Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shantavira, 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

Need advice re: fixing issues in a rejected article

Hi everyone! This article got rejected, and I need some help to understand what exactly I can do to improve it. I did my best to follow the NPOV guidelines, did a thorough research, and tried to provide sources and references for everything (both reputable news and academic articles). Also, I included criticism so as to cover the topic as objectively as possible. In the meantime, I wrote another article on an entirely different topic, and it got approved without any objections (despite way fewer sources being available). It kind of confuses me, so I'd really appreciate any pointers you guys could throw my way. Big thanks in advance! AhimeCrudele (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @AhimeCrudele, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not unusual for an editor to have one article accepted, then another one rejected. The key hurdle the article need to get over is WP:NCORP - the notability criteria for businesses. At the same time, it mustn't read like an advert for that company, listing every single product (which yours does). Phrases like "Even though the DIY kit lacked official backing, it stirred much attention. " are not neutral (nor even supported with a citation). Despite that, there are an awful lot of citations you have included, so could you tell us which three (and only three) citations show detailed, in-depth and independent coverage of this company? I would prefer you tell us what they are, rather than expect us to wade through to find them for ourselves. Maybe that could be a start, though others may wish to make different suggestions for you Nick Moyes (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Declined (what happened) is less severe than Rejected. David notMD (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Ha, I didn't even realize that there was a difference! Lots of details to process here... AhimeCrudele (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, this really is helpful and I think it'll get me back on track! AhimeCrudele (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@AhimeCrudele The draft says as well as recording action potentials of living neurons in invertebrates and plants. Do plants have neurons? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The sentence isn't precise enough. Plants don't have neurons, but their cells do have electrical activity and communicate via action potentials. AhimeCrudele (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Forum for community review of draftifications

Hi everyone. If a page mover moves an article to draftspace, what is the forum to challenge the page move? Would WP:DRV be an appropriate forum? I would of course first try to persuade the page mover to move it back to article space. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: to challenge the draftification all you need to do is move it back into the main space. At that point anyone who feels it meets one of the criteria for deletion may nominate it as such. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

OK thanks :) Do you know the name of the policy that says it's OK to do this? Do I need to discuss it with the page mover first? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: See WP:DRAFTOBJECT. You do not need to discuss it first. RudolfRed (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: @RudolfRed: That is not a Wikipedia policy, that is an essay, basically one editor's point of view. A better practice would be to initiate a discussion on the talk page of the user who draftified it. Usually when I draftify something, it is for a good reason (usually the author had no clue about what makes a Wikipedia article acceptable) and I move it to draft space as a courtesy rather than delete it. Because I have seen newbies start move-warring, I also often leave a create-protection behind so that only a reviewer with the extended-confirmed right can move it back to article space. This is a way to encourage more eyes on the article, rather than rely solely on the judgment of the newbie who wrote it. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy: This is about Marine resources, which was draftified, then reverted by Clayoquot. David notMD (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

For good reason - that looks more like a PowerPoint slide than a Wikipedia article. casualdejekyll 12:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

However, it's worth noting that participating in the AfC process is entirely voluntary in most cases, including this one casualdejekyll 12:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I agree it's good to encourage more eyes on an article if an experienced editor feels it's not ready for mainspace. The usual place to do this is AfD. If a newbie moves an article that has been draftified to mainspace, which I think is what you meant by "start move-warring", would it not be appropriate to nominate it for deletion if you still feel it's inappropriate? W.r.t WP:DRAFTS, good point that it's not a policy. On the other hand, it represents the collaboration of 235 editors since 2013 and is actively watched by 63 editors so I think it's fair to say it has a solid level of acceptance in the community. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 13:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: I routinely make small edits to essays, but that doesn't mean I agree with them. Only a handful of editors contributed the majority of that content. I disagree with the assertion that "it's fair to say it has a solid level of acceptance in the community." It's an essay, the essay expresses a valid viewpoint, but that viewpoint does not have community consensus.

As to your question about AFD being inappropriate, the answer is yes in many cases it's inappropriate. The purpose of AFD is to judge whether to keep an article on a topic based on its notability. AFD isn't a place to canvass other editors for improvements. You propose an article for AFD when you have policy-grounded reasons to believe that the topic isn't suitable. If an article topic may be notable but is written in an incomprehensible or non-encyclopedic way, or without sufficient evidence of notability, or in dire need of cleanup, it is appropriate to move it to draft space. If someone other than the author reverts the move to draft, that's fine. I draw the line, however, at the article author doing this.

In my experience, every time an author of an article attempts to revert a move to draft space, that author has a COI or a promotional intention. Some of them end up being blocked, and I've seen some become good editors after my mentoring. Bottom line: COI editors have no business deciding what content should be in main space. That has community consensus. They can write drafts, and the drafts can be approved by someone else, but they do not get to decide when an article on their pet topic is ready for publication. That is why I often create-protect articles I draftify, with a protection level that allows experienced editors to un-draftify. I have no objection if an editor other than the author reverts a draftification. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I really appreciate the work of volunteers (like yourself) who are on the front lines of COI and promotional editors. A lot of our usual processes are understood to be different if one of the editors involved has a COI. I think it's fair to assume that the processes described in WP:DRAFTOBJECT shouldn't be used by COI editors.

What about the case when I'm the author of an article that's been draftified and I don't have a COI or promotional intent, and I want to object to the draftification? I could follow your recommendation to ask the page mover to move it back to mainspace, but what if the page mover refuses? That would bring me back to my original question - where would I go to start a community discussion if the page mover and I disagree? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (Wikipedia:Third opinion is useful if it's just two editors disagreeing), or, if that's undesirable, you could state your case here and ask for another review. Better still, you could address the concerns expressed by the person who disagrees with you and revise the draft accordingly. I'm a pretty experienced editor, I've been editing Wikipedia for 16 years, and while I am capable of writing a good article directly in article space, I will still occasionally submit a draft for review if I suspect my investment of my time in the topic has colored my viewpoint. I have one such declined review at Draft:Mark Cheverton. And I will not move it to article space myself if another experienced editor disagreed that it should be there. But I haven't gotten around to recasting it in the context of the only notable thing in it. There are no deadlines on Wikipedia, after all. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Missing TOCs! (with 2022 skin)

Am I doing something wrong?

After some mild mannered and kindly "robot" suggested that I switch to some new "skin" -- (I do not even really understand what a "skin" is, ... in this context!) -- eventually I started noticing that, on all "Talk:" pages, the TOC ("Table of contents") was missing.

Then (today iirc) I started noticing that, ... the same thing was happening in "article" space. NO Tables of contents!

Just on a wild GUESS, I tried going back to my "Preferences", and changing my "SKIN", from "Vector (2022)" ... << (back) >> ... to "Vector legacy (2010)".

All of a sudden, my TOCs resumed working as they usually do! ... and as they have been working -- just fine! -- for years.

Any advice? (Are there any questions that I perhaps SHOULD be asking, at this time, but that I do not even know to ask?)

Thank you, Mike Schwartz (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

"Perhaps" one [question] that I should *** "avoid" *** asking, -- (right?) -- is: ... whether or not this new "skin" is causing similar issues for THOUSANDS of other Wikipedia readers (and editors). I would expect that if something like *that* were taking place, that ... then ... in that case ... some Wikipedia experts ... way more clued-in than the average bear ... would have already either [a] fixed things, or ... (at least) [b] issued some kind of "notice", to rescue [persons like] me from having to submit a new "TOPIC" like this, on a page like this. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Schwartz: Welcome to the Teahouse. The new skin moves the table of contents onto the left side of the screen. You can follow discussions about it at mw:Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements.
Please don't go crazy on formatting like using the big tag multiple times; it's somewhat irritating. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Thanks for that kind reply.

I have done *** some *** (but apparently not enough) reading, at places that I found, starting with the help that you provided.

My question << Am I doing something wrong? >> still stands.

When I use the "OLD" interface ("Switch to old look") I can find the TOC (positioned kinda sorta within the body of text on the page) ... and I do not mind navigating "from" -- and even back "to" that "OLD" TOC ... which can sometimes be done using the << back >> feature [or 'button'] of my web browser.

When I use the "New" interface ("Vector 2022" or whatever it is) ... I cannot see the TOC. I do not know "what to do" (to cause it to become visible), or ... where it is, if it is already there (maybe right in front of my nose?)

Please forgive me if I am not specifying very expertly, what it is that I need to know (I need to find out). I suspect that, if I knew that, I would then be able to ... not only

• [a] do a better job of asking my question here,
  but also
• [b] answer the question myself, instead of having to "ask" it.
  
  

Thank you. -- Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Schwartz: It should be there on the left. I took a screenshot and marked it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.

I am not seeing that TOC that you are seeing (and sending).

I mean, I do see it in the attachment ... I just do not see it in the screen snapshot that I probably should create, and post here. (and maybe I am about to do so ... it might take a few minutes).

Seeing that (screen shot) ["IOU"] might not enable you to figure out the full answer to ... :

My question << Am I doing something wrong? >> [...which] still stands.

But it might be a step in the right direction ... and it might cause me to not seem [quite so] crazy ... as I perhaps did when I first asked ... :

<< Am I doing something wrong? >>

Thank you. -- Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: (and anyone else who is interested.)

I regret the delay.

I have 3 ["snapshot"] files. TWO of them are ".PDF" files, which show relatively small Wikipedia articles, both of which allow their TOCs to be visible to me when I use the (OLD) "Vector 2010' skin.

I am not sure how to (figure out how to) attach those 3 files to this message. I am tired, now, so ... I am just going to include a link to the place "on the cloud" ... (on "Google Drive"), where the 3 files are resting now. Here is the LINK:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Gn8iAwQHqQ5r3E7ONLODe1yWWXNGMK5D?usp=sharing

NOTE that, even though ... one of the two "smaller" files (they are *.PDF files) does appear to "IMPLY" that there was a TOC shown on my computer screen, before I took the "snapshot" (using "Ctrl-P" meaning "Print", and then using "Save as .PDF" instead of the name of an actual ink-on-paper printer) ... it is lying ("pants on fire").

That is the purpose of the THIRD file ... which is a *.JPG file ... namely, to *show* that the info that was actually being displayed on my computer screen -- when using the "Vector 2022" skin -- did not include a TOC at the top of the article. (nor on the side ... I looked all over).

