikipedia, precisely because articles are bound to be modified and the license would not permit it. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Tigraan:, yes, I might be over-panicking. But I do think it's important that our readers know when we're quoting; I think we should make that clear with quotation marks.
• Yes, our edit-summaries would be a track of changes, but there are scenarios where having a "foreign" cc-by-4.0 licence hanging over a WP article might be a real problem. Here's an example: Professors Smith and Jones publish a ground-breaking new method, about which we write an article, quoting from their cc-by-4.0 publication. Later, Prof. Cadwallader publishes a second article in which he modifies Smith and Jones' original method, and we add text accordingly. Smith, who believes every change to his method is a perversion of the True Cause, and Fundamentally Wrong, now complains that the article says something that he didn't say. Under the cc-by-4.0 license, he has no right to stop us, but he does have an explicit right to have his name removed from the material that he made available to us by cc-by-4.0. That's part of the license (3(a)(3)). He can also have the url linking to his paper removed, and also even the copyright statement and cc-by-4.0 link removed, if he wishes! (off-topic: This last gives me the heebie-jeebies, because if he removes his own copyright statement, how can he justify that he had the right to have it removed? It's the legal equivalent of sawing off the branch on which you're sitting). On-topic: so we now have an article in which we cannot cite the most important source, because the author won't let us. Or alternatively, we can only cite the source we want to, if we agree to give Smith a veto over what we write. Because the quoted parts were never demarcated as quotes, the original author's cc-by-4.0 license permeates the entire article, and Smith can object to any change, on the grounds that it's being applied to a modified version of his original text. In fact, in the course of the argument, Professor Smith, being a bloody-minded old curmudgeon, decides to look up the full terms of cc-by-4.0 and cause as much havoc as possible, and indeed demands that the cc-by-4.0 link and copyright statement are removed, as well as his name. Jones now complains that the article is a breach of his right to be attributed, and demands that the copyright statement be reinserted, because otherwise even if we acknowledge him, our own readers are only obliged to acknowledge Wikipedia, not Jones, as is his right under the original cc-by-4.0 (that we're not allowed to show)...

This sort of fiasco ought never to happen, but in an encyclopaedia as large and visible as Wikipedia, it will, sooner or later. The only way out would be to delete the entire article, make it quite clear it's deleted, and rewrite from scratch, maintaining a scrupulous trail to indicate that not a word has been taken from Smith's writings, and therefore WP's own cc-by-4.0 applies, not Smith's. To avoid such silly disputes, I think we should avoid speaking directly with the words of our sources, and when we do so, we should do so in quotation marks, or in some similar way indicate the extent of the text that's been taken verbatim/modified-verbatim, and therefore know which parts of our material are covered by our agreement, and which by the original source's. Elemimele (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Or just paraphrase his work. One can not prevent the use of their work as a source. Your scenario over-complicates matters as it assumes the work has to be used verbatim.Slywriter (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter:, yes, I agree completely, we should paraphrase. I don't think we should use verbatim, in which case there's no need to indicate that the article contains text derived from the source under a cc-by-4.0 license. But I'll shut up at this point because I think you're also correct that I'm complexifying things unnecessarily. It's a bad habit! Many thanks! Elemimele (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Elemimele: I believe you are confusing two things: reusing (copy-pasting) some text, and citing a source as a ref. Let us imagine a scenario where Smith publishes a research paper under CC-BY-4.0 that says Foobars are usually blue after undergoing the frobication process [ref1] [ref2]. However, red foobars are a theoretical possibility. In this paper we propose a possible process for the synthesis of red foobars. (For the example I use short and simple sentences, but assume there are actually entire paragraphs, so that plagiarism and copyright considerations apply for sure.)

Because the paper is CC-BY, we can legally copy-paste the part about blue foobars into Wikipedia if we provide attribution. If Smith complains, we can remove the attribution. However, regardless of whether Smith complains, we should not do such a copy-paste unless the resulting product satisfies Wikipedia’s guidelines - in the case given here, WP:V is OK due to the presence of ref1 and ref2.

However,the part about red foobars is Smith’s original research. It would not be good Wikipedia practice, due to WP:V, to write it in Wikipedia’s voice if there is controversy on the subject. We can, however, write something like according to Smith, red foobars can be made using a modified frobication process [ref]; according to Cadwallader, the process described by Smith would violate fundamental laws of physics [ref]. We do not care if Smith agrees that this sentence is an accurate representation of the controversy, and they cannot prevent us from citing them. They might require us to remove their attribution from the blue foobar part out of spite of our treatment of the red foobar part, but they cannot request that we remove the red foobar part.

The point is that the two uses of the Smith paper (as raw text, and as a cited source) are dissociated, so there is no problem of Smith having a veto over the red foobar part.

All that being said, it might be true that people who actually copy-paste CC-BY sources rarely pay too much attention that the resulting text complies with WP:V. But that is a very different problem with very different solutions. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tigraan:, yes, I just think we should make that dissociation as clear as possible. In the article that triggered all this, I really see no need to diverge from normal referencing or quote verbatim. But that article's a bit of a special case because there isn't a body of reliable viewpoints to summarise. There's only one expert source because it's a description of a new species (accepted species = notable, even if only one source). Off-topic, I think I was suffering from a burst of grumpiness anyway, because of the naming of this unfortunate caddis-fly; it's completely ridiculous to name a fly "coronavirus", a name that says nothing about the fly itself, its biology or anything. It looks like a cheap way to stir up some publicity for what would otherwise have been just another fly. But that's not WP's business! It put me in fault-finding mode, unfairly. Elemimele (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Removal of the photo

I am here to request that the photo of Huzoor Tajushariya Alaihir Rahmah on this Page must be removed. It was requested before also by some people. He never liked photography then what is wrong with you people and why are you not removing it? NotFair652 (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

NotFair652 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please raise any concerns about an article or its content on the associated article talk page, Talk:Akhtar Raza Khan. As you seem to be aware, that has been discussed before, without any arguments based in Wikipedia policy to support its removal. A subject's personal beliefs regarding photography are not relevant. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@NotFair652, consider Help:Options to hide an image. See also WP:DISC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NotFair652: Having looked at the talk page of the article, there is a question we can answer. The question is: why do we not remove a picture when it offends lots of people? ("Picture" because it is not restricted to photography - the obvious example is depiction of Muhammad, who died long before photography was a thing.)

The short answer, which you already know, is that we have a policy against that, but of course it does not tell much about why that policy exists. It does say Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia, but that is not really an explanation (what is the purpose of an encyclopedia, anyway?).

The problem that I see is that catering to any one group’s sensibilities is a slippery slope:

some examples

Millions (potentially billions) of Muslims object to any depiction of Muhammad (and other prophets), but such depictions are a relatively important part of old Persian art. Millions of people consider that their preferred theory for the legitimacy of political power is the only one, and that alternative theories should be censored to avoid corrupting the masses. For instance, the political systems of Saudi Arabia and Iran are predicated on divine approval for their regimes (I am not sure what the Muslim equivalent of divine right of kings is), while the Chinese ruling class pushes some weird mix of Mandate of Heaven and meritocracy. In all three countries a good fraction of the population agrees and views the theory of consent of the governed as a risk to the stability of the state. That theory is therefore censored with more or less vigor; yet it is fundamental to understand vast swaths of history (for instance, the European revolutions of 1848, or anti-colonialism movements in the 19th-20th century). Millions of people object to pornography as immoral, and want to censor pornographic material wherever possible. The existence of pornography is still an important aspect of contemporary society; a generalist encyclopedia should have articles about that (as well as articles about theft, murder etc. - it does not mean we condone it); articles about pornography will necessarily include descriptions and images. Thousands, probably millions of people (I assume mostly religious) object to any depiction of sexual organs, which they view as pornography regardless of context. Some of those images are absolutely necessary to the teaching and practice of medicine. Many subjects of biographies object to their own Wikipedia biography because it paints them in an unflattering light, even when such articles are entirely accurate and representative of the reliable sources available.

Where do you draw the line? Wikipedia’s answer is "right from the start". Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Block

The user involved in the discussion- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blue_Square_Thing&diff=prev&oldid=1068643667 should be blocked as per wiki norms. It is not only a slur of our state or our country but an insult of the whole Wikipedia Community. Calling for the user in question to be blocked, at least for a week as a punishment for the kind of language he used in the discussion. Also for the same reason, same punishment should be bestowed on the anonymous user. Michri michri (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Michri michri: This is probably an ANI thing. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

AssumeGoodWraith I know that and mildly warned the concerned user about reporting at there, but at first give me your opinion regarding this matter--- about whether the two users should be blocked or not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michri michri (talk • contribs) 13:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Michri michri and welcome to the Teahouse. I am so sorry that you experienced uncivil behavior here on Wikipedia. I wish I could say it was not the norm but it happens far too often. Wikipedia editors, IP or registered, are human and sometimes our passions get in the way of our best attempt to build a better encyclopedia through civil collaboration. In this case it may have been a simple troll or it could be something more. Comments such as those left on Blue Square Thing's talk page are unacceptable and inexcusable, regardless. But the edit summary left by @Blue Square Thing when it was reverted was uncivil, as well, and singled out editors from a particular part of the world and stated their goal as being to cause disruption in doing things to make editors from that part of the world upset. That shouldn't be anyone's goal here. It's going to happen but it shouldn't be our goal. We are called to act in good faith towards all editors and remain civil in our interactions with others. That isn't just a request but a requirement in order to maintain the level of collaboration needed to constantly improve and build the encyclopedia based on community consensus. This type of incident is a good opportunity for us all to self-evaluate our interactions here and make sure it falls in line with the goals of Wikipedia. It's not just about you or me but us, collectively. I've temporarily watchlisted Blue Square Thing's talk page so if further disruption and vandalism continues it can be documented and addressed. If it does continue you can always seek admin assistance at the administrators noticeboard. --ARoseWolf 13:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Michri michri, also remember to sign your posts on talk pages and the Teahouse using four tildes (~~~~) . Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, thank you . I must acknowledge that the user concerned is quite amiable but at the same time the fact is undeniable that he has some indistinct vague against the users from our state. Also, I was not biased towards the anonymous user, which is palpable in your writing, I want punishment of both of them. There is another instance where the user described Kolkata Knight Riders as a 'crappy' franchise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michri michri (talk • contribs) 13:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I was very surprised by errors you made at Pat Cummins article and you referring to User:Jaspreetsingh6 as 'some idiot'. Out of curiosity, I looked through your contributions and I have to say I was disappointed and somewhat offended to see [1] this response to IP editor who insulted you. I am from Kolkata myself, although I have lived and worked in England for eleven years, and I cannot excuse you saying that you like to 'to piss of sad little biys from west bengal' (sic). I am, I hope, wise enough and experienced enough to realise that you wrote this in heat of the moment after name-calling on your own talk page, but some people in today's climate might construe your comment as racism. This is especially so when I also see two edit summaries at Pat Cummins article where you describe Kolkata Knight Riders as a 'crappy' franchise and you deride a valid shorthand term like IPL 2015 (which is used by this site for redirection) as something that 'no one outside India has the foggiest about'. Again, comments like these could be construed as prejudicial. Even if you are badly provoked, you should follow advice we are given in NHS to say nothing, end discussion and report incident (and, naturally, remove offending post).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michri michri (talk • contribs) 13:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This is the actual piece of writing written by an anonymous user in BST's talk page, from which I have known the matter. Sorry but I can't sign again as I'm editing in mobile, where I don't know why the option does not come.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michri michri (talk • contribs) 14:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Then just type out four tildes ~~~~ like that. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to add a couple of things: (1) Wikipedia doesn't tend to block people as "punishment", but it does block people for not-being-here-to-write-an-encyclopaedia. People who are here to push some particular viewpoint, particularly if it's a racist one, tend to get blocked very quickly to stop the disruption. Also informing the IP that the police have been involved is getting uncomfortably close to making legal threats (though it's not quite there), another quick way to get blocked (the reasoning being that you can either argue with someone at WP using WP's dispute resolution systems, or you can do it through the courts, but you can't do both at once). I'm sorry you've bumped into this sort of shenanigans. (2) If you don't want to go to the administrator's noticeboard with stuff like this, because it's too likely to turn into a big drama of hurling insults, at the top of the page for administrator's noticeboard (incidents) you will find a helpful link to recently-active admins. You can always contact one of them on their talk-page and they are likely to deal with the issue quietly and with common-sense. Elemimele (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thank you all for responding me. I can't understand one thing why the concerned user is remaining completely silent during the discussion of the issue raised against him, wherever it may be--- here or his talk page. He was pinged earlier. I must acknowledge that earlier I was a votary of BST, he has helped me a lot, even I wanted aid from him before going through the discussion between him and the anonymous user through his talk page; really shame on him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michri michri (talk • contribs) 02:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not here to shame anyone. We all have bad days and make mistakes. We don't know all the circumstances and likely never will. The Teahouse is a place to get questions answered about editing Wikipedia and be a help for editors trying to navigate the various policies that can be confusing at times. I wish nothing but the best for everyone involved. Thank you for coming to the Teahouse. Please come back if you have further questions. =) --ARoseWolf 14:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

