Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

Hi Grabergs, Just to let you know that I went ahead with your suggestions and the advice coming from people responding on these two sources has been extremely helpful & I feel a lot more positive. Given that my initial experience with the deletions etc was quite negative this is a good turn around. Many thanks again. JSKutcher (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JSKutcher, glad to hear it! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just my ha'pennorth, but "Personal communication" is a valid citation type in academic bibliography - it's then down to the reputation/perceived trustworthiness/likelihood of it being possible/true, as to whether the information given is judged by the readership/peer reviewers, to be believable... 193.105.69.7 (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the relevance of this comment is. Personal communication may be acceptable in some publications but it is entirely unacceptable as a reference here in Wikipedia. All references must, at minimum, be published. See WP:SOURCEDEF which says Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited. CodeTalker (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I am having trouble with the format for a dummy edit. I believe the spelling error is significant. Here is the page, [1], or you can view the spelling error on this page: [2]. Thank you! 70.188.155.246 (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling grammar isn’t that significant. I don’t know why you’re getting so obsessive over it. Speatle (talk to me)(read all about it) please ping me when replying to something I said. 11:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If all of the refs [about a magazine that's not in English] were non-English, I would argue against a magazine being notable to an English-speaking audience, if that makes sense. It makes sense in that I understand what you're saying (or think I do), but I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that would back you up, and I'd oppose the imposition of any such policy. Incidentally, it sometimes happens that a subject that's far better known to people who speak a given (non-English) language XYZ than to anyone else gets a better article in English-language Wikipedia than it does in XYZ-language Wikipedia; if this happens, speakers of XYZ as a first language may want to read up the subject in English-language Wikipedia. I don't want to boast [i.e. I am about to boast], but my creation Sakae Tamura (nature photographer), about a Japanese person, is now almost 15 years old, yet a reader proficient in Japanese still won't find an article about him in Japanese-language Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the responses. I see all of your point(s) above. I wonder if there are dozens of notable non-English magazines and other publications that could be added to en-WP, that are not here (yet). 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that there are. To take a topical example: Without denying that the Russian language has been and remains very important among Ukrainians, the Ukrainian language is too. And yet Category:Ukrainian-language magazines contains a total of just twelve. I can hardly believe that so few are notable (as defined for en:Wikipedia). Nations that aren't in the news fare worse: Category:Magazines published in Senegal contains just eight. -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Submit

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

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)[reply]

@Hoary, Well brother, I understand. I'm adding some more info now tell me how to submit it for review. Ayatul nish (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Singleton4321 I know this is hard to understand at first, but everything in the English WP must be verifiable (click here). That is so any reader can check the published sources that you must include in the article, to convince themselves that the subject of an article is not just "making stuff up". I am sure you wouldn't make stuff up, but people have done that in the past. Also, editors of an article (if it's not an article about yourself) might misrepresent or misunderstand a source, which is another reason that the sources must be published (even if it requires a trip to a library to consult a book, that is generally an acceptable source). And in order to lessen unconscious bias, the subject of an article should not edit the article directly. That is called a WP:COI, which sounds confusing (how can you have a conflict of interest with yourself?) but the actual conflict is between people's desire to paint themselves in a flattering light (or their company, or their invention) and Wikipedia's desire to have a neutral, balanced, unbiased encyclopedia. I hope this helps. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good explainer is Wikipedia:No original research. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 12:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:WARN 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 12:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

... 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)[reply]

There's a pretty good related essay, Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@Aclassifier Being a computer programmer, I think it's cool that you have those signatures, especially (for my interests) Kay and Stroustrup. But personally, I don't think that a reproduction of a signature actually adds to the encyclopedic worth of any article (except one). I think "so what; that's what this person's signature looks like, and so...?" That's my opinion, and I think it pretty much matches with the essay that Cullen pointed you to. Cheers. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Cullen328 and the two of you! I guess the general concerns match my stomach feelings. I'll just let those signatures rest, at least for the living persons. For the three deceased I may mention this on the respective talk pages, and then refer back to this post.--Øyvind Teig (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question About Categories

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

@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)[reply]

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

@DottedSkies, WP:HOTCAT can be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions on working on my draft

Hi! I'm working on an article about Ben Baller. I'm not asking for general feedback since I'm not done polishing the article. I do have a few questions, since I have mainly worked on the Computer Science side of wikipedia so far.

How do I cite song lyrics on wikipedia? I noticed genius.com isn't a "good" source by WP standards. Do I just cite the song directly?
Any tips for getting a creative commons headshot of the person in the article? I can't find any from google and emailing his agent didn't result in any success.
How do I source somebody's birthday? There's definitely consensus on what Ben Baller's birthday is from social media and those weird SEO "bio" websites, just not from reliable sources.

Thanks! A40585 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A40585: See MOS:LYRICS. ––FormalDude talk 21:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A40585, on the photograph: See if, somewhere on the interwebs, you can find a photograph of him that doesn't seem to be commercial or by a professional, but is by a fan or similar identified person. Email or otherwise contact the photographer, inviting the photographer to upload it to Commons (but being candid about what this would entail). However, I suggest first waiting till your draft has become an article, and a fairly polished one at that, so that the photographer is likely to feel privileged to see their photo within it. -- Hoary (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, A40585, the very first thing you need to do is to find some independent sources, because if you can't find any, then Baller does not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and all time and effort you spend on the article will have been wasted. Remember that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference - if you can't find the person's birthday in a reliable source, then it doesn't go in the article. Similarly, if you can't get a properly licensed photo, then the article doesn't have a photo. DS (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography Year Orders

When adding a production to a filmography which is sorted by year, if that production came out in a year, where another production of theirs spans across that year and others, should I add it before that production, or after that production?

For example:

Production number 1 (1995-1997)
Production number 2 (1996)
Production number 3 (1998)

So should the 1996 production go before the 1995-1997 production, or after? Danstarr69 (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to organize it by release date rather than production time. The 1996 production should go before the 1995-1997 production. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyraminxsolver I'm not talking about when they were made, I'm talking about when they were aired.

For example:

A film or TV film released in 1996.

A TV series which started in 1995 and finished in 1997. Danstarr69 (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

seperate film/tv film and series into different sections Pyraminxsolver (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyraminxsolver Still not answered my question, just like my other question about TV Films above, and many other questions I've asked on here over the years. They rarely seem to get a straight answer, or get acknowledged at all.

The person who's filmography I'm updating slightly, mainly makes TV films and TV series.

Most of her TV films and TV series are already in a table together, as they should be.

The only thing I want to know is...

Whether I should put the TV film which was broadcast in 1996, before or after a TV series which ran from 1995-1997?

Then I'll know what I should do in future with filmography tables, as I never know whether I should put them before or after. Danstarr69 (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Danstarr69 As a reader, I would expect to see the 1995-1997 series listed first, then the 1996 film. If one is reading down a column, this makes sense to me. Hope this helps. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Danstarr69: since they're sorted by the year they came out, they should appear in the order you've shown them in your example (1, 2, 3), because 1 first came out before 2. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cite book template. Author with only a first/last name.

This book [3] is written by an author: Galawdewos ...i don't know if this is the author's first or last name. Maybe i overlooked something in cite book template, question is which parametre do i use for only a single name?

The other names Wendy Laura Belcher, Michael Kleiner are editors/translators. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dawit S Gondaria. Some authors may only have one name, particularly in cases where the book is quite old; in such a case, it's probably OK to use the parameter |author= instead the combination of |first= and |last=. This seems to be what's suggested at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9#First-name only causes error. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: thank you! Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Andrej Mrvar

On my wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrej_Mrvar

I got the following warning: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (May 2022)"

What does it mean? Please tell me what I should change or remove and I will do it.

Best. Andrej AndrejMrvar (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AndrejMrvar. What that template basically means is that you shouldn't try to be editing or creating any content about yourself on Wikipedia. The article Andrej Mrvar may be about you, but it's not "your article" in the sense that you have any final editorial control over it. Persons who try to edit Wikipedia articles written about themselves often have a hard time doing so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines; for this reason, they are highly discouraged from doing so and instead are asked to seek assistance from others. You can find out more about this here, here and here, but some information about this has also been already added to your user talk page by another user. For the time being, avoid directly editing the article further and instead seek assistance from others by posting edit requests at Talk:Andrej Mrvar with respect to any changes you feel should be made. -- 07:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

hi @AndrejMrvar and welcome to the teahouse! since you are Mrvar, it's best if you let others lead the cleanup. due to conflict of interest, it would be hard for you to edit about yourself neutrally. I'd advise you to refrain further editing the article directly, instead sending edit requests about changes you'd like to offer to the article's talk page. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 07:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with references

I've been editing in the article for the film T-Men, and there are several problems with the referencing in the Production section. First, there's a cite warning regarding the ref. tag on Reference #1. This wasn't my edit, so I have no idea what's going on there. For my references, nos. 8 and 9, the error reads " {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)[access-date= requires |url=". Why does a book cite need a URL? And how can I screw up the access date, it's automated! Help, please. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A book doesn't need a url, but if a url has been given, then there must also be a corresponding access date, which should be the date that someone actually looked at the url. I use the manual editor, which has templates for citations, and these templates don't automatically populate the access date field. There is, however, a preview button, which is quite useful, because it highlights the errors before filling in the text. Elemimele (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, my mistake, wrong way round: if you give an access date, you need a url. The two belong together. If you merely cite a book, you don't need an access date because books don't change. The access date field is linked to the url field because web-pages do change, so if you give a url, you need to say when it was looked-at. For a book citation, don't bother with either of them, unless there happens to be a digital copy of the book online that you want to point to, in which case url+access-date is the way to do so. Elemimele (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pete Best Beatles I removed the access date parameter. Not needed since there's no url. But because access-date was in the cite book for some reason, it was looking for a url. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 07:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of temples in Goa

See this article List of temples in Goa then see my article List of temples in Uttarakhand

Please Analyse Both Article. (Sir/Madam) TheManishPanwar (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheManishPanwar, the reason for decline was that the draft has no references. Please add them for each temple. You can take them from the corresponding articles as well. Kpddg ^(talk) 11:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technically that's not needed as you can click-through the wikilinks to verify Zindor (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it back in mainspace, there wasn't a need for all these hands and bureaucracy. TheManishPanwar it will be possible to increase the list using Category:Hindu temples in Uttarakhand. Regards, Zindor (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand upon myself, when a navigational list contains wiki-linked items you can easily verify they meet the list inclusion criteria by clicking through and reading the lede or infobox of the article, then verifying that text using the article's sources if there is doubt. The same applies for simple easily verifiable statements such as the deity. If a list entry doesn't have an associated article, an inline citation would be necessary to verify the need for inclusion on the list. Click-through verification prevents duplication of referencing effort and it keeps navigational lists free of additional clutter. I couldn't readily find this in the MOS but it's been the case since i can remember. Zindor (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zindor The closest I can find to this policy is WP:LISTVERIFY and WP:MINREF, but I agree it could be spelled out more clearly. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah when i find a moment i'll look into how we can make this clearer in guidelines/policy. Keeping stuff like this in our heads just leads to misunderstandings Zindor (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity

Hello dear wikipedians, I want to clarify something if anyone's interested answering. I had an incident a couple of days ago with an editor, where I brought up on an article talk page diffs of their previous problematic edits in a topic area, similar to what they've recently done on that article. Since then, I had another fellow question me about this and saying that I should never discuss a contributor on an article talk page per WP:FOC. I care about guidelines and wanted to clarify this with the wider community, as I've seen many times even more experienced users commenting on each other on article talk pages. I would appreciate your thoughts. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni, one may criticize other editors' edits, but in general one tries to avoid criticizing the editors. If it becomes clear to you that the problems with an editor aren't simply that certain of their edits damage an article but rather that the editor is incompetent, delusional or malicious, has a financial stake in the article, is incapable of lucid expression in English, wants to create a hoax, etc, then saying so may be helpful; but you'd better be very careful in what you say, and an article's talk page normally isn't the place to say it. -- Hoary (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of printed Din colours which I could add to wikipedia Din 47100 page

Hi, I was going through a collection of printed sheets in Din colors from a company Gebr.Schmidt gmbh which does not exist any more I think. But I have all the DIN colour codes which are not much in use anymore but still used for cables I saw. Would it be of any interest or sense to add all these codes with their colors to the Din 47100 page on wikipedia? Thank you greetings Malente Malente (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malente. Is your proposal to scan/photograph the printed sheets and upload them to Commons for use in that article? If so, I don't think that's a good idea for copyright reasons and because there is no guarantee your scans would accurately show the colors of the sheets or that web browsers would render them correctly. However, I think that the article DIN 47100 would benefit from having columns showing the actual colors mentioned. Perhaps you could incorporate examples from the Web colors article to show this? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change style of one user page

Is it possible to change the style of one user page using CSS and/or JS and make it visible to everyone? And is it possible to import the script/stylesheet/style from external website/source? I'm trying to change the font in my user page's content using Google fonts. Thanks! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Super ninja2: Please do not forum shop, as you have also posted this at the Help Desk. Thanks. The Tips of Apmh 15:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

google knowledge panel

I'm a fairly new Wikipedia editor. I want to know how to update the description of the Wikipedia article that comes up when you search a topic on google. When I edit the beginning of an article and publish it, the changes are published on the page but nothing changes on the panel that is shown on the google results. A. E. Katz (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is controlled by google and their bots. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, thank you! A. E. Katz (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Arabic Wikipedia, we had a discussion a while ago on how this panel should look. So I think Wikipedians control it. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super ninja2 Wikipedia has no control over what Google displays, nor is that something we should be concerned with. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. What I was trying to say is that we had a say on the panel basic working mechanism when Google launched The Toledo project. But you're right, it's Google's project not WMF.

Sorry if I misguided the discussion. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

well considering Google is Google and Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation and we have no say over google, that sounds like a pretty pointless discussion. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A. E. Katz: Google is usually pretty quick. Check it again tomorrow. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! A. E. Katz (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, assume that any edits on Wikipedia that would appear on Google in some fashion (i.e. edits to the very beginning of articles) won't appear for a bit of time. Google caches its content for performance reasons, which means that changes won't be reflected until the cache clears. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found errors in an entry

I have found historical errors in a page claiming to be the history of a church I have been researching. I can produce full evidence as to why the claims are in error. What can I do to inform any readers of these errors? Historydebunk (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historydebunk Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have independent reliable sources that detail errors or why the existing sources are incorrect, please discuss if on the associated article talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Historydebunk. Your choices are basically to edit the article, or to open a discussion on the article's talk page. If you edit the article and somebody disagrees and reverts you, then you should open a discussion on the talk page anyway. As 331dot says, it depends crucially on whether you have published reliable sources (but also on whether the material already there is cited to published reliable sources). You should not remove material which is cited to (apparently) reliable sources, even if you believe it to be wrong - see TRUTH. Ideally, you should not add material unless you have found reliably published sources for it - but if the material already in there is unsourced then you aren't making anything worse (but somebody might still disagree with your edit). What you should not do, though, is include any information you have only from unpublished sources (such as parish records): get your findings published by a reputable publisher, and it may be possible to include them (though even then, you should not add them yourself, as you will have a conflict of interest, but should make an edit request). ColinFine (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to open a discussion but the links seem to send me in a circle. I went to Talk and found the article I want to comment on but when I clicked on it I was taken back to where I started. Historydebunk (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the title of the article involved? 331dot (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by I went to Talk and found the article I want to comment on: every article has an associated talk page, so for example beside Ripon Cathedral there is Talk:Ripon Cathedral. If you are editing on a browser and have an article open, then there should be a "Talk" button to take you to that article's talk page; if you are on the app, it seems to be under the "three dots" at the top. (There may be some old articles whose talk page has never been created, but if you find one such, you are welcome to create the talk page). ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I have used Wikipedia in an editing role and am trying to learn how it works. I am trying to nudge the original authors into accepting the required changes as the two earliest dates in their article are based on sources that give no references. The earliest date is based on a newspaper report that makes a claim for a reference that, when followed up, does not exist. The second date seems to have been picked to pre-date Domesday as none of the fabric of the building is earlier than 100 years after the date given, this is based on evidence from Pevsner and Historic England plus original documents. A discussion page might achieve my aim but I do not know how to start one. Historydebunk (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Historydebunk, please give us the name of the article, or at least of the church so we can look for the article ourselves. It would be much easier to help you. You have no edits to any page but this one, so we can't track down what you're talking about through your contributions.