Actually, I just added a 4th file ... once I saw that I could download a .PDF of an article "directly", without using Ctrl-P and "Save as PDF". That (4th) file is in a sub-folder.

Thanks for listening. Any advice appreciated. -- Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

_{The text in this section is very weird. I like it.} Thefficacy (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I do not like it. Wakes it SIGNIFICANTLY harder to follow. (eospecially after the user was asked to refrain from crazy formatting) Happy Editing--IAmChaos 11:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't like it either... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Reference problem

I do not know how to repair this. No link at all? This is via the WP Library deisenbe (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: There is a link next to the message that says "how to repair". Click "show" for help on this issue. RudolfRed (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I have tried to follow those instructions. Either I'm not following them right, or they didn't solve the problem. They led me to cfeate this:

|url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?AN=41341328

but it doesn't link to anything. This is the second reference as I had an AN number at hand for it, but not for the first. deisenbe (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Here's the correct URLs to use for those two refs:

• https://pubs.lib.uiowa.edu/annals-of-iowa/article/id/12188/
• https://pubs.lib.uiowa.edu/annals-of-iowa/article/id/12227/

You should also consider adding and populating the doi parameter as well.

Here's ready-to-use examples for both refs:

• |url=https://pubs.lib.uiowa.edu/annals-of-iowa/article/id/12188/|doi=10.17077/0003-4827.11512|doi-access=free
• |url=https://pubs.lib.uiowa.edu/annals-of-iowa/article/id/12227/|doi=10.17077/0003-4827.11521|doi-access=free

Hope this helps! Garzfoth (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, but I have no idea how to create a doi parameter, nor where to find instructions. deisenbe (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Deisenbe. Citing (scholarly) journals is vital for many articles. The Digital object identifier is an international standard which we use normally within a {{cite journal}} template. If you look at the website pubs.lib.uiowa.edu, you'll see that each article's webpage has a "how to cite" part that gives its doi. The good news is that Wikipedia has lots of tools to help editors create citations. See WP:CITEGENERATORS. The one I use can take a simple doi within the cite journal template:

{{cite journal |doi=10.17077/0003-4827.11512 }}

and turn it into a full citation ready to be placed inline as a reference.

References

Hence for most citations I never fill out the parameters in the template myself but rely on the tool to do this for me after I supply the doi (or the ISBN, as the tool also works with books). However I do check that the tool has got everything correct and I add |doi-access=free if appropriate. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Citations

I'm a new editor (Just started May 27th), and I don't understand how to do the citation links at the end. Please help. Macegav4774 (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Correction: May 26th Macegav4774 (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

hi @Macegav4774 and welcome to the Teahouse! please see Referencing for beginners. you can use various templates such as {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} for this situation, and have them inside the <ref> </ref> tags. additionally, I'd advise you to read Reliable sources to see which can count as a reliable source for your citations. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 01:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

After using a template inside the <ref> </ref> tags, you only need to put "{{reflist}}" in the References section at the end and the references autopopulate. RandomBlobby (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Macegav4774 (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Help reviewing status and class of article

Hi there everyone, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and have made a number of edits on the research station article. I would love to get some feedback and help reviewing the class status of the article which was formerly tagged as a stub. Thanks! Bubbleteafiend (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Good question, i would like to know the answer to this as well. I have seen good articles with a low rank, or no rating at all. YonasJH (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly more than a stub now! I'm no expert in quality ratings, but I suspect someone here will be able to give you their assessment. For classes of B or below, you can make the assessment yourself against the quality scale. Also, if you would like feedback on the article, WP:PRG might be a good place to look which tells you both how to ask for a peer review, and how to improve the article before asking for one. RandomBlobby (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou! I'll check it out Bubbleteafiend (talk) 07:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

B and below, how articles are rated primarily depends on when the last review occurred. If you think the rating should be different, feel free to change it. Dege31 (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

That's great to hear, thankyou. Bubbleteafiend (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Grading is unimportant. Improvement is important, and it's needed for this article. Sample: In Europe, some early field stations (which are still in operation today) included Concarneau Marine Biological Station (Station de biologie marine de Concarneau) which was founded in 1859 in Concarneau, France. Concarneau Marine Biological Station is a marine biology station which was founded for the purposes of conducting research into coastal fishing by the request of Napoleon III. In Asia, [...] First try: In Europe, one early field station still in operation today is Concarneau Marine Biological Station (Station de biologie marine de Concarneau), founded in 1859 at the request of Napoleon III by Victor Coste in Brittany for research into coastal fishing. In Asia, [...] (Though I'd probably cut the bit about Napoleon III.) Tip: Try reading an article out loud. -- Hoary (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point thankyou, I'll be sure to have a look over some of the wording. Bubbleteafiend (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Redirect Depp and Heard to Depp v Heard

We all know about the ongoing defamation trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. Search up Depp and everything that comes up is Depp v Heard. Same thing when searching up Heard. I just think for the time of the trial (until sentencing date and as long as the word "Depp" is associated most with Depp v Heard and the word "Heard" is also associated most with Depp v Heard) both Depp and Heard should redirect to Depp v Heard, as most searchers will be looking for the trial and scandal and not Johnny Depp's life and film career or the super basic word heard that everybody knows the definition of usually. --Otis the Texan (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

hi @Otis the Texan and welcome to the teahouse! this will probably be  Not done, for the former as Johnny Depp still remains as the main topic. anyone who knows of him through the case may still want to research who Depp is, and given that he's the most notable person with the surname Depp, it redirects there. for the latter, Heard is a very basic word where outside of Depp vs Heard and to most people unaware of or just don't care about it, it will relate to hearing. there's also lots of notable people with the surname Heard including Amber Heard, so it makes less sense to redirect either Heard or Heard (surname) to Depp v Heard, a case which is not even the main topic since both people are notable and have their own articles, since relevance isn't really a reason to change the redirect target. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 04:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

...oh, and a relevant essay you might want to read: Recentism. 💜  melecie  talk - 04:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

It would just be a temporary redirect. Is that allowed on Wikipedia? Also while I totally agree about Johnny Depp becoming best known as an actor and not an abuse victim, but do really think Amber Heard if found guilty will ever be best known as a good actress? Otis the Texan (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd still believe that if you're searching for Depp, you're looking for Johnny Depp himself and not the case Depp v. Heard (or maybe the bits of Depp's article that provides background behind events in Depp v. Heard). same thing for Heard, which is a disambiguation by the way, plus she already has her own article that details her acting career, this defamation case won't be her entire life covered by the news (which is often the case for person articles redirecting to event articles, like Jennifer Willbanks -> Runaway bride case, see WP:ONEEVENT for more on this). regardless, the proper place for this to be brought up would be Talk:Depp v. Heard as Hoary pointed out below, or the relevant talk pages Talk:Johnny Depp or Talk:Heard. 💜  melecie  talk - 04:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

But please, Otis the Texan, don't post it to more than one talk page, don't present your opinions on this case, don't speculate about the future, don't ask others for their opinions, and don't ask others to speculate about the future. Best of all just drop the whole matter. -- Hoary (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Well then, Otis the Texan, the best place for you to suggest this would probably be Talk:Depp v. Heard. This page certainly isn't the place. -- Hoary (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Otis the Texan You said most searchers will be looking for the trial and scandal and not Johnny Depp's life and film career. Really? How do you know this? You must have access to Wikipedia's internal user and search statistics, right? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Each biography gets several times more page views than the trial, and that's during the trial.[1] There are many redirects with both their names.[2] It doesn't make sense to redirect one of their names to the trial. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that, @PrimeHunter. Nice chart and tables. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Sandbox

Excuse my not-perfect language. I'm a foreigner. How to make a sandbox under my user name when I don't want to have a discriminating "own" user page? Jari Rauma (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Just click on "Sandbox" at the top of any Wikipedia page and then edit it and publish it to create it. Whether you have a user page is irrelevant. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Just checked: There is no word for "Sandbox" (Hiekkalaatikko in Finnish) in Finnish Wikipedia at the top of article page or at the top of the article's history page or at the top user's start page or at the top of the user's talk page. Jari Rauma (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Simply click on fi:Käyttäjä:Jari Rauma/hiekkalaatikko, edit it, and save it, Jari Rauma. Though I've no idea why you're asking about the matter here rather than in fi:WP. -- Hoary (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Jan. On English Wikipedia, you can have as many user sandboxes as you like, having any names you like, such as User:Jan Rauma/My first sandbox or User:Jan Rauma/some topic I want to write an article on. Also for convenience there is an automatic link to the one called User:Jan Rauma/sandbox (if it exists) at the top of every screen. I would guess it would be similar on su-wiki, but I don't know. ColinFine (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

It worked! Thank you very much. Why am I asking here? Because I have asked 2 times in the Finnish Wikipedia without getting an answer yet. Jari Rauma (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Indice

Buongiorno, sono nuovo a Wikipedia e sto scrivendo un articolo. Vorrei inserire l'indice ma non so come fare.

Mi potreste aiutare? Grazie ancora.

Cinescienza (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

This was the first non-English post on this page and apparently the answer to my question about the sandbox. Thanks, good joke though, if you can’t come up with a better answer. Jari Rauma (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not about you, Jari Rauma. -- Hoary (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Cinescienza, if you're asking about the table of contents that normally appears near the top of a complex article, don't worry. It will be generated automatically. -- Hoary (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

grazie Cinescienza (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Ox, Oxen and disambiguation page

The article entitled "Ox" does not list a species. This is a significant oversight.

Also, the "Ox" disambiguation page does not refer to the animal.

I am not an expert in bovines. While I do have skill in editing, I have no knowledge of the Wikipedia system. Thus, I am reporting this here with the hope that someone who has both skills can make the necessary updates to these articles. 173.243.189.124 (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The article Ox conspicuously points to the article Cattle, which explains. The "Ox" disambiguation page has a conspicuous link to Ox. So your opinion and mine differ: in mine, no such change is needed. You're free to ask on Talk:Ox for this or that alteration; perhaps somebody there will agree with you that it's needed. -- Hoary (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

If Ox is a male bovine, it can't list a species, can it? An ox can be a Bos grunniens or a Bison bison, etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Ping

how to ping anybody Saha86830 (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Simply link to their name, Saha86830, and sign your message (as I'm doing here). -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

If you use the [ reply ] link, there's a little-guy-with-a-plus button you can use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saha86830 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Is this website reliable?