i finished my page

i finished my page if you want me to change something let me know TzarN64 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The grammar needs improvement. Fijipedia (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

As does the tense used. This is a list of defunct/finished services, as far as I can see. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I have to ask, is a list like this really needed? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

ofc its not needed. The same goes for the entire wikipedia. TzarN64 (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Does it fall under one of the things listed in WP:SALAT though and is it WP:N? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is notable and i made sure it had enough content to be an actual page. TzarN64 (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not finding any other list like that here or here. Besides the guidelines already mentioned, this seems to be a WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue to me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed that there's an article and section that seems to have some of the same info at Wii#Third-party applications. Perhaps anything that isn't already in that section could be similarly summarized - and then the info would just be presented one time.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I made my best article yet

I used your guys criticisms and i improved it! The page is List of streaming services for the Nintendo Wii. TzarN64 (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: List of streaming services for the Nintendo Wii  melecie  t - 01:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Not gonna comment on the value, since it's a topic that I know nothing about (because it really doesn't interest me), but I notice that in your "sortable" table, in the columns about dates, the sorting is alphabetical by name of the months, which is not really helpful. Also, does the column on references really need to be sortable? Uporządnicki (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Derek Mackay

Can someone review Derek Mackay here an IP editor has added comments about courses at Glasgow twice with out any sources, I have tried reverting but dont want to enter into an edit war. Regards --Devokewater ^(talk) 20:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I found another source and reworded based upon the source. I hope that works for both of you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks CaroleHenson (talk) I was a bit unsure wwhether or not it was vandalism, or a vendetta against him. Is their proof that Mackay actually attended Glasgow University? The BBC artcles etc seem to be based on what Mackay has told them. Devokewater ^(talk) 09:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Devokewater, We've got two sources that state that he attended the university. Had he actually graduated, I think it would be easier to confirm, though.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

CaroleHenson it would be interesting to see what he studied at Glasgow University assuming the IP editor was correct, + where he studied social work. --Devokewater ^(talk) 21:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Creditable source tells me name is mispelled in article title

I've determined that a person's name in an existing article title is mispelled, due to an "internet error" based on checking in with a more reliable source on the correct spelling. How should I go about correcting it? The article title is "Beverly Loraine Greene" but I am assured it should be "Lorraine." I received the following reply when I checked up on it "The spelling of Lorraine for Beverly Lorraine Greene should definitely be with two "r"'s. The spelling in our profile is intentional. Roberta Washington, who was the author of the profile, explained to me the source of the original error. I'm copying her as well, should you need a fuller explanation." Fothergilla (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Fothergilla (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fothergilla: Welcome to the Teahouse! Looking at the Beverly Loraine Greene article, I some sources use "Loraine" and others use "Lorraine". I suggest you discuss this at the article's talk page: Talk:Beverly Loraine Greene. Be sure to provide reliable published sources, and more details on the profile you mentioned above. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fothergilla: I also see that Beverly Lorraine Greene and Beverly L. Greene are redirects to the article, so people searching by those variations will find the article. GoingBatty (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @GoingBatty. I have put comment out on Talk and hope to hear some people weigh in. My sources sent me a picture in the subject's own handwriting from the registrar at Columbia and these folks have really done a deep dive in reserching for the new article in Pioneering Women in Archecture, so I trust them. From a process perspective, what happens if no one replies, e.g., for a month. Can I unilaterally start on fixing it? Still need to understand the mechanics as I assume a page move would be required Fothergilla (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fothergilla: The research sent to you by your sources cannot be used as a reference, but their article published in Pioneering Women of American Architecture can be used, because it meets Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. If no one replies to your talk page post, e.g., for a month, you can submit a request to WP:Requested moves. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The page has since been moved by Rosiestep (correctly in my view due the Pioneering Women... source).

GoingBatty, I do not think a talk page post would really have been productive in that case. It is likely that few people watch the page, and among those who do, it is unlikely that any would object. Therefore, once reliable sources are found, a bold move can be performed without waiting for confirmation; if (and only if) someone reverts/objects, then a talk page discussion could be started. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, everybody (I mean: Fothergilla, GoingBatty, Tigraan and Rosiestep)!

Once the article has been moved, can anybody swap or merge talk pages (keeping their history)?

• Talk:Beverly Lorraine Greene
• Talk:Beverly Loraine Greene

CiaPan (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@CiaPan: A user must be autoconfirmed to move a page. Only administrators can merge page histories. GoingBatty (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, GoingBatty. I've just added appropriate Merge-to/from templates to both talk pages. --CiaPan (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Searching for pages with {{infobox book}}

I would like to search for all uses of {{infobox book}} which do not have the "wikisource" parameter filled out (so that I can add it in). Ideally, I would also like to search for all instances of the template which are 1) foreign-language texts, and 2) lacking the "native_wikisource" parameter. Would anybody know if this is possible? Shells-shells (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Shells-shells: For books without |wikisource=, you could try Special:Search/hastemplate:"infobox book" -incategory:"Articles that link to Wikisource". There are quite a lot of them! Foreign texts without |native_wikisource= are a bit more complex. A rough search is [2]. Certes (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: It occurs to me belatedly that this search should also be limited to texts in the US public domain, as these are the only ones which would have Wikisource pages. While there doesn't seem to be any dedicated category for public domain books, would it be possible to limit the search only to texts published before 1927 (perhaps with Category:Books by year)? Shells-shells (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Shells-shells: Books are usually in subcategories such as Category:1992 non-fiction books but checking the pub_date parameter cuts the searches down a lot: [3] and [4]. (You won't be able to tweak the second one in the search bar, which is limited to 300 characters.) Certes (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: Thank you very much for your prompt assistance and searching chops! These will be a very helpful starting point :D Shells-shells (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Uploading possible image for Claremont Fan Court School.

Hello, I've been doing research to attempt to get another image that could be used, if needed, for the Claremont Fan Court School page. I've been in touch with the owner of the image and he had a few questions: 1. "Can you make sure it’s marked so it says the copyright belongs to me, and that it can’t be used by anyone without prior consent from myself?" 2. "Or do all Wiki images have to be in the public domain?"

He has given me the image to upload if I want. What would be a good way of uploading it with the correct permissions? Thanks Archivingperson (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

As a rule, images do not have to be in the public domain (which has a more specific meaning than many people realise) but they do neet to be licensed in a way that they may be copied freely - usually under CC-BY-SA. So, no, permission from the owner to use an image on Wikipedia is not adequate, and in fact is always irrelevant. (If certain conditions are met, we can use non-free media, but one of those conditions is that there could be a free version, so pictures of currently-existing buildings almost never meet them). Usually the easiest thing is to take a picture yourself, or find somebody who is able and willing to take a picture and then upload it and donate it to Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Archivingperson, no, it is not necessary that images used on Wikipedia must be in the public domain, and I feel confident in saying that the majority of images on this encyclopedia are not in the public domain. Copyrighted images can be used if the copyright holder has chosen to release the image under an acceptable free license. Free licenses do not wipe away the copyright. Instead, they authorize anyone to reuse the image for any purpose without asking permission or paying a fee, with the main restriction being (usually), that the image must be attributed to the creator. So, a statement such as Can you make sure it’s marked so it says the copyright belongs to me, and that it can’t be used by anyone without prior consent from myself? is exactly the opposite of free licensing and is never acceptable. On the other hand, certain images, such as movie posters, book and album covers, highly historic photographs, photos of dead people and so on, can be used in low resolution in one article on English Wikipedia only, under the very restrictive terms of WP:NFCI. All of the terms and conditions must be followed precisely. Cullen328 (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@ColinFine: and @Cullen328: Thank you for your response. I've reached out to the copyright holder of this image and he's willing to donate the image to Wikipedia. However, I don't think he has any knowledge of how to upload the image himself to Wikipedia. Is there any way that I can do this on his behalf and supply you with any relevant information needed? If so, I've done some reading and is the first step for me to upload the image and secondly, what initial license should I apply to it? Thanks Archivingperson (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

