Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cordless Larry, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

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)

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)

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 What you should not do, though, is include any information you have only from unpublished sources (such as parish records): get your findings published by a reputable publisher, and it may be possible to include them (though even then, you should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)

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)

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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. --ARoseWolf 15:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

@Historydebunk It is especially difficult to improve Wikipedia articles when you care deeply about the subject. One option is to only edit articles about which you are certain that YOU can be UNBIASED, but this also is difficult, because we all have a tendency to see the biases of others while not seeing our own biases. That's how people run into confirmation bias and group bias: anyone who agrees with us seems to us to be unbiased (even if they are quite biased), and anyone who DISagrees with us seems to us to be biased (even if they are as unbiased as possible). The second option is to simply break down your edits to the small pieces, and to do the work like a scientist and/or historian, one step at a time. For example, if you have new information to add to an article, based on a published reliable source, add the information, and add the reliable source, in the same article edit. However, if you see a circular reference which you can document using a published reliable source (even if that source was published long before the internet existed), you should submit a single, separate, article page edit in which you explain, with full documentation, how that particular reference is circular. Do NOT be tempted to include a better source in the same edit, because that muddies the waters. Keep your edits simple, one tiny step at a time. It's about improving the quality of information and improving the quantity and quality of published reliable sources, not about arguing over who or what is right or wrong. CDUpchurch (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I came to this article at the end of a rather long trail after doubting the Saxon origin of the chancel of the present church in another source. I was perfectly prepared to be proven wrong, that's the name of the game. The date of 801 for establishing a church can be traced back to a newspaper article dating from July 1949 claiming it is recorded in the "annals of York Minster". Contacting York Minster and the Borthwick Collection I was informed that their records do not go back that far, think Vikings and the "harrying of the north" for reasons why. I noticed that the claim for this source has been dropped from the article and the "renewal project" has been referenced, which was written by the authors of this article. The date of 1080 is also, apparently, invented and uses similar references. I have searched records in more than 20 possible locations and the earliest record I can find for Trowell is in Domesday (1086), I am not alone in this Sir Frank Stenton et.al. in their "Place Names of Nottinghamshire" could find nothing earlier either and I'm told Sir Frank was considered quite a thorough Historian.

Two other references in the article are to Pevsner's work on Nottinghamshire buildings and the register of listed buildings of Historic England, both of which date the chancel to the late 12th century so contradicting the date of 1080 given.

My research has unearthed original documents dated by Nottingham University to c1175 transferring land in Trowell to a religious order and a report of an archaeological excavation at the church. These documents allow me to demonstrate that the half church mentioned in Domesday was connected to a different site and that the chancel was the first building on the current site. The detail in the documents even allows me to identify the masons who built the chancel by name.

It appears to be acceptable to write an article for the church's own website then use that article as a reliable source for Wikipedia. What appears to be more difficult is to refute an article based on thorough research of independent, often primary, sources.

I admire what Wikipedia is trying to do and have donated to its funds to keep it going. What I do want in Wikipedia, however, is reliable history based on genuine research. This site is often the first stop for students when embarking on projects and they deserve articles that are not only accurate themselves but also give reliable sources. In the past I have had to tell students to pick another topic because of circumstances like this and have heard of students who have failed because they relied too much on unreliable information. Staff really do check their sources, we don't just say it to frighten them.

Until it becomes more straightforward to refute articles such as this by presenting fully researched work I am afraid I would have to advise students to avoid using Wikipedia as a reliable source. Historydebunk (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

You're quite right, @Historydebunk, Wikipedia is not a reliable source (and we also don't host original research). The goal is to base our articles around reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - our articles should be jumping-off points for students doing research, not destinations (but that's often not how they're used). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree that articles should be based around reliable, independent, published sources. I stressed that to students over a career of 30+ years. My problem with this article is that it is not based on reliable and independent sources. Two of the sources given are published but the problem is they were written by the same people as this article, leaving the situation of "this is right because I say so". The date of 1080 (for which no one has been able to find any evidence) is contradicted by the references to Pevsner and Historic England, both highly reliable, independent and published sources, and both of which give dates of approximately 100 years later (and which the authors either do not seem to have read or have ignored any evidence that does not fit their dating). I did not want to re-write this article, I certainly do not want to replace it with my full research which is already earmarked for a professional journal. I simply want to raise a warning concerning some content and references, similar to those that I have seen at the top of other articles. It appears that to do this my reasons must be justified by evidence in "reliable, independent and published sources", my mistake seems to be in believing the work of Sir Frank Stenton, Godfrey Davis and Marc Morris, plus others, might fall into this category but St. Helen's "Church Renewal Project" (published on the Church's own webpage) carries more weight. Historydebunk (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Historydebunk, then we circle around to where we started almost two weeks ago - if you have better sources than the ones used, sources that meet our criteria, and you don't want to make the sourced corrections yourself, then a post on the article talk page with a following alert at the WikiProject is the way to go. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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. --ARoseWolf 15:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@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)