Hamariweb.com. I found many Wikipedia articles cited this site and the site is very much popular and minimum 10 years old. Actually, I want to use this site for refference that's why I am asking that is this site reliable or not? Thanks Grabup (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, Grabup. My guess is that most people here won't know either. The place to ask is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -- Hoary (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with what Hoary says. Searching the archives of that noticeboard, nobody seems to have asked about it before. The question is, is it a site with an editorial policy of checking facts, or does it just reproduce anything that comes its way? ColinFine (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary,@ColinFine. Thanks for the answers. I asked this question there in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Grabup (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm

how do you replace the images in a table? Edward Zeke Rivera (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Edward, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you'll need to be more explicit if you want a useful answer, because with what you have said so far, my answer is "the same way as you replace images anywhere else" - see Help:Pictures. Note that unless the images you want to use are already in Wikimedia Commons, you'll need to upload them, and that gets you into the thorny area of copyright. ColinFine (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@ColinFine WE ARE BORG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Edward Zeke Rivera, Welcome! Can you give us an example? And do you want to replace the images with images correctly uploaded on Wikimedia Commons, or random pics you found online, which is probably a no-no? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Help Needed & Welcomed to get a page Approved

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

This page about a fighter in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was deleted (now in Draft for 6 month reprieve) the main issues being:

1. Yitzhak is not important enough to be included in Wikipedia
2. Insufficient references
3. Too much on the events surrounding Yitzhak's actions compared to the Yitzhak himself.
4. Style

Point 1. I attempted to deal with this point here but got no response. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Koza_-_Yitzhak_Suknik

Point 2. I have used every source available,namely 5 books where his actions are described and I have edited the reference section etc.

Point 3. Re-edited and slashed to a minimum ( I think)

Point 4. Tried as much as possible but found the instructions and guides baffling.

I have received no response about the changes I have made since the original article.
I am unsure of what else to do to get it approved. Any and all guidance welcome.
JSKutcher (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@JSKutcher, consider asking for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, it can't hurt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion. I will try. JSKutcher (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Linked data project

Hi I am in my first MSc year in GIS. I am in a project linking data from OSM and Wikipedia. I have to link osm residential construction sites to their Wikipedia page. To do so I have used a tool to transform OSM data into RDF so that I can link to wikidata and eventually wikipedia. I uploaded a very simple and basic article about Kruisvaartkade Draft:Kruisvaartkade. Is it possible to generate a wikidata page from this when it is still draft? LefterisKaltsas (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't see why you'd need a novel wikidata page when many already exist, also there's little chance of that draft ever becoming an article. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? Zindor (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

"Self-advertising" in user page

Hey, I recently created my own user page User:Rhinocesus - Wikipedia in which I briefly mention my twitter page (because contacting me via twitter will probably give a faster response then my talk page). Is this allowed? Rhinocesus (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rhinocesus and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, I will remind you that Wikipedia is not a place for self-advertising. I think you are new in Wikipedia where you are not aware of such Wikipedia policies. If your eidts were promotional then you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please be patient or don't get panic, I will send some useful links in your talk pages. That guides you on how Wikipedia works. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome, Rhinocesus. The guidance regarding what may be placed on userpages is at WP:UPYES. This specifically says that links to a personal website are OK provided they are not used in a promotional way. However, the guidance also cautions that such personal information, once published, is very difficult to remove, so you should be cautious about your privacy. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Unified Standard of Article Creation

I am confused by the double standard in creating new articles on Wikipedia.

I created Nano Energy based on hundreds of articles on Wikipedia for similar journals with the same set of references, but it was moved to draft. I raised the concern to the person who rejected it to restore it.

I re-submitted Draft:Exaly (I had no contribution to it) which already had several reliable and independent references (mostly from universities and academics), and it was rejected twice. I can give you tons of examples of similar articles on Wikipedia with much fewer independent references.

I understand that each reviewer/administrator interprets the requirements differently, but it is not justified to reject something when there are similar articles on Wikipedia. It is like the Common law in the justice system.

What is the strategy of Wikipedia for having a uniform encyclopedia?

I wanted to create the articles for missing journals, but I know I will encounter the same problem.MojoDiJi (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

it is not justified to reject something when there are similar articles on Wikipedia. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Unfortunately, few editors are motivated to plough through the thousaneds and thousands and thousands of seriously substandard articles improving or deleting them. (I include myself here). ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

ColinFine, thanks for the link that indeed supported my point. An encyclopedia should be comprehensive at the level it is designed.MojoDiJi (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Our policy is not for articles to be "uniform", particularly if that means uniformly bad. We have standards we enforce, and those standards have been rising. Certainly, there are articles created years ago which would not be accepted if they were created today. If you come across such an article, you can work to improve it so that it meets current standards. Or, if you believe that would not be possible, you can propose it for deletion. (I'm surprised you got Nano Energy accepted. It seems to me to offer no evidence that its subject is notable.)   13:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Maproom (talk)

Maproom, you surprised me by questioning the notability of Nano Energy (which is now proposed for deletion). If Nano Energy is not notable enough for Wikipedia, there are at least hundreds of journals on Wikipedia which should be deleted (I can name tens of them on the top of my head). Out of curiosity, what is your standard for the notability of a research journal? Nano Energy has received over 320,000 citations so far. What is the purpose of a scholarly journal? What impact a journal should have on the progress of research to be notable? MojoDiJi (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Nano Energy may, for all I know, be notable. (I'm inclined to suspect not, because it's published by Elsevier and has a title comprising unrelated subjects, like the notorious Chaos, Solitons & Fractals; but I've made no attempt to check.) The article does not establish notability through WP:GNG: it does not cite sources showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Such sources may exist, but you haven't cited any. If there's a standard for notability based on impact factor, I'm unaware of it. If you are aware of such a standard, you should mention it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nano Energy.   Maproom (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

maproom, Whether it is a written rule or not, people who are familiar with scholarly journals will judge an article about a journal based on its reputation (which is somehow represented by its impact factor). This is exactly my point. Someone who is familiar with scholarly journals should judge such articles. You may argue that there is a one single rule for the secondary sources of all Wikipedia articles. Then, there are at least hundreds of articles about journals which do not meet those criteria. In my practice, Wikipedia editors are excessively aggressive towards new articles without having the expertise. MojoDiJi (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure that there are indeed hundreds of articles about journals which do not meet those criteria. I believe there are tens of thousands of articles about subject (of many different kinds) which do not meet those criteria. Ideally, editors would go through those articles deleting them; but that doesn't happen very often - mostly because it can take considerable work to determine whether their subjects do in fact meet the criteria.

You are arguing for a change in the notability criteria for academic journals, rather like the criteria for academics: that makes some sense, but you need to achieve consensus that they should be changed, rather than simply assert it here. I suggest opening a discussion at WT:Notability. ColinFine (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC) I see that this was discussed in a later item, and there is such a set of criteria --ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding information boxes

Hey there, I was wondering if anybody could help me learn how to insert the boxes one traditionally sees at the very top right of an article, the one with all the info and whatnot on the article in question. I'm writing up Draft:Star Wars: Young Jedi Adventures, and think it requires one of those.

Thank you all so very much, AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@AdmiralAckbar1977: Welcome to the Teahouse. You are thinking about infoboxes, and they are not required for articles. They help consolidate information about the subject, but by no means are they required. I would focus on making sure the draft is good enough to be accepted before even thinking about that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello AdmiralAckbar1977 and welcome to Wikipedia. Help pages about many of the items you'll need as an editor can be found by typing "WP:" followed by the name of what you are looking for into the "Search Wikipedia" box. So WP:INFOBOX will get you to the right place. That said, I think it is a bit WP:TOOSOON for your draft to be accepted as it refers to something only supposed to happen in 2023 and not yet widely discussed in reliable independent sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding a draft page/article

Hi, Could you please kindly let me know the process how a draft page gets published as a Wikipage permanently? And how long does it take? What does the submitter need to do? Thank you. NepLekhak (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Relevant courtesy link: Draft:Badri Bahadur Karki. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @NepLekhak, and welcome to the Teahouse! Before being moved to the mainspace (becoming an article), a draft should be submitted and reviewed through the WP:Articles for Creation (AfC) process. An AfC reviewer will then decide whether or not to Accept the draft article, decline the draft article for later improvement and resubmission, or reject the draft completely. This process can take some time due to the high backlog of about 3,000 articles, although it is unlikely it will take any more than 4 months between each submission. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

In addition to what HenryTemplo said, articles aren't necessarily permanent once they enter mainspace. They can be nominated for deletion if they don't meet certain guidelines or by editor consensus at Articles for deletion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Editing question: Company rebrands

Hello!

General editing question. A company has rebranded, and the Wikipedia document still references the previous brand name - whilst the document references the new, and in the infobox references the old brand name as "formerly". My assumption is that this document title (and reference URL) won't change, unless there is substantial need/cause for further disambiguation amongst other namesakes. Am I correct in this assumption? This is the article in question: Proton Technologies - I saw the question raised in the contrib notes and this got me thinking as I can't see any direct guidance on this. Taylordanrw ([[User talk:|talk]]) 17:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Taylordanrw. I verified the current name and moved the article to Proton AG. Cullen328 (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Article and category that do not stick to subject

The article Dichotomy is supposedly about dichotomy in logic, yet contains a slew of example from outside logic. I'd like to remove the lot of them, and if someone wishes to reuse those in a different article, then that's great. However, if the article is to be limited to logic, then perhaps it could be retitled something like Dichotomy in logic, or Dichotomy (Logic)? Also, one of the Categories to which it has been assigned is Greek words and phrases, but Dichotomy is not a Greek word, it is a word with Greek etymology. In fact, the entire Category suffers from this confusion, as it is a hodgepodge of Greek words, words that are same in both languages, English words with Greek roots, and English translations of Greek phrases. I'd like to delete at least all the English words, unless 'close enuf' is what to aim for. Knoitalno (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your first paragraph. Dichotomy starts off well, by saying what it's about. It sticks to that subject for a while, and then wanders off into other uses of the word. I consider that inappropriate. An article should be about a topic, not a word and its various uses.   Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Maproom (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

How do I use the talk section of Wikipedia?