See WP:Donating copyrighted materials. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@David Biddulph This is my first time uploading an image on behalf of the person who owns the copyright. The image can be found at this website: https://www.horizonimaging.co.uk/blog/new-schools-case-study-added-to-website/. However the image itself is a lower resolution image without the trademark signs on the bottom of the picture. In regular emails he has given me permission to upload the image on Wikipedia and freely shared on his behalf. 1. Does Wikipedia need another email of written consent or could I upload the image as if "I represent the copyright holder"? 2. Would I just do my best and then at the end, if I went through the process incorrectly, I could delete the image and start over? Thanks Archivingperson (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Archivingperson, the only person who can freely license a copyrighted image is the copyright holder. A casual email is not enough to give you the authority to do it because you are not the copyright holder. You can assist that person but in the end, they must go through the legal formalities. Please read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and follow those instructions carefully. You cannot cut any corners. Cullen328 (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Thanks for the information. I have just uploaded this image (Claremont Fan Court School from the air.jpg) with a category for the Claremont Fan Court School page to Wikipedia Commons. My next step is to get full permission from the copyright holder (which I have, but I understand it needs to come from him). 1. If he is computer savvy, would the quickest way be for him to go through the process on this page:: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator? However, does he need to have a Wikipedia account set up for that? 2. I'm trying to make the process seamless for him, is there a way I can go through the process on my own with a dummy picture so I would know all the steps involved? Thanks Archivingperson (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Archivingperson, yes, the copyright holder can deal with it on Wikimedia Commmons and that requires an account, but it is very easy to set up an account. If you want to freely license an image that you have created, and upload it for practice, that is fine. But do not upload something that is inappropriate. It could be a photo of an historic building near you, for example. Cullen328 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 The copyright holder has sent in "Wikimedia OTRS release" and received an email back saying the process could take 36 days. In the "Licensing" section of the File:Claremont Fan Court School from the air.jpg I added a {{OTRS pending}} Is that the correct thing to do right now? Also it looks like a deletion notice was applied by a Anticompositebot. Is that normal? Thanks Archivingperson (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Archivingperson. If the copyright holder has sent a consent email to Wikimedia VRT ("OTRS" is VRT's former name), then adding the "OTRS pending" template is fine. The copyright holder should receive an automated reply containing a VRT ticket number. This means their email has been received and they should keep a record of this number because it's sort of like a case number. Eventually a VRT volunteer will get to the email and assess it. If the VRT volunteer verifies the email, they will add the template c:Template:PermissionTicket to the email. This will make it known on the file's page that the licensing and copyright holder's consent has been verified. If, on the other hand, there's a problem with the email, the VRT volunteer will likely add c:Template:Permission received to let others know that an email has been received but there was a problems with it. The VRT volunteer will most likely also email the copyright holder and let them know what the problem is and what needs to be done to fix things. Sometimes the VRT process can take some time, so the copyright holder needs to be patient. If things seem to be dragging on to long, they can seek assistance at c:Commons:VRT/Noticeboard. They can use their VRT ticket number for reference. Now, it's important to understand that VRT volunteers aren't allowed to publicly discuss specific details about the emails they are privy to and they will only discuss such thing with the copyright holders who email them. They might be able to answer general questions asked by others on Wikipedia or Commons pages, but they won't go into specifics. They can't because they've signed an agreement not to do such things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly and @Cullen328 I've added the "OTRS pending" license to the File:Claremont Fan Court School in the air.jpg because the copyright holder told me he received a email confirming that he had sent in a "Wikimedia OTRS release". I also noticed that there is a Anticompositebot warning on the image saying the image will be removed in seven days. Is that something that I need to remove on my own? Thanks Archivingperson (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Files tagged with a speedy deletion template like the one added by the bot are going to be ultimately reviewed by a Commons administrator. That administrator should see when such a file has been subsequently tagged with c:Template:Permission pending, and take that into consideration when assessing the file. Most likely, they will assume good faith and not delete the file until a VRT volunteer has completed the verification process. They might also remove the template the bot added and the file will remain in sort of a limbo state until a VRT volunteer steps in. If, by chance, the file does end up being deleted before then, it's likely that the VRT volunteer reviewing the file will request that it be restored if the email that was sent in was OK. If the file ends up being deleted for other reasons (i.e. non-related to a lack of copyright holder's permission or the email that was sent in), however, the file's deletion may need to be reviewed per c:Commons:Deletion review in order to get it restored. Generally, adding a "Permission pending" template to a file tagged with c:Template:No permission since extends the deadline for verification from seven days to thirty-six days before the file is eligible for speedy deletion. If thirty-six days pass and the file has still not been verified, then the file can be speedily deleted by an administrator. If you want to use the file in a Wikipedia article now, you may. If the file ends up deleted, it will probably be automatically removed by a bot. A notification that the file has been nominated for deletion on Commons may also be added to the article's talk page by another bot. One thing to remember, though, is that file use in Wikipedia articles isn't always solely based on copyright status as explained in WP:IUP#Adding images to articles; in other words, a file released under a perfectly acceptable copyright license could be removed by someone from an article for other (perhaps encyclopedic) reasons. In a case like that, you may have to establish a consensus to re-add the file through discussion on the relevant article's talk page. Sometimes it's not only a question of whether a file can be used, but also whether it should be used. It's the latter one that's sometimes a bit hard to sort out when people are of differing opinions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Thank you for all the information. I appreciate it! Archivingperson (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library link error

Hello i made a edit [[5]] and used a worldcat.org link for Andrew McGregor source, military history, instead of a wiki library link that contains the info, question how do you use the library link for the article? When i tried using it, an error came up (supposedly because of ebsco). Thanks Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Your reference looks good to me and you do not need to include a link to the source at all. References do not need to be accessible online. People should be able to find it (if they are allowed access). I managed without the link by searching The Wikipedia Library. However, if I try linking to the url from which I got access but from a Wikipedia reference I don't get a result either. It is probably to prevent unauthorised access. Thincat (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of 11 highly specific templates based on a single website

I accidentally found those templates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:SA_Rugby_union_templates. Probably the usual article rules for deletion don't apply. I would naively start an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion but it's not an article. Maybe this is very important and I'm just out of my expertise. But it seems to have 11 templates based on a single website of this sort might be unqualified. I have the following questions:

1. Should it be removed?
2. How is be the process for non-articles on Wikipedia?
3. How to find the answers to this topic by myself? I tend to struggle to find the right help articles on Wikipedia
4. What would be the right Project/Community/TaskForce taking care for those template/category topics?
5. I struggled to enter this >> Category:SA_Rugby_union_templates << (see source) internal wikipedia link to this category. How is that done?

GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@GavriilaDmitriev: The place to put templates up for deletion is WP:TFD. Can't really help much more since that's also out of my area of expertise. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@GavriilaDmitriev: To anser your question 5, by putting [[Category:SA_Rugby_union_templates]] in your question you placed this Teahouse page into that category, rather than linking to the category page. I have added a colon before the category name in your question to remove this Teahouse page from the category and display the link as you intended. See Help:Colon trick and WP:LINK#Links to Wikipedia's categories. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

How to handle databases?

I currently work on Zabbix and want to add details from the reputated | US Gov National Vulnerability Database since the article is self-promotional so far and I want to add critical and reputable sources. This database can be an important source for a lot of software articles to establish the security of software. In this case the database contains entries of research done by independent security researchers. But I struggle to find basic information how to handle this source even I read the obvious guidelines. I have the following questions:

1. How to handle information coming from databases on Wikipedia?
2. Are information coming from databases usually considered primary? Secondary? Tertiary?
3. How to trigger a discussion and inclusion to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources and does it have any chance of success?
4. How to cite databases? Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Links_and_ID_numbers mentiones IDs but I don't know how I cite a NIST-NVD entry like 'CVE-2017-2824' via citing templates.

GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, GavriilaDmitriev. The external link you provided does not work for me, so I cannot comment on this specific database. Most databases are primary sources because they consist of a large number of entries in a highly structured and standardized format and rarely include the characteristics of a secondary source, which includes an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. You mention "entries of research done by independent security researchers". If these "entries" meet the standards mentioned above,then perhaps they are secondary sources. Unless this particular database is widely cited and debated on Wikipedia, then an entry in perennial sources is not justified. For citing it, I recommend Template:Cite web. Cullen328 (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Cullen328 and thank you for your reply. I've read it and appreciate it. I fixed the original link (formatting issue) and would like to provide a specific example here. You can consider this database as an index which leads to further links and details. In this example under References to Advisories, Solutions, and Tools which contains a link to https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2020/11/msg00039.html you can find an independent entity which includes the characteristics you mentioned. That is my opinion though and I would love to hear your opinion about it in case I might misjudge it. That is the reason why I am posting here in the Teahouse to learn to differentiate those cases better.

You might reply why I don't use this example link not as original source then. It is because it backlinks to the database I mentioned and it's easier to start from the official ID. As I said this is specific to the topic Software Security but is still applicable to almost all articles of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force

To your point widely cited and debated on wikipedia: I repeat that it is important for software related parts of wikipedia. The database already has a wikipedia article. What do yuou consider the best part to getting it's usage discussed/standardized/templated? I'm fine if the result is a no, but I would like to hear more input on how and why. GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

GavriilaDmitriev, my academic studies of software ended in the 1970s with a class on COBOL where I ran programs on Hollerith punched cards, and a class on Systems analysis where we were advised to always maintain a paper based backup system for any computer based business applications. In other words, I am not up to date on software matters except as a consumer. That being said, the things you have linked to look to me like primary sources. That is not a bad thing. Such sources can be useful but must be used properly. You seem to think that a positive listing on perennial sources is some kind of "stamp of approval" that a source must achieve. That is incorrect. That list is for an assessment of sources that editors have repeatedly disagreed about. Unless there is a history of ongoing disagreement, there is no reason to discuss this source there. If you believe that the source is reliable, feel free to use it until another editor objects. If you believe that the source is unreliable, then do not use it, and move on to something else. Cullen328 (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Right, while "Lulu Press" is on the list, you don't find, say, Oxford, Cambridge or Yale university press. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• @GavriilaDmitriev: There is the template {{CVE}} to cite CVEs by number, which links to the CVE website.