Every article has a discussion ("talk") page attached, though they must be created by an editor before first use (by clicking on the red link and typing in the edit window). If you give us the name of the article/church, we can point you right to the talk page. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article I am questioning is St. Helen's Church Trowell. I have contacted the local people responsible for the history but they do not seem to be interested in documentary evidence. However, I know a number of people who use Wikipedia as a starting point for references when doing local history projects, including for qualifications, so my hobby has become trying to ensure the articles are accurate. I am finding churches to be a little stubborn as they seem to use age as a USP. I'm also working on a "pre-conquest Norman church". Historydebunk (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historydebunk, I would start with opening a discussion at the article talk page rather than engaging the creating editor, directly, or any user that has edited the article for that matter. You can then make a plea at the talk page of this Wikiproject to join the discussion at the article's talk page. --ARose Wolf 15:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the article's talk page and cannot for the life of me see anything that mentions starting a discussion. I have never tried to do this before, is starting a discussion called something else on the articles talk page? Historydebunk (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Historydebunk, click on "New section" at the top of the talk page.

The two earliest dates are sourced to the church's website (not a great source, a better one would be... well, better) and the Southwell & Nottingham Church History Project, which doesn't look too bad. The folks at the WikiProject will be good judges of that. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to find out how to find the people on the Wikiproject and have only managed to get back where I started. The problem with the page is that the 801 date goes back to a local newspaper report of 1949 that says it is recorded in the "annals of York Minster", according to the records in York it is not. The 1080 date looks like an attempt to make the chancel appear to be the half-church mentioned in Domesday when all reliable sources date it to the 12th century. Unfortunately all the on-line histories, including the Diocesan history, use the work of the same person, who does not provide references. In the first two references in the article they are, in effect, referencing themselves. Historydebunk (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historydebunk, See Talk page guidelines. I think you can find most of what you need to know to start a discussion there. --ARose Wolf 15:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historydebunk, The only way you are going to "find" people on a Wikiproject is to open a dialogue with them exactly the same way you would on an article talk page. You are where you started because you haven't begun the process to gaining consensus which is the way to get material changed on Wikipedia, especially information that has been contested. We are trying to help guide you to that point. --ARose Wolf 15:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Historydebunk, to try to be extra clear: the talk page of the WikiProject is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism. If you want to argue against the sources currently used, and have better sources to provide (see WP:RS for our guidelines), then click "New section" on the article talk page (Talk:St Helen's Church, Trowell) and provide your sources and arguments. Then ask for input by clicking "New section" at the WikiProject talk page. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source of my difficulty is that I do not know how to start a discussion. When I click on "new section" I get a dialogue box to type in but no indication of what is expected next, will typing in that box start a discussion? Historydebunk (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Historydebunk, whatever you type in the dialogue box will be posted on the page after you hit "Publish" (BTW, remember to include a subject in the Subject box). Other people can then read the post and reply. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be worried about making a mistake. It can always be fixed. Just take your time and lay out your issues with what is written and make sure to provide sources for your claims. --ARose Wolf 16:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have prepared my article for the Talk section of the article on St. Helen's Church, Trowell and have given all my sources in the body of the text. Do I need to add them as footnotes aswell. Historydebunk (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Historydebunk, that would be helpful, since they will probably need to be converted into footnotes eventually (if your changes are accepted). See WP:Referencing for beginners for a guide. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proper way to handle edit warring and content issues?

A week ago I happened upon an article and in verifying information in the sources found that only WP:Tertiary sources were being used and misquoting the subject. I edited the passage and grabbed better sources. Another editor reverted my updated, I reverted once, they reverted again, and I attempted to find some kind of consensus, but found the editor unwilling to accept any changes. I took the discussion to BLPN, and found that the editor had been doing the same thing to others, along with hostile edit summaries, and also filed a report at ANI, and now that's being challenged as frivolous, with a proposed ban from my posting in ANI, despite providing ample evidence of the editor's pattern of behavior.

I am honestly perplexed about what I did wrong, and how to handle this in the future. (I'm also confused why no one seems to care that a celebrity's biography is stating incorrect information, but I don't have the mental space to care much anymore about that aspect). Some guidance would be appreciated. Thank you! SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy links: BLPN thread, ANI thread. Article involved is Claire Danes (RfC on talk). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get started?

Hello. I have been an avid user of Wikipedia for a long time, and just recently I decided I also wanted to contribute to the website and become an editor. However, I am unexperienced, and I don't really know what's going on. Are there any pages that can help me get a head start and learn how to edit overall? Thanks! Bellaloca (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bellaloca: Welcome, and thanks for wanting to help. Check out the WP:TUTORIAL for some learning activity. Then, head over to Wikipedia:Task_Center for a list of tasks for users of all different skill levels. Pick one that looks interesting to you, and jump in! RudolfRed (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. There are lots of pages that serve that purpose, such as this introduction to editing Wikipedia. I recommend you read that over and follow the links at the bottom to the Task Center, where you can start making the edits that best fit with the type of contributions you'd like to make. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bellaloca for some hints on what's "going on", you can scroll through Wikipedia:Dashboard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a draft

I have made a draft. Subject is Relative World. I now want to update it. When I press edit I get to a page titled: Editing Draft talk:Relative World, but I don't see any of the text I wrote. Just; What am I missing? Triplemaya (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what I am actually seeing is

[{{WikiProject Physics}} :[{{WikiProject Philosophy}}

not the expanded boxes shown in the above post. Which appeared when I clicked to post. Triplemaya (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it's at Draft:Relative World. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Doh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triplemaya (talk • contribs) 18:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're editing the wrong page (in this case, "Draft talk:Relative World"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issue to Preview Display

"There was an issue to preview Display" , why this issue comes on article? Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Endrabcwizart, I have made an edit to the article which - if I've guessed correctly - will fix the problem you're having. Is the problem solved? (Courtesy link: Dipak Sharma). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wow , yes sir problem solved. Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Endrabcwizart, I'm not a sir - in fact, I appear to be a string of numbers - but I'm glad the issue is fixed. For future reference, do not put a header (text between these: ==) at the beginning of an article (before what we call the lead/lede section). Only use them for sections after the lede. Welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia, by the way! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need an Advice on my declined draft

hi everyone! my article for a musician has been declined by a reviewer , i just wanted to know if anybody could help me to pass the approval. link to the article JoeSimpson1 (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JoeSimpson1 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this is in regards to Draft:Amir Ugo. The main issue with your draft is that the sources do not demonstrate how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. The three sources you offered seem to be very brief, doing little more than telling he exists. The draft should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about him. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

dear @331dot we got more news, articles and sources to add to the page but some of them got blocked automatically by the wikipedia so we decided to use the minimum, we can provide more than 15 articles, official news and television reports about him but how does that improves the notability of the draft? also thanks for the fast response. JoeSimpson1 (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JoeSimpson1 Your use of the word "we" suggests to me that you work for or represent Mr. Ugo. If so, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. (declaring paid editing is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory if applicable)

I would first ask you, if you haven't already, to read the notability guidelines for musicians and tell which one(or more) of them Mr. Ugo meets. If these other sources you have demonstrate that, and are not primary sources such as interviews with him, that's what we are looking for and what any article about him should summarize. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia a trusted source of info?

I've heard about teachers saying that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of info.

Any ideas on this?

Thanks Organic Increse45( ͡ಠ ͜ʖ ͡ಠ) (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't consider ourselves a reliable source simply because we're user-generated. Cite what we cite, not us. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...however for outside sources, see Reliability of Wikipedia. for me, usually it's a good source for basic information and springboarding a research, but if you're gonna cite, it's almost always better to cite the source/s instead, and lack of one likely means you shouldn't be using it. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 00:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what Wikipedia says about that: Wikipedia:General disclaimer. Here's another take: Using Wikipedia: Crash Course Navigating Digital Information #5. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find WP to be a reliable source of information for my own brain, but as others mention here, it's not a good idea to use WP as a cited reference for another WP article or for a scholarly paper you are writing. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Organic Increse45 Your teachers are absolutely correct. See Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks.

~~~ Organic Increse45( ͡ಠ ͜ʖ ͡ಠ) (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So should I still use Wikipedia?

~~~ Organic Increse45( ͡ಠ ͜ʖ ͡ಠ) (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Organic Increse45: That's up to you. Consider Wikipedia to be a collector of information from sources it deems reliable. You can follow the citations to learn more. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Organic Increse45 Wikipedia is great if you just want to read something for your own personal information. For research for an academic paper, you should not cite Wikipedia itself, but the sources that an article uses- and you should examine those sources to make sure they say what is claimed. 331dot (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Organic Increse45 When following book citations, try clicking on the ISBN, and you'll be taken to the "Book Sources" page. You can try clicking on the "Find this book on Google Books" link to see if you can read the source for free. If not, scroll down on the "Book Sources" page and you'll find links to libraries near you where you might be able to find the book. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks to all of you for awnsering my question in great detail. Organic Increse45( ͡ಠ ͜ʖ ͡ಠ) (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get pinged when s.o. replies to my Talk comments?

Unless I misunderstood something, I used to get a notification when someone hit the 'reply' button to one of my comments. AFAICT, I still do on other wikis. That is one of the purposes of the buggy 'reply' button, isn't it? I've been relying on it for notification of replies, but recently I haven't been getting them on WP-en. Am I misunderstanding something, or have I maybe somehow turned that option off? — kwami (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Kwamikagami and welcome to the teahouse! I believe the [ subscribe ] button should do the trick, which would give you a notification whenever the conversation is active. do you have that on? 💜 melecie talk - 03:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's in MediaWiki prefs, not WP-en prefs where i was looking. I do have "Enable topic subscription" active, but have never seen a 'subscribe' button when I edited a talk page. (For instance, there isn't one now.) I'll check "Automatically subscribe to topics" and see if that helps. Thanks! — kwami (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to the thread below (using the 'reply' button for the first time), and it hasn't been added to my list of subscriptions, which is still empty. Could you respond to this thread to see if I get pinged? — kwami (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done I also have this thread in my subscriptions, and the above pinged me. 💜 melecie talk - 05:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I correct grammar?

I tried to make some changes to make the "gang stalking," page more grammatically correct, and a user told me that I have to site a source in order to do so?? Does not seem legit.

Someone please check this out. The grammar is off from the very first sentence on the page. A term like "gang stalking," cannot be used to mean, "a set of beliefs." Gang stalking is either a verb or a noun that refers to an alleged event. A specific event can't also be defined as a set of beliefs - that makes zero sense. Anybody? English Language grads? Help!

I also want to make the page more neutral and less skewed towards one specific opinion. Pages that are about a controversial topic generally seem to start off by stating something along the lines of, "An alleged event," "A group that *claims* something happened," or, "An unproven something or other." Usually, if there is a controversy inherent to the topic, Wikipedia mentions this immediately in order to remain neutral. NOT SO with the gang stalking page. What's with that?

Someone please reply! THANKS Ms. Ann MMO (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is hardly even paraphrased. The first source says, "Gangstalking is a novel persecutory belief system". Unless you have some reason to believe that source is unreliable (inconsistent, conflicts with other sources, etc.), then that would appear to be the definition of the word. Whether you agree that it's a good term is irrelevant. There are lots of words in English that don't make any sense if taken literally. For instance, according to the IAU, a dwarf planet is not a planet.

Anyway, the place to discuss this is on the article talk page, and if that proves insufficient, you can make a WP:request for comment. — kwami (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, needed to take a break. I don't have access to the 2nd source, but the 3rd speaks of a belief in "'gang stalking,' or surveillance and harassment at the hands of the government or private security firms," and "this is 'what happens when you report radiological weapons (a component of gang stalking) to law enforcement,'" and "I’m not convinced that the institutional 'gang stalking,' the phenomenon that Brian and others have described, is actually happening." That would seem to support your argument, that 'gang-stalking' is an activity, not a belief system, that they believe in gang-stalking or in gang-stalking conspiracy theories. If another editor is proving uncooperative, this is the kind of argument you would need to make in a request for comment -- not some a priori argument that 'that's not what the word should mean according to English grammatical rules', but 'that's not how the word is used in the majority of reliable sources.' You might then use the grammatical argument as a reason to prefer the use in some sources over that in others, or that one source is incoherent.

Anyway, IMO this isn't a matter of correcting grammar so much as of correcting the definition, when the source now used for that definition appears to be poorly worded. — kwami (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Ann MMO, you've been making extensive edits to Gang stalking while leaving edit summaries that give the impression that you're merely correcting the grammar. That does not help your credibility. Maproom (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are trolls on this page it's not my problem - I'm not interested. Ms. Ann MMO (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article submission

MY article got rejected saying that it is promotional. What kind of changes i have to made for the submission of article successfully.

Please check the link of article : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:ProductDossier&action=submit ProductDossier PSA (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @ProductDossier PSA and welcome to the teahouse! your draft has to be written neutrally and detached from the company, and writing with sources that are reliable and independent, avoiding PR fluff from your writing.

however, I strongly recommend not creating an article on your own company. creating one is already very difficult as a beginner, and even harder as someone with a Conflict of interest (which I advise you to read). instead, if your article is deemed notable enough by editors not affiliated with you, one may be created, however be warned that it will not be your article or controlled by the company, nor a place for PR, and it will cover the good and bad sides of it (provided there are sources available). happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 05:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

one other thing. if you are User:Snehap1, please abandon this account and log in using that and then mark a disclosure of Conflict of interest or Paid editing over there (which is required), if you aren't then please ask for a username change and do the same. your current username "ProductDossier PSA" is not allowed as it is a organization name, which may count as promotional and a possible shared account that doesn't identify one user. a username like "Bob at ProductDossier" may be better, but you still have to comply with the CoI and Paid Editing policies. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 05:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request to create a page

Hello, My father Joe Portale is listed in 2 wiki pages and I would like to link his name in those pages to his own page. I have many more articles about my father and his athletic career. Most notable moments being his ohio all-american award in 1976 (already noted in wiki) playing football for the University of Florida from 1976-1979 (already noted on wiki) he was drafted twice by the New York Yankees, the first time after high-school. He played spring ball with the Yankees minor league team after his UofF football seasons. He was drafted again in 1980 after my father graduated. He played for the Yankees from 1980-1982 before being diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. I have online links to all of his stats. He passed away on Friday and I just want to honor him any way I can. He was a phenomenal athlete and I believe is worthy of his own page. Thank you for your time. Jfpull01 (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Jfpull01 and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm sorry for your father's death. unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't the place to memorialize someone. while you could still write an article about him (although it is very hard for beginners to write a new article, and even harder for those connected to the subject they're writing about), you'd have to see if he meets the notability criteria for athletes first. find some reliable sources like news outlets online dedicated to him showing he meets one of those criteria, and you could write an article. see Your first article for more.

however, being connected to him, you'd also need to write carefully. declare a Conflict of interest before starting the article since you are his child, and you might have to forget all you know about him personally and write as if you're someone who doesn't know him only summarizing what those sources say. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 05:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. Absolutely, not for memorial purposes my apologies if it came across that way. While I do want to honor him I believe from what I have read he does qualify. I will keep in mind when working on the article to keep it as formal as possible. Thank you again for providing the links on how to get started. Jfpull01 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

2A01:4C8:488:E59:E96A:BCED:6643:A55E has vandalised a single article (Polynesians). I don't know how to quickly revert it so I leave the info here. I don't know why it shows as red-linked but I leave this as is. Whoever deals with the vandalism can still easier figure it out than when I remove the red-link I think. Dutchy45 (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done

hi @Dutchy45 and welcome to the teahouse! for future reference, you can use RedWarn or Twinkle to revert changes back to an older revision. additionally, user contributions can be obtained by using {{contribs}}, which would result in the link contributions when used for the above ip. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 07:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hayward (political scientist)

Last night the BBC broadcast a program on British academics including Edinburgh political theorist Tim Hayward, who are accused of sharing misinformation about Ukraine on social media. It covered allegations from students that Hayward also used such material in his teaching. Criticism was first reported by various media back in March. The BBC program has now been covered by other media. However, two users (Kashmiri and Reflecktor) are gatekeeping to keep this off Hayward's wiki page. They claim this is just 'some random students', 'BBC does not dictate what we add to articles' and 'conservative media are having orgasm for 3 days, a government official responds to media query, and then someone on Wikipedia feels this must be encyclopaedic material'.