How do ask a question, or reply to somebody?

Requity (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Requity. If you want to ask a specific editor a question, you can do so on that editor's talk page. If you have a question about how to improve an article, you can ask on the article talk page. If you have a question about a policy, you can ask on the talk page for that policy. And so on. Cullen328 (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Requity! You can ask a question by clicking the new section button on the top of the page. You can reply by clicking the reply button next to a comment. Always remember to sign your posts with the ~~~~! 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 19:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Requity you can read more at Help:Talk pages 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 19:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Thank you!

Requity (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

List of songs about animals

I don't see a list of songs about animals, though I see several other lists about categories having numerous members, such as List of songs about cities. Am I missing something? If not, then what should be done to start one?2603:6010:4E42:500:55A1:1870:CE12:CB2E (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. It seems that nobody has gotten around to it. Register an account and start editing. After four days have gone by and you have made at least ten edits, you will be eligible to create the list article. Read Your first article for guidance. Cullen328 (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Grr...I wrote so much you beat me to making a reply. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 19:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey, and Welcome! There is the page List of songs about animal rights but no, there is not a page about songs about animals so as a turtle I am very sad . If you are willing to put in the time and energy, be bold and make one! However, I would strongly recommend making an account and spending more time on Wikipedia and learning more skills before your right an article. (I have 1000+ edits and when I started I wanted to make an article. You can see how far I got in my sandbox.) Once you have decided to and you are ready, read Help:Your first article and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. In the mean time, create an account and try working at the Task Center! 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 19:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

How do I make my signature not look ugly.

I've seen people on Wikipedia with stunning signatures, whilst my signature looks like this: Requity (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Requity. Please read WP:SIGNATURE#Customizing your signatureSIGNATURE. Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The importance of the expertise of Wikipedia editors

I understand Wikipedia runs based on consensus, but I see some editors make irreversible changes without relevant expertise. For instance,

I created Nano Energy, which is proposed for deletion (Talk:Nano_Energy). By any standard, Nano Energy is among the top 5% (if not 1%) scholarly journals. For example, the Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator level listed it as a distinguished journal (see Wikidata).

I re-submitted Draft:Exaly in which the contributors (I was not one of them) provided examples of high profile authors who used the scientometric analysis of their publications in their CVs. The editor, who rejected it, compared it with someone who goes to a music concert. Anyone with academic experience knows how much academics are sensitive in including reliable resources in their CVs.

I believe each category has its own standard (there are more secondary references for Instagram model comparing with scientists). All articles in a category should be judged by the same standard by people who know the field. Being an experienced Wikipedia editor does not qualify someone to judge all topics. MojoDiJi (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, MojoDiJi, we have inclusion criteria to assess against and we do so in a neutral way; you don't have to be a subject matter expert and sometimes that can be a hindrance because we look at notability in a broad sense not under a narrow light. I suggest you express your concerns at the article's deletion nomination as we have no control over the process here. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Zindo, but I beg to disagree. You should be an expert to judge the significance of references. For instance, there are lots of media coverage for a junior politician, which can be used as secondary sources; but there are rarely articles about successful scientists. You cannot judge the availability of secondary sources equally. MojoDiJi (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@MojoDiJi That's why we have different definitions of notability for different subjects. A scientist would have to pass the criteria at WP:NACADEMIC, while politicians have to pass the criteia at WP:NPOLITICIAN. If they don't meet either of those specialised criteria they may also qualify for an article if the pass the general WP:NBASIC criteria for a biography, or any of the "this person is automatically notable" criteria at WP:ANYBIO. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. There should be separate notability criteria for scholar journals. If not, people who are not familiar with scholarly journals should not take the action/make the judgement. MojoDiJi (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@MojoDiJi There is, see WP:NJOURNALS and the specific criteria at WP:JOURNALCRIT. If you include a reliable source that shows that the journal passes one of the three criteria laid out there it is essentially guaranteed to be kept if nominated for deletion. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for that. I was looking for this page. Clearly, Nano Energy meets the requirement. Therefore, the editor who proposed for deletion was at fault. Taking an action without reviewing the rules in place. This is the concern I am trying to address. Unnecessary actions waste other people's time. MojoDiJi (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@MojoDiJi Yes, the nomination was clearly incorrect, three established users have commented there and there is currently unanimous support for keeping it. Notability on wikipedia is an extremely complex and unintuitive concept with the rules being different for essentially every subject, so it's not surprising that mistakes get made occasionally. It's a real shame that you seem to have been bitten quite badly by having your first article nominated for deletion, I hope it hasn't put you off completely. Have you considered joining a wikiproject? Wikipedia:WikiProject Science is full of people interested in writing about scientific topics, they can be a great resource to get subject specific help. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I should add though that the subject specific do see a lot more activity than the general one, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry 192.76.8.78 (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You were very supportive. I might have overreacted. MojoDiJi (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, there're far less useful sources for Instagram models - or really anyone whose fame comes from social media, web videos, or eSports - than you realise. And WP:NACADEMIC exists because of the issues surrounding sourcing for academics, especially when WP:Biographies of living persons is also a factor.

As to Exaly, we do not accept notability-by-osmosis, and our audience hardly understands what the hell a scientometric analysis or an h-index is. We're written for the layperson, and the article should reflect that by just summarising what the journal is. WP:Notability (academic journals), while not a guideline or policy, explains what reviewers are looking for when it comes to these sorts of publications.

This looks more to me like a gripe that would have been easily dealt with if you had bothered to do research on Wikipedia before jumping headfirst into the literal hardest thing to do here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

There are many news outlets such as The Sun (s credible secondary source) which publish an article whenever an Instagram model post a racy photo. The link did not mention anything about notability by osmosis. My point is that maybe you need to start accepting it for cases like this. You make the same mistake as the editor I mentioned. Here the authors are not the users. By linking they, as reliable and independent professionals, testify that the analysis of their publications is correct. Anyhow, I did not devise this type of referencing. MojoDiJi (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@MojoDiJi The sun (and many such similar publications, like the daily mail) is considered a depreciated source, see WP:THESUN. This means that editors have deleted essentially all references to the sun except those used in a small number of situations (like WP:ABOUTSELF, see this search for the last 20 [3]), it is highly discouraged as a reference and coverage in the sun does not count towards notability. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

That was just an example that celebrities get more media coverage than scientists. However, it was good to know. Thanks :) MojoDiJi (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Deprecated source, not depreciated. See also WP:THESUN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@MojoDiJi We don't give experts special rights to decide on notability, partly this is because we have no way of verifying who anyone is (see, for example, the Essjay controversy) and partly because everyone can find it difficult to acknowledge their own biases - if you use a piece of software every day you might think it is notable enough for an article, but from an outside observer's perspective it might be that the coverage to support an article simply doesn't exist.

The journal article deletion nomination appears to be frivolous and I fully expect it to be kept, so the deletion nomination process is working as intended. Likewise the draft on the search engine appears to be full of not great sources and the decline appears to be correct. Compare the sourcing in that draft to things like Scopus, Google Scholar or Microsoft Academic Search. The sources in Draft:Exaly are almost entirely people using or mentioning the search engine, as opposed to coverage of said search engine. The reception section should cite some kind of third party coverage of the reception of Exaly, you might use a news article on the search engine or a bit of coverage from a book, for example, rather than finding individual examples of mentions and combining them together (this falls afoul of WP:NOR), citations 7-14 do not show significant coverage of the topic and, in my opinion, should probably be removed. Citation no 6 appears to be to a research paper, but it is actually a citation to a user submitted comment on that paper - this is not usable as a source as it is WP:USERGENERATED. In citation no 5 the only mention Exaly is a one word link in the "other resources" section - there is no coverage of this search engine at all there. Citation 4 is a WordPress blog, while the author here is an expert in the field and this can probably be used for information it doesn't really show notability. Citation 3 is the website's own about page, and is not independent coverage. Citation no 2 appears at first glance to be a university writing about the search software, but a further search shows that it's just a copy paste of https://exaly.com/about-us.html. Citation 1 appears to be a good length piece of coverage by an independent party and is exactly the kind of source that is needed, one or two more sources like that are what is needed in this article.

If you are an academic having a go at writing wikipedia articles you might want to have a read of Wikipedia:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia and Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, and academics, both of which were written by academics to give advice on making the transition from academic writing to wikipedia writing. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I highly appreciate your review. If you rejected the article, I would say it was an expert review. But comparing high profile authors with attending a music concert is not acceptable. I am mostly interested in creating articles for journals than Exaly, and find it ridiculous to see high impact journals nominated for deletion. However, since you mentioned; I need to add two points. First, if you look at the pages you lined such as Scopus, Google Scholar, etc., they have not much references when their articles were created. The references were added over 10-15 years. Second, you did not scrutinize the references thoroughly. For instance, Citation 6 is not a user comment. It is stated by the original author of the paper. I agree with you that Citations 7-14 should be removed but comparing them with going to a music concert is unacceptable. MojoDiJi (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Just pointing out that the OP's statement that "some editors make irreversible changes" is incorrect. The actions here are anything but irreversible. Nano_Energy was draftified as not being ready for article space. It was then moved back to article space and improved. Another editor has now nominated it for deletion, and that's being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nano Energy, where several editors have already expressed opinions that it should not be deleted.