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. --ARoseWolf 16:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

@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)

I tried to insert reference numbers in the text followed by footnotes. My footnote gets inserted in the body of the text in normal print. This is my first attempt at putting an entry on Wikipedia in order to correct an article and it is proving less than straightforward. Historydebunk (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Historydebunk, it sounds like you're trying to rewrite a chunk of the article instead of suggesting changes to one or two sentences, which is certainly very difficult work for a beginner (we often tell newcomers to spend some time doing small edits and fixes to get a feel for things). There is a place where you can practice with posting and formatting - your personal sandbox, located at User:Historydebunk/sandbox. If you follow that link, you can paste your text into the dialogue box, "publish" it, and work on getting things correct from there, plus other people can see it and help you. There also should be a link to your sandbox at the very top right of your screen, along with talk/contributions/etc.

If you're pasting in text that's been copied from the article, you need to attribute it per WP:Copying within Wikipedia. You'd do that by putting Copied content from [[St Helen's Church, Trowell]]; see that page's history for attribution in the edit summary. If you can't figure out how to do that, just come back and let us know once the page is created, someone else can make an edit with the summary for you. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to refute the two earlier dates in the article. It would not be acceptable to just say they are wrong so I need to present my evidence for saying that they should be removed. In order to do this I need to give my references. To say the dates are wrong then give a string of references would achieve nothing as no one would check the references and my contribution would be ignored.

The in line references break up the flow of the points being made and make them look amateurish and difficult to follow.

The first two dates in this article are, in effect "fake history" of the type I spent many hours showing students to identify during a 30 year career in further and higher education and it is proving more difficult than it should be to refute it.

I have got in touch with some of my old colleagues and we are considering starting and on line database of unreliable historical sources for use in sixth forms and universities so it may not be necessary to refute this article here after all. Historydebunk (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That may be a better solution, since this sounds like a much more complicated case than the usual procedure of pointing to a Wrong Thing in an article, and presenting a reliable source which says the Right Thing. Good luck! 97.113.167.129 (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

What might be confusing @Historydebunk is that when he or she opens the edit window, one sees the wikitext, with article text and footnote text all jumbled together. Who would guess that the content between the <ref> ... </ref> tags is footnote content? If the tags said <footnote> or <endnote>, that would at least be a clue. But they don't. —Finell 00:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Zep Tepi

Why is ones Articulated document about that "Zep Tepi" extremely and extensively quite lacking~~ regarding only containing that other Correct "Echt" truth? Yes this one rather contains all those other: those further made in order to fit: all those "Axiom made" truths instead of??? Yes certainly has become very, very, very doctored2601:540:4100:2100:AC66:B64A:F39:C980 (talk) right on up2601:540:4100:2100:AC66:B64A:F39:C980 (talk) since that very inception beginning of this resulting Tale??? Why else?? Because: as they were apt to say before: Only that natural and realistic truth shall finally set one absolutely upon that very free! Otherwise it's actually only that simulated appearance of ever being free! Yea since the moment that rebellion happened within that very first Garden of Need, then did all ones ever concurring problems2601:540:4100:2100:AC66:B64A:F39:C980 (talk) afterwards did simultaneously2601:540:4100:2100:AC66:B64A:F39:C980 (talk) begin to developmentally occur too for sure! Yes if I'd write everything about this extensively long tale, then what a tale that would certainly be. Yet understand this would be nothing else but an absolutely and precisely correct tale only! Minus the wanton and willful desire to have all that advantage favor, regulation, and control attached within hand! Then that is definitely what makes ones entire present tale quite further perverted on up too for sure! Yes ones present tale only contains subtle hints regarding that actual and realistic truth contained within! 2601:540:4100:2100:AC66:B64A:F39:C980 (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Zep Tepi redirects to Ancient Egyptian creation myths. If you have a question about the latter, please ask it, concisely and lucidly. -- Hoary (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It appears that the user likes to use tildes -- sometimes two, and sometimes four -- as punctuation, to separate thoughts and phrases. It makes for very choppy reading. Not that the prose is very understandable either way... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Editing already existing article

Hello,

I searched Wikipedia for my fathers name ( Hasan Cemalovic) and what i found out is that someone who wrote it made a few mistakes in the title ( my fathers last name is spelled incorrectly) and in text below.