CVEs are more than a raw database, as each entry has a summary description of the vulnerability. I would say those descriptions are usually reliable, but you can ask at WP:RSN if you have doubts. However, it is still a primary source, which aims (more or less) to be exhaustive. I would say that you should not mention all CVEs for a particular software without another (secondary) source to show it is due weight. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

❤️ Thank you so much. That was the primer I needed! GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A need for a Ctenacanth cladogram

Hi, I am editing my article on Dracopristis, I am thinking of adding a cladogram, but I can't seem to find one. If someone can link me to one that would be great. Or if anyone can help me add the cladogram would also be nice. Fossiladder13 (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fossiladder13 Such a specialized request would be better served by WP:WikiProject Paleontology, it's a bit esoteric for the Teahouse. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Meena Empire

Can I write an article on Meena Empire? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello! As I can see on your user talk page is that you are not new to Wikipedia. I still would recommend you this help article to read: Help:Your first article

This should help you having the necessary knowledge to be able to write an article on the Meena Empire. Please be aware of the criticism which was already stated on your user talk page. You maybe want to develop your draft article Draft:Charan Singh Meena first before starting a new draft. GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

If you plan on going ahead with this article, do verify that it is not related to Meena article or Matsya Kingdom. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda: I don't see how you can, as there don't seem to be any reliable sources for such an empire. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kpddg:

References

Help needed at Sanjiv Kumar (soldier) page

Regardless of his seniority, the Indian Army personnel killed in action. Proper citations are there. But Onel5969 is using WP:PROD without checking the refs. Such pages should not be removed TOOSOON. In-depth does not mean to cover a person as an essay, neither too citation are needed. In my opinion, the death solider passes the Wiki notability. Further, I request to leave such pages to expand, not to delete. --Wichan The Lost Guy (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Wichan The Lost Guy, when you say "the death solider passes the Wiki notability", do you mean (i) any dead soldier satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people), or (ii) this dead soldier satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people), or (iii) something else? If you mean (i), no, sorry, you're wrong. If you mean (ii), please explain how he satisfies this. If it's (iii), please say what you mean. -- Hoary (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hoary - proper citations are there. 1- He was not just a solider, but a JCO, 2- Coverage is there for his sacrifice and notability, 3- I meant to not to dishonour such of any country who laid down their life for their life. --Wichan The Lost Guy (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Wichan The Lost Guy You added to the article and then removed the Proposed Deletion, which cannot be proposed again. Unless there is an Articles for Deletion started, the article stays. You and others are welcome to improve the article. David notMD (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

User is blocked for WP:NOTHERE ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Dipali Nag

I am unable to Publish Changes to this page that I am creating. I think I took care of all the issues I was advised about earlier,but now I can't even save the changes anymore. Please help Mbanerjib (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Mbanerjib Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To help you, we need to know the message you get when you click "Publish Changes". 331dot (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mbanerjib: I see that you have made edits to the draft this morning, but that you still have no inline citations. The feedback on the draft has (at least 3 times) given you a link to Help:Referencing for beginners. Please read that, & improve the draft accordingly before trying to resubmit the draft for review. Further to that, your recent edits have messed up the section headings; please read the WP:Manual of Style. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I created proper sections, but the references need work. The to get this done quickly, or else the next reviewer will decline the draft. David notMD (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

UNRESOLVED: You claim that the three images in the draft (Dipali Nag young, Dipali Nag old, and cover of the book she wrote) as your own work. The first clearly not (is is from a ref) and the other two very likely not. Also, a lot of content was deleted because it was a copyright infringement, and I suspect you restored much of that. David notMD (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I have declined the draft and sent it for speedy deletion as copied and pasted from [raagparichay.in/en/vidushi-dipali-nag-of-agra-gharana] and [itcsra.org/Celebrity.aspx?Celebrityid=19]. Theroadislong (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I have speedy-deleted the draft as a G12. Lectonar (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated all commons uploads for speedy deletion, they all appeared elsewhere on the internet without a free license. Mbanerjib, please don't copy material from elsewhere onto Wikipedia unless it is evidently compatibly licensed or evidently Public domain. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft restored without the copyright content. Photos are in process of being deleted at Commons. David notMD (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Multiple source pages in visual editing

I want to cite individual pages from the same exact source in Visual Editing but I can't figure out how to do it. Is it possible in Visual Editing or do you have to do it using text-editing? 155.4.96.9 (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, it is possible to do this using the VisualEditor - see this edit to Julius Arigi, where I added {{sfn}}. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Regex editor

I am a mobile user, and I used scripts also and one way to used them is to change my skin to desktop view (vector). I just notice, when I am editing an article earlier, I noticed that there is a script installed in the left side called Regex editor, what is it? I never noticed and never used it before, is it dafault gadget? —Ctrlwiki (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Without knowing what this specific regex editor from wikipedia is I can tell you in layman terms what regex is. With regex you can filter and search for words. The usage of it is very complicated and probably it's a tool to edit regexes easier. So I guess you will not need it when you aren't working with regexes. GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Query regarding publication on main website

Last year in 2021, I created the draft article 'Draft:Sobhan Mukherjee' in the month of August but it was not published on the website despite six months being over. After that, it was deleted due to inactivity and I had to request for its undeletion. the article is about the 'Padman of Bengal' and is equally true, authentic, and inspiring. It needs to be known and read by many individuals across the globe. So, how do I request the authorities and make sure that the article gets published on the main website as soon as possible?

For reference - Draft name - 'Draft:Sobhan Mukherjee' ; Draft link - 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sobhan_Mukherjee' ; Anonymous Atronauch (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The draft is at Draft:Sobhan Mukherjee. To submit it for review, add {{subst|submit}} to the top of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Anonymous Atronauch, Welcome to the Teahouse! It seems you never submitted the article for review, this isn't done automatically.

Based on sources like [6][7] it seems that your subject meets the demands of WP:N. However, as currently written, there are some problems.

Many sections have no refs, and seem to be based on personal knowledge. These have to go, please read WP:BLP carefully. We don't mention details about family/activities without good WP:RS. Also read WP:Conflict of interest, if you are writing about yourself, family, friends, clients etc you should say so, on your userpage and on the article talkpage, see WP:AUTO. WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing may be of interest.

The article is supposed to be a summary of the WP:RS that can be found, anything else is mostly outside WP:s scope. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In addition to the above, here are some concrete examples of the problems.

His was a typical bengali family, he carries on his social works gathering strength from his mother's memories, etc. are not objective facts about his life.

A lot of sentences are turned in a laudatory manner, as the struggle of one courageous hero and their close friends/relative against a hostile environment. That may well be true, but that is not how we write about it here. Have a look at the article for Mahatma Gandhi for inspiration, you will see that all the events are described in a down-to-earth manner. For instance, Gandhi was arrested on 10 March 1922, tried for sedition, and sentenced to six years' imprisonment., rather than The vicious British state apparatus decided to remove the inspiring hero from public life. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Dry, dusty and bland is often the right way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

"Inspiring" is not a word that should be used to describe encyclopedic writing. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Deleting notification

How to delete notification Kitsotshipa23 (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kitsotshipa23: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you're referring to messages on User talk:Kitsotshipa23, you can click the "Edit source" tab and delete the message, and then click "Publish changes" (which indicates that you have read the message). You can also choose to archive the messages on your talk page. See WP:OWNTALK for more information.

However, if you're referring to the alerts and notices at the top right of each page, I don't think there's a way to delete those. However, you can change your preferences to decide what types of notifications you receive and how you receive them. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

How do I get a Wiki page?

I have been on TV for 34 years and was the first woman to be a main sports anchor on a local Los Angeles TV station. I would like a Wiki page. 208.125.72.99 (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have "wiki pages". It has articles. If there is significant coverage of you in independent reliable sources, you may merit an article, but it is strongly advised that you not be the one to write it, see WP:AUTO. Articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. Also be advised that an article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Have any newspapers or magazines ever written articles about you? Without independently published sources an article is not possible. See WP:NBIO for the basic guidelines. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

What are the 3-5 best sources you know that are at the same time reliably published (WP:RS), independent of you and about you in some detail? The "rule" is WP:BASIC. See also WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

How do I get a Wikipedian ID?

Hi

I'm a newbie. I was wondering if anyone could tell me how I can get an ID? I can't go to persons or institutions to ask for information to add to Wikipedia without it.

Thank you! C.S.U Un'stopableZed (talk). 13:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Un'stopableZed There is no such thing. Everything you do here is entirely in your personal capacity as a private individual. Being a Wikipedian is a hobby, not a job. In any case you cannot use information that you ask people for, only published sources are acceptable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

How to get more activity on your RfC?

Hi, I started an RfC on an article about a popular female musician's album (not linking here so as to not canvass) but it hasn't received that much activity so far with only one reply. How may I induce more replies to the community discussion so as to achieve consensus? Thank you ^-^ shanghai.^{talk to me} 17:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@RogueShanghai: Hello Shanghai! You can post a neutrally worded message stating that there is an RfC going on for that subject to a related Wikiproject's talk page. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Would something like Wikiproject Music or Wikiproject Musicians work? and should i use a template to notify people on that wikiproject? thank you ^-^ shanghai.^{talk to me} 17:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@RogueShanghai: WIkiProject Musicians would probably be more appropriate. I think you could use {{Rfc notice}} in this case. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@RogueShanghai See WP:APPNOTE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Usual procedure for removing editnotices

Hi there! What's the procedure for removing editnotices? I blanked one here after a request on the talk page, but are they usually deleted? Thanks so much! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 17:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@EpicPupper: Hmm, good question. I'd ask at WT:Editnotice if there's nothing on that page about it. You might be breaking new ground if it hasn't been considered before. Beyond deletion or blanking, there's the third option of the expiry parameter of {{editnotice}}. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Add documentation to article

I am a beginner and have no experience at this. Should I attempt to add something to a page or leave it to an experienced person?. I have a copy of The Collinsworth-Craddock Family Feud record that started in Oct 1906 and want to add it to the Family Feud page. I am an at-home genealogist. The documentation was typewritten but never published by the author. I have no experience with this. Should I even consider it?  2600:1700:2D20:2710:3463:9D3C:98D9:6353 (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires published references. Can you find any? David notMD (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for stopping by and for your desire to contribute! Wikipedia does not allow original research, which is what you seem to be describing. If any books or news outlets or other secondary sources publish the information, you could add citations to those. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The one who attacked me can come back

when i was on the ip adress user page of the person who attacked me, it was a ip of a At&t service which means if he comes back to his home wifi he can do this toxic stuff again TzarN64 (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@TzarN64: Please read WP:DENY. Also, just because they can doesn't mean they will. Once a troll is blocked they usually just give up. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Draft: Gazeta e pavarur

I edited the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gazeta_e_pavarur. Please review and let me know if there is anything I need to revise. Thanks! Junuzsalihi99 (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Junuzsalihi99: Hello Junuzsalihi99, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft is already waiting for review, so please be patient. Your article will need cleanup, like removing spaces in between citations. Your draft also needs more reliable sources to show that it is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. It seems like your draft has been rejected 4 times, so please make sure that you have fixed all the problems and listened to what the reviewers have to say. --The Tips of Apmh 19:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Junuzsalihi99 I looked at your three-sentence draft article, and then saw that all the information in that draft is found in your first reference. Unfortunately that reference is the "about page" of the newspaper you are writing about. Wikipedia doesn't want to know what Gazeta e pavarur has to say about itself, it wants to know what references that have no connection to Gazeta e pavarur have to say about the newspaper. Your first and last references are not useful for your article because they are both written by the newspaper itself.

These are the only references written in English and, since English is the only language I can read, I don't know what the other references have to say about Gazeta e pavarur. Do any of those references tell more about Gazeta e pavarur, such as when it was founded or how many people read it? Has it ever won an award? More information would help show it is notable.

Since this draft article has been declined four times I would suggest you continue to work on trying to improve the article before it is reviewed again. Show that you have read that past reviewers have stated that the references "do not show that the subject qualified for a Wikipedia article" and that you have done a lot of work to improve your draft, and you are showing why your references are showing that Gazeta e pavarur is worthy of a Wikipedia article.