And Draft:Exaly was not "rejected". It was "declined" three times. There's a big difference. "Rejected" means it is not believed that the topic will qualify for an article. "Declined" means the article is not ready for article space, and the reviewer (in this case reviewers) leave suggestions on what needs to be fixed. Meters (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Meters, I still believe the changes are irreversible. The original author of Draft:Exaly gave up. I re-submitted it though I had no significant contribution. I give up now and draft will be deleted. I give up creating new articles for missing journals when I see the articles I created are unfairly suggested for deletion. MojoDiJi (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

If Draft:Exaly is abandoned it will not be deleted until it has been untouched for six months, And even if that happens it can be restored at any time by any editor simply by asking for it to be restored. How is that irreversible? I already told you that your article Nano_Energy is under discussion and so far several editors have supported keeping. Why don't you work to improve the article, and contribute to the AFD instead of simply throwing your hands up in the air and giving up? Meters (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Meters, as you see I did comment (though in the wrong place :D). We all are volunteers with no personal gain. It is frustrating to see that you spend time to help the community and instead your contribution is treated unfairly. I follow the rules to enhance Wikipedia. I am not here to fight to prove the value of my contribution. If I had created a controversial article, I would expected to see the result of consensus. But when I created something that was strangely missing in Wikipedia, it is disappoint to see it is considered for deletion because someone without the required knowledge or reason felt this way. MojoDiJi (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

"unfairly" How is the AFD "unfair"? Did anyone prevent you or anyone else from participating? See WP:Guide to deletion, or perhaps even more relevantly, Help:My article got nominated for deletion!. AFD is a process, and the only threshold for triggering that process is that someone in good faith thinks the article it not notable. And on earth, there are about 8 billion someones (and incidentally, there are many many AFDs on Wikipedia). It's as fair of a process as there is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@MojoDiJi One of the things you have to bear in mind is that the minimum standards that articles need to survive has increased drastically over the last 20 years. "what wikipedia is not", which removed some of the worst of the early content from the project wasn't written down until nearly 6 months after the project started [4]. The concept that "information needs sources" wasn't actually written until mid 2003, two and a half years after the project started [5] The concept that things should demonstrate significant coverage in third party sources wasn't written down until late 2006 [6] nearly 5 years after the project started. Even when written down a lot of these policies weren't really enforced properly until the late 2000's, when the fallout from things like the Seigenthaler biography incident forced editors to start enforcing content policies more thoroughly. There are a lot (as in millions) of articles from the early days of wikipedia which do not meet modern quality standards, but cleaning them all up is a monumental task, there is currently a "sweep" wikiproject in the works though that aims to clean up the worst of them.

Although the comment in citation 6 is by the original author of the paper it has not been through the same peer review and editorial process as the main paper and as such cannot be considered to be equal, especially in terms of things like reliability. Mentioning something in a discussion about a paper you wrote is also very different from mentioning it in the paper submitted for peer review from a notability standpoint. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with most of your views. MojoDiJi (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

"But comparing high profile authors with attending a music concert is not acceptable."

I made that comparison as a way to explain our notability criteria and what independent reliable sources are by analogy with a topic that's more easily accessible. It's a perfectly acceptable comparison. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I need help with the article to be worked on for approval

I have a strong belief that all my articles are best on people that require the wikipedia kind of recognition

However the rules of notability do not seem that clear for me maybe to understand

Aanywell wisher will be grately appreciated

thank you Andrew Kayiza (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Kayiza Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this refers to Draft:Prince Abul Alqasim Ssemuggala Mulanga Mutatembwa Lukeberwakutta Kimera. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone, and is not meant as a form of recognition for someone(there are, in fact, good reasons to not want an article about one's self). A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the personm, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Being a prince may very well be notable, but only if independent sources write about him, without his involvement or that of associates. Your draft has virtually no sources. Wikipedia is interested in what other people unaffiliated with the Prince say about him. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Joanna Langfield Page Edits

Please review latest changes.

Hello, I made changes to the page I am writing called Joanna Langfield. The last comments I received on it was that the way it was written currently was that it was not compliant with how you would like, so I made the changes.

If you can please review so it can (hopefully!) be published now that would be greatly appreciated. GregWikiMake (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Joanna Langfield.   Maproom (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The enormous list in section "Notable Works and Mentions" is mostly trivial and adds virtually nothing to the draft except an air of desperation. Theroadislong (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, GregWikiMake. According to MOS:SURNAME, she should be referred to by her surname following the first mention of her. Remove all those extra "Joannas". The "Interviews" section is unreferenced and it therefore comes off as shameless namedropping. Unreferenced sections are a red flag for reviewers. This would only merit inclusion if discussed by an independent reliable source. I agree with Theroadislong's comment about the "Notable Works and Mentions". It is a disjointed and jarring list of factoids. You need to develop the skill of writing in an encyclopedic fashion. Cullen328 (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing and I can remove the Joanna's.

I do want to make clear however that I know for a fact that, because she is my mother and I spoke to her about this (and that I have already disclosed), she did interview all those celebrities.

When Joanna first started on the radio 40 years ago nothing was digital or online. I have called many MANY people about this to try and get references, to no avail.

With all that being said, how do you believe I should write the Natoble Works and Mentions section? GregWikiMake (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

If the facts you know aren't independently verifiable in reliable published sources, then they should not be included. I have had similar problems with wine-related articles, in which I can talk to a notable winemaker in person and learn something that isn't published, but I cannot use it. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

trying to anchor a reference and it won't anchor

Reference 19 is supposed to go to its anchor and it won't. What am I doing wrong? Wikipedia:Sandbox#Governor_and_federal_judge and Wikipedia:Sandbox#References. If it reverts back on you by the time you get my question, this is the link to the old version. --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: Since you've stricken through your post, it's probably fair to assume that you figured things out yourself. If that's the case, then great. For future reference, you can probably just remove your question in such a case if you want as long as nobody has replied to it and it wasn't posted too long ago. You can also strike through you post, but probably should follow the instructions in WP:REDACT if that's what you want to do. Just leave the section heading as is and strike through everything up to your signature. A subsequest post stating you've sorted things out would also probably be a good thing. The way you tried to strike your post created a formating problem that made it seem as if your post was part of a completely unrelated question asked by someone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, I figured it out. I am sorry for creating a formatting problem.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

How to resolve "Category:Rejected AfC submissions"

Hi, I need help resolving this issue with a wikipedia page that was rejected. What should I do? MaryamZahedi (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

MaryamZahedi Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It would help to know which draft you are talking about, as your account has no edits(other than here), but generally a rejection means that nothing further can be done. If the draft was "declined", then something can possibly be done. 331dot (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back, the original submission was sent with a different account and I'm here to help figure out how we could publish a new page on Wikipedia. It does meet all the guidelines and I don't know what needs to change in order to have it go through the next time. Really appreciate your input. MaryamZahedi (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

MaryamZahedi Again, it is difficult to help you without knowing what the draft is. Who is "we"? Do you represent an organization? Wikipedia does not have "pages", it has articles. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia and its terminologies and trying to help a friend who is also new to this, and has created and submitted an article that was published on everybodywiki.com instead of wikipedia and I'm trying to understand what needs to be done next time to help so that it goes through. Trying to figure out what caused the rejection so that it doesn't happen again. The article ended up being published under the name "Bioenergy Economy" in the everybodywiki website but this chat is not letting me link the URL here since it's an external site. MaryamZahedi (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MaryamZahedi. The draft in question is Draft:Bioenergy economy. It still exists. It has not been rejected. It is not in any such category. Instead, it has been declined, which is different. The draft has lots of problems and several reviewers have offered good advice about how to improve it. Read all that advice and heed it. Study Your first article and follow that advice as well. If you have a Conflict of interest, be sure to declare it. Cullen328 (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The original author is User:Ghz91. Cullen328 (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that is super helpful to know. Thank you for referring me to that page, I will take a closer look and read through it all. Thanks! MaryamZahedi (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

regarding everybodywiki, it seems that bioenergy economy's draft has been forked there. it's not officially related to wikipedia or any of its sister wikis, and has been recognized as a fork of wikipedia that scrapes pages using a bot (which is the case with your draft). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 01:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Didn't know that could happen, thanks for informing on that! MaryamZahedi (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Kevin Millar (baseball player)

Go to the article, go to: Replacement player section. Reference needs to be cleaned up. Thank you for your time. Theairportman33531 (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. The 1st reference was missing a close tag. Thanks.Slywriter (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

editing

Is there an administrator who can delete a previous edit summary I made that has a spelling mistake or fix the spelling mistake in the edit summary? I am unsure how to complete this request with a dummy edit, if possible. 70.188.155.246 (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit summaries cannot be changed once the edit is saved. They can be deleted, but this will not be done just because the edit summaries contain typos or spelling mistakes. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Minor errors in edit summaries are not worth worrying about. If you make a significant error in an edit summary, like misspelling the word "tuck", then you can use the technique described at Help:Dummy edit to clarify what you really meant. Cullen328 (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I am having trouble with the format for a dummy edit. I believe the spelling error is significant. Here is the page, [7], or you can view the spelling error on this page: [8]. Thank you! 70.188.155.246 (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Seven Sisters

All 7 dots on the Seven Sisters Colleges map are in the wrong places. I have no idea how to fix it. 2600:6C4A:427F:E1BB:61E2:A659:C1B5:F90D (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! It appears you would fix the map on Seven Sisters (colleges) by fixing the coordinate location in the Wikidata entry for each college, such as d:Q167733 for Barnard College. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The locations on Wikidata were correct, @GoingBatty; there was something else funky going on, possibly with the map template itself. I sidestepped the issue by converting it to the more modern {{Maplink}} format. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty @Sdkb The issue might be this recent change to the coordinates in the data template for the cropped northeastern US map? [9] 192.76.8.78 (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shrikesong: Is there a chance your edit caused something? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, somewhat. My edit attempts were trying to correct the map locations as well. Whenever it was changed to NE Cropped map the locations were very off. A comment was made that it wasn't correct and I looked into it to see what I could adjust. It turned out more complicated and I was able to get some places closer, but I really think it has to do with the settings based on that cropped map. I had been testing and was going to reach out to others, but then got sidetracked and left it as best I could at the time. Was going to come back eventually. I think the non-cropped version probably worked better if anyone wanted to go back to it. I kind of like the maplink format better anyway. Shrikesong (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shrikesong @Sdkb Having looked into it a bit further I think I know what the issue is. Module:Location map/data/USA Northeast (cropped) currently has the data set up for an equirectangular projection, however the map it's been cropped from, File:Usa edcp location map.svg is a Conic projection. The different projections mean the maps need to handle distortion differently, if you look at the bottom boundary of Delaware the difference is obvious, in an equirectangular projection [10] it's a horizontal straight line, in a conic projection [11] it's a curve. To fix this the map needs to be set up to use a modified form of the x and y formulas used in Module:Location map/data/USA Midwest and Northeast to account for the distortion. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The formulas needed are in the article Equidistant conic projection 192.76.8.78 (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I will work on that this week if no one else gets to it first. Shrikesong (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Library books as a reliable source