The receipts, as they say:

Are these two users, who seem to share a worldview with Professor Hayward, allowed to censor what appears in his article? 147.188.240.134 (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Tim Hayward (political scientist) 💜 melecie talk - 09:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has started on the talk page of the article (Talk:Tim Hayward (political scientist)#Students at Edinburgh have accused Hayward .... That is good. If the discussion reaches a standstill, see here for the next steps in our dispute resolution processes. (FWIW, at a glance, I believe that the sources are enough to warrant a mention, but the opposing arguments that it’s a storm in a teacup are well-founded in policy.)

Trying to determine the motives of other editors (these two users [seem] to share a worldview with Professor Hayward) or using inflammatory language (allowed to censor) is unlikely to be productive. Please comment on content, not editors.

Finally, you mentioned two editors by name in your post here. That is considered poor etiquette on Wikipedia (but I do not blame you for not knowing that); generally, you should choose between two options. Either you think the situation can be resolved without input from the other party (for instance if you think you might be wrong), and you explain the situation in general, vague terms; or you mention them, but then you should ping them or otherwise make them aware of the separate discussion.

Going forward... I suggest you keep any content-related discussion on Talk:Tim Hayward (political scientist), or through the dispute resolution channels linked above. If you have general questions about the dispute-resolution processes, you can ask them here, but try not to make it too personal.

If and when editor conduct problems occur, those are "resolved" at WP:ANI. Before going there, make sure to come with diffs (rather than quotes) and a clear explanation of what Wikipedia guideline was violated when. As far as I can tell, the current dispute is a fairly run-of-the-mill content dispute and nobody came even close to being sanctioned. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for any breaches of Wikipedia's protocol. I'm just concerned that an unrepresentative group of users have exerted control over the page's content and think it needs more eyes on it. 147.188.240.134 (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article submission

Courtesy link: Draft:Soufia Taloni

I have created a draft page but how do I publish it for the world to see? Soufia1983 (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Soufia1983: I see you resubmitted the draft after it was declined, which will make it more likely that it will be declined again (and closer to a rejection). I would also strongly discourage you from writing about yourself, as that kind of draft is almost always declined as they're usually not neutral in tone. If you become notable enough, someone will write an article on you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please help in publishing (updating and significantly expanding a v. short existing) article

Hello,

I am trying to expand a page with very limited content in relation to the Worshipful Company of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. There is very little information on this page and it can be expanded to provide a lot more background and history. I have drafted an article which is aligned with what is set out on the Livery Company's own website (but not copied and pasted). I also have images I can include for the crest etc.

However, there are a couple of issues I am encountering:

1) the section on the coat of arms seems to be flagging as a risk of copy and pasting / copyright issue. The section is very factual and I have tried drafting a rephrased version but would appreciate guidance. I could leave the section out / just reference the Livery Company website but it would be good to include here as I think it is interesting.

2) I happen to be a Liveryman of the Company and so there appears to be concern over a potential conflict of interest. I think I have been blocked from editing the page as a result but it suggests there may be a way to have an editorial review to address this?

I am new to Wiki editing and as a Livery Company we are keen to educate about our history and also ensure accuracy and so it makes sense to have information form the Livery Company itself in the entry as this is probably the best source for the history, practices etc. - whilst accepting this should be reviewed to ensure if conforms with the Wikipedia conflict of interest and transparency policies. I had tried to post a simple text entry without any pictures etc at this stage as I could add those in later if appropriate and reflecting my learning curve of updating an entry.

What is the most efficient way to address these issues? Grateful for all help available and in particular if it is possible to open a dialogue with someone that can help me navigate this / improve my editing ability and contributions.

PS - I was using the visual editor - the word looking version and not the one with code etc. I also watched / read the tutorials and lots of guidance but seen to have started going round in circles on some of it! CharteredAccountant2012 (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CharteredAccountant2012, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that you have taken on a tas kwithout understanding what it entails. Aside from your conflict of interest, please note that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.

The society's website is amost irrelevant to a Wikipedia article about it - you need reliable sources wholly independent of the society, such as books or articles in journals, that are not written, edited, published, or commissioned by the society or any of its members. As the existing article has no such sources, I see it has been proposed for deletion: your edit did not improve that in any way - rather, it included a lot more unsourced material, much of which was (from an encyclopaedic view) totally unrelated to the society.

The only way for you, or anyone, to cause the article to be retained, is to find sufficient independent reliable sources to establish that the society meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request move draft intro a page article

(Someone edited this page to remove this section. I hope I did the right thing by putting it back. Feel free to Fix it if I messed up.) 73.127.147.187 (talk) 12:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Sockpuppet?) 73.127.147.187 (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for resolve this issue 196.78.238.51 (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fairly new Wikipedia editor, I request to know how to update the draft move intro of the Wikipedia article page? Or someone make a merge Draft:Soufia Taloni intro Soufia Taloni Please 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 196.78.238.51 (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi ip user! firstly, you may've forgotten to log in, you might wanna do that. there's a near-identical question that you may've asked a while ago found over at #Created page for : Ali Sabri Musician, which I responded with the following:

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.

once you feel like you're ready to take it to being article, you can submit it with the button in your draft: this turns it into an active submission that can be reviewed, and if it is accepted they'll move it to an article. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 00:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi melecie, I am so very thankful for your timeand the assistance you provide my business. It is sincerely appreciated

It was very kind of you to refer me to her. I hope I can find a way to return the favor soon! For the Draft:Soufia Taloni merge intro move to page article Soufia Taloni Thank you for your help. and we hope if you can find way to help us as soon as possible you can

And thank you for your understanding

Warm Regards,

Sam 196.78.238.51 (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...one more thing. by my business and us, do you happen to have a connection to Taloni or are they your client? if so, you have to declare your Conflict of interest, see that link for more information on that. if you've been paid, it's doubly more important as undisclosed paid editing is forbidden under the Terms of Use. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 01:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi melecie again,

sorry my english is not good): because im french people i try to translate on google I mean you, our business support, and i'm big fan of "Taloni" and i'm his best friend, I speak it every day she's asking me to solve this problem, and because there are many people pretending to be her and cause her a lot of problems

thank you for your understanding

Waiting for your help move draft info namespace article page 196.78.238.51 (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this would be for twitter verification? unfortunately, I am unable to and am not qualified to review drafts and make them articles (plus I am using my phone right now so I am unable to translate the news articles). however, I'd advise you to read Your first article, Writing better articles and gather more reliable sources in the meantime, plus also disclose your Conflict of Interest in your talk due to you being their friend. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 03:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 196.78.238.51 It's fairly apparent that your motivations for putting a profile of Taloni on Wikipedia are contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. You have said: "because there are many people pretending to be her and cause her a lot of problems", as well as "belief that all my articles are best on people that require the wikipedia kind of recognition". Gaining recognition and solving online problems do not comprise any of Wikipedia's goals. I'm afraid you misunderstand that Wikipedia is not social media; it's an encyclopedia of notable subjects. Please note that trying to help a friend is not a bad thing, it's simply not appropriate for Wikipedia, which is a serious encyclopedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP user, I know that English is not your native language. However, you'll need to improve sentences like This coherent playlist to spend a day with a personality, known or not, but with a specificity. so that it makes sense in English. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you so much for responding and i hope someone will help me to restored the page articles 196.78.238.51 (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think the OP is a sockpuppet, if it's this user User_talk:Baderantar01. I didn't think we deleted the entire section in that case, but I could be wrong. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So far only that account has actually been tagged as a sock. We've had posts from socks before and they were not removed after confirmation. (In this case, it was the initial IP who tried to remove their own thread; I agree with the restoration, I restored it myself a moment ago before noticing you'd done it elsewhere). 97.113.167.129 (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for that info. I was about 80% sure that the section should not have been removed. Is there enough evidence that 196.78.238.51 is the same person as the one who was blocked? He or she keeps asking for the article to be accepted or restored... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, I probably didn't restore ths section to the same place. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are odd things going on at that draft, but I'm not sure if anything "illegal" is actually happening, or if there's enough good evidence for an SPI. It might be fans or family members or one person whose IP keeps changing and who doesn't bother to log in. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution, for anyone still interested: apparently a case of long term cross-wiki abuse. Several more accounts/IPs blocked, draft rejected and semi-protected. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you color a text

Is there any way to color a text in an article? The reason is i want to test random stuff in the Sandbox, but i'm not actually gonna publish it. Leahnn Rey (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Leahnn Rey and welcome to the teahouse! yes there is, you could use {{color}}. if you'd like to color something purple, you do {{color|purple|purple text}} which creates purple text. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 13:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, you're the best. Leahnn Rey (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to add an icon/image using a link

Is there any way i can add an image using a link? Yes, i know this is a dumb question and the same reason, Testing random stuff in the sandbox. For example i would like to use this icon: https://cdn-icons-png.flaticon.com/512/590/590685.png And just with the link it can appear on the article insantly? (sorry for bad english) Leahnn Rey (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't. Images need to be uploaded either to Wikimedia Common or here to enwiki. You need to be aware of the restrictions regarding copyright on the images. You'll find information at Wikipedia:Images. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Leahnn Rey: ...instead of that, why not try using File:Strawberry by cactus cowboy.svg instead, which is usable in Wikipedia? there are a few more images accessible using Commons, some of which you may want to use if you'd prefer a different one. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 14:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you melecie! thank you. Leahnn Rey (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh.. Thank you. Leahnn Rey (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons edit summary not possible

I uploaded something to Wikimedia commons however after doing some changes am no longer able to edit the summary of my upload, I believe it is because I not knowing any better added a reference to the top most line in the source editor, but I dont know for sure, is there any way for me to fix this? Frislr (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frislr, Wikimedia Commons is an image repository and has a different function than Wikipedia. You should be able to leave a summary in the upload form though (commons:Special:Upload). Sungodtemple (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Frislr, there may be some confusion here between (1) the Help:Edit summary that appears in the history as "Uploaded own work with UploadWizard" versus (2) your ability to edit the Summary section of the file description page c:File:Byzantine Empire 1340.png#Summary. "Edit summary" has a special meaning here which is different from "editing the summary" ;). For case (2), I still see the Edit link myself. Have you tried reloading the page? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 23:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind response, and I am sorry for misusing "edit summary". I have tried to reload the page, however the file in question is this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Byzantine_Empire_1350.png where the edit link no longer exists Frislr (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise, Frislr. Is not misuse, just an unlucky collision of terminology. I now see that the int:filedesc (Summary) heading got broken here. The == signs need to be at the beginning of a line for it to be recognised as a heading and to have an edit link. (I might have been mistakenly looking at an old revision when I said it looked fine to me, sorry.) A workaround is to use the Edit tab at the top of the page and do a whole-page edit instead of a section edit. Another user has since repaired the heading; I moved the ref, but not sure if the place I dropped it is where you intended. Hope that helps! ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 13:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much this did very much help! I will try to keep this info in my mind should I ever do this editing mistake again, and the reference also indeed is where I wanted it to be.

Kind Regards! :P Frislr (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is it possible for a younger editor to gain admin/bureaucrat? If not, what is the minimum age? Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 15:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a question or issue of age. Rather, the community discussion & decision to promote a user to an administrator is one of experience in the Wikipedia, how much you have contributed thus far, and what you feel you could contribute in the future with administrator tools. ValarianB (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DinosaurTrexXX33. I am aware of one long time administrator who became an administrator at age 16. Cullen328 (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit page

Hello. I have an edit for List of best-selling manga and list of best-selling comics. I heard One piece has reached to 500 million copies. Here is the link: {https://www.sportskeeda.com/anime/news-one-piece-sells-500-million-copies-worldwide} Wolfp5 (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use that website as a source for information to place in an article on Wikipedia, Wolfp5. It is not considered reliable (see WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_343#Sportskeeda generally unreliable?). Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Twitter a reliable source?

So, basically, while I was editing this page: Draft:Beluga (YouTuber), I filled the whole reference with YouTube links. But the submission was declined, as YouTube isn't a reliable source. Then, is Twitter a reliable source? Tematikkp (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tematikkp. A verified Twitter account can be used in very limited ways, described at WP:TWITTER. Material sourced to Twitter cannot be used to establish notability. That requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tematikkp, Generally twitter is not considered as a relaible sources, as it is a self published sources where it may be reliable on some cases, if particular twitter account was official and comfirmed. See WP:RSPTWITTER for more information. Cheers! Fade258 (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tematikkp, for future reference, a quick, easy way to check whether a source is reliable is to go here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources. It doesn't list every source in existence, but it does have the more popular ones, with their status and the reasoning behind it. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First draft editing

As title, I'm looking for assistance fixing my tone to a much more sterile one in the article and looking for the proper points to apply third party reviews to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MikKaminsky/sandbox MikKaminsky (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MikKaminsky: The draft as written will unfortunately not be accepted. You need to show the game meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, through the use of independent third party sources that have written about the game. The sources in the sandbox draft are either the web sites of the developers or the platform, known as primary sources, or dead links. See WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Request prmission

How to get WP:RCP rights? Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Endrabcwizart: I think the info you need is here Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol#Monitoring. Happy editing! TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to contribute to Wikipedia and create articles, however I'm not confident within my English skills.

Requity (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered contributing to the Wikipedia project for your native language? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Requity: - Per the essay Wikipedia:Competence is required#What "Competence is required" does not mean, those with a less than perfect command of English can still work in maintenance categories. But it's better to avoid writing articles, as Jeske suggests above, since that requires an above average command of English. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusting the Great Barrington Declaration page (Covid Policy page)

I am convinced people are not arguing with me in good faith on the Great Barrington Declaration page.