I am new to Wikipedia and i would like to know how to make those changes to the article? I would like to reply to be for Visual Editor.

Here is the link; Hasan Čemalović

Thank you.

Hamza Cemalovic Hamza131974 (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hamza131974, welcome to Wikipedia! Since you have a conflict of interest, you should not edit the article directly yourself, but instead propose changes at the talk page. It looks like both of the references that the article has spell the last name as "Cemalovic", so if you want to change that, you'll need to provide a reliable source in order to verify the different spelling (unless it something minor like an accent). ––FormalDude talk 08:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

WorldCat has Hasan listed as Ćemalović, not Čemalovć.[1]. Article-talk is the best place to debate the spelling, since then the discussion is permanently stored with the article. But I'll ask here out of curiosity: an English-speaker would probably say it like "semalohvik", how do you pronounce your name, Hamza? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 08:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk page archive size

Is there a specified/recommended size limit for talk page archives? According to Help:Archiving a talk page, the talk page needs to reach 75 KB to be considered for archiving (or have multiple resolved/stale conversations). But what about the archives themselves? Is there a size limit before starting another archive?

As a specific and recent example, I created Archive 4 for Talk:Chupacabra due to an extensive backlog of resolved/stale conversations. Archive 1 is currently 69 KB, Archive 2 is currently 42 KB, Archive 3 is 57 KB, and Archive 4 is 14 KB. While I already created Archive 4, is there a recommended KB value that needs to be reached before starting the next archive folder? If so, is there any value in editing these archives to "fill up" the oldest to a certain size value (so take the oldest material from Archive 2 and add to Archive 1 until it reaches, say, 75 KB; and so on with each subsequent archive).

Does what I'm asking make any sense? Thanks in advance for any help and feedback. TNstingray (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@TNstingray: Good question. I believe it's mostly left up to editor discretion. 75 KB does seem to the minimum desired size for archives, so I do think it would be a good idea to "fill up" the older archives. Often on larger articles that see more talk page discussion, archive size will be even larger, up to 125 KB. ––FormalDude talk 04:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Thanks so much for your helpful response! TNstingray (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Submission declined

Hi,

my draft is declined with this reason: Notability requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources

I've put sources independent like "Forbers", "The NY Times", "Il Sole 24 ORE (in Italian)", what kind of better sources I can add to make my draft published?

My example to write is: Nanoleaf

Thanks for the suggestions, I really wish i could publish this first entry :) TheCrown81 (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I recommend adding more sources such as this one, and as many as you can find. Product roundups like the NYTimes, and product reviews may not be as strong as as an article that covers the company in-depth. Add more of those, and cut back on any content that could be construed as promotional. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out what a dreadful piece of bloated advertising the article Nanoleaf is. I have tagged it for various problems. ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yur Sandbox draft improved, but there still many statements of fact without references. David notMD (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is a terrible article. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

How to make my article independent

Im trying to claim my knowledge by creating this article Irishkidd

Challenges i have

-finding my google website on Wikipedia

-im unable to create a biography of an artist

-i don't know where to link my source

How to

-Claim a knowledge graph

-create a person bio on my website

-make a perfect Article for my knowledge graph Shawn Mokwena 01 (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Shawn Mokwena 01 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To be frank, Wikipedia has no interest in your knowledge graph and nothing to do with what search engines require to obtain or enhance one. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Our only interest is in if you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician and if independent reliable sources give you significant coverage. While not forbidden, autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, please read WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Your own website does not count as a notability-confirming reference; You got no other references. Give up. David notMD (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Google's Knowledge Graph does not pull exclusively from Wikipedia (and in fact will cull information from non-Wikipedia sources if an article doesn't exist). Even then, the Knowledge Graph only provides the first few sentences of the lede section of any article it scrapes, Wikipedia or otherwise. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how both the Knowledge Graph and Wikipedia actually work. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Shawn Mokwena 01 The other editors are right, but I'll take a bit of time and explain more fully:

• "finding my google website on Wikipedia": I don't know what you mean by this. If you already have your own website that you created, it is not related to Wikipedia. A website lives on the Internet; it does not really live within Google. Google and other companies have ways to facilitate creating web sites, for example, at sites.google.com. Is that what you mean by "your Google website"? Either way, Google can help you find your website if you have one, but if you have one, I predict you know how to get to it. Wikipedia is not involved.
• "im unable to create a biography of an artist": The notes here about creating autobiographical articles apply. Have newspapers and magazines written articles about you? If so, you might be "notable". If not, then you can't be shown to be notable, and you won't have a WP article. WP is an encyclopedia, not a social media site.
• "i don't know where to link my source": Link what source? Linked to what?
• "Claim a knowledge graph": Do you mean a Google knowledge panel? A knowledge graph is a different thing. I think that a knowledge panel that appears in Google search results will have a link within it that says "to report errors in this knowledge panel", and maybe a link "to claim this knowledge panel". Search Google for "knowledge panel" and you will get information on how to deal with knowledge panels. Google knowledge panels are not directly related to Wikipedia, although Google often uses information taken from Wikipedia to populate what it shows in a knowledge panel, if Google thinks that there's a matching article in WP (even if the article is really about a different person by the same name). Wikipedia has no control over this.
• "create a person bio on my website": Create a person bio on YOUR website? If you have a website, then you can do whatever you want on it, and Wikipedia is not involved (and we can't help you create anything on your website). If you are still asking about creating a biography on Wikipedia, then, as above, you must be notable as proven by independent references, which are generally newspaper or magazine articles that were written about you. If these references do not exist, a "person bio" will not be possible.
• "make a perfect Article for my knowledge graph": You likely cannot create an article about yourself to be used by a knowledge panel, as stated -- if there are published articles about you, then someone (preferably not you, since people cannot write neutrally about themselves) could write an article about you. If an article is successfully written, which is a VERY hard thing to do, then after the article is accepted and later indexed (found) by Google, it's very likely that Google's knowledge panel will use information taken from that Wikipedia article.

There is a lot to unpack here, and @Jéské Couriano has it right -- you have some misunderstandings, and what you want to do is not easy to do, and it may be impossible. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Last of the Mohicans (1936)

Is a minor error in a film description worth the time to fix? In Wiki's description of Last of the Mohicans, the 1936 film. it mentions a romantic relationship between Hawkeye and Cora. Cora is the younger sister, who dies. Hawkeye's relationship is with the older sister, Alice. Gregory urbach (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gregory urbach: It looks like it may have been fixed already. The article currently states Hawkeye and Alice are in a relationship. ––FormalDude talk 04:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Odd that you saw that version of the article, Gregory urbach, since as far as I can see from the history of The Last of the Mohicans (1936 film) it said that for just under an hour on one day last December! ColinFine (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit List of best-selling manga

I read on some websites that Yoshiro-sensei the mangaka of Hunter x Hunter has returned to working on it. Can we now change date from 1998-2018 (hiatus) to 1998-present? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfp5 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Also there is this the link: https://comicbook.com/anime/news/hunter-x-hunter-manga-hiatus-end-yoshihiro-togashi-update/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfp5 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Wolfp5. It seems to be unclear whether or not comicbook.com should be treated as a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 188#Comicbook.com?), but if you think it should, then you're welcome to edit the article, citing the source. If you're not confident in doing that, or you think its reliability might be challenged, it's best to post on the talk page of the article. ColinFine (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hunter x Hunter best sellings edit

FYI

 – Combined duplicate queries 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Um, hello. Sorry If this one is a bother, but Is animenewsnetwork a realiable source? Here is the link: https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2022-05-24/yoshihiro-togashi-teases-hunter-x-hunter-manga-return/.185983 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfp5 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Um, hello. Sorry if this is a bother, but is animenewsnetwork a realiable source? Here is the link: https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2022-05-24/yoshihiro-togashi-teases-hunter-x-hunter-manga-return/.185983 If it is I want to change the date of this manga in List of best-selling manga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfp5 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Wolfp5 You probably shouldn't use it for medical info or to state that someone murdered somebody, but in this case, that seems ok to me. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Online_reliable_sources#Situational and Anime News Network. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please help me split this list into two equal columns?