There may not be many English Wikipedia reviewers that read multiple languages, so it may be helpful to find at least a couple of references written in English, but not anything written or published by Gazeta e pavarur, for Wikipedia wants to know what reliable source not connected to the newspaper have to say about it. Good luck on improving this article so that no other reviewer tells you the references "do not show that the subject qualified for a Wikipedia article." Karenthewriter (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

How do you make good refs?

How do you make properly cited refs? Is there a Wikipedia tool that does it automatically, or do most editors do it manually? --Sorry sir, that's classified information (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Sorry sir, that's classified information, welcome to the Teahouse!

I don't really know whether most editors do it manually or automatically, but you should check out Referencing for beginners, a page that introduces refs and talks about some common templates, as well as RefToolbar, a feature of the editor that can help making refs. casualdejekyll 22:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

HI @Sorry sir, that's classified information. See the referencing sections at Help:Introduction, the Wikipedia tutorial. You can find out how to do it whether using the Visual Editor or the source editor. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry sir, that's classified information If you are going to do a lot of editing using journal articles as sources, I recommend activating the Wikipedia:Citation expander, which creates citations from doi, isbn and URL. Hence you can avoid articles having, even temporarily, poor citations like this one you added until it was changed in this diff. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

re-direct for an artists page

Hello,

I am trying to change the name for RABI so it appears like - RABI (artist). How do I fix this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RABI

Romanstuff (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Romanstuff (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Romanstuff, welcome to the Teahouse!

I did the move for you, because it seemed reasonable due to all the confusable topics at Rabi (disambiguation). You need to be WP:AUTOCONFIRMed to move pages, which happens at 10 edits and at least 4 days since account creation. Note that the article has way too many External Links at the end, and I am making no comment on notability. casualdejekyll 00:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

help publishing an article to Wikipedia

Hi. I am trying to post some short research I did on wikipedia and while it says that I have posted it I cannot seem to be able to search for it. Any ideas what I have done wrong? thanks.

Ali Aanowroozi (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Aanowroozi! Welcome to Wikipedia!

I'm confused as to what you mean.. your only other edit is creating your user page. Additionally, from what you describe, the thing you are trying to post may be original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a primary source, or even a secondary source. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means it compiles information from secondary sources into an encyclopedia article. casualdejekyll 01:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not see anything relevant in your contributions at Special:Contributions/Aanowroozi. Here are few possibilities:

1. It is very unlikely (but possible) that the article was deleted already (without any prior warning on your Talk page at User talk:Aanowroozi). If the article was deleted, you would see a notification. If you did not get any notification, then probably it was not deleted.
2. Is it possible that you forgot to log in and edited as an IP user?
3. Is it possible that you forgot to save it?

Also, if you write about your own work you might have conflict of interest. Generally, educators are seen favorable by Wikipedia, but you still need to follow the proper process (writing drafts or making edit requests). I would recommend going through draft process and not posting it into main space just yet. Anton.bersh (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

As a new editor, important to understand that "Publish changes" means Save, not publish as an article. David notMD (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Aanowroozi: you have uploaded File:FINAL Some parameters of the Universe February 23 2022.pdf, but this is not how articles are created on Wikipedia. MKFI (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit war

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am currently facing a edit war and someone has removed basically alot of content and i would like this to be resolved

Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/1073697540&type=revision TzarN64 (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@TzarN64: Welcome to the Teahouse! After you read WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL, I suggest you start a discussion on Talk:List of streaming services for the Nintendo Wii with the other editor. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

For the preceding edit, TzarN64, you provided the summary "Stop ruining my article". No article here is yours (or mine): please read WP:OWN. As for your summary for this edit, it's very childish. Any more of the same kind of thing, and you're likely to be blocked. -- Hoary (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary: This user has been generally doing confusing things for a few months now. I first met them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Return YouTube Dislike, and they seem to keep popping up. casualdejekyll 13:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

TzarN64, The only way to have an edit war is for two editors or groups of editors to engage in it. Some very sage advice has already been offered. Telling any editor, much less one being bold and acting in good faith, to "F___ Off" is not the way to improve the collaborative effort and de-escalate a tense situation. A cool off period was an excellent suggestion and gives you a chance for self-evaluation which includes reading the above suggested policies before returning to the article in question and having a discussion with the other editor. When you do return, remain calm, explain your points and let it be what it is. This one article is not worth risking sanctions over. --ARoseWolf 13:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll: I agree. Just look at the posts they made at WT:VG where they were clearly too impatient to wait for the merge discussion to end. I wonder if they just have a single goal here. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

See also this, which I raised as a concern on their talk page a while back. I'm honestly not sure where to take this. Calling it CIR isn't quite right - engaging in what could be construed as personal attacks makes us no better then anyone else. I've almost brought this to AN/I twice at this point, but this is the weirdest thing this editor has done yet. casualdejekyll 14:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I definitely wouldn't call this single goal - the editor has multiple areas of interest (nintendo games and WWE) and seems to just be a normal person who hasn't quite got it. @Blaze Wolf casualdejekyll 14:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll: If I didn't hate ANI I probably would take them to ANI. If an editor has made personal attacks and hasn't learned, then they need to be set straight. Whether that be with a block or a strong warning from admins. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

See, I'm in the exact same boat. I'm just a big fan of not going within 12 miles of the dramaboard, you know? casualdejekyll 14:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can anyone help me creating an article

 116.72.128.97 (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC) I know how to edit but I don't know how to create an article so can anyone please help me

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! This article will be of great help Help:Your first article. Please be aware that creating an article is a huge effort for unexperienced editors and that you should get experience first with smaller tasks before. GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC). Ok I understood thanks for telling me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.128.97 (talk • contribs)

Since you are an anonymous user, you cannot create new articles directly, due to some technical restrictions. However, you are still able to create articles via the Articles for Creation process. If you don’t want to go through the hassle of that, you can simply create an account, make 10 constructive edits, wait 4 days, and then you can create an article. Also, I would highly suggest that you read H:YFA. Hopefully this helps. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 15:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Help me with my TWA userboxes, Part 2

I'm doing basic structuring of my userpage. I'm quite happy with the current userboxes but I would like to fix the formatting of the TWA badges - I'm open for design suggestions. I know the badges aren't meant for the userbox although I think this may be the best place for them. Any ideas of improvents? Feel free to change it on my userpage directly first and then discuss with me here. I posted this already here in Teahouse but received no help GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @FormalDude for improving my issue with those boxes. Is it maybe possible to have the column in the same width as the userboxes? Because then it's exactly how I imagined it to be. Currently it's still exploding the layout. GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that's possible. Another option would be a collapsible table in the body of your userpage. ––FormalDude talk 10:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

GavriilaDmitriev, I have no idea how I acheived this and I cannot relay this information to you (tables are confusing!), but I've organized your badges into a collapsed table and crammed it into your infobox, under your userboxes. Please let me know if you're still envisioning something else, and I'll do some further head-scratching to get it to work. Panini! • 🥪 14:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Panini! Thank you for the edit! But I have to admit that my initial intention was to keep the two columns and to have it shown at all times. So the previous state was more near to what I had imagined 😀 GavriilaDmitriev (talk • they/them) 14:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@GavriilaDmitriev: I know Vukky actually has a single userbox that says that you have all of the TWA badges which not only is more in the same style as most other userboxes, but should help reduce the amount of userboxes you have. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

GavriilaDmitriev, I took another crack at your idea. Is this what you mean by being the same width as the userboxes? The word "Communicator" is messing with the table shape due to its length, but it roughly matches the infoox size. I also aligned it on the right. Panini! • 🥪 15:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Since there's an odd numer of badges, I had to get creatiev with the "TWA Badges" title as well. Panini! • 🥪 15:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That is great! Thank you ❤️

Good thinking of you GavriilaDmitriev (talk • they/them) 15:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation question

I just added a Cast section to the stub article Paradise Alley (1962 film). On my User contribution page there's a note after the edit summary that says "(Tag: Disambiguation links added)." I clicked on the link, and it took me to the "Links to disambiguation pages" section in Wikipedia:Disambiguation, which I really didn't understand. Does anything else need to be done? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Pete Best Beatles, and welcome to the Teahouse. You added a link Margaret Hamilton, which is a disambiguation link. The correct link to add would be Margaret Hamilton (actress). Same for William Forrest (which should be William Forrest (actor) Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I have now fixed it in this edit. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kpddg Thanks. To figure it out, should I have just checked each link until I found ones that didn't link to regular pages? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Most often it's people's names (multiple people with same name), but there are surprises. For example, Egg is one thing, but Egg as food is another. David notMD (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pete Best Beatles: Under "Appearance" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets you'll see an option to "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange". --David Biddulph (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Polite query for someone in the women in red project group to read and advise on a draft page on US environmentalist

I have created a page in VisualEditor in my sandbox for the red linked Carol Van Strom. I am a beginner and so although I have done my best to do citations, reference list, internal and external links and categories, I am sure I have made a lot of mistakes. If someone had the patience to help me improve my draft, I would be grateful. Balance person (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Balance person, welcome! Did you consider asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa SångThanks I think I may have found someone but if not, I will follow your kind suggestion!Balance person (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Balance person: Looks like Carol Van Strum has been accepted and rated as "C" class, which is a very impressive achievement for a new editor. You might now like to nominate it for a DYK on the Main Page, which would raise its profile. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Mike Turnbull (talk) Thank you for your very positive comment about the CVS article. I am at a low skill level as yet so although I have read the DYK page now, it is still a bit beyond me. But thank you for the suggestion! Balance person (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Icosium article

 Courtesy link: Icosium

Hi, I think it is you that added sources in the Wikipedia article about ISOSIUM , especially "Diocese of Icosium". I am trying to translate this article in French and I think this source is now suppressed . Is it true ? Thank you for your answer. Sincerely yours.

--Joisy78 (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Joisy78--Joisy78 (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Joisy78 (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• It is not very clear what question you have, Joisy78.

If you think a source was removed from the article (linguistic note: suppress/supprimer is a false friend, "suppressed" translates to censurée, for supprimée you want "removed" in this context), you can check out the history of that article.

If you want to contact a particular editor, you would usually ask on the talk page of the article (Talk:Icosium) or the talk page of that editor (but then you need their username). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia the biggest Encyclopedia doesn't have Trivia?

Moved from Talk:Wikipedia § Why Wikipedia the biggest Encyclopedia doesn't have Trivia?