I am planning to give a couple weeks for people to argue with my proposed edit of removing the slanderous comment of calling the Great Barrington Declaration and the policies it advocates for fringe. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, could someone please advise on how to ensure Wikipedia's standards are applied in this change. I let my emotions get the best of me and had my IP address blocked, I understand edit warring is wrong but I am finding it very difficult to assume good faith with the editors preventing the change.

The World Bank recently released data that lockdowns have killed millions of more people than the Coronavirus and resulted in 1.4 million extra teenage pregnancies alone [1][2] and I think it is crucial to peoples misunderstanding that this article be corrected as soon as reasonably possible within Wikipedia guidelines.

The Great Barrington Declaration whose main purpose was to show the lack of scientific consensus around the lockdowns and social distancing policies is improperly referenced as fringe in a smear against it and this level of misinformation is clearly costing the world many lives and unintended consequences and the faster Wikipedia changes the page the faster we can all come to a better consensus on what to do next as a world.

[1] https://www.globalfinancingfacility.org/emerging-data-estimates-each-covid-19-death-more-two-women-and-children-have-lost-their-lives-result [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-05-26/contraception-s-cost-teen-pregnancy-in-poor-countries-sets-back-gender-equality 65.175.199.251 (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 65, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you may have some misconceptions about how Wikipedia works. One of our core policies is verifiability, which means that all statements in our articles must be attributable to a reliable source. As such, we have a policy against what we call "original research", and if the articles you've linked to are representative, I'm afraid you're running afoul of this policy. Put simply, a reliable source must directly support any statement that it is used for. In this case, if you're looking to support the statement "the Great Barrington Declaration represents mainstream scholarship, rather than a fringe", you will need sources that directly say that. Posting articles that provide vague support to the same ideas that are supported in the Great Barrington Declaration is not going to cut it, and since neither of the articles you've linked even mention the Great Barrington Declaration, they are going to be of extremely limited use to you. Even apart from that, the articles don't make the claims you're asserting, and are of questionable reliability regardless--press releases are usually not considered reliable, and especially not on medical topics. You need to engage civilly on the talk page, but you will need much better sources than this if you want to make major changes to that article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is if independent reliable sources call this fringe. If they do, there is nothing that you can do. That you disagree with this or those who tell you this does not mean that they are not acting in good faith. If this topic areas is too contentious for you, I would suggest disengaging. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add onto what everyone is saying above, I would strongly consider finding a different, less controversial topic area to work in; pages and edits related to COVID-19 are under heightened scrutiny. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IP user, your reference 1 does not say that lockdowns have killed millions more people than the Coronavirus. It doesn't say that at all. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi IP 65.175.199.251. It certainly can be frustrating when you feel so strongly that something is a great wrong that needs to be righted and can't fathom why others simply aren't feeling the same way. However, it's not really Wikipedia's role to try and convince the world to change through its articles. Article content is primarily governed by what established reliable sources are saying about something, and reliable sources for articles about medical topics are highly scrutinized. Disagreements over article content, in general, are expected to be resolved per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution which basically means using the relevant article's talk page to establish a consensus that resolves the disagreement or at least finds some common ground that both side can accept. So, the only thing I can suggest is to continue to assume good faith and discuss things on the article's talk. Articles about medical related topics, in particular, can become quite contentious and extra special care needs to be taken, but ultimately it will be the consensus established through talk page discussion that decides the content of the article. If a large part of the outside world feels that this declaration is "fringe" (I'm not saying it is), then the change in that perception is going to have to take place first in the outside world before it's reflected on Wikipedia; in other words, a Wikipedia article isn't the place to try and make that change happen. The Teahouse isn't really a good place to try and discuss this type of thing in detail or debate the sources you're citing, but there are noticeboards such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard where you can. Ultimately, however, it's still going to be consensus which determines the outcomes of any such discussions. If you're unable to establish such a consensus, then there's not really much more that can be done no matter how wrong you truly believe the consensus to be. -- 21:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Help with editing

I need help with editing. Like how do I create wiki tables or charts, things like that. Can someone please show me how to make wiki tables graphs weather boxes etc. 100thingsperson (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction I think this could be helpful for youJaguarnik (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unassessed draft moved to mainspace

There is a certain Wikipedia article about a person who may or may not be notable, that did not go through drafts and was automatically moved to mainspace, and made by a Wikipedia editor who themself stated does not have much experience. When I put a proposed deletion tag on the article due to non-notability the creator of the article removed it. Would it then be appropriate to open a deletion discussion?Jaguarnik (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though kicking it back to draft also helps. Name the page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it is Eve Barlow. while it is true that the writer has written for several prominent news outlets I do not feel this necessarily makes a person notable, and I don't feel she passes WP:Author, however I myself don't have a lot of experience writing for Wikipedia so maybe I'm wrong. That's why I would like to open up a discussionJaguarnik (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the extensive coverage that Barlow has received in connection with Depp v. Heard, I think that it is unlikely that this article will be deleted. She has also received coverage as an activist against antisemitism, so the article is not an example of WP:BLP1E. But maybe I'm wrong. Cullen328 (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll leave it alone then.Jaguarnik (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, the article has cite-overkill issues, and it probably won't hurt to expand it using the sources already there. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is my company notable enough to get approved?

Hi! I am trying to create a Wikipedia page for The Murder Diaries podcast. I have been technically hired to create this page, and I know I need to disclose that information before making the page. But I just want to know how to create a Wikipedia page that gets approved. Thank you in advance. Truecrime22 (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Truecrime22: Based on what I'm finding in a Google search (string:["the murder diaries" podcast]), you cannot because there're no usable sources for us to work with. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Truecrime22. You need to comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure before editing any more. This is mandatory. Cullen328 (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Truecrime22, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that you've been hired to do what is very probably a non-job. It sounds as if your employer has the (very common) misapprehension that Wikipedia is somewhere for a company to promote themselves, like social media. It is not. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is none of their business whether or not Wikipedia has an article about them, or what that article will contain if there is one. Of course we all want Wikipedia articles to be accurate in their contents, but Wikipedia has its own criteria for what subjects are notable and so can be the subject of articles; and its own rules for what can go into an article. If there is an article about your employer (whoever writes it) it will not belong to them, it will not be for their benefit (except incidentally), it will not necessarily say what they want it to say, and it may end up containing material that they would definitely prefer that it didn't contain. It should be based almost entirely on what independent commentators have said about the subject, not on what they or their associates say or want to say.

ONce you have made the declarations others have mentioned, you may look for the independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the podcast, which are a non-negotiable minimum requirement for an article. If you can find them, then you use the articles for creation process to create a draft, based entirely on what those independent sources say, not on what your employers say or want to say. If you can't find the sources (and Jeske says that they have looked and not found any) then you should give up. ColinFine (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to get rid of disambiguation page

The page Quiza has only one page on it(there was an earlier page that was deleted), continuing to have a disambiguation seems unnecessaryJaguarnik (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jaguarnik, you can convert it to a redirect page pointing to Quiza Xenitana. Simple replace the page's text with #REDIRECT [[Quiza Xenitana]]. On the talk page of the redirect you can replace the disambiguation tag with {{WikiProject Catholicism}} to add it to that project. Interestingly Quiza Xenitana isn't being indexed currently on Google, just the dab page. Zindor (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I have done exactly as you advised.Jaguarnik (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, nicely done. Zindor (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added a book I authored to a list, and had the edit reverted for not providing a reliable source

I understand why the editor reverted my edit (I use a pseudonym on Wikipedia, so he could not have known I am the book's author). He suggested I re-add it with a reliable source added, or leave a message on his Talk page. I visited his talk page, but could not find a way to leave a message. So, I replied to the message he left on my Talk page. He has yet to reply.

How do I add myself as a reliable source on an edit I make? How do I leave a message on his talk page?

Thank you, in advance. Trev Swain (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Trev Swain. Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your books. There are plenty of websites where this self promotional content is acceptable. But not on this encyclopedia. You are not and never will be a reliable source about yourself or the books you have written. You have a glaring conflict of interest about yourself and your work. We require entirely independent sources to establish notability. Sources that have nothing to do with you but have freely chosen to write about you and your books without prompting from your self-promotional efforts. Cullen328 (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cullen328. Thanks for your reply. I don't believe I am promoting my books. I have added a few characters in them to list pages of fictional characters who hold certain occupations (doctor, secret agent). They story worlds they inhabit are close representations of the real world we live in, so references are made in the novels to real world events. Considerable reference is made in one of the books to the September 11 attacks, so I added that book's title to the list. Would you explain how this equates to promoting my books? Trev Swain (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Trev Swain. You may notice that all the books in that list (like most such lists in Wikipedia) have their titles and/or authors bluelinked to Wikipedia articles about them. To be added to the list, your book (or yourself) would first have to have a Wikipedia article about it/yourself, or at the very least obviously merit such an article. From my cursory research, neither you (under your author pseudonym) or any of your books could qualify via Wikipedia's criteria for an article, yet. This may change in time, as you and your current and future works become better known, such as by being reviewed in Reliable sources, but for now it would seem to be WP:Too soon.

Since they are not (as yet) notable, inserting mentions of your books into existing articles will be interpreted as promotion, which Wikipedia strictly forbids and treats as spam.

To leave a message on any user's Talk page, click on the link to it in their signature, click on the New section tab, and type (much as you did on this Teahouse page). If a user has left a message on your Talk page, they may well check to see if you reply to it there, and continue the dialogue. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.235.54 (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying and the answer to the second question I had asked in my question. As a Wikipedia newbie, I appreciate it. As a Canadian, I appreciate your politeness. Trev Swain (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to Get a Peer Review

I'm working on my first article, about the 2009 murder of Joanne Witt, and I'm trying to get peer review. When I add the PR template to the article's talk page, here's what I got:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Just_Another_Cringy_Username/sandbox/Murder_of_Joanne_Witt

It isn't supposed to look like this, is it? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just Another Cringy Username, welcome to the Teahouse. In the documentation at {{PR}} it says that it can only be used in the talk namespace (talk pages of articles) otherwise it will generate an error message. As your draft is in your user space that's why. Zindor (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I put it on the talk page for the draft. Isn't that the same thing? If not, how do I get to the place I need to put it. Bottom line: what do I need to do next? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you feel the article is ready, click the link which is at the top of your draft to submit it for review. As an aside, your draft appears more journalistic than encyclopedic. Try to copy the style of other murder/matricide articles on Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Another Cringy Username: the namespace for article talk pages is called 'Talk' and for user pages is 'User talk', despite both being talk pages they are treated differently by the software. The peer review process is for articles that already exist in mainspace. There's at least one problem with the draft, which is use of Daily Mail as a source, it's not a reliable source and that is very important, especially when writing about living people. The draft does delve into the minutae, so it will definitely have to be edited for style like Quisqualis says, and it also might contain contentious statements if the sourcing isn't up to par. See WP:BLP for more specific information. Zindor (talk) 06:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can remove the Daily Mail; that information has been mentioned in other sources. What's the difference between "journalistic" and "encyclopedic" style? I have to admit, I think of them as pretty synonymous. Are you saying there's too much emotional language in it? Funny, as I'm usually the one editing that out of other articles' plot summaries... Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a presumption of privacy for non-public figures so the excessive detail about the sexuality and the names of previous lovers etc should be removed. The article uses a play-by-play narrative, try to zoom out and write a bit more broadly. I don't even think the topic is worth an article to be honest, just reads like gossip, but i haven't really looked into it too deeply Zindor (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The previous lover was named in the sources cited. There was one article detailing his testimony at trial, which also mentioned him by name. I've looked at a few other murder articles and it seems like if anything, they go into even more detail than I did. The case was covered by two major networks as well as local newspapers, all of which I used as sources, and was the subject of several true crime documentaries. Do you think that's enough to establish notability? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you use bold, italic and superscript text at the same time

Basically, i was messing around with some stuff in the sandbox when i came across a problem, I can't use a bold and italic at the same time, the superscript works with the boldtext and italic, but i can't seem to make them work all together, the superscript, boldtext and italic like this:

^abc

but when i use italic, it appears like this, so basically italic needs double quotation marks like this. But when i use it, it appears like this:

^"abc" Leahnn Rey (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leahnn Rey, welcome to the teahouse. The only way I know how to make bold italics is to wrap the word or phrase in quintuple single quotes. bold italic--Quisqualis (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still does not work. The bold works but the italic doesn't. It just displays: ^'abc' Leahnn Rey (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Leahnn Rey: italics are not made using double quotation marks, but rather two single ones. (And you must have the matching number of quotation marks on both sides of the text to be formatted.)

This does work: '''''abc''''' renders as ^abc -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i did that and it still doesn't work for some reason. i will try to figure it out. Leahnn Rey (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i figured it out, it was my own mistake. I forgot one single quotation mark. Leahnn Rey (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Leahnn Rey - You may find it helpful to use the VisualEditor to change text formatting. I find it's easier to highlight the text and select bold and/or italics than to count the single quotation marks. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions disappeared

I made some contributions which later disappeared What should I do now? KingBiscuitBlues (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KingBiscuitBlues, some of your contributions were reverted because they were not backed with reliable sources. Kpddg ^(talk) 06:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the blues researcher that I'm crediting in the contributions I should have been front page news but there's a campaign to suppress the information because of my personal identity No one has ever challenged the validity of the information because they wouldn't be able to because you can see very plainly who those people are in the film Their excuses may include things like not wanting to eclipse the work of Wardlow KingBiscuitBlues (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the discovery of the identities of the people in the films reveals that there was a conspiracy against the blues men in the film, and the film's maker William Fox which in turn sheds horrible light on the MGM Studio bosses Mayer and Thalberg Concerned people are afraid that I'm going to continue to rant about these things but actually I share their concerns to a limited degree I'm a truther, but not a ranter KingBiscuitBlues (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, KingBiscuitBlues, but citing facts to your own work will almost certainly fall foul of WP:Conflict of interest, and/or WP:No original research, and/or the requirements for WP:Reliable sources. No-one on Wikipedia is likely to be involved in any campaign to suppress such information (and on this globally edited project with a core policy of WP:Neutral point of view it's almost impossible that any such campaign could go undetected), but Wikipedia has to have policies and rules about the verifiability of the information it summarises from published sources – which is all that Wikipedia does: it certainly does not set out to WP:Right great wrongs. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.235.54 (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KingBiscuitBlues Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you may start a discussion on the article's talk page (e.g. Talk:Mississippi Fred McDowell to share your ideas on how to improve the articles, and provide reliable sources. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of 'biography of living person' panel

Courtesy link: John Sinclair (sociologist)

What do I have to do in the way of providing additional sources and citations for an entry on myself? In addition to my university-moderated website, I have cited four academic articles in which my work is discussed (not just cited), and five reviews of my books. I have recently added an award from a professional organisation, but don't know how to reference it. Source is AILASA_Newsletter_2021Dec.pdf file:///C:/Users/acame/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/MJJRUS47/ Johngs 06:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Johngs, you're free to announce all of this on Talk:John Sinclair (sociologist). However, any address starting "file:///" is utterly useless to those very many people (such as myself) who don't have access to that particular computer. -- Hoary (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johngs: Is the newsletter available on the public internet? If so, you can provide the URL for that issue of the newsletter when you post on the article's talk page. You can also add the {{request edit}} template on the article's talk page to get the attention of other editors who can help you update the article. Another alternative is to use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to edit an article which is semi-protected

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_India contains a line which says "By March 2022, India had just 22,487 cases across the country." which is incorrect. Official figures on 1 March 2022 contradict this and the same wikipedia article itself contradicts the statement. The statement does not cite any source.