Are library books a reliable source even though I read them? Should I use the text from the book I read to edit on articles? It is called research. This will be a good idea to help improve Wikipedia and contribute on building an encyclopedia. Books and literature tend to have more information than the Wikipedia itself. Respond when you are ready. -- 76.20.110.116 (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Books can be excellent sources but you must develop the ability to evaluate the reliability of any given book. Does the publisher have a good reputation? Does the author have a good reputation? If you have determined that a specific book is reliable, then it does not matter where you read it. Libraries books are fine. Books from new or used bookstores are fine. Books that you can read online are fine. Books you borrowed from a friend are fine. If you pull a book out of a garbage can, then that book is fine, as long as the author and the publisher are reliable. Cullen328 (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 This IP is an editor avoiding a block. They were blocked for a year as 2601:205:C002:D1E0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for long term trolling, disruptive editing and vandalism, they are currently avoiding their block as 76.20.110.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and various IP addresses in the 204.129.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) range. I opened an SPI about this a week or so ago but they're a bit backlogged there at the moment, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/76.20.110.116. If you look at the edits of those two IP ranges you can see the obvious overlap in topics and pages and the good hand bad hand editing, e.g. they vandalise the page Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia as 204.129 [12] and leave some trolling on it's talk page [13] before showing up again as 76.20 to do some good hand editing [14]. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Please file a report at WP:SPI. I am not willing to investigate on my own at this time, because I am not a particularly skilled sockpuppet investigator, plus I am busy with other things. Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, as I said I filed an SPI a week and a half ago but there's a perpetual backlog there, especially for cases that can't rely on checkuser. @Bbb23: You've been cleaning up a lot of the mess coming out of the 204.129 /16 range, would you be willing to have a look at 76.20? 192.76.8.78 (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

How to get a printable version of Encyclopedia.

Since Wikipedia Book Creator has been closed, do you have any reason why it is closed? If so, how will I get my own personal book with selected articles and have it printed on PediaPress? Any strategy? How can I find the way to create my own Wikipedia book? Thank you! 76.20.110.116 (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello. In brief, that project did not prove to be viable. PediaPress still seems to be in business, but they are no longer in a partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation. Also, there are countless self-publishing platforms available that will print a book to order for you. I used a service like that recently, that claimed to collect the best photos that I have posted on Facebook in recent years. Their algorithmic bot did a great job of selecting photos, although about 3% of them were incongruous. The algorithm clearly favors photos of flowers and babies. That was fine with me. Cullen328 (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 The book creator is still around and you can still use it to make books, the only bit that was removed was the "community maintained" book namespace which was mostly full of rubbish. To use the book creator you need to create an account (as you can only save books in your own user space now), then you can go to Special:book to start the process of collecting pages. The in-wiki pdf creation functionality has been broken for about 10 years, and the free pdf rendering PressPedia was supposed to offer was withdrawn about 5 or so years ago, so the only options for actually being able to read your book are to pay PressPedia to print it or to use the community maintained mediawiki2latex. If you have a short book there's a version of the software running on wmflabs, https://mediawiki2latex.wmflabs.org/, if it's too long for online rendering you'll need to set up a linux machine to use it. It sort of works, but the rendering of certain templates can be a bit dodgy. It's not a great experience for readers overall, hence all the warnings about everything being half functional. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that is all far too complicated for me, and I have been a Wikipedia editor for 13 years. If I wanted to print a physical book consisting of various Wikipedia articles, I would use an "on demand" book printing service, copy pasting the articles, and attributing them on the fly. Cullen328 (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

What about any other website? Do they sell physical Wikipedia books? 76.20.110.116 (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Googling "buy printed wikipedia books on paper" seems to support 192.76.8.78's recommendation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Alvin Ailey Page

I look up celebrities on Wikipedia all the time. In the “early years” section, the celebrity’s parents are always listed. I just now looked up Alvin Ailey after watching a PBS documentary on his life, and was surprised to see that his mother’s name was not included in his early years description. Her presence was mentioned, but her name was omitted. She was a very important figure throughout his life and the absence of her actual name seems terribly disrespectful. I honestly can’t think of why, when among all the many celebrity entries I’ve read on Wikipedia the parents are named, this oversight of Alvin Ailey’s mother’s name has happened.

Can someone please look into it and correct the exclusion? They both deserve better.

Thank you. 73.95.198.130 (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I've added the names of his parents to the Alvin Ailey article. Maproom (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

New page

Hi fellow teahouse host, Can anyone tell me that how to create new page in wikipedia? ADP Dahal (talk) 06:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@ADP Dahal: See WP:WIZARD. If you're new, it's best that you create a draft page first and get it reviewed. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@ADP Dahal Start with making sure that you have the sources to meet the demands of WP:GNG. If you don't, pick another subject. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@ADP Dahal - Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you do not have a lot of experience editing Wikipedia. To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure you meant "months of waiting, declines, and rewrites". 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks all for your time to address my problem. ADP Dahal (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Unreleased music on artists' discographies

Hello Wikipedians! Good to see you again! Lately, a lot of artists play unreleased music which has not even been announced officially at performances e.g. Aespa at Coachella 2022, Bring Me The Horizon at one concert ofthem some days ago at Malta etc. Do we add those songs with TBA or we don't write them at all until the official announcement? I'm asking because it is already played music live but is not on music platforms. - Fisforfenia (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fisforfenia, and welcome to the Teahouse. The place to look for this sort of guidance is WP:DISCOGSTYLE, which suggests not. (see section "What should not be included"). ColinFine (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fisforfenia A lot of artists play other artists' music during concerts -- Heart and Pink, among others, often play a Led Zeppelin song during a concert. But I presume this isn't what you are asking about, right? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

No, what I'm asking is when an artist eg. Bring Me The Horizon, go to a concert and perform a song of them but unreleased officially yet, see here, here, here and here, do we add it or not? I'm asking because this one is not released on any platforms but it has been announced on a performance. Fisforfenia (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Want to edit semi protected pages

How to edit? 49.204.141.134 (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

You need to register an account, then make at least 10 edits and wait four days. After that you should be able to edit semi protected pages. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

You should request an edit using the edit request process on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Contributions disappeared

Why did my contributions disappear They're gone from the pages I added them to KingBiscuitBlues (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello KingBiscuitBlues, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you look at the history of the articles you edited (such as Robert Petway) it is clear that Ojorojo has removed the paragraph you added to each of them with the comment "rv unverified, spam". That is to say, the information you added was not supported by a reliable published source, and contained an apparently promotional link (I know it wasn't an active link, but it was still spam). I think Ojorojo should have notified you that they were reverting you, but they didn't. ColinFine (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

2021–22 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season

Can someone who is really good at English have a look at the article and tell me, why you need to have the season link in italics. I just don't understand why it needs to be emphasised. (page history) From what I understand, it shouldn't be done and it really looks like a strange formatting pattern to do that. Not to mention there seems to be somewhat of an edit-war over it. It really is driving me nuts! Govvy (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's not in italics in the first three similar articles I checked (for Arsenal, AC Milan and Aston Villa), and I can't see why there would be any need for it to be. On the other hand, it seems to me to be an utterly trivial point, which no-one would even notice if attention hadn't been drawn to it, so I'm not going to involve myself further in what seems to me to be an utter waste of time for everyone involved.

You might like to pursue the matter on the Talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. I notice that in the proposed model example at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season this link is not italicised. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.235.54 (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Merging "Abyssinian Guinea Pig" with "List of guinea pig breeds"

So, yeah. It isnt really that good of an idea to have a page for the Abyssinian Guinea pig itself, since Guinea pig breeds are quite similar to each other. The reasons to why are below.

The only main difference is really just the Guinea pig’s coat type. Each breed is the same size and body shape, all of them have a large variation of coat colors, and lastly, each one has the same personality, and really only varies by the individual Guinea Pig that you own.

In addition, the Abyssinian Guinea pig isn’t really a special breed itself, given that each breed of Guinea pig is diverse towards the type of coat they have. The only distinguishing feature they really have is spiky and frizzy hair that looks kind of messy.

That’s all I really have to say for why there shouldn’t be a page for Abyssinian Guinea pig. BoiBoi303 (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

hi @BoiBoi303 and welcome to the teahouse! there doesn't seem to be an article named Abyssian guinea pig. what article are you referring to? it's best for you to discuss changes and ideas regarding an article to that article's talk page, which can be accessed over at the top of any wikipedia page. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 13:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I meant Abyssinian Guinea pig, @Melecie.

BoiBoi303 (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

oh i dumb. anyways, you'd want to start a merge request over at Talk:Abyssinian guinea pig, plus read the merging guidelines while you're at it, which details when to do, how to do, and how to discuss merges. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 13:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Ègoiste (magazine)

Hello everyone,

I had a AfC draft for Ègoïste (magazine) what was rejected and the reason given was the tone of voice (seems to be my achilles' heel), I was wondering if someone could help me identify what needs to be changed and how -- I'd tried my best to remove unnecessary adjectives this time. Please let me know if there's something glaring that I am missing. Thank you. SleepyWhippet (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

PS -- the article also exists on French Wikipedia, here: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Égoïste_(magazine) SleepyWhippet (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @SleepyWhippet, and welcome to the Teahouse! I think I was the pesky editor who declined the draft (please note that there is a crucial difference between declining a draft, which allows the draft to be improved and resubmitted, and rejecting a draft, where the draft is found to be completely unsuitable for Wikipedia). If you want to address the issues relating to the writing tone, I'll give you a couple of problem phrases that you can address if you want:

- "in fact", this phrase doesn't really fit in with the formal tone expected from an encyclopaedia

-"It deals with" could be reworded to something more formal like "It focuses on"

There are a few other prose problems, but if you could address them and resubmit the draft, as long as the subject of the article is notable (which I think it is), I reckon the draft article will be all ready to be accepted into the mainspace. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you for the clarifications @HenryTemplo, it's very helpful. I will give it another go and resubmit. SleepyWhippet (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Your welcome! Have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I see nothing whatever wrong with either "in fact" or "deal with". (By contrast, rendering "Égoïste" as "Ègoïste" is some kind of crime.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

A pretty grave crime, I would say. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.235.54 (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary grave indeed,🙊 SleepyWhippet (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@SleepyWhippet Should the English WP have an article for foreign-language magazines? Maybe so, since some of the refs are in English. If all of the refs were non-English, I would argue against a magazine being notable to an English-speaking audience, if that makes sense. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. As a collector of primarily English-language books and magazines, I am interested in foreign magazines and publishers that originated stories or books later translated into English (think of Jules Verne or Stanisław Lem), and sometimes where/by whom a story/book translated from English has been published. I even have some (dozens of) magazines and books in non-English languages amongst my collection.