• Claribel.
• Lilian.
• Isabel.
• Elegiacs.*
• The "How" and the "Why".
• Mariana.
• To —— .
• Madeline.
• The Merman.
• The Mermaid.
• Supposed Confessions of a second-rate sensitive mind not in unity with itself.*
• The Burial of Love.
• To — (Sainted Juliet dearest name.)
• Song. The Owl.
• Second Song. To the same.
• Recollections of the Arabian Nights.
• Ode to Memory.
• Song. (I' the glooming light.)
• Song. (A spirit haunts.)
• Adeline.
• A Character.
• Song. (The lint-white and the throstle cock.)
• Song. (Every day hath its night.)
• The Poet.
• The Poet’s Mind.
• Nothing will die.*
• All things will die.*
• Hero to Leander.

• The Mystic.
• The Dying Swan.
• A Dirge.
• The Grasshopper.
• Love, Pride and Forgetfulness.
• Chorus (in an unpublished drama written very early).
• Lost Hope.
• The Deserted House.*†
• The Tears of Heaven.
• Love and Sorrow.
• To a Lady Sleeping.
• Sonnet. (Could I outwear my present state of woe.)
• Sonnet. (Though Night hath climbed her peak of highest noon.)
• Sonnet. (Shall the hag Evil die with child of Good.)
• Sonnet. (The pallid thunderstricken sigh for gain.)
• Love.
• Love and Death.
• The Kraken.*
• The Ballad of Oriana.
• Circumstance.
• English War Song.
• National Song.
• The Sleeping Beauty.
• Dualisms.
• We are Free.
• The Sea-Fairies.*†
• Sonnet to J.M.K.
• οἱ ῥέοντες.

Thanks, 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Theroadislong (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ficaia: Before putting the result into an article though, please give a read to MOS:LTAB. Readers view Wikipedia on a large variety of screens, so one should generally not force certain layout choices that make sense on desktop but not on mobile or vice-versa. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ficaia: You will also need to remove all those (pointless) full points.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure about the quality of a citation

I'm reviewing the article "Disappearance of Lars Mittank" about a 2014 disappearance case for GA status. The article includes a citation to "culturecrossfire.com" which seems to be a entertainment website. I'm not sure if this is a adequate source. Llewee (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello! It appears to be written by authors which is awfully similar to a blog, so IMO it is unreliable. If you disagree try opening up a community discussion at WP:RSN. interstatefive  18:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thank you--Llewee (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Kyrbgrinder

Hi. I am trying to start a page for a band I am in called Kyrbgrinder. I am useless at this sort of thing but feel the band is definitely noteworthy enough. Articles about the band can be found. Can anybody help me with this? Thanks. Ben Bullitb1 (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Bullitb1 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have "pages", it has articles. Those articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject, who took note of a subject receiving significant coverage in independent reliable sources and chose to write about it, summarizing those sources. Please review the conflict of interest policy for some important information. It is advised that you not attempt to write about your band, as you may be too close to it to write about it as Wikipedia requires. You would need to set aside everything you know about your band and all materials it puts out, and only write based on what independent reliable sources say about it. If you have read the Wikipedia definition of a notable band, and your band meets at least one aspect of it, you may however submit a draft at Articles for Creation after reading Your First Article and using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Meant to be humorous, but there is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_one_cares_about_your_garage_band, but more useful, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music). If you can find reliable sources on the band that you're in (News articles, music websites, with notability in mind), then use them and like what 331dot said, you have to go off what the sources say, not what you say.

Hope this helps! Good luck!

- Smotoe (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

On a general note, Teahouse hosts are here to advise, but not to be co-authors. David notMD (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

(I'm not a host I just like helping people out, I shouldn't need a special badge for that, or do i?) Smotoe (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Non Notability of an article.

Hello,

I was trying to create an article about an academical NFT project with educational intention that is called TID hNFT Research Institute. There were various articles about the topic that I added as references. 

Unfortunately Wikipedia consider that project non notable and my intention as an intention of promotion of a company or something. TID is not even a company. On the other hand I see that on Wikipedia you can find articles of many other NFT companies that could be considered promotional.

So I don´t understand how Wikipedia considers that something is an act of promotion and something it isn´t. 

My experience with wikipedia until now is not good and I feel that the Wikipedia community is not hospitable to new users.