I wish to remove it. Libreravi (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the line and it got removed (Libreravi (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC))[reply]

@Libreravi Per WP:AUTOC you can edit semi-protected articles, so WP:BOLD applies. And it's good that you wrote a clear ES, that is helpful to other editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source of biography

When some forum or platform invites an artist to perform there, it announces the program on its official site and also gives a brief bio of the guest artist. Can it be used as a reference for writing wiki bio of that artist? Would it be independent? Insight 3 (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Insight 3, welcome! Per your description, I'd say it could be considered reliable for some not WP:EXTRAORDINARY stuff, but it's not independant (doesn't help with WP:N), since they have the common goal of drawing an audience. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] My tuppenceworth – it might depend on the venue: information published by The Royal Albert Hall is likely to have been better checked than that from a street-corner band-hosting bar, but very frequently the venue will rely on information supplied by the artist (or their management) so it won't be independent.

It would show that the artist was booked to appear there on a given date, but not that they actually did (cancellations happen). Possibly direct quotes, identified as such, could be used to show what the venue chose to publish, but if this was on a website (whose content is likely frequently updated) it would be harder to cite than if it were in, say, a printed programme.

Reviews of the artist's performance after the fact would be far more useful, since the organ they appear in is much more likely to have done its editorial research and checking.

Long story short; probably depends on the particular instance. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.235.54 (talk) 07:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys! Yes I also realize the hosing venue may exaggerate some info about the guest artist for advertisement purposes, so better to avoid it.Insight 3 (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a question of exaggeration for advertising/promotional motives. The major point is – where did the venue get the information? Venue management staff are not journalists and researchers working to professional editorial standards: most of what they "publish" will have been fed to them by the performers or their agents, or looked up in non-Reliable sources (like Wikipedia!), and they will usually not cite any reliable sources they do use. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.235.54 (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Want to volunteer as a content writer

I am Ranu Agrawalfrom Gujarat, India. I want to become a part of volunteer member for Wikipedia. Please guide the process for the same. Ag ranu (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ag ranu Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. By creating an account and posting here, you are now a Wikipedia editor, there is no formal process for this. I would suggest that you use the new user tutorial to learn some basic information about Wikipedia. I will also post some welcome information on your user talk page. Thanks for being here. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

once you're done over there, you could hop over to your Homepage or the Task Center for easy stuff to do. you may also want to check out WikiProject India for coordination regarding India-related articles. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 10:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to reset a color within the template

Basically i was messing around some stuff with the {{color}} template. I wanted to make a rainbow text but realized i'd literally have to make a new template with each letter and color which is just time consuming. Is there any way i can reset a color? for example test and i will reset the 'e' within test to be blue. but i'd have to split it into different {{color}} templates and it's just time consuming. Leahnn Rey (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Leahnn Rey! you could place {{color}} inside {{color}} as such: {{color|red|t{{color|blue|e}}st}} test. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 10:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. once again. You're the best. I cannot thank you enough. Leahnn Rey (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Teng

I have something to say regarding the page Teresa Teng. I want to know if there are some improvements needed to be made to this page. If yes, then plz suggest what more needed to be done? Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to read the whole article, which looks fairly complete. I noticed there are some grammar issues, a non sequitur in the Personal Life section, and some details that conflict with MOS:CURRENT, MOS:NUMERAL, and WP:Passed away. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I corrected it. Arorapriyansh333 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sig not working

Hello. I’m trying to create a new signature (based off early-2016 User:Jaguar’s), but for some reason it keeps coming out like this:[[User:Speatle|'''19''']][[User talk:Speatle|'''79''']]  (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC). How can I fix this?[reply]

There's a little tickbox underneath the signature field in Preferences that says "Treat the above as wiki markup." If you click that box, it should sort it for you. SamWilson989 (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it’s fine now. 19 79 11:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Working on 1st article

My first article, it was declined ( its okay, my first attempt). Main reason was not proper references for my submission Nepisiguit Bay. Part of the reason I wanted to create this article was to bring attention to the proper name for the bay. All of the comminuties on the coast don't even mention the bay, they refer to the larger bay, Chaleur bay instead. Need help referencing the bay, how to prove its there??? I tried emails with Coast Guard in Canada, they gave a link that I can zoom in to see the bays name. Any Ideas? Harry12555 (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Nepisiguit Bay

hi @Harry12555 and welcome to the teahouse! you don't need to prove it exists (there are numerous bays in the world and not all of them have articles), you need to prove it's notable. please check out notability for geographic features for more on that. are there sources and articles that discuss Nepisiguit Bay in detail? if so, use those. unfortunately, you would have to rely on those sources, so if those sources state that the bay isn't nepisiguit bay, you have to use the name these sources agree on instead. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 13:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also, I'd like to note Righting great wrongs: We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can't ride the crest of the wave because we can only report what is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 13:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info and links. I ll keep digging. Most of what I have found is maps, some from the Canadian Government. I ll search more Harry12555 (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Harry12555: If you're referring to Wikipedia articles about the communities, it's not exactly true that "all of the comminuties on the coast don't even mention the bay". See, for example, the first sentence of Bathurst, New Brunswick#Geography. The Canadian Geographical Names Database page is something you'll want to use as a reference (and a source for geographic coordinates), even if it can't be the only one. The Bathurst article also mentions "the timber trade of Nepisiguit Bay" in the 1800s; that might be something you could look into for further info and refs. Deor (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great link to the The Canadian Geographical Names Database page, I added that as a source. Harry12555 (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I'm contining to search for more articles, adding anything I find to my sandbox version. Harry12555 (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DRAFT DECLINED FOR MORE THAN A YEAR

Greetings, Editors! First and foremost, thank you for your constant assistance; greatly appreciate it. Second, I'm writing to seek clarification on the matter of BOB Finance's draft being rejected. Since it is a Western Union accredited agent, and wikipedia is a platform that is widely accessible and provides information on all branches of knowledge, this financial service agent has been attempting to establish a presence on the site. It changed the promotional content to a minimum instructive script based on your advice, however it was still rejected. Noting that it's well aware of the rules, restrictions, and reference policies of Wikipedias. For over a year, we've been making personal accounts and trying to fulfill each editor's standards, but still getting blocked and rejected constantly. Since 1997, BOB Finance has been one of Lebanon's leading financial services networks. Kindly send us reasonable clarification of this matter. Please accept my heartfelt gratitude. Melanienakad (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Melanieakad. I see that Draft:BOB Finance has just been declined again. Please note that this financial service agent has been attempting to establish a presence on the site is precisely what we mean by promotion, and is forbidden anywehre on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not interested in providing anybody with "a presence". If an article on BOB finance is eventually accepted, the article will not belong to the company, will not be for the benefit of the company, will not be controlled by the company, and will not necessarily say what the company would like it to say. ColinFine (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Melanienakad, and welcome to the Teahouse! First of all, I feel that you might fundamentally misunderstand what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of companies and other organisations, it is a free online encyclopaedia with articles about subjects who are deemed notable by Wikipedia's standards. With that out of way, please also familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding editing with a conflict of interest if you haven't already. Regarding the draft (Draft:BOB Finance), if you want it to read as more neutral, consider removing the section regarding "Growth" and rewriting most of the prose to read less like a PR piece, avoiding "marketing speak". However, even if you address all these issue, you still would need to prove notability. Regardless, have a great day! [Edit conflict] HenryTemplo (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @HenryTemplo ,

We are overwhelmed with your heart-full way of communicating, been trying to get a proper help on wikipedia for a while, and you are making this concern easier to deal with.

Firstly, we find it necessary to clarify that our presence on wikipedia is purely informative rather than promotional in reply to your colleague.

Secondly, thank you for pointing out the fact that "Growth" section is wrongly used. BOB Finance's written content has been inspired by articles already accepted and shared by international companies such as Visa, American Express and Bank of America. We took into consideration avoiding the promotional content: fees, card types, advertising campaigns, products, and partnerships. Although all the previously mentioned are existing information shared on wikipedia by the cited companies. Still got rejected for the same reason multiple times. Hoping to take this point into consideration while reviewing our next draft.

Lastly, we have deep knowledge about wikipedias notability regulations. To be more accurate, we linked articles from local newspapers already existent on your platform.

Thank you for your time and consideration Henry, really appreciate it!

Looking forward for your guidance.

Best,

Melanie Melanienakad (talk) 07:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Melanienakad, I'm very glad that you have found my advice helpful! I will say that demonstrating notability on Wikipedia can be very frustrating on Wikipedia, especially the notability of companies and organisations, which has its own policy. The tricky thing with notability is that no amount of editing of an article will make it notable, which can be disheartening. When it comes to the draft BOB Finance, I'm afraid I don't feel like I could accurately judge the notability, due to almost all the sources being in (presumably) Arabic, which I unfortunately cannot understand (nor easily machine-translate). However, a good rule of thumb here on Wikipedia is if your company truly is notable, chances are another editor will come along and start an article. Bigger companies who are considered notable by Wikipedia don't usually have their articles started by an employee or their boss, they're generally started by some random editor like me who have seen the companies name in the news a lot. With that out the way, have a great day and happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is FURGOD a notable musician?

At the Luis Chavez talk page, I started a discussion about FURGOD's notability. Someone removed the redirect and added a bio of a musician whose real name is Luis Chavez (I reverted it); he goes by "FURGOD". The sourcing provided was almost entirely self-promotional, if not entirely. Would appreciate any help in judging those links. Wes sideman (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy diff link: Luis Chavez + Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 💜 melecie talk - 13:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true?

Can editors not get on and dislike one and other on Wikipedia? Just curious...DragonofBatley (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @DragonofBatley and welcome to the teahouse! unfortunately, there are lots of times where editors do not get along, like during edit wars where editors are causing disruption instead of cooling down and discussing in the talk page. there's also a few incidents of incivility reported over at Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents that may spill into the thread itself, which is why some people nickname it the dramaboard. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 13:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

changing a photo

Dear Guys, could you please help me. I have recently edited this page: Balázs Hidvéghi. However, I cannot seem to find a way to change the photo. Could you please advise. Peterep (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Peterep and welcome to the teahouse! I'm assuming you're talking about File:Hidvéghi Balázs.jpg. first of all, do you own the photo you're uploading (did you take the photo) or is there a declaration somewhere on the site that it's in CC BY-SA 4.0? if not, you're not allowed to use it in either here or hungarian wiki. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 13:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am talking about this photo. We have been using this for some time, and we want to use it here as well. But I could not really find a way to replace current one in the English page. Peterep (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded the file saying it was the work of Magyar Hírlap. They, as photographer, own the copyright and must release it under a suitable license before it can be held on Wikimedia Commons or used in the encyclopaedia. that's the priority currently, Peterep. Assuming you had the photographer's permission to upload the file, you still need to follow the steps at Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?. Once that's done, swapping the image into the article is very easy. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterep, could you clarify what you mean by "we"? Are you associated with the article subject or the website hosting that photo in any way? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Q re Unblock ticket request system

Another user has been indeffed, and their talk page access was turned off. I'd like to be notified if they appeal via UTRS. So my question is, does the UTRS system add anything to a users talk page, when the user themself has been denied talk page access? If the answer is "yes", then I will hear about it via my watchlist. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, it won't add to their talk page and you won't be notified currently; see Wikipedia:Unblock_Ticket_Request_System#Access_requirements. Hope this helps, Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 16:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, thanks for saving me the effort of looking for something that wouldn't happen anyway! Have a great day, and thanks for serving the Teahouse NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIPEDIA CONTENTS BY LANGUAGE

I'm a native Portuguese speaker. Too little original knowledge is produced in Portuguese. To the contrary, almost all knowledge produced in any language is available in English. Furthermore, here in Latin America, there's much politically affected opinions. So, I'd suggest to make the contents already available in English also available in other languages. This would have an enormous effect in making better knowledge accessible to the world. It could be done using bots. Right? Thank you so much!!! Ecelso Zanato (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ecelso Zanato: We already have projects that are working to create articles in other languages feel free to translate or contribute to them as well. You may find some great projects at the Portuguese language Wikipedia at [4] McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you McMatter!

What you said, it seems to me, is a labour intensive task, as you mentioned "to create articles in other languages" Ecelso Zanato (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite labor intensive, @Ecelso Zanato. Translating an article from one language to another is often the equivalent of creating a whole new article. Bots - as they currently exist - do a poor job of translating, especially if the languages are quite different, so it takes a person with a good knowledge of the languages involved to create a good translation. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know,McMatter, my experience with Google Translate from English into Portuguese is that it works quite well. There are few errors of translation, but this is a very cheap price to pay for the wealth of good knoledge it would bring into our Portuguese world, that is now completely unavailable for so many hundreds of millions of creatures that are now like hostages of this beautiful but poor language... Ecelso Zanato (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Machine translation is not allowed on English Wikipedia, but each Wikipedia has its own rules. You should ask at the Portuguese Wikipedia what their rules are for machine translation. RudolfRed (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Ecelso Zanato - two things. One is that you would need to request such a change (allowing machine translations) on portugese wikipedia. The other is just a note that need for care is critical on things like biographies of living people. It would be cold comfort to someone libelled by a mis-translation that most articles were understandable. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you Nosebagbear! You're so kind!

I didn't invent Macmatter. See it above! (McMatter (talk)/). Your Further note: ((I am not McMatter (as far as I know), I'm an IP editor - something you won't see on Portuguese Wikipedia anymore)) It really hurts me. I'm not an expert in Wikipedia like you are, sorry! I was only trying to find a speedy way to make available for poor Portugueses-only-speaking people the great contents of English Wikipedia. Sorry!!!!

In this video ([5]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTtqKXRoy10) they say that to do something to Wikipedia you must have a thick skin. I now have experienced what they mean. So sorry!!!

Just yesterday I've made a donation to Wikimedia. To be treated this way?

You don't have to answer me. It was enough! Ecelso Zanato (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ecelso Zanato, I apologize if that came off as an insult of some kind. I was just pointing out that you weren't replying to who you apparently thought you were replying to. And adding, as an aside, that IP editing has been banned at ptWP, so you won't see IP editors there. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this, Ecelso Zanato, demonstrates just how hard it is to translate articles from one language Wikipedia to another. You are a Portuguese speaker whose written English is quite good, but even so you misunderstood what 199.208.172.35 was saying to you, and – completely mistakenly – thought that they were somehow insulting or belittling you instead of pointing out a minor mistake in a wholly neutral tone, and adding some entirely factual information in a slightly oblique fashion.

The work of translating articles from English to Portuguese really needs to be done by Portuguese speakers whose English is even better than yours, or English speakers with equally good Portuguese. Unfortunately, there are very few Wikipedia volunteer editors (all Wikipedia contributors are volunteers) with these skills and with enough time to make a detectable dent in translating English Wikipedia's 6¹/₂ million articles, which hundreds of thousands of editors have between them taken over 20 years to create, improve and accumulate. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.235.54 (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: I am not McMatter (as far as I know), I'm an IP editor - something you won't see on Portuguese Wikipedia anymore! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ecelso Zanato The reason machine translations are forbidden on en-Wikipedia is a bad experience in 2015-2016 (see Wikipedia:Content_translation_tool#English_Wikipedia_restrictions). I am relatively confident that machine translation tools (at least between the most common languages) are, or will soon be (before 2030), at a level equal or above that of bilingual speakers that are not professional translators.

However, the technical task of translating is only part of the job. Another part is checking whether the subject of the article conforms to the standards (guidelines) of the new Wikipedia - some topics in pt-Wikipedia are not acceptable in en-Wikipedia and vice-versa.