Moreover, some non-English magazines become internationally newsworthy for non-literary reasons: consider Le Canard enchaîné or Jyllands-Posten (though such will often have some English-language citations). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.235.54 (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the language of a particular publication is by any means relevant if they are otherwise noteworthy, which in this case it very clearly is. SleepyWhippet (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft Submit

Draft:Ziaul Hoque Polash How do I submit this for review? Ayatul nish (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Ayatul nish, the text currently has a total of two sentences. If this is all that can be written about a person, then as a reviewer I would infer that he's not notable (as understood in Wikipedia) and would decline the submission. Incidentally, for the great majority of assertions, all you need to cite is one reliable source. -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Bennedict Mathurin & Acknowledging Sexual Assault Allegations

On March 21, 2022, after a decisive victory, (then) college basketball player, Bennedict Mathurin, was accused of groping a cheerleader from the opposing team. This was captured in a viral video and widely reported by a variety of news outlets including the Associated Press and ESPN (https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/33579541/arizona-wildcats-bennedict-mathurin-says-reached-tcu-video-shows-possible-contact-horned-frogs-dancer).

I have been trying to work some kind of reference to these allegations into Mathurin’s page, but I have faced a great deal of resistance. I am not stuck on the actual words I used. I just feel like this information should be reported upon in some fashion. I feel like the administrator is misusing procedural recommendations to bury any reference to this incident.

I would love to have someone else edit my original write-up to meet Wikipedia standards or to write and submit something fresh. It just feels like it is wrong to bury something of this magnitude altogether. Truth Possum (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus. If another editor reverts your edit, then it is up to you to build consensus by opening a discussion with that editor (and any others who may be interested) on the article's talk page, not by edit warring. There may be other editors who agree with you that the incident should be mentioned, but wadign in and accusing other editors of "wanting to suppress discussion" is not the way to achieve that.

It may also be relevant to read WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS and WP:TRUTH. ColinFine (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Truth Possum, according to the article you cite, he's not aware of having touched her, and she showed no reaction at the time. "Famous baseball player may or may not have touched woman's breast, neither of them noticed at the time." I really don't think that's worth mentioning in the article. Maproom (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Truth Possum You should read WP:BLP, which it is a requirement to follow if you are going to edit articles about living people, in this case especially the sections on WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE. The policy on wikipedia is that people are presumed innocent until convicted in a court of law (WP:BLPCRIME), that articles on people must not overly focus on recent events (WP:BLPSTYLE) and articles must present praise and criticism fairly and in balance (WP:BLPBALANCE). The main issues with those edits are related to whether the amount of content added is giving WP:DUE weight to the event. In my opinion, no, this is not a fair and balanced representation of the event within the context of the article or Bennedict Mathurin's life or career. A "personal life" section should provide a balanced overview of the subjects personal life, not 2 sentences about his family followed by 4 paragraphs of content about how he might have brushed past a woman's breast and how this might have been groping according to people on social media. Following the video going viral there does not appear to have been any follow up coverage at all, it does not seem that anyone has pressed charges and it does not appear to have had any lasting impact on his life or career. If this is going to be covered at all in the article it really should not exceed one short sentence, but given the complete lack of any lasting impact, the extremely low quality of some of the sources used (e.g. the New York Post) and the complete lack of any kind of coverage more than a day or so after the video went viral I would lean on the side of not including it at all on the basis it is a complete non-event of no lasting significance. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Any further discussion of this matter should take place at Talk:Bennedict Mathurin where I have made my points. Cullen328 (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Hello how to upload images at english wikipedia. Saha86830 (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Saha86830, The best thing to do is to use the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard which will guide you through the process. Before starting make sure that you understand what the copyright status of the image is - the file will either have to be under a free content licence that is compatible with wikipedia, or you will need to provide a claim that the image can be used under fair use. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

For the great majority of images that would be helpful for English Wikipedia (let alone the Wikipedias of other languages), Saha86830, the best thing would be to upload them not to English Wikipedia but instead to Wikimedia Commons. (Images for "fair use" are exceptions.). -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary The file upload wizard automatically directs people to commons if the licencing information is compatible. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, IP Number. I hadn't known that. What I had observed were very many files -- of paintings by people who died twenty years ago, photos by persons unknown but clearly dating from before WW2, etc -- both (i) moved by some robot (I think it was) from en:WP (where originally uploaded) to Commons and (ii) falsely described as the uploader's "own work". I inferred that something about this procedure removed obstacles to the misdescription of what was uploaded. Is this just my imagination, running away with me? (And is there any advantage to uploading stuff to en:Wikipedia?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary The transfer process is done semi-manually with human review (not by a bot), mostly using scripts to assist. The "own work" claims are most likely people who don't know where the file came from filling in the inputs with bogus information just to get through the wizard and get it uploaded, or from a misunderstanding - a significant number of people seem to think that if you buy/digitise an old image the copyright is theirs. Theoretically images should be getting reviewed and files with obviously incorrect licences shouldn't be getting transferred to commons, but mistakes do happen.

There are 2 main advantages to local uploads - we can host stuff that is fair use rather than free use, and the fate of the image isn't tied to content policies on another project. I know of a few people who upload stuff locally and use {{keep local}} to make sure a local copy is kept. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Mistakes do indeed happen -- by the thousand. As for fair use, this can of course only be claimed if a set of conditions are met. Some of these images are very useful, but my impression is that the great majority of those uploaded by new users (and meeting the conditions) are of what I'd say are of little encyclopedic value: album covers, company logos and the like. -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Reusing Articles

I want to use a number of wikipedia articles in a book I am writing. I know your material is free, but does that apply to publication usage or would I require your written permission to use? 2601:18A:C100:EE70:C15D:E350:EDB5:8F98 (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, you can reuse wikipedia content in a book as long as you provide proper attribution and follow the conditions required under the creative commons licence, see WP:Reusing Wikipedia content for details. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Also be careful when re-using images, as some of them are used under a claim of fair use rather than a free use licence. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

If you substantially duplicate content in your book, you must also license your book under the same license that it is here, which is the CC BY-SA 3.0 or the GNU Free Documentation License. This is because both are 'copyleft' licenses. (Disclaimer: IANAL) I.hate.spam.mail.here (message me | my contributions) 23:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

How to find the NYC edithons or Meetups?

How to find the NYC edithons or Meetups? Charles Smith123 (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup will have a calendar with meetups and edithons in the future. Cherrell410 (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

is there any way to change to the old wikipedia look

i want to edit a page but the new look just make the editing page like a visual edit, i love the old one more. is there any way to change to the old wikipedia look? Mcaskil (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

If you want to switch from visual to source editing, just press "Visual editing" at the top right and select "Source editing" from the menu that pops up. I.hate.spam.mail.here (message me | my contributions) 23:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

if you meant the style of how you read pages, you can switch to the pre-2022 look at Preferences > Appearance > Vector legacy (2010). alternatively you could instead pick Monobook, which gives you the pre-2010 look. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

TV Films

Should I put them in the:

• Film categories,
• Television show categories, or
• Both Film and Television show categories? Danstarr69 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Danstarr69 The subcategories of Category:Television films seem like they would be the best place. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm specifically talking about when it comes to things like:

• Category: Films shot in England
• Category:Television shows filmed in England
• Category:Films set in England
• Category:Television shows set in England Danstarr69 (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Circumvention and Internet freedoms impeached in Australia

Does anyone know why Australia is now allowing censorship and circumvention of the internet. No1 believes me and it’s ruining my life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.81.64 (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! This is a place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia, not about the policies or laws of Australia. GoingBatty (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Soul Jain

My article on sales blunder got rejected. I didn't know what went wrong. Can you help me with my article and allow me to revise my article? reply Soul Jain (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

In your strangely titled Draft:Soul Jain, which Jimfbleak very rightly deleted, you plagiarized from this page, a how-to guide. In User:Soul Jain/sandbox, which I have just now deleted, you did the same. Wikipedia is not a place for people to paste web pages (even their own) from elsewhere. It is also not a place for how-to guides. -- Hoary (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Right, LinkedIn claims a copyright in the material on that page which you copied. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

about logo of srtm university nanded

i have updated logo of srtm university nanded. but removed by wiki...

Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University Madhukar.alse (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

hi @Madhukar.alse and welcome to the teahouse! it seems that you have uploaded two school logos, one of which has been deleted at Commons and another of which is undergoing a deletion request. instead of claiming that these images are your own work, what you should do is upload it to Wikipedia instead of Commons over at Files for upload (since Commons only accepts logos that are too simple to be copyrighted and also review the policies on Fair use content. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 06:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

How to add content online

I want to add my business content and also about me... please provide me guidance that how can i add my content on wikipedia ? Hitu 079 (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

hi @Hitu 079 and welcome to Wikipedia! to save you a long time of explaining, unfortunately you don't. unless what you have done in life is already particularly notable enough for coverage in reliable sources, you can't get an article, and so won't your business. and even if it was, it still won't be a place for you to tell the world about or advertise yourself or your business, it would just cover what those reliable sources that are independent of you will, the good and the bad sides. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @Hitu 079, and welcome to the Teahouse! First of all, I think you fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a platform where anyone can write an page about themselves or their company, Wikipedia is a free online encyclopaedia where anyone can start and contribute to articles about notable subjects. Also, It is strongly discouraged to edit articles where you have what's known as a Conflict of Interest. If you or your company is actually notable, chances are another random editor will start an article about you or your company. Regardless, have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Created page for : Ali Sabri Musician

== Redirect request: Ali Sabri Musician

This request has been accepted. Please do not modify it.
Target of redirect: Marshallese language Reason: {{r from lang|mh|en}} (Marshallese in Marshallese) Source (if applicable): 49.180.240.221 (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC) Redirect created.Ali Sabri Musician → Marshallese language. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC) Redirect created. Ali Sabri Musician → Marshallese language. Ali Sabri Musician → Marshallese language. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
This is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Baderantar01 (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

have a strong belief that all my articles are best on people that require the wikipedia kind of recognition

However the rules of notability do not seem that clear for me maybe to understand

Aanywell wisher will be grately appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baderantar01 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

hi @Baderantar01 and welcome to the teahouse! you'd want to read the notability guidelines for music topics in this case.