Why does Wikipedia the biggest Encyclopedia doesn't have Trivia? 😥😥 (Kinda rhymes isn't it?). I'm kinda used to Fandom and Fandom has trivia, and my favorite part of Fandom's page is Trivia. 210.185.171.187 (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Fandom is not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. Fandom is a wiki-farm. and Fandom wikis can have whatever they want. Extensive trivia is considered unencyclopedic - see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. casualdejekyll 13:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

As a Fandom editor, the issue with most Wiki's on Fandom is they have no sources whatsoever, and that includes the Trivia sections. Here on Wikipedia, the trivia that would be included on Fandom Wiki isn't usually notable enough to deserve a mention. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

And what trivia is sourced would probably be better presented as a normal part of the article. I can't tell you how many times I've read a Fandom wiki article with a trivia section that just repeats points already made clear by the article itself. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 10:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources

What are the rules on using United States military documents as sources? Would they be allowed as straight forward statements of promotions, transfers and awards received or would there be some kind of conflict of interest? In this case I am talking about this order here [8] regarding the subject of an article I am writing. Could I use this to confirm his transfer to the Invalid Corps? Thanks in advance, Gandalf the Groovy. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Gandalf the Groovy, welcome to the Teahouse!

WP:PRIMARY is the relevant policy here. Hope this helps! If you have any more questions feel free to ask. casualdejekyll 14:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy Looks ok-ish to me (at least as a source that the order was given), but consider getting input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Ooh, yes! Gandalf the Groovy WikiProject Military history is a group project of users who specialize in military history and wars; not only are they one of our most active projects, they're really good at what they do, too! You can ask them any military-specific questions and you're bound to get good and specific answers. Panini! • 🥪 14:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

running

Can someone come and look at Draft:List of longest running film series and franchise it was submission 7 weeks ago 92.236.253.249 (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello IP! I looked at your Draft and it seems fine, however the Teahouse is not here to help you jump the queue for AFC. Remember, there is no deadline. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft is already waiting for review, so please be patient. If you need any help with your draft, you are welcome to ask.

--The Tips of Apmh 14:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! While you are waiting for a review, you could add italics for the film titles, fix the red cite errors, and convert the bare URLs to full citations. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the Draft will pass muster but I suggest you upgrade the references that currently say things like "Archived copy. Archived from the original" to show the original title. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking for articles to improve related to Fiddle faddle

Hello wikipedians , i am a editor looking for any articles needing improving regarding Fiddle faddle , and other Adminastrators i would like to edit and help articles daily or more then Normal 1,099 Articles published each day. --Fbhnhernhf (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Fbhnhernhf (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fbhnhernhf: Welcome to the Teahouse! Are you referring to the popcorn Fiddle Faddle or Fiddle Faddle (musical composition) or User:Fiddle Faddle or something else? GoingBatty (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The User Fiddle faddle or meant as another person on the wiki. --Fbhnhernhf (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Why would you need to improve articles related to Timtrent's alt account? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

i wanted to ask fiddle faddle for articles for improvements Blazewolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} Fbhnhernhf (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah ok. You can do so at User talk:Timtrent (since Fiddle Faddle is their alt). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, for simplicity, when replying to me just use {{ping|Blaze Wolf}} instead of attempting to copy my name from my signature.― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

also why do you need to do your name Fancy? Fbhnhernhf (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It's my signature. I don't need to, it just looks nice. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

like also you and like all teahouse and Adminastrators on the wikipedia do the fancy thingy Fbhnhernhf (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Even Panini and Fiddle faddle and others.

I'd like for you to read WP:VALIDALT since you have stated on your userpage that User:DemonymsPlayer is your main account. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

so you read my user page ey mate? Fbhnhernhf (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC) i have also can you do a clean start for my user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbhnhernhf (talk • contribs) 16:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes because i was seeing if you're from another country that isn't english speaking because your English isn't really the best (no offense to you, just makes it a little hard to understand you). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

im doing a math test i'll talk to you at 3:00AM UTC-3 flordia. Fbhnhernhf (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Florida is in UTC -3 but ok ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

UTC-3 is pretty much the Atlantic ocean and bits of Brazil. Florida is -5 right now, and -4 during the summer. casualdejekyll 17:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure part of Florida is in UTC -6, -5 in the summer, but that's irrelevant. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok.. so, something's off here.
1. This person claims to be an elementary school student and therefore should read Wikipedia:Advice for younger editors. There's nothing wrong with that, but still.
2. They say Timtrent is "and other administrators". Timtrent actually has a very long and thorough explanation of the fact they are not an administrator on their userpage. ("this short set of thoughts", yeah, sure buddy)
3. Florida is not in UTC 3, and even if it was 3 AM seems to be a very inconvenient time for someone who is less then 12 years old.

I, uh, what? casualdejekyll 18:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I express a generic WTF? They could write a draft article about me if they wish, but I fail WP:BIO by a country mile. If they want a list of stuff to do, way back when I was an amoeba there was a way of getting prompts about stuff to do ion their user talk page. The edit summary when this editor created their user page seems to link them to DemonymsPlayer whose talk page I have posted on. I declined Draft:Center Lake Park at AFC. Might they be seeking to learn how to improve a draft? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Timtrent - The English is borderline incomprehensible, but as far as I can tell they quite literally wanted to write 1099 articles about you. I mean, if I were you I'd be flattered, but as you said, not close to WP:BIO standards at all. casualdejekyll 19:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll maybe I'll get some sales of my self published book, out of it! I sell a couple a month now, so I'll soon know! I shall feel quietly flattered, I guess. It all seems rather bizarre, though. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Fbhnhernhf: Is there a reason why you aren't using your first account, User:DemonymsPlayer? --Jayron32 18:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

hello I'm back DemonymsPlayer (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@DemonymsPlayer, @Fbhnhernhf, please tell me, since you refer to me, what this is all about. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Timtrent: Maybe the proposal is to create articles about each Administrator (hence the 1,099)? Which is a total non-starter. David notMD (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

How to get emails on Wikipedia election notifications?

 LostCitrationHunter (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@LostCitrationHunter: This isn't the appropriate place to ask a question like this (Unless you're referring to arb com elections or something). Do you have a question about actually editing Wikipedia? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it's safe to assume he means ArbCom elections. (And possibly RfA's/RfB's, which are not elections but are close to elections.) @LostCitrationHunter - [9] is probably what you want, and additionally I would add watchlisting Template:Centralized_discussion to the list of "things you should do" if you want to recieve notification about wiki-wide important discussions casualdejekyll 19:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes i meant exactly that, thanks. so any relevant updates comes in the page you shared? (also i have updated the title to better reflect my intentions)--LostCitrationHunter (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata standardised templates

Wikidata standardised templates Hi all. I'm not new around here, and this question maybe belongs over on Meta. I'm an admin and 'crat over on the Irish Wikipedia. We're using WikiData templates on article stubs, which allows us to instantly provide a lot of detail on biographical subjects - w:ga:Karin Boye, as a typical example.

The problems I'm having is that some of the sub-templates we pull in are elusive to me. For example, w:ga:Stuart Olding. You can see here that {{Teimpléad:WD Bosca Sonraí Duine/sport/rugbaí}} isn't being transcluded correctly, and will need to be scratch-built, including having the correct fields built out in the localized language with the right WikiData records. This is a bit above my pay grade (€0 - ha!), and I could really use some deep technical advice on getting this stuff going for our wiki. I suspect this is a common issue across Wikis of other languages.

Can anyone help, or maybe point me in the generally correct direction? Alison ^❤ 19:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Alison This page is only for the English Wikipedia, sorry. I don't speak Irish and there doesn't appear to be an Irish teahouse. casualdejekyll 19:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe m:help:Template will be of use? casualdejekyll 19:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! It's not so much a language issue as a Wiki technical issue that applies everywhere. I'm hoping someone here can point me to maybe an example on enwiki that works correctly, or someone somewhere can provide guidance in English. I'm bilingual, so can do the implementation part :) - Alison ^❤ 19:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Uh.. Template:Infobox_rugby_biography is the English equivalent, I think.. Sorry I can't be of more help, the language barrier really throws me for a loop casualdejekyll 19:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, that template doesn't tie into WikiData. Thanks for trying, though :) - Alison ^❤ 21:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Alison: Among many editors on enwiki there is a reluctance to rely too much on Wikidata to provide article content. This reluctance derives from cases where erroneous data has been included in Wikidata, so the general preference is to keep the data for enwiki articles under enwiki control. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Smirkybec: - anyone in your contacts that could maybe help? - Alison ^❤ 04:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Alison: hey! It was @Dowlinme: who had been trialling Wikidata infoboxes on Vicipéid with the help of some Welsh Wikimedians (including @Llywelyn2000:). I can see if I can resurrect some support there? @Eolaíocht: and @Ériugena: would also be interested, I think! Smirkybec (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Why do the articles for Belarus and the Ukraine have Extended Confirmed Protection on them?

Why shouldn't those articles be Semi-Protected? Though it is a good idea to place Semi-Protection on nations/countries, as they could easily be targeted by Vandalism on Wikipedia, and they also have long and troublesome demographics (and history), and to give Extended Confirmed Protection to to nations like the Arab world, India, and Turkey seems correct, as those nations all have a more familiar and acknowledged History, Culture, and Demographics, unlike these two nations, which are both are not as power nor great as Russia, one of the three East Slavic nations. Additionally, wouldn't it be better if Russia had Extended confirmed protection? IDunno0things (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2022

@IDunno0things - Welcome to the Teahouse! - the EC protection is because of vandalism related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Protection has nothing to do with level of "familiar and acknowledged History", but instead everything to do with level of vandalism. An admin found that Semi-protection did not dissuade vandals on these articles,, and put EC protection on it. casualdejekyll 20:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@casualdejekyll, another thing I'd like to know that i wasn't really answered was, may you please tell me why Belarus has Extended confirmed Protection? Thank you for telling me. IDunno0things (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll: Actually they were protected per WP:ARBEE ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@IDunno0things: The topic area has been a powderkeg for well over a decade at this point, and semi-protection generally doesn't work in a topic area where partisans won't shut up and can't change the subject. Palestine/Israel is the same way. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You can use Special:Log to check why any particular article is protected. Here is the entry for Belarus: [10], which has been protected since 2018 RudolfRed (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

fixing ping to @IDunno0things: RudolfRed (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Central American Mint (C.A.M.) Article

Proposed C.A.M. Article: I plan to write a short article about the Central American Mint, a coin production facility that existed in San Salvador, El Salvador from 1892 to 1896. After 1896, coins with the "C.A.M." mint mark were produced by foreign mints under contract by El Salvador until 1914. Wikipedia articles exist for the Salvadoran peso, Salvadoran colón, and several worldwide mints - as well as all of the mints that produced coins for El Salvador. I wish to complete this set. Will this article pass Wikipedia's notability criteria? Arthur6Morgan (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Arthur6Morgan, and welcome to the Teahouse. The only way to determine whether a subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability or not is to search for independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. Since you are the one who wishes to write an article on the CAM, it is up to you to find these sources. If you cite your three or four best sources here, people may be willing to look at them and say whether or not they think they are adequate; but it is not likely that any Teahouse hosts will be willing to go searching for the sources. --ColinFine (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Colin. My primary reference will be Numismatic History of El Salvador in the Nineteenth Century Vol II by Roberto Jovel. He dedicates a chapter to the C.A.M. He also compiled coin production data in a separate paper titled GUIDE TO IDENTIFY COINS SALVADOREAN CIRCULATION 1889 TO 2000, which is available online. Needless to say, this subject is very esoteric. Roberto Jovel seems to be the most knowledgeable person on this subject. Other works are available, but they are all derived from Roberto Jovel's work. Bottom line, I will not be able to cite three or four independent sources. I reviewed Roberto Jovel's bibliography. He cites publications written by himself. There is no information about the C.A.M. on Wikipedia. Perhaps I should just augment the existing article on the Salvadoran colón? Would that be a better approach? Arthur6Morgan (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Arthur6Morgan, based on [11], Lambert Academic Publishing and WP:SPS that book is not the best of sources. Consider checking some of the hits at [12]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

[13] should count for a WP:GNG-point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Help with citations etc on a draft?