Thank you in advance, VR Vango Rosios (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

NOTE: Vango's content draft was Speedy deleted, so cannot be seen except by Administrators. David notMD (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @Vango Rosios, and welcome to the Teahouse! First of all, please note that notability is defined slightly differently on Wikipedia. Essentially, for a subject (be that a person, event, place, object, organisation etc.) to be considered notable on Wikipedia (and thus deserving of an article), it should be non-trivially covered in multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources. Under these criteria, TID hNFT Research Institute is probably not notable (a quick google news search only brought up 2 sources, one of which is a press release, which is not considered independent from the subject). Another important policy of Wikipedia is NPOV (neutral point of view), which I recommend you have a look at. In your case, your sandbox was speedily deleted because an editor thought that it was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" (Please note that this can apply to all Wikipedia subjects, not just companies). I can't say wether or not the content in your sandbox was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", as it has now been deleted (however, you can still recover the deleted content, just speak to the administrator who deleted the page), but I imagine that, since it was speedily deleted, it was obviously promotional in some way. Also, please check the rules regarding editing Wikipedia with a conflict of interest.

I'm sorry that you feel that the Wikipedia community is not welcoming, but it is sadly true that being a newcomer to Wikipedia can be difficult, but there are plenty of editors (like myself) who will be more than happy to help you. Have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Vango Rosios (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read other stuff exists. Please understand that the existence of other articles has no bearing on yours. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet.

You seem to have a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia- it is not a place to merely tell about something. That is considered promotional here, you don't have to be soliciting customers or selling something. Wikipedia is not for merely providing information or mere education. A Wikipedia article about a topic must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Your now deleted draft had much promotional language, like "The hNFT concept seeks to revolutionise the collection and dissemination of historical and cultural knowledge by joining the tech-driven art movement with museums, universities and non-governmental organisations to reimagine our common heritage for the blockchain and the evolving metaverse." This language is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article and does not summarize what independent sources state about the topic. Please read Your First Article. If you are associated with this academic project, please read WP:COI.

There are special rules when editing about cryptocurrencies/blockchain. I will notify you of these on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

From the TID website, I got the sense that it exists to sell 'historical NFTs' (hNFTs). Hence, promotional, and "Good-by." David notMD (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Help editing erroneous information in ADHD article

Some months ago I noticed some information on exercise in the ADHD article which conflicts with the recent Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement (which I believe is a tertiary or even, er, quarternary? source). As far as I can tell it should pretty much overrule any other sources that predate it.

I raised this on the ADHD talk page and was encouraged to make the necessary changes myself. However, I have been struggling to make time for it due to general life chaos (having ADHD myself), and as I've never edited a page before I feel like I'd need to take a lot of time over it, reading up on how to write things and cite things etc. so I don't get yelled at lol. And at the moment I barely have the headspace to think.

Is there someone who would be willing to take it on instead or, failing that, help me make sure I get it right and up to Wikipedia standards? It shouldn't actually be that big of a job - the Wiki article makes claims about how exercise helps ADHD but the consensus statement says that no evidence has been found supporting a significant effect of exercise on ADHD, once you correct for publication bias. Just not sure how to go about it. (Also I haven't checked if the sources used in the Wiki article are mentioned in the consensus statement.) RapturousRatling (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @RapturousRatling, and welcome to the Teahouse! It's great to hear you've been reading all the policies on Wikipedia, it can be a steep learning curve, but it is still very good to do. I will first let you know that when it comes to medical statements (where things can get pretty controversial both on and off Wikipedia!), there's a special set of guidelines (WP:Reliable sources (medicine)) when it comes to sourcing, so I don't blame you for not wanting to take it on, although sometimes, it can be best to just be bold and add it, as it there's a problem, another editor can just come along and correct it, and if there's a dispute, just talk about it on the talk page. If you still don't want to add it, and you've already put something on the talk page, may I suggest asking a relevant WikiProject about it, as I imagine they would be able to give you any feedback on the reliability of the source etc. (although some WikiProjects are more active than others, so you might have to wait a while for a response). Have a great day, and happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