• first, you would need Reliable sources: sources from stuff such as news outlets or trusted sites in the music industry that have a reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking (not blogs, not wikis, not social media).
• if you do have them, check whether these sources prove that he fits in one of these criteria.
• if you do not have reliable sources or they don't fit the notability criteria, then stop: an article won't be created.. perhaps it may be too soon to create the article, you should wait until they get notability and outlet coverage first.

happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 14:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft Declined: Sanctuary of Refuge

Hi, can you all please help? This is my first wiki article and I've followed the tutorials as much as possible. I am trying to have the following article reviewed, resubmitted and approved (Sanctuary of Refuge). Feedback states the sources used were not secondary and the format was not encyclopedia based. There is a similar organization with a similar wiki page (Restored Hope Network) in which I used there wiki page as a guide. Any help you can provide would be appreciated. Thank you Tai Curry (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

See other stuff exists, Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for you to promote deeply offensive Conversion therapys. Theroadislong (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

HEART

Hi, I'm a hot glass artist and just recently had tow stents placed in my heart. I want to make a piece or art meaning heart in Japanese for a gidt for the surgeon. How shall I shape it for most meaning to him? 2604:2D80:6514:CF00:25AC:8FB5:1DD8:DDA2 (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I.P, welcome to the Teahouse. I would suspect that perhaps the most meaningful representation for a heart surgeon would be based on the anatomy of the heart. You can find more about symbolism here. The Teahouse is however for asking questions about editing Wikipedia, do you have a question in that regard? Thanks, Zindor (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

...if you'd like to ask questions about non-wikipedia topics, the best place to ask would be the Reference desk. happy reading! 💜  melecie  talk - 13:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse archival message

Hi, recently, I got a message from muninnbot that my teahouse message has been archived. This incident is really normal. But this time, I can see that I have received the message only, but nothing visible is being displayed. I saw that a certain code has been inserted at the bottom of my talk page, but that code did not get executed. Is the bot malfunctioning? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Itcouldbepossible, you accidently removed the closing tag of a comment by Sinebot when you made this edit. If it's not closed like <!-- --> it'll hide everything that follows. I've now fixed it. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Zindor, that thing totally missed my eye. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Zindor But can you fix something. Why is a part of the comment being removed every time I move a section? Only that section is to be removed. Where is it going wrong? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@DannyS712 would you be able to have a look at this, it seems it might be a bug in User:DannyS712/SectionMover.js? The script is incorrectly moving the end of a comment from the previous section to the archive, see [15]. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@DannyS712 I'm not a programmer so there's a good chance I'm completely wrong here, but is the byte offset being converted into a character offset before the trimming is done? If not that would result in the cuts appearing too early when multi-byte characters like emoji are used, wouldn't it? 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

vandalism

How do i stop others from reediting my pages by removing legitimate information? Singleton4321 (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Singleton4321 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The word "vandalism" has a specific meaning- an attempt to deface an article- merely removing edits is not vandalism. In the case of your edit to Oliver James (psychologist) you replaced sourced information with unsourced information. This is not acceptable in an article about a living person, see WP:BLP. If you have sources for your edits, please discuss them on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Singleton4321 First, you can revert them. If it's a long time problem on a specific page, you can request for the page to be protected here. If it is one user that you have warned enough times (4 times or a 4im template) you can request for them to be blocked at WP:AIV. If you want to DEFEND WIKIPEDIA more, you can enroll in the counter vandalism academy. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 14:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

However @Singleton4321, as @331dot pointed out, make sure the edits really are vandalism. For more information, see Wikipedia:What is not vandalism. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 14:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

You say "my pages". Firstly, Wikipedia does not have "pages". It has has articles. Secondly, articles do not belong to any person; they are not "mine" or "yours". The nearest WP has to "my page" is a user's own page (and related pages). In your case these would be, for instance, User:Singleton4321, User talk:Singleton4321, etc. Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

You have misunderstood my use of the word 'my'. I mean the page about me, not my possession. I would have thought that was obvious, obviously not, from your comment. Do you have any advice on how to protect the articles about me from leaving out a great deal and only including reference to my most vocal critic? Singleton4321 (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

thx for this info. Unfortunately, its a variety of opponents of my ideas who seem to quickly put back their edits. They remove my qualifications and reduce the page to an advertisment for the my main critic's comments, one Stuart Ritchie. I am not sure how to protect myself from these constant changes to the pages. Singleton4321 (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Singleton4321 if this really involves you personally, you may have a Conflict of interest. I would advise you to distance yourself from pages that offend you. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 15:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

How do i distance myself from the article? Surely it makes sense for me to add information to it, I am the person who knows most about my career etc? Singleton4321 (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Singleton4321, Mr Reading Turtle linked you to the conflict of interest guideline above, which explains why you should not add such information. Basically, it's difficult to follow Wikipedia's core policies when editing with a conflict of interest (commonly abbreviated COI). Editing with a COI often results in unsourced content, which should not be in biographies of living people, and it is extremely difficult to keep a neutral point of view when you have a connection with (or are) the subject of the article. That doesn't mean you have to ignore the article entirely; you can request an edit on the article talk page with this template. Perfect4th (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Please advise on how to warn an author. Thanks Singleton4321 (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I am the author of the books cited, the evidence for my sales is not in the public domain. how can i verify in a way that constitutes a legitimate wikisource? several of my books had periods in Amazon's top 5, how can i prove that?

I am not sure how i prove that i produced or presented television programmes that were broadcast 20-30 years ago - only one of them is available on youtube, some of them are available on my website. please advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singleton4321 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

If your sales have not been commented on in a WP:RS independent of you (Amazon is not independent since they sell the books), they will not be included. An Amazon ranking can be included if for example a review in The Guardian mentioned it, but Amazon reporting on their own sales is not interesting to include from the WP-POV, WP:ABOUTSELF applies here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, if it hasn't become obvious from the above replies, Wikipedia has a definition of "truth" that isn't quite the same as what normal people define as "true". In Wikipedia, truth is what reliable sources (e.g. The Guardian Newspaper) say about something. If the Guardian writes that the moon is square, then so does Wikipedia. We individual editors have no liberty to use our own human knowledge. This is really frustrating to the subjects of our articles, and their close family. You may know that your favourite colour is green, and who would know better than you? But if the Guardian says it's blue, we have to say it's blue, no matter how much you tell us otherwise. We can (and should) remove unsourced facts. But we can't introduce facts that haven't been pre-screened by a reliable secondary source, and we can't remove relevant facts that have been published in a reliable secondary source unless some similarly reliable source has cast doubt on them. Elemimele (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Elemimele Actually we do not have to follow a source that claims the moon is square, instead we label that source as unreliable and ignore it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

... okay, yes, strictly speaking you're right. I was trying to keep things simple. The caveat is that we don't generally label a source as unreliable without going through a lot of pain first. We need evidence that it's generally unreliable, which usually means other secondary source conflicting with it, and preferably writing up some stories about how the unreliable source has been caught publishing untruths. What definitely isn't okay is me personally labeling a source as unreliable just because I happen to "know" it's wrong. That way leads to all the pain in medical and fringe subjects where individual editors are quite convinced that they are right and all sources that contradict them are wrong. At the very least, personal decisions of reliability tend to lead to long and acrimonious talk-page discussions!

A useful way out of conflict is to attribute the dubious statements: "According to the Guardian, the moon is square". Provided the Guardian actually said it (which anyone can check) then Wikipedia is telling the truth, and our readers are in a position to decide for themselves whether they want to believe the fact given the background of who said it. Elemimele (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Unverifiable information

Hey, Teahouse. Lately, I've been editing the article on RateMyCop.com, a website which is no longer functional. There aren't any sources that state when or how it went down, but at archive.org, the last available archive is from March 2017. I wrote that the site stopped operating in 2017, but would it be better to just leave it out if it can't be verified in any reliable sources? ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

My collected autographs, are they valid signatures?

I have the autographs of the late Kristen Nygaard and Ole-Johan Dahl plus the living C. A. R. Hoare, Alan Kay and Bjarne Stroustrup. I collected these by approaching the persons at Simula-67’s 25 years anniversary at the University of Oslo (in 1992).

In addition, I have a label from a letter to me, signed Per Brinch Hansen. He is also deceased. This most probably is his signature.

These are all rather famous computer scientists, to say it mildly!

None of these signatures have been written by the persons in mind to end up being published on the internet.

What is the Wikipedia policy on this?

I could photograph them (where the paper texture probably would be visible), or I could scan them at max 1200 DPI. But I would not do anything before I know whether it's ok. I have no other autographs, since I am no collector. Plus I won't sell them. However, I could give them away to some computer science museum, I would assume.

I have no contact with any of these "heroes of mine", so I would have no way to query them. Øyvind Teig (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Aclassifier. Please read Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons for some good advice. Cullen328 (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

If you would like advice on the copyright status of them commons has a help page on signature copyright law in various countries, see c:COM:SIG. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

How to publish a page?

I have created a sandox page but how do I publish it for the world to see? Lenrv12345 (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Lenrv12345, and wlcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that User:Lenrv12345/sandbox has no chance of being accepted as a Wikipedia article in its current form, and it would be a waste of everybody's time for you to submit it. It looks as if, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of whta Wikipedia is. It is not like social media or a directory, where you can tell the world about yourself - that is called promotion, and is strictly forbidden. If Wikipedia has an article on you, it will not be based on what you know or say or want to say, but almost entirely on what people who have no connection to you have chosen to publish about you in reliable sources. If such sources exist, then there can be an article based on them; if not, then you do not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article on you will be accepted.

You are strongly discouraged from writing about yourself, because it is likely to be difficult to be sufficiently neutral. But you are permitted to do so, if you wish. I recommend studying conflict of interest and your first article before you do any more, as well as the links I have already given above. It's also worth looking at an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Question About Categories

How do you add a category to a page? DottedSkies (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@DottedSkies: The easiest way to show you is to just go to an article that has a category you would like to add, and click the edit button at the top to see the code that they use, copy it, and make sure you paste it at the very bottom of your desired article. If you’d like to read more, visit Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! DottedSkies (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)