The hardest part is checking that the content of the article are useful. en-Wikipedia contains many poor articles, and a few outright hoaxes. I am confident I could write an article about a minor Brazilian politician and include an incorrect fact such as politician X was accused of corruption in 2018. If I do it well enough, with a source to a long newspaper article in Portuguese that talks about that politician, it would take quite a long time to be detected (few editors will read that article, and most of those who do would just see that there’s a plausible-looking source, not check it, especially if it’s in a foreign language). If a bot later translates that "fact" into the pt-Wikipedia article, that becomes a much more significant issue.

Maybe at some point we could imagine automatic translation of articles that passed a certain threshold (WP:GA?). But those are few. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the bulleted list glitch

I was messing around with some language families like so (keep in mind i'm using {{color}} template, the blue one, it's not a link):

north luzon
- isnag
- ibanagic
  - atta, ibanag, itawis, yogad

It's fine when i make every single bullet list outside the {{color}} template, it displays up the top of this text. But when i make the bulleted list inside the {{color}} template, it appears like this:

north luzon
- isnag
- ibanagic

You might be saying: 'this is absolutely normal, i don't see anything wrong with this', well think again, because the glitch only happens when i'm in visual editing? But when i switched to source editing and previewed the page it was completely normal. Leahnn Rey (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Leahnn Rey. I'm not clear why you're playing around with colour. We don't often use colour to distinguish things in Wikipedia, mostly because of concerns about accessibility. If you are intending to use colour in an article, please make sure you are familiar with the guidelines at WP:COLOR. ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm basically just testing the color to see the arguments and how it works because i want to make a 'parameter' some time around the future Leahnn Rey (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Account banning

Will Wikipedia delete users that doesn't active for a long time? Please answer! H0MARUP (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is not possible to delete a User account anyway. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then how would they ban a user who is a troll? H0MARUP (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

H0MARUP: we can block accounts to prevent them from editing (or even lock them so that they cannot be logged into), but there is no way to actually *delete* a Wikipedia account. And no, we don't do any of that for accounts that just aren't active for a time; it requires active disruption. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on the addition of documentation

I would like advice on how to proceed (if at all) to post a systematic tabulation of works by over 200 artists, many of whom are the subject of articles in Wikipedia. The information is compiled from the publication, Le Musée français, and from historical documentation relating to its publication.

My effort to post the table with this article has been denied for several different reasons: (1) an engineer did this for me under their own account because I am not confident with procedures, (2) because the table utilizes an online source it was said to be redundant, (3) because the table utilizes descriptive information from a widely cited Masters thesis it was held to be unauthoritative and (4) although, consequently, redundant and unauthoritative, the posting was also held to be self-promoting, because the thesis was mine from 40 years ago. (Btw, I retired 10 yrs. ago.)

On the other hand, the posting on Wikipedia would provide opportunity to connect dozens articles about major and minor artists through reference to their works ... and also it would be a unique occasion to identify and appreciate the content of a publication which was admired as a work of art, above all others of similar character when it was produced.

Does the table belong in a separate but related article, e.g. “Engravings of the Le Musée français?” Or on Wikipedia.fr, rather than on Wikipedia.en? George-Amherst (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello George-Amherst and welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds like this is outside the scope of Wikipedia, although I'm not familiar with fr.wikipedia and how they operate, mainly as I don't speak French. The proposal sounds like original research and synthesis, which Wikipedia doesn't allow. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, George-Amherst. If I understand correctly, you are talking about the information that was added in this edit by Practice2learn, and removed in that edit by Justlettersandnumbers. There’s a few things to consider here.

The only real problem here is whether inclusion of the table is "due". That the table is available elsewhere online is not a consideration for that criterion - the periodic table is available online at many places, but we still have an image of it in Wikipedia. But the periodic table is a major work of physics/chemistry, which has been commented upon by numerous authors, so an encyclopedia containing "the sum of human knowledge" ought to include it. Is that the case for detailed list of the engravings in Le Musée français? Honestly, I do not know. If you have a couple of sources (for example articles in art journals) that cite the list (not just the master’s thesis, but use the list it compiled), I would say it can be made a standalone article linked to the main article, with a short introductory paragraph describing the sources, possible methodology problems in compiling it, etc. (but make sure all of that comes from the existing sources, not your own interpretation of your master’s degree work, else that would indeed be original research which we do not allow here).

I do not think self-promotion is a significant issue here. In the context of academic writing, self-promotion is when you cite your own work in preference to the work of others, or give it undue prominence in Wikipedia articles. But when your own work is indeed the most relevant, or only, scholarly work about a particular point, it’s fine to cite it.

I am not familiar with the guidelines at fr-Wikipedia, but I suppose the main issue will be the same - you will have to prove that the list is not just something off a master’s thesis, but that it has some external validation, most likely in the way of other articles citing the list as authoritative.

Finally, in the future, if you ask someone off-wiki for help to edit (as was the case here with Practice2learn’s edit if I understand correctly), it is a good practice to make that visible to other editors (for instance with an edit summary that says uploading the table on behalf of User:X who asked me for assistance in real life). That is because secret off-wiki coordination can give the impression that multiple independent editors have the same opinion, which biases potential debates (see WP:MEAT). Here, I do not think that is a significant concern (after all, 19th-century art journals is not a really controversial topic area on Wikipedia), but still. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George-Amherst, my recollection of that article and its problems has faded somewhat. Do I recall correctly that the "widely cited Master[']s thesis" you refer to is in fact something that you wrote yourself? And that you have already been told that a master's thesis is not normally regarded as a reliable source ("Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence"? Perhaps Theroadislong will remember more clearly than I do? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tigraan ... Thank you for your remarks. I would like to reply carefully ... and do not have opportunity to do this before early next week, by which time this exchange may become archived.

It appears that the inclusion of information from the Master's thesis is a problem for some editors. Let's remember that the information being considered is (a) putting numbers to an otherwise determined sequence and (b) the dimensions of printed images that are easily verified from the objects themselves and which will serve to identify copies of them ... two columns out of eight. If this is a problem, then why not post the table without any reference to thesis? Many would regard citation of the thesis simply as a benefit to the reader.

Repeatedly, in my exchanges with editors, I've needed to point out that the thesis is cited as the only reference for information about the contents of the publication by the general catalogue of the Bibliotheque nationale de France, by the Lbrary catalogue of the Royal Academy of Art in London and by the online ongoing edition of Fritz Lugt's Les Marques de collections ... maintained by the Fondation Custodia in Paris. Yes, it is also cited in art historical scholarship, although I have only a couple of examples of this.

I believe the table is "due" ... (1) because there is no other means of presenting the contents of the publication itself than by an enumeration such as this, (2) there is no other documentary basis for reference to the work of the many artists (over 200) who contributed to it, (3) it is the only documentary basis for identifying objects removed from the publication which have survived as independent art works. Of course, one can add references to Le Musee francais from articles on its artists, but without the availability of this table, the references are simply allegations.

Let me add, the publication itself has no list of contents and no index of contributors. Even persons having access to copies of the publication itself have need to this table to understand what it contains. In this sense, perhaps, it is indeed comparable to the periodic table of elements. George-Amherst (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it was to be on Wikipedia, I'd think a separate list article List of engravings at Le Musée français, rather than a section in Le Musée français. Should every museum and gallery have their catalogue mirrored here? If you have detail like dimensions, then Wikidata would be a perfect repository. But importing bulk info into WD is a non-trivial undertaking. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 13:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ... I think a separate article, e.g. "Engravings of the Le Musée français and Le Musée royal..." would be justified, along with several paragraphs of explanation. Yes, the dimension of images is an important feature of the table. When this was previously done in March (and removed by editors here), it didn't appear to be technically difficult to drop the entire (immense) table into the visual editor. However, I suppose the engineer who did this could do it again for me (with the clarifications suggested above).

What I'd like to avoid (above all) is the continuing unpleasantness of getting shot down again by editors who do not ask first. George-Amherst (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tyler Kistner: notable?

Hello! I'm currently writing Draft:Tyler Kistner, a article about a American politician (still rough!). I believe it meets WP:GNG /WP:POLITICIAN, but I would like a second opinion. If it does not, I can move some of the content to the 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota article. Thank you. Any copyediting would be appreciated (this draft will be expanded). TreadsOfThird (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just being a candidate, even a perennial one, is usually not sufficient to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. The coverage of the subject is routine and largely local. ValarianB (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! WP:POLITICIAN states that "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. I think I meet that standard, regardless of the source's geographical location (unless our definitions differ). Two questions, if you don't mind: Why do you think the draft doesn't meet the above guideline and what parts of the article are "routine" in your view? TreadsOfThird (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TreadsOfThird. Kistner is not a major local political figure. The coverage in the draft is routine coverage of the sort that all major party Congressional candidates receive. If Kistner is notable then every losing major party Congressional candidate in U.S. history is notable. And how about losing parliamentary candidates in other countries? As an editor since 2009, I have participated in hundreds of deletion debates about losing political candidates and I can assure you that there is a very strong consensus among experienced editors that the vast majority of losing candidates are not notable. There are occasional exceptions when a candidate receives ongoing, in depth coverage from many national publications. This is not such a case. Cullen328 (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation (and other) templates

I am struggling with learning how to find templates. So far, I have been able to use them okay, but I have sometimes had trouble finding the exact template I wanted. Specifically, I want to use the template that says a page needs more sources/citations to support the content, but I don't know how to find it. What is it called, so that I can find it, and does anyone have any general advice on how to more easily find and use templates? Thanks. A. E. Katz (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @A. E. Katz, welcome to the Teahouse. Do you know about Wikipedia:Template index? In the past I've had a bookmark to that page; usually I jump there by typing WP:Template index into the search bar. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, you'd specifically want Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup#Verifiability and sources. Choose the best fit from the list. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, that's exactly what I needed! I have seen the page before, but I didn't think to look at it / didn't remember how to access it. A. E. Katz (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writing without log in

Hello. I have changed an article but did not have an account .. is my IP address now visible to the public? I have now made the change logged in .. does this help? thanks. Somewhereovertherainbow33 (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Somewhereovertherainbow33, welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, the IP address you made the edit with is now publicly visible, and making the same edit with an account will not change that; in fact, it might make things worse (from a privacy standpoint), because then people could directly associate the IP and the account. Fortunately you haven't actually made any edits with this account - that I can see - so that won't happen to you. If you have serious privacy concerns, we do have ways to hide edits from public view (WP:REVDEL and WP:OVERSIGHT) but a compelling reason is needed to do so. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linked Wikipedia-article to a google-business-entry

Hi there, google sent me here, but I think, you cannot help me. A google-business-location is linked to the wrong wikipedia-entry. I cannot imagine, that this connection is caused by wikipedia but by google. Can you confirm this? Cbk882 (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Cbk882. Can you tell me what location you are referring to? Search engines make that mistake a lot... 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 20:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can confirm that. We have no control over Google's (ab)use of its platform, and we especially hate that they keep blaming us for shit on their end. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar assistance, please!

What is the proper form for this statement? "Since both parents worked XXX days per week, XXX was often responsible for (child care)." OR: "Because both parents worked XXX days per week.." OR: "As both parents worked XXX days per week.." I'm old and befuddled. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 21:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 'Due to X's parents working X days a week, X was often responsible for the childcare of his/her older/younger sibling [insert name]' Zindor (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe of Tiger, all three of your alternatives are fine. I wouldn't use Zindor's no doubt well-intentioned suggestion: its first half sounds somehow constipated to me (and conventionally calls for an apostrophe on "parents", an addition that would do nothing to aid the constipation); and we can infer from the context that the care is childcare (and not aftercare, Medicare, etc). -- Hoary (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I debated that apostrophe for half a second and considered it archaic and superfluous. The 'since' in the first example can be read two different ways, one of which may be incorrect. The second example starts with 'because', an odd sentence starter, and the third sentence sounds too casual. My example might be 'constipated' but it allows for specific details and doesn't create ambiguity. Zindor (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zindor, I fear that we have to disagree. For me, "since" would only be ambiguous if it introduced one or more events (e.g. "Since both parents lost their jobs"), nothing seems even slightly odd about starting a sentence with "because", and nothing about the third option sounds particularly casual. -- Hoary (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're worried about ambiguity, just turn the sentence the other way round: XXX was often responsible for child care because his/her parents worked XXX days per week. Elemimele (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One would ordinarily precede "because" with either direct context or a clause. Example: ('X had to look after X because...'). You can read 'since' as meaning a) since the specific date the parents starting working that many days a week or b) just a general reference to the fact the parents work those days. 'As' seems casual to me but i admit it is the best option of the three. At the end of the day it's all English and doesn't really matter Zindor (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Hoary for support, I also prefer an apostrophe on "parents". Elemimele, this is an elegant solution, thanks! Zindor, your suggestion of a clause to precede "because", is very sensible. Friends, sorry for the Tempest in the Teahouse! Years ago, I was dragged over the coals, per a similar use of "because". Yes, Zindor, I agree that it's all English, & perfectly understandable to me, as a native speaker. But one editor became very picky, and the nuances really mattered to them! So, I doubted my abilities. (45 years+ since middle school, etc, etc) Thanks to all, I have the confidence to proceed. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian style guide, entry "as or since?", says: “As” is causal (...) “since” is temporal (...). Merriam-Webster says that’s snobbery, "since" can be used just fine as a causal link, and that some snobs might also object to "as" as causal. I have not looked much further but I suspect much ink (electronic or physical) has been spent on the subject.

@Tribe of Tiger: Your options are either to write whatever you want without thinking too much about it, or proposing an MOS entry for a point of übersnobbery. (Guess which one I recommend?) Tigraan^{[[User talk:|Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)]]} 16:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: Thanks for the excellent and interesting links, esp the Merriam-Webster essay. I am going with "because", prefaced by a clause, per Zindor's suggestion. Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tigraan, those are some useful links but neither gives justification to start calling people snobs. I kindly ask that you keep those opinions to yourself. Thanks, Zindor (talk)

Tigraan (repointing ping)

@Zindor: if Merriam-Webster mentioned snobs, it was in a rather humorous manner. I don't see that Tigraan accused anyone of being a snob. Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tribe of Tiger: just for posterity's sake i'm going to address this. Merriam-Webster didn't use it, there was a throwaway comment at the end of the article about a related term, but no actual usage and not carte blanche to use snob thrice in a different context. The implication is clear from what's written above, that anyone prescribing to those certain views on grammar is apparently a snob. It's not the first time the term has been bandied about here at the Teahouse and it needed addressing. That's all, i'm not otherwise concerned, there's bound to be diverging views on a question of grammar. Zindor (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia based on consensus or hierarchy?

I started to create pages for missing high impact academic journals. I included all necessary information to represent the journal and prove its notability. Two experienced editors rampaged my talk page with job description that I cannot leave the hard work to others for collecting further information. All the pages I created are more complete than at least 80% of similar pages on Wikipedia.

Why are older editors bossing new ones by telling what to do (not guide/assistance, but outlines of job description)?

Every page I created was in compliance with the policies. Where is it ruled that a journal page can be created if the name of the editor is added? If they feel it is needed, they can add it themselves. Why are they complaining that they are doing my job? What is my job here?