Hey Guys,

I had a whole thing with my only article being deleted, but it did give me a kick to get back into editing, so alls well that ends well... :) I've reworked the draft, and I was wondering if any of you would be so good as to look at my citations for me to see if they're okay?

I added most of them as cite web, because I wasn't 100% on how I should do them. I think a couple of them should maybe be news instead, and there's one which is an exhibition catalogue, which I couldn't find a template for.

In the process of the deletion, there was also a flag of it being a COI, because my username is similar to the article subject's husband, and it was my only article. I did contest it, but didn't want to get dragged into a whole thing... Anyway - In the course of that, I did email the artist looking for extra info, so now apparently I am a COI! Is there anything extra I should do due to this before moving it to the main space? The only extra update I need to make is to go take some photos of my own so I can legitimately upload them.

Thanks so much for all your help, you guys have been mega so far! Wil57 (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh - this is the article Draft:BerriBlue Wil57 (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• • Wil57, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, whilst I haven’t looked at the draft article, here’s a few things, for referencing properly please see WP:REFB & WP:CITE. Considering COI, please see WP:COI, Furthermore I believe it is my duty as a host to tell you your rights, whilst a COI is frowned upon, you are strongly advised not to create an article but you may choose to do so insofar as you have followed WP:COIDISCLOSE, you are however need to be quite careful, if it is determined that your sole presence on Wikipedia is to promote a subject of an article you may face sanctions, please see WP:SPA, WP:ADVERT, WP:ADMASQ and what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Feel free to ask as many questions as you want to, a host is always readily available to attend to you. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Tilde Script

Hey, just wondering, could you alter the script of the four tildes to make it so that it could change to a different style?

For example, like this : WellThisIsTheReaper.

If so, could you kindly instruct me how to do so?

Cheers, --WellThisIsTheReaper 23:53, 24 February 2022

@WellThisIsTheReaper: Click on preferences, scroll down to your signature, copy and paste the code for your signature (including the link to your talk page please), click the check box that says "Treat the above as wiki markup" and then save. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: Alright, thanks! --WellThisIsTheReaper 00:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@WellThisIsTheReaper: No problem! Glad I Could help! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, please don't remove Celestina's response for no reason. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• • • WellThisIsTheReaper, Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, if you need more information on signature customization, you may find WP:CUSTOMSIG helpful. Celestina007 (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:FANCYSIG, actually. There's been some confusion about this before: see Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse#Discussion_at_WP:Signatures casualdejekyll 00:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Casualdejekyll, same difference, generally WP:FANCYSIG falls under WP:CUSTOMSIG. Celestina007 (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Oops, that was a response to comment that got deleted. Disregard casualdejekyll 00:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

THe user who answered the question removed the comment, which they shouldn't have done― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Blaze Wolf, “THe user who answered the question removed the comment. I answered the question and I definitely did not remove any comment . Apparently someone else (they), WP:REFACTOR'ed and did. so. Celestina007 (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Whoops I meant the user who asked the question not answered. My bad. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

No worries, that was a rather odd edit on their part. perhaps an error, I have permanently added them to my watchlist to check for potential problematic edits. Celestina007 (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Celestina007 - Crucially, they link to different parts of the same section, and while WP:CUSTOMSIG links to the section as a whole, WP:FANCYSIG links to the part specifically about making your signature colorful for everyone, where as CUSTOMSIG links to the top of the section, to the part about changing your .css/.js to display your username differently just for you (which IMHO has been completely superseded by things like Wikipedia:Convenient Discussions and should probably be listed after the part about changing your sig, and also the two links should be at the same place.) It's all very confusing and it really should be changed. Actually, screw it. I'm doing it myself. Boom, WP:FANCYSIG is now above the part about just for you. casualdejekyll 00:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

casualdejekyll, my thinking is, arguing lexical ambiguity now is rather moot. It is my thinking that we have answered the question asked by the user, thus our duty here is done, which is what is paramount, Semantics and modulations can be done in a different avenue. Peace Profound. Celestina007 (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Nguyễn Viết Thanh

 TCNGUYEN1007 (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @TCNGUYEN1007! Welcome!

Do you have a question about editing or using Wikipedia? casualdejekyll 01:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I tried to add to the article the complete military career of General Thanh by inserting my rough translation of the article about General Thanh in Vietnamese. I did provide the following for my edits (The complete General Thanh military career is added with reference provided based on the book Lược sử Quân lực Việt Nam Cộng hòa written by Trần Ngọc Thống, Hồ Đắc Huân, Lê Đình Thụy ISBN 0985218207, 9780985218201). However, my contribution was removed repeatedly with the following comments: " you do not seem to be able to write to the standards required of this project. Your additions are poorly written, indicating that you are a non-native English speaker, emotionally-loaded which fails WP:NPOV and you clearly do not know how to provide inline citations. Until you have improved your competence level, your additions to this page are a net negative to the project"

On top of my edit, I have this comment: (The following Biography and Military Career is a rough translation from the Nguyễn Viết Thanh – Wikipedia tiếng Việt)

How do I resolve the objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCNGUYEN1007 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk to the editor in question to see where they are coming from. Tagging @Mztourist - however, they are being quite aggressive and should knock it off. Both of you, be WP:CIVIL, and don't accuse people of incompetence. Remember: Competence is acquired. casualdejekyll 02:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I am going to say this, that page is currently in terrible condition. IT looks like there was an attempt to create sections years ago but clearly they aren't sections. I've tagged the page with a few maintenance tags. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, TCNGUYEN1007. Each language version of Wikipedia establishes its own policies and guidelines. When article content is translated from another Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia, it must comply with the standards here. One of the core content policies here is the Neutral point of view. Read it, please. Your edit included He was a talented, virtuous commander, beloved and admired by his subordinates. He was also one of the four generals of the Republic of Vietnam who were considered to be talented, integrity and uncorrupted. That language violates the neutral point of view and cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Similarly, on English Wikipedia, we have a core content policy of Verifiability, and that policy is met by inline citations of reliable sources. You have not done so. Please read Referencing for beginners to learn how to do this. I disagree with the accusations that your English language skills are inadequate because you are not a native speaker. You write clearly and any minor errors are easy to correct. Cullen328 (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I made sections. Much of what you recently added was deleted because it had no references. Consider working on content in your Sandbox, adding references, and only then paste into the article. David notMD (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Cullen328 thank you for your concise words which confirm my previous advice to User:TCNGUYEN1007. User:Casualdejekyll before you accuse me of being aggressive and telling me to "knock it off" why don't you read what TCNGUYEN1007 actually wrote and then see where the competence issues lie. Mztourist (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

No, @Mztourist. As far as I can tell, most of the addition is in perfect English. The only issues are the NPOV and the citations. While I do think a revert was definitely the right course of action, calling him incompetent and a net negative is ridiculous and a personal attack. I think I was well within my right of telling you to knock it off. The competence issues lie.. nowhere. Nobody here is incompetent. Nobody here is inadequate. To quote Cullen's concise words which I also agree with, You [TCNGUYEN1007] write clearly and any minor errors are easy to correct. casualdejekyll 03:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Casualdejekyll "Perfect English"? Read the first paragraph that TCNGUYEN1007 added: "Nguyễn Viết Thanh (1931-1970) was a former Major General of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. He graduated the 1951 Class which was named Lý Thường Kiệt (Fourth Class) at the Viet Nam Military Academy in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. After graduation, he began his military career as a platoon and ascended through the chain of command to be come a commander of The IV Military Zone of Viet Nam. He was a talented, virtuous commander, beloved and admired by his subordinates. He was also one of the four generals of the Republic of Vietnam who were considered to be talented, integrity and uncorrupted. Praised widely by the military at the time as: First Thắng, Second Chinh, Third Thanh, Fourth Trưởng (Nhất Thắng, Nhì Chinh, Tam Thanh, Tứ Trưởng). In 1970, as the commander of the IV Corps and the 4th Military Region, he directed the offensive operation from the air into Cambodia and he was killed by a helicopter collision while on the battlefield. Afterward, he was promoted to Lieutenant General." You think that's "perfect English"? Given the amount of cleanup that would be required to make that comprehensible and useful, assuming that RS could be found these are not "minor errors" and that is not a positive contribution to the project but a net negative as I said. Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Mztourist, I do not have a dog in this fight, but speaking as a former professional editor of English-language Science textbooks, I would judge the extract you quote above to be written in good and comprehensible English, with only three or four minor and easily correctable grammatical errors. It may or may not be factually accurate, and it is certainly non-neutral and stuffed with peacock prose, but is in no way 'incompetent' and requiring of unusual amounts of 'cleanup'. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.121.1 (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate all of your comments and suggestions. I have stated at the beginning that my edit is a rough translation of the article in Vietnamese. I tried to translate as close to the source as possible. I do not provide my own opinion, and I have not attempted to provide inline citations because the source is the book published In Vietnamese ( Lược Sử Quân Lực Việt Nam Cộng Hòa written by Trần Ngọc Thống, Hồ Đắc Huân, Lê Đình Thụy ISBN 0985218207, 9780985218201)

I will abandon my effort to add more information to the article. They are already publicly available in Vietnamese anyway. TCNGUYEN1007 (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCNGUYEN1007 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK nominations

Can we add Featured Articles without 5x increase for Did you know nominations? MynameisShaun (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@MynameisShaun: Hello and welcome to the Teahpuse, according to WP:DYKRULES it looks like you cannot. Also please make sure to make a section header next time you ask a question. Happy editing! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 02:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks MynameisShaun (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@MynameisShaun: No problem, us Teahouse host are always here to answer your questions. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 03:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

MynameisShaun My understanding is that Featured Articles don't go into the DYK section of the Main Page but have their own section on that page at top left. You can request that a FA be included in the queue to be displayed by going to WP:TFAR. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Fictional character (junior and senior)