If Wikipedia (not one editor or two) does not want me to create missing pages, I can stop doing it; but why trolling me and my contributions? MojoDiJi (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MojoDiJi, sorry to hear that you're feeling frustrated with your editing experience. Creating new articles is unfortunately relatively difficult. I looked at this article you created, Energy Storage Materials. While it's better than no article, it is very short and could do with some expansion. The page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Writing_guide was linked for you; the users who linked this are more experienced in this area than me. I would try to follow it when creating articles in the future. Also adding categories etc is needed for new articles. You could take more time to research first. I hope you still feel willing to contribute; we need editors, but creating new articles is a lot to get the hang of and it can take a while. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 22:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rubbish computer: thanks for your kind message. As I mentioned before, these short articles are based on the template given to me by one of the editors. This is the common format for all journal pages. My problem is that they boss me that because I did not fill a few items on the template, they should clean up my mess to complete it. It is not my job. I have no obligation to provide all the information. I always add categories, but I don't understand the order that I must add all categories. MojoDiJi (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MojoDiJi, no worries. You describe the articles you are creating as making a "mess". That's not how creating articles should go; while it's a lot to get the hang of, if you know you're creating a mess then it's disruptive editing. I would try to plan out the articles better in future, and try to follow the above guideline. While technically we're not obligated to absolutely do anything here, we should be contributing constructively, not making more work for other editors. I hope this helps, Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 00:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rubbish computer: You misread me. My articles are nothing close to a mess. I create them based on the standard and common template for journals. The editors in question call it cleaning up the mess because they add more info (not changing, adding more). Nothing I ever created/edited was disruptive in any sense. MojoDiJi (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MojoDiJi, while I don't doubt you have good intentions, this thread was started by you because you didn't like the messages left on your talk page. They're explaining that you need to meet certain quality standards when writing an article. Unfortunately it's not one that I'm that familiar with; not written about a journal before as far as I remember. I would re read that guideline and try to take the advice on board. I can also try to help, I don't know much about this area though. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 00:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rubbish computer: It is not being me liking a message or not. It is not about about guidelines. A page, which is not according to the guidelines, can be deleted (but it was not the case). It is about dictating job descriptions for others. I like to create new pages. They say, no, you must spend your time to expand your articles because they don't like to do so. This is what I like to contribute to Wikipedia. What is wrong with that? MojoDiJi (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MojoDiJi, I've given you the advice you need. You need to re-read that guideline, and follow certain minimal quality standards when creating an article. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 01:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MojoDiJi, Wiktionary defines rampage as "To move about wildly or violently". I have never previously seen it used to mean "politely request, providing reasons for doing so", or "politely second another person's polite and reasoned request". Here's one of your creations: Energy Storage Materials. There's no evidence within that stub that the journal in question has been discussed elsewhere. If it has been, then show that it has been. (Here's my own most recent creation. It's rather a mess, one that was improved in revisions made soon afterwards [some of them made by myself], but I think that even its very first version manages to indicate significance.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: I will stop cleaning up your mess or cleaning up after you is very tedious about a volunteering contribution is polite to you? By clean up, they mean adding more information. MojoDiJi (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at this in context, MojoDiJi. It's not very collaborative to create scores of sub-stubs and leave it to others to do the hard work. You don't even tag articles for the appropriate WikiProjects on their talk pages. So do continue to "contribute to the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia" in a superficial way, but I will stop cleaning up your mess. "Clean up", means, I think, "attempt to transform into something worth viewing". The first two sentences seem polite to me. The invitation that's the first half of the third sentence seems unnecessarily hospitable, and the very last part just describes what Randykitty won't do. -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MojoDiJi - To answer your title question, it's based on both hierarchy and consensus. New articles and article contributions by newer editors tend to be given extra scrutiny, while editors with longer editing histories are given more leeway. As a specific example of the fluid nature of the site, articles for deletion discussions and outcomes tend to fluctuate between consensus and policy, depending on how skilled the closer is at sifting through the arguments and making the right decision. So it's kind of like real life. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: I have no problem with scrutiny, but commanding me that I must add information, which are not stated as mandatory in the official policy, is a different story. MojoDiJi (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than one obvious option, MojoDiJi: Add information to the substubs you've already created; create articles that aren't mere substubs; work on other, existing articles.... -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MojoDiJi: I see that you gave a barnstar as your third edit, so I assume that you are somewhat familiar with the backstage process on Wikipedia, whether because you edited without an account before or just lurked long enough. I do not think you should cling to the mantle of "new editor" much longer.

You are entirely correct that creating incomplete stubs is allowed. Whether it is useful for our readers or not is debatable. But please consider that annoying other editors is a problem, even if you think you are 100% right and those other editors are idiots, divas, etc.. If lots of people wish that you would be blocked, even if you don’t actually get blocked, it makes editing a miserable experience.

Your behaviour is similar to deleting images without cleaning up the redlinks (an example taken from that humorous page). Deleting images according to policy is good, but leaving redlinks is bad, even if a lawyer-ish reading of WP:VOLUNTEER means you can do it without fear of administrative sanctions. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I am trying to upload a 8-minute webm video but again and again the page gets redirected to this. Peter Ormond 💬 21:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Peter Ormond and welcome to the teahouse! ~~i see you have found the place I've been spending all my time these past few days!~~ jokes aside, this seems like a bug, I believe the proper place for this would be at Village pump/technical or maybe Phabricator. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 01:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admins blocking account creation after blocking the vandal

OP blocked for ban evasion.

Do you wonder why admins disable account creation after blocking the vandal's account? I think it is very unfair for admins to disable the account creation for the user, when it is something for them to create new account freely. Plus anyone can edit Wikipedia no matter what edits they made and how they contribute. Any reason why implemented account creation disable? An example is "account creation blocked." Also, creating another account is the fresh new start. -- 76.20.110.116 (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, "anyone can edit" does not mean that blocked users should just be able to create anew account and continue editing. That's WP:BLOCKEVASION. A block applies to the user behind the account or IP, not just the specific account or IP. Meters (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IP, users aren't allowed to 'clean start' if they're actively blocked. See Wikipedia:Clean start. Allowing account creation for blocked users would entirely defeat the object, perhaps less so for those with significant tenure but still not a good idea. Regards, Zindor (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, but why users aren't allowed to have a clean start if they're actively blocked and why would they implement that? How is not a good idea? 76.20.110.116 (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

because WP:CLEANSTART specifically excludes blocked accounts and for the sake of transparency. PRAXIDICAE💕 22:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

76.20.110.116, perhaps you could describe what you see as injustice at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/76.20.110.116. But if the matter isn't specifically about yourself, and you want to discuss policy more generally, then the place to do so is neither here nor there but instead Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Though I don't think that you will get far. -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then! I might make some good faith and constructive edits. Have a good day! 76.20.110.116 (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Iran International a "Reliable Source"?

I am fairly certain the answer is no, but I just wanted to confirm. Pburkart (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pburkart, from what I could find out, no, I wouldn't say so. Editors discuss which sources are reliable more at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 00:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why Wikipedia is not a directory and about the BFDI article?

Here is another question: Can anybody explain why Wikipedia is not a directory especially listing anchor stores? Also, some users tried to create an article about BFDI, but it got deleted soon. And when attempting to create again, its name or title got protected. Here is the link to this: Battle For Dream Island

Have a good time! 76.20.110.116 (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because this Wikipedia thing presents itself as an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia is not a directory. (If you propose to change this, this isn't the right page for your proposal.) And please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for Dream Island. -- Hoary (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Directories like that, which include a list of stores in a shopping center, can easily get out of date. Wikipedia doesn't assign editors to review articles like this every few months, which is what's required to keep such a list up to date. Anyone who wants to know that info is much better served by using a search engine, which should lead them to the shopping center's own web page, where the info is presumably up to date. That's probably why Wikipedia doesn't want to be a directory. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi IP user! the BFDI community on Wikipedia has had a rather... interesting history as you can see by the deleted pages. it's been created, deleted, created, deleted, chain continues on until it gets salted, created, deleted and salted again at the draft, and now we have a draft on its fourth season specifically plus your draft on the subgenre it created. saltings basically happen if the article is repeatedly recreated, which is the case here (and I think BFDI is one of the most egregious cases here, to the point where I believe it's been completely blacklisted from creation), and unfortunately I don't think it will ever be lifted in the near future to allow an article to be created.

a long while back (maybe 2017 or so, during an attempt by the discord community to create an article), I did a search to help with article creation and if I recall correctly, there was no sources that came close to being reliable. even today it doesn't have reliable sources, the only news article I can find is a Forbes Contributor article on that Fandom Fantasy Food contest where jnj basically pulled their fans to victory, which is not exactly reliable and does not even have significant coverage since it focuses on the contest itself.

I think this is one of, if not the defining example of fame =/= notability. bfdi has a giant fanbase enough to spawn lots of fanfics and shows inspired by it, wins popularity contests, episode 1a has 63m views and the compilation of its first season has 20m, jacknjellify has 1.2m subs, yet it has absolutely no significant coverage in reliable sources and nothing backing its claim to notability unlike other webfics such as Homestar Runner, Don't Hug Me I'm Scared, Hazbin Hotel, and Eddsworld. and I'm not saying this as someone against the creation of a potential BFDI article, as I would've planned to make one once I had enough experience with article creation, but (surprisingly for a 10yo web series) it's still too soon to make one.

oh and regarding anchor stores, I'd also suggest you read Wikipedia is not a directory, but the tl;dr has been stated above. I mostly just wanted to mention this all since I feel I should give my input as someone who is both a fan of the series and a semi-experienced editor. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 10:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to propose a draft for deletion?

It seems to me that the draft Draft:Matt Walsh (pundit) should be deleted, as the page Matt Walsh (political commentator) is on the same subject; however I do not know how to let the editors know or propose it for deletion(the PROD says to use only on articles). Jaguarnik (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguarnik: It's done via a process similar to Articles for Deletion; see WP:Miscellany for deletion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 03:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jaguarnik - Please do not nominate drafts for deletion only because there is an article in article space. The draft should be redirected to the article, and that is what will normally be decided at MFD, but the deletion nomination is work for volunteer editors. Redirect the draft to the article. If you do nominate it for deletion, the MFD will normally be closed as Speedy Redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article Regrade?

Hello! I hope all is well!

Out of curiosity, I was wondering how the process works for getting an article regraded? Before any edits to my article, my article was a S (start class) rating and I wanted to see if the additions I made is enough to get it from an S grade to at least a C grade. If you have any information on getting my article graded, I would really much appreciate it.

Thank you,

Jtruongucr (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Up to C, and perhaps even up to B, it's informal. I've just now upgraded it to B. It's good, but it is rather wordy and even a little repetitive. Try reading it out loud: I think you'll find yourself thinking "Hmm, didn't I already say that?" -- Hoary (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the feedback and regrade! I will edit it and hopefully fix those wordy and repetitive errors! Thank you so much for the help, I really appreciate it

Jtruongucr (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jtruongucr, I quote: Friday, 3 June 2022 / Milestones / Everyone should have finished all of the work they'll do on Wikipedia, and be ready for grading. Whew -- I hope you met that deadline. Anyway, well done. Even after the deadline (and any minor extension allowed to it), do please stick around, even if it's only for minor tinkering with what has already been written. -- Hoary (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My professor kindly extended the deadline for us! I will stick around as I think this community is pretty cool and it's neat to edit articles that help educate others (even if I'm not the best writer ).

Jtruongucr (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary likes this. 07:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding article

I need to understand, what the heading should be in an article to expand the article? Like using aftermath or something else, where a company left a country due to its rules or regulations. Basically need to know what should be the heading in article under which mentioning the context and sources, for example " Overseas Operation, Exiting (Country name) and etc". @Venkat TL Love2read&write (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat TL Welcome to the Teahouse. "Aftermath" may well be appropriate. You can find some guidance at MOS:HEAD. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to ping) @Love2read&write Can you name which article you are referring to? It will be easier to answer. @Shantavira link is helpful. May be a section named as "Overseas operations" or "Countries served" can have such kind of info. Venkat TL (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing right information. In regards to my question, i did some changes over there, kindly review it once. Thanks again Love2read&write (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Can someone link the article 2022 Trooping the Colour with the commons category c:Category:Trooping the Colour 2022? Peter Ormond 💬 10:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should have been as simple as adding {{Commons category|Trooping the Colour 2022}} to the article but previewing that gives an error related to Wikidata. I'll leave it to someone more experienced with the intricacies to sort this out.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming to an inactive user on different Wikipedia

Hi. I want to rename my username to “1979”, but the username is taken on de.wikipedia. I thought I found a notice board to request a change to an inactive user’s name, but apparently it’s only for en.wikipedia natives, and “1979” is not. Is there a noticeboard which allows for taking inactive usernames from other Wikipedias? 19 79 (contribs) 11:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speatle Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think you are referring to WP:USURPNAME. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it’s only for en.wikipedia usernames, and 1979 is on the German one. 19 79 (contribs) 11:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized that. :) That board is at this page on Meta. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It says in the preview that the wiki is meta. Does that mean the name change will only be for that Wikimedia project? 19 79 (contribs) 11:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Speatle, all accounts are linked globally, so whatever username you'll have on meta will be the same on enwiki, and vice versa. that's also why you can't rename to 1979 just yet despite them not being in enwiki, the username is still taken globally across all wikimedia wikis including both dewiki and enwiki, so you can't change to "1979" without changing the other 1979's username to something else, like 1979~dewiki. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 11:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a new User.

Hi, I have been editing off and on for about a decade. I had a question about a new user who joined this week, Achmad Rachmani, who focuses primarily on International versions of Television programmes, with a bit of grammar correction on the side. I've noticed that he likes to do a lot of small edits off and on over the course of many days. The programme that I know him from is Family Fortunes. Before his arrival, there was a list of International versions of Family Fortunes, about 6 or 7. Achmad proceeded to make 2 lists One was International versions and the second is now titled International versions which use similar elements to All Star Family Fortunes. Then he deleted the first grid International versions which featured actual versions of the programme. I try and correct certain mistakes he makes and he reverts them and then a few hours later he reverts the corrections that I made back on his own terms.

I see that he is correcting pages every day, doing small edits each day a little bit at a time, not all at once. He's a very busy guy. I see, there is a certain editor on Wikipedia, AldezD who sent him a message askig about his multiple minor edits and advised him to become a Pending Changes reviewer. He made the request early yesterday, but then deleted it after about an hour. It all seems a bit suspect to me.

I know that it's only one of the pages that I contribute to and I can lay off, but this editor is making continuous minor edits to the same pages, a little at a time each day, since he began earlier this week. They are erasing good data, and may continue in subsequent days perhaps making unnecessary edits. Iam not sure of the other programmes they edit, but they are getting a bit impossible with trying to figure them out. Can someone please give me advice on howw to handle them or other editors like him. Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=Achmad+Rachmani&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&title=Special%3AContributions&limit=50

135.0.252.54 (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the usual advice is to try to talk to them first, then follow the steps at WP:DR if that fails. Unless they are doing really wrong edits, in which case WP:AIV or WP:ANI is the way to go, but it does not apply here. In any case, you should come with specific WP:DIFFs of the specific edits that cause problems, not with a general complaint.

Now... I do find their editing pattern a bit weird. For the last four days (May 29 - June 2), they started editing around 1:30 - 2:00 (UTC), did at least one edit every 30 min, and stopped around 17:30 (UTC). Now, that’s not impossible, but it means they are editing nonstop for basically all the time they are awake (a 16-hour timespan). Achmad Rachmani, can you please confirm that you are not using automated or semi-automated tools to make edits? If you are, please stop right now and read Wikipedia:Bot policy first. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tigraan for the advice. Maybe We should address his talk page to talk to him?

As for specific examples, I know that on the Family Fortunes entry before his arrival, there was a list of 7 international versions listed at the bottom of the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Family_Fortunes&diff=1090181931&oldid=1090124512. Achmad in his many edits on the page, got rid of some internatonal versions ansseperated the International versions into 2 grids International versions and International versions that use the same graphics.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Family_Fortunes&diff=1090885280&oldid=1090885091. I fixed the header of the second grid, adding extra equals signs to make the header identical to the one on the top, he then reverted my edit soon after and about a few hours later, unexpectedly, went back to my edit. He soon after got rid of the "International versions" grid and kept the "use the same graphics" grid. Is this grid even valid and the original version simply listing the International versions would be better suited?

A couple of days later, he updated the name of the Irish show Alan Hughes Family Fotune to Alan Hughes' Family Fortune. To do a test, I reverted and rereverted the edit, keeping the added apostrophe to see what he would do, as I did not get rid of anything. Two Hours later, he himself unexplicably removed the apostrophe he added that morning. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Family_Fortunes&diff=1091158584&oldid=1091147387

The thing is I can forget about this for a while and let this go for the time being to let him have his fun, but, as you stated, he has a strange editing pattern with a passion for minor edits on various pages for many days straight. I can only vouch for what happens on Family Fortunes, but it just seems to me that something is weird with Achmad Rachmani.135.0.252.54 (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia page

Hello, i'm Musical artsit, how can i have Wikipedia page for myself? My knowledge panel : https://g.co/kgs/Ty7es8 Drillbaz (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drillbaz: Welcome to the Teahouse. An article about you could be written if you meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (some extra to consider for musicians). Having a Google Knowledge Panel does not have any bearing on Wikipedia's criteria. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But note that if Wikipedia ever does have an article about you, it will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, and may end up saying things that you would prefer it didn't say. Please see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to Improve Draft

Can anyone tell me please how can I improve this Draft:Lubna Marium draft? I have given a lot of references. I would be happy to tell you in detail how to do it. Thanks.--Ayatul nish (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayatul nish: Get rid of EVERY CLAIM that is not cited to a source. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano Didn't understand well. Would you please explain the details?--Ayatul nish (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Jeske possibly could be any more clear. Every statement needs to be sourced. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae Ok thanks brother, If i do, i can expect good reviews right? Ayatul nish (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayatul nish: Refer to the bottom table at User:Jéské Couriano/Decode and remember: YOU ASKED FOR THIS.

Lubna has been part of Bangladesh’s Cultural Movement from childhood. - Source?
Before the war in 1971 she participated in many demonstrations, rallies and cultural performances protesting oppression by the Pakistani regime. - Source?
In 1971, with her family, she worked in the Kalyani Refugee Camp in India, under the aegis of the Cent for Communal Harmony run by the late Smt. Maitreyee Devi. - Source?
Later, she was part of the Advanced Dressing Center in Sector 7 of the Mukti Bahini, where her father Lt.Col. Quazi Nooruzzaman was the Sector Commander of Sector 7. - Source?
He was, later, one of the Founding Members of Ekattorer Ghatok Dalal Nirmul Committee.^[sic] - Source?
Lubna can be seen in the film ‘Muktir Gaan’ as part of the ‘cultural troupe, named Bangladesh Mukti Shangrami Shilpi Shangstha which used to travel to refugee camps and different areas of the Mukta Anchal, to perform patriotic songs, arrange puppet shows and stage dramas to inspire the freedom fighters and refugees with the Spirit of Liberation. - Irrelevant/tangential and promotional; 86 this.
Completed a ‘Pilot ICH inventory Project’, by UNESCO (Dhaka), involving local communities and practitioners on a selected number of intangible cultural heritages of Bangladesh in 2017. - Source?
Researched and revived Bengal’s martial dance, ‘Raibesh’ and the medieval dance form ‘Charya Nritya’ within dance practice of Bangladesh. - Source?
Researched and worked with folk theatre companies performing the ritual theatre of Manasa Mangal. - Source?
Researched ‘Lathikhela’ country-wide in 2010 – 2016. - Source?
Lubna was married to Jamal Ahmed Sufi, Managing Director of Charuta Private Ltd. - Source?
Lubna’s father was Kazi Nuruzzaman and her mother Dr. Sultana Zaman Professor Emeritus of the University of Dhaka, was the founder of Bangladesh Protibandhi Foundation (BPF), an organization for the mentally disabled people. - Source?
Dr. Sultana Zaman was awarded Begum Rokeya Padak in 2008 by the Government of Bangladesh. - Irrelevant. The article should be about Lubna, not her immediate family.
Her daughter Anusheh Anadil is a Bangladeshi musician, artist, cultural activist. - Irrelevant.
Lubna’s son, Kushan Omar Sufi, is a designer and musician. - Irrelevant.

EVERYTHING I called out above with "Source?" either needs to be properly cited to a source that corroborates it or straight-up removed. You CANNOT just slap sources at the end of the paragraph and call it good; they need to be cited at the claim itself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thank you brother. I will do it the way you said. agin thanks.Ayatul nish (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayatul nish The draft now says ...under the aegis of the Cent for Communal Harmony run by the late Smt. Maitreyee Devi. Two questions: if "Cent" means "Center", please spell it out. And what does "Smt." mean? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: OP has been blocked as a sockpuppet. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

http url wrongly rewritten as https for icecast.rte.ie in href

I tried to add a link to a file under http://icecast.rte.ie to ga.wikipedia.org but it seems wikipedia replaces http with https in the href for hosts in rte.ie even though icecast.rte.ie only serves http. I have had to use the nowiki tag to stop wikipedia from generating the broken href, or any href for that matter: surely this is a step backwards from the web of hyperlinks! How can I get wikipedia to respect my urls, particularly http? 121.127.206.113 (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if you put brackets [ ] around the url it will preserve the http RudolfRed (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[6] no it doesn't, as you can see here. 121.127.206.113 (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wierd. I was using [7] and it seems to preserve the http for me in that case. Not sure how to solve your problem. If you don't get an answer here try WP:VPT RudolfRed (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

iirc the automatic converting to https is a change that happened on mediawiki several years ago as part of a greater expectation internet-wide that https should be the standard everywhere. If the external site doesn't handle the redirect to HTTP that's a problem on their end. I'm not sure why the example.com doesn't get changed but maybe it's whitelisted. Zindor (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zindor we don't for all links to http, it is more nuanced, see the link below and the linked tasks if you want to know more. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zindor (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#http_url_wrongly_rewritten_as_https_in_href_for_icecast.rte.ie where this was also explained. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fake information (Treatment of Crimea on maps of Russia etc)

The map used in the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magadan

Includes Crimea which is not an internationally recognized part of Russia.Magadan 84.28.243.32 (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closely (or click on the location map to see the file), you'll see that Crimea is colored with alternate yellow and gray stripes. That means that its status is disputed. Deor (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually mistook the link. I was referring to Magadan Oblast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magadan_Oblast 84.28.243.32 (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chukotka_Autonomous_Okrug 84.28.243.32 (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, if you find more please leave a message at my usertalk. I'm not promising I'll do anything about this, but I'm at least thinking about it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mzajac:, as the creator of a Russia map used on the Russia article NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tools/gadgets for downloading references

I've become interested in a subject I know little about. To get started, I'd like to download ALL of the references cited in a given article (Eco-economic decoupling) into one local library, and then read offline at my leisure. Are there any scripts gadgets tools etc that help automate the download chore? Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NewsAndEventsGuy we do not have a utility for that, many references may not even be "downloadable" - as they could be books, journals, or other things that don't include a web address. You can browse down to the references section (Eco-economic_decoupling#Notes_and_references) and use your browser to open things that do have links in multiple tabs, - then use a browser extension of some sort. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer but thanks for the reply. I use endnote. A script could do this, and generate a table reporting results, including "not downloaded, reason unknown" or whatever. If I care enough, I'll bring it bring it up at the Vpump NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline article

Courtesy link: Draft:Don Destani
Hi dear Wikipedia team, hope you are doing well

I just made an article for one new artist, I wroted all what need bio, career etc... and on the end you declined my article can you please tell me more reason why did you do this to me?

Or you need more information about this Artist Don Destani!

Best Regards,

Naser Ademi Naserademi2 (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Naserademi2: Welcome to the Teahouse. As the reviewer noted, the sources used don't demonstrate the subject's notability as Wikipedia defines it. Resubmitting it without making any changes is likely to irk any reviewer looking at it in the future. Also, external links shouldn't go in the body of the article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, @Naserademi2, your user page is a place to write a little about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. It is not for hosting promotional, unsourced content about an organization. It has already been deleted once - please do not continue restoring inappropriate material. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears to be a possible copyright violation of the About Us section of the store's website. @Naserademi2, you can not copy+paste from your sources into Wikipedia - you must paraphrase the information in your own words. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Naserademi2, do not remove posts of yours that have already received replies. They will be automatically archived after a few days of inactivity. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing deletion tag from copyright violating image

One user who copied a photo from Twitter at File:Dmitry Utkin.jpeg is edit warring to remove the speedy deletion tag.

This user has no license and no permission from the original poster. He believes that just because it was posted on Twitter, it means it should be posted here too. 106.222.78.155 (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You surprise me. It seems to me that Abovfold isn't claiming "The fact that it's on Twitter means it should be on Wikipedia too", but instead is claiming "fair use" within a particular article. The teahouse isn't the right place either to debate whether a non-free file satisfies Wikipedia:Non-free content or to report edit warring. -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the english Wikipedia, non-freely licensed images are permitted under the US Fair Use doctrine, iff they meet all of the non-free content criteria (other Wikimedia Projects might have other rules, Wikimedia Commons and the German Wikipedia do not permit Fair Use images, for example). In this case, however, I am not convinced that this image meets Criterion 1, because it might be possible to create a free image, depending on how far the subject is involved within the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you do the shortcut thing

i was on IPA when i saw this table.

		BL	LD	D	A	PA	RF	P	V	U	EG
Ejective	Stop	pʼ			tʼ		ʈʼ	cʼ	kʼ	qʼ	ʡʼ
	Affricate		p̪fʼ	t̪θʼ	tsʼ	t̠ʃʼ	tʂʼ	tɕʼ	kxʼ	qχʼ
	Fricative	ɸʼ	fʼ	θʼ	sʼ	ʃʼ	ʂʼ	ɕʼ	xʼ	χʼ
	Lateral affricate				tɬʼ			c𝼆ʼ	k𝼄ʼ	q𝼄ʼ
	Lateral fricative				ɬʼ
Click (top: velar; bottom: uvular)	Tenuis	kʘ qʘ		kǀ qǀ	kǃ qǃ		k𝼊 q𝼊	kǂ qǂ
	Voiced	ɡʘ ɢʘ		ɡǀ ɢǀ	ɡǃ ɢǃ		ɡ𝼊 ɢ𝼊	ɡǂ ɢǂ
	Nasal	ŋʘ ɴʘ		ŋǀ ɴǀ	ŋǃ ɴǃ		ŋ𝼊 ɴ𝼊	ŋǂ ɴǂ	ʞ
	Tenuis lateral				kǁ qǁ
	Voiced lateral				ɡǁ ɢǁ
	Nasal lateral				ŋǁ ɴǁ
Implosive	Voiced	ɓ			ɗ		ᶑ	ʄ	ɠ	ʛ
Implosive	Voiceless	ɓ̥			ɗ̥		ᶑ̊	ʄ̊	ɠ̊	ʛ̥

Shaded areas denote articulations judged impossible.

the BL, LD, D, A, PA, RF and other stuff have dots underneath them and when i hover over them, my cursor changes to a question mark symbol (?) and a grey box appears with the meaning underneath my mouse. Leahnn Rey (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Leahnn Rey! that would be a tooltip, and you can do one using {{tooltip}}. for example: {{tooltip|Did you know...|...that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia?}} to create happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 08:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thank you melecie. You're the best. Leahnn Rey (talk) 08:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it is possible to get off earth so why havent we

we have been able to get off earth for multiple millenea so why are we still here 222.154.243.198 (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question about the use of Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this guy is a troll. Leahnn Rey (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if trolls had been online in the silurian how would we know?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading and using photos

I have uploaded loads of photos of public transport and I will upload another ones to Commons: https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedista:Penguin9/Moje_fotogalerie_MHD

Where can I tell to Wikipedists: “You have photos here, feel free to use some if you like them”?

Also, where can I find out which photos are needed to be uploaded? I will try to find them in my archive or take them. Penguin9 (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Penguin9, welcome. The most central place to let people know about the photos would be to post on the talk page/discussion board of the related Wikiproject, additionally if there is a specific article you think could benefit from them but are unsure about whether to add them, you could post on the article's talk page, or just be bold and add them. As an example you could post on the talk page of Wikiproject Czech Republic. To find out some articles that are missing images you can look in the related category, such as Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the Czech Republic. Thanks, Zindor (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent gallery, Penguin9. But perhaps it would be better at commons:User:Penguin9 (or a subpage thereof). Or if you'd prefer to leave it where it is, then on commons:User:Penguin9 you might say a little about what people will see if they click the link to cs:Wikipedista:Penguin9/Moje_fotogalerie_MHD. And ... Ostrava! It's odd: the images I have of the city are those of Viktor Kolář. -- Hoary (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aditing

can I please get help about aditing am struggling and how to share some of my biography I wanna right a story about my life and share it with the world P.V.Mkhaliphi (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write a story about your life and share it with the world, Phumzza, please do so on your own website. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of autobiographies. -- Hoary (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting confused

So I created this article under three months ago, where there was general consensus that it should be published to mainspace and it somehow barely does not fail WP:BLP1E (courtesy link here). But then someone redirected it back, saying it does fail BLP1E. I opened a discussion at Talk:Toki Pona to gather some consensus, but I thought I might seek more community input here. Thank you. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 13:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 3PPYB6, welcome. You're doing the right thing by discussing the situation with those involved. For future reference though, while the Teahouse is central, it's not a noticeboard. Regards, Zindor (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions related to editing a Wikipedia article

That is my talk with one of editor. Please read and answer my questions!

Me :- you removed my edit from Umran Malik without any significant reason. I added references and nothing was puffery there every reference is from reliable website. I did everything according to Wikipedia Guidelines. You should have to explain me reason or revert your edit! -Gorav Sharma Thegoravsharma (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editor :- Hi. You added "He is famous for his fast bowling and is considered to be India's fastest bowler at present." That's not encyclopedic for starters. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Me :- Ohk! I have two questions : Q1) After how many edits i won't be a beginner? Q2) Wikipedia article related to your point “That's not encyclopedic for starters”? Thegoravsharma (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editor :- Hi. Please ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE - it's the place for new editors to raise questions. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Thegoravsharma (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegoravsharma, there is no specific amount of edits required for you to "not be a beginner". You need to have a clear understanding of the editing guidelines. Articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and be backed with reliable sources. Also keep in mind to avoid puffery. Thanks, Kpddg ^(talk) 16:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further, to be more specific, the bowling speeds of the article subject is already mentioned. He has not yet represented the national team as well. Kpddg ^(talk) 16:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would I be fit for being an Edit Filter Helper?

I am wondering whether I am qualified enough to become an edit filter helper if I want to help with AIV. Thank you! NotReallySoroka (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NotReallySoroka, you could ask at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard. Cheers, Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone close this RfC?

This RfC has been open for a month. Can someone close it please? JimKaatFan (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JimKaatFan You need to post on WP:ANRFC Venkat TL (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]