I have recently created an article of Kanan Stark, a fictional character from the crime television series Power (and spin-off & sequel Power Book II: Ghost), the article is mainly focused on the senior version of the character as it is already done (killed off) in series, and senior's storyline has just began on the second spin-off and prequel Power Book III: Raising Kanan and still developing. My question is, should there be two separate articles of the character which will then later be merged when the story of junior Kanan is done or has developed enough? Neo the Twin (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Neo the Twin: I would say no. For example we have the article Darth Vader, but we do not have a separate article for Anakin Skywalker. They are in the same article as they are the same person. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Neo the Twin: in the article you created it looks like their are a lot of unreliable sources in it. Make sure your information is backed with independent reliable sources like you have with Insider and entertainment weekly. I would also look at Help:YFA. Happy editing! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Kaleeb18, seems like I've always blundered when coming to reliable sources, I have a problem with that and choosing the right ones, I have gone through the First Article guidelines but I seem to just can't get it right, I'd appreciate it if you help with that. Neo the Twin (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Neo the Twin, please bear in mind that for many imaginable article subjects, substantive, reliable sources simply do not exist. -- Hoary (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hoary, thanks, I'll keep improving the article. Neo the Twin (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Neo the Twin: Yes Hoary is right, but we still must use reliable sources. To know if a sources is reliable or not actually becomes quite simple once you’ve learned a few things. A blog or anything like a blog is most all the time unreliable. primary sources are usually unacceptable except under a few circumstances. There is a list of commonly brought up websites and their reliability at WP:RSP. You can also ask about the reliability of a website at WP:RSN unless it is most obviously unreliable (like a blog). ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Kaleeb18, I know better than to cite blogs and primary sources (beside official websites and only under certain circumstances), I've been around for quite some time to know that for every subject at least three independent reliable sources MUST be cited to verify the notability of the subject (of which you earlier mentioned in your first reply). Neo the Twin (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Neo the Twin: If you're referring to WP:THREE, it is an essay and by no means a policy or a guideline. It is strongly recommended to make reviewers' lives easier, but it isn't required. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

appropriate use of flags

where is the use of country/territory flags appropriate? is it appropriate to use them in locations on infoboxes or no? please let me know as much as you can about the use of flags, thank you very much in advance :) ExtremelyUniqueUsername (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi ExtremelyUniqueUsername,

We have a written guideline about it in the Manual of Style: MOS:FLAGS. For inforboxes, the answer from there is "virtually never, except in military conflicts or sports competitions". DMacks (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Account question

Hello just wondering wikipedians Hosters i was wondering for my account back, also can I publish my own alternative world? --Cluster Lyn (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Cluster Lyn (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cluster Lyn: I am not sure if I understand your question right. If you mean how to log in to what appears to be your original account Cluster Lynn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), it does not seem to have specified an email adress in its preferences (or it wasn't confirmed), so if you don't remember the password, there is no way to recover it. In that case I strongely reccomend that you set an email for this account and confirm it, so that this doesn't happen again. If you still remember the password of the original account, please log out of this account and then log into the old one. The tip of adding an email adress still applies. If you don't want to get emails from other users, simply turn that option off after specifiying an email adress.

As far as publishing your alternate world, Wikipedia is not the correct place for this. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Victor I have another thing.Cluster Lyn (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC) of you.Cluster Lyn (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC) please check this page Draft:worldbox (God Simulation game) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluster Lyn (talk • contribs) 12:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cluster Lyn: It seems as if that page does not exist because the link you provided is red. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:WorldBox_(God_Simulation_game) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluster Lyn (talk • contribs) 12:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Cluster Lyn (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)is it good?Cluster Lyn (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cluster Lyn: It looks like a lot of the sources in there are either unreliable or primary sources. Things must be back with independent reliable sources so that an article can pass WP:GNG and be considered notable. Also please don’t forget to sign of your messages with your signature by putting 4 tildes waves at the end of your message like this ~~~~ ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:58, 25 February 2022 (UTCe)

Cluster Lyn, what's the meaning of "high wealthy areas"? Who says it's "interesting"? What do you mean by "Very Popular"? Etc. -- Hoary (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

in the steam it has a lot of good comments.Cluster Lyn (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

SITUATION: User:Cluster Lynn created on 24 Feb, 7 article edits and a one-sentence draft, not submitted. User:Cluster Lyn created 25 Feb, one draft (Draft:WorldBox (God Simulation game)), not submitted, and this Teahouse query. The game draft could have potential as an article only if there are people independent of you (the game creator?) who have published articles with lenghty content about the game. Favorable user comment at Steam (service) have no value whatsoever as references. My own opinion is that this is WP:TOOSOON.

Joined today | Need suggestions

I was considering joining Wikipedia. I finally joined today. I am a traveller (and am fortunate to have my own travel agency 😊🙏). Please let me know how I can I contribute here. I've genuine data of so many places. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveVOo0y (talk • contribs) 13:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, four tildes😊! Noted with thanks. LoveVOo0y (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, welcome to Wikipedia LoveVOo0y! One thing you must know that new users don’t really know is that on Wikipedia we try to back all the info we put in articles with reliables sources and not just any random blog. Also, Wikipedia does not accept any original research. If you are looking to create an article I would suggest waiting until you get some more experience as an editor. Happy editing! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Traveling allows me to expand my knowledge. I have a history degree. Those are definitely something I'll pay attention to. Could you kindly help me in understanding your internal policies? In any case, I'm looking for what. I am a quick learned but don't want to do mistakes in a new platform. LoveVOo0y (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, LoveVOo0y, welcome to the community! If you need some introduction, I'd suggest to start from:

• Wikipedia:Five pillars to quickly grasp what Wikipedia is;
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not – obvious; and then
• Wikipedia:Core content policies – what we need to do (or not do) to keep us on the IS side and not to deviate toward IS NOT.

Happy editing! --CiaPan (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you interested in photography? There are lots of articles about places and things that could benefit from high-quality pictures. There are some lists of pages that others have tagged specifically requesting pictures, but new and novel images are generally welcome (though we try not to overload articles with them). DMacks (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Photographs need to be what you yourself have taken, not downloaded from websites, as that infringes copyright.

LoveVOo0y A suggestion: start by looking at articles about locations you know well. Scan for wrong or outdated content. Fix or add stuff, always using reliable source references. (Hint: Use your own Sandbox to learn how to reference properly before attempting to add references directly to articles.) Looking at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle will be helpful, as will looking at the Talk pages of location articles to get an understanding of previous discussions. David notMD (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing Draft

Hello, can an editor possibly review my draft, making suggestions as appropriate? Draft:New_Forest_Pride --Shickman98 (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Shickman98: I doesn't seem notable yet (WP:N + WP:ORG). Based on the draft, the organization is (or rather: should be?) known by the single event only. What's worse, the event which didn't even happen yet (WP:CRYSTAL).

I'm afraid it's a lot of work to be done (mainly by the organization itself, only then by Wikipedia editors) before the draft becomes acceptable to the main space.

But I do not review drafts for promotion to articles. Let's wait and hear opinions from potential reviewers. --CiaPan (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I do. I did. I see WP:TOOSOON. May it grow and become notable. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

entry for a scholarly journal - issue with sources

PAGE BEING DENIED FOR SOURCES, BUT THERE ARE NO SOURCES Pacothesheepdog (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Hello, I am writing because I am working on the page for a scholarly journal, Atlantic Studies: Global Currents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Atlantic_Studies:_Global_Currents Editors are saying the page needs verifiable sources. Unfortunately, that's not possible because a scholarly journal IS a source. Scholars publish their work IN it, they do not write ABOUT it. What can I do to get the page live? Thank you so much.

Hello Pacothesheepdog and welcome to the Teahouse, you can still site journals using Template:Cite journal. I would suggest reading Help:Referencing for beginners. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 14:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Pacothesheepdog Wikipedia has to set limits on what subjects can have articles, since otherwise everyone on the planet and every company and every newspaper and journal could have an article and the encyclopaedia would be swamped. Hence it sets out a threshold called notability to define what can be accepted. If no-one is writing about the journal then it is unlikely to meet the specific guidelines for acceptance detailed at WP:NJOURNAL. Read that carefully to see if you can meet the criteria. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Content has to be referenced with in-line refs (embedded in the text, which automatically creates the references undr References). If there are no articles about the journal, no article. David notMD (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Archbishop Tenisons school

Hello I have tried to add a notable ex pupil of Archbishop Tenisons Grammar School. Keith Harris attended Archbishop Tenisons Grammar School from 1966-1971 He won the Hairdressers Journal Avant Garde Hairdresser of the year 3 times and therefore was added to their Hall of fame in 1997 - This can be backed up with The wikipedia page on The Hairdressers Journal. He was a magnificent hairdresser and dressed the hair of multiple celebrities of the time. He is more than worthy to be on this page and feel that the page would be much the better for his addition.---- Completeterry (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Completeterry: do you have a reliable sources to back this up, because other Wikipedia pages are not sources. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Hello Completeterry from someone else named Terry! You may notice that every entry (bar one*) in that list is a blue link to a Wikipedia article about the named person. Articles exist about those people because they have been assessed as "Notable" in the special Wikipedia meaning of that term, and by definition therefore are sufficiently notable as to be included in the list. This is usual for all similar lists in Wikipedia articles.

The best way to get Keith Harris accepted on the list is to first create an article about him (which will have to demonstrate his notability with references to suitable WP:Reliable sources), and then add his name linked to that article. Please understand that "worthiness" (or any other quality, good or bad) is not a criterion for whether someone (or something) qualifies for a Wikipedia article, the only criterion is their "notability", which really means "enough has been written about them, independently of them, and published in Reliable sources, on which to base an article." Be aware that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source.

* There was one name not blue-linked in the list. I have changed it to a red link (i.e. 'linked' to an as-yet nonexistent article) because the person is already mentioned in several other Wikipedia articles, which suggests they may be notable enough for an article to be written about them. Red links are understood as a signal of this, and if such an article is created they will automatically become blue links. You could re-add Keith Harris and red link the name, but at right now you probably know more (and care more) about Keith Harris than any other Wikipedia editor, so you would be the best person to create the article. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.121.1 (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Keith Harris is listed for 1997 at Hairdressers Journal International, but a wikipedia article cannot be a reference. Note: only one of the names in that list is blue, i.e., an existing article, and the list itself is not referenced. David notMD (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

moved from my talk page ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Keith Harris' fame and stature can be seen in this one man show put on by Wella in 2019 - https://respectyou.me/portfolio-item/keith-harris-presents-at-wella-world-studio/ Also. https://www.hji.co.uk/inspiration/life-through-lens-keith-harris/ Please look at this for proof of Hairdressing Hall of Fame - 1997. https://www.hji.co.uk/british-hairdressing-awards/british-hairdressing-awards-hall-of-fame/ Keith Harris appearance on this page is long overdue. He was a and still is an iconic fantastic hairdresser from the most humble of beginnings.---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Completeterry (talk • contribs) 18:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)