In same vein, I do see that you raised this issue on the Talk page in January, and were encouraged to proceed. The exercise section in the article references three relatively recent reviews (2013, 2014, 2017). My recommendation is that rather than deleting any of that content or the review refs, you add a statement, with a ref, for the conflicting theory - that exercise is of no clinical benefit. If reverted (reversed), invite that editor to the Talk page, where you should start a new discussion, as the old one is already archived, and should not be added to. Wikipedia's policy is be bold, but if reverted, discuss. David notMD (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Having looked at the World Fed report, it states that the evidence for a benefit from exercise is weak, BUT the two meta-analysis references it cites (item 207 in the article) actually concluded there were benefits!! David notMD (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Creating a page

Lou Stallman was is very successful songwriter of the 1950s and 60s and although he is mentioned as a song collaborator on some pages, there is not one on the man himself. I am a screenwriter who has been asked to write a story about him. There is also a biography currently in the works about his life. He has had over 15 songwriting hits and is an important public figure for there is little information. How would I go about creating a page about him on Wikipedia? MusicMyThing (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Start by gathering sources. Wikipedia is intended to be a compendium of the information found elsewhere. What published sources do you have? (So, for instance, that "biography currently in the works" won't count until it is in fact published.) DS (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@MusicMyThing, since you mentioned that you've been asked to write an article, I think you should take a look at our policy on editing with a conflict of interest - here's a link to a simplified guide: link. The more complicated page is at WP:COI. Please ask if you have any questions. Lou Stallman does get mentioned in a lot of articles, he may very well meet our standards for notability, but if not much has been written about him - yet - there's not much to build an article around. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Should I wait to pursue after his biography or feature film about him comes out? MusicMyThing (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@MusicMyThing, that's probably a good idea. Note that we can't use a feature film as a reliable source to base an article on, but we could have an article on the film itself if it meets our notability standards (outlined at WP:NFILM). Also, here's some general reading about creating your first article: Your first article. Always feel free to ask questions here at the Teahouse. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. MusicMyThing (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on whether your research turns up sufficient already-published information, or if you'll be sourcing from interviews and unpublished primary documents, MusicMyThing. Either way, best luck for your film! ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 10:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I have extensive interviews with him as does his biographer now as well. The author has a major publisher, so when either Lou's biography or the feature film comes out, I think that will be the time to create a page on him because of heightened public awareness. MusicMyThing (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding article for new technology process (with patent)

I wrote a scientific article with cited references, but it got rejected as an advertisement. How to I edit the article to allow it to be accepted as a scientific, industry piece for a new technology process in the energy conversion industry?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_eXERO_Process Nwiles1414 (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: The submission has been deleted, so it's not visible to non-admins. Question has also been asked at the AfC help desk. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nwiles1414 See WP:GNG. You find sources that are at the same time reliably published (WP:RS), independent of the subject (and inventor, etc) and about the subject in some detail. Then write the article as a summary of those sources. The WP:PATENTS doesn't help in this context. If the sources demanded at WP:GNG don't currently exist, an article will not stick. Also, if WP:COI applies to you, follow the guidance there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nwiles1414 Wikipedia does not want to be the first place where research is published. Once the wider world has taken note of something, and written about it, then Wikipedia can summarize those secondary sources. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft page I find concerning

I stumbled upon a draft <redacted> written by a 10 year old girl writing about herself.

She mentions suicidal thoughts, and that is very concerning behaviour for a 10-year old.

I've already E-Mailed User: Emergency, should I take any further action, like disussing it on her talk page? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 18:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

A note that this question was removed in good faith by someone. An IP editor had redacted the specific page name, and the page is now deleted, and WP:911 already contacted, so this might be a useful thing to answer in public in a more general way.

@QuickQuokka:, my personal opinion, for what it is worth, is that the people handling WP:911 reports are actually trained to decide what the next steps are, and are usually very quick in handling it. I would tend to defer to them for further action. If we take the aspect of the suicidal thoughts away, and just focus on a self-declared 10-year-old, I would say you could reasonably leave a link to WP:YOUNG on their talk page. But when the edits are made by an IPv6 address, I'm not sure that is worthwhile; the odds of the correct person seeing the message isn't high. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

This page over at meta - Threats of Harm - says, "If you feel comfortable you can reach out by email or on their talk page and provide them with support or resources. For example the Crisis support resources curated by the Trust & Safety team.", but of course that's meta, not enWP. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Except I can't, because it's from an unregistered user. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 19:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Their talk page is the only option in that case (and in the case of a registered user without a linked e-mail address), though as Floquenbeam notes above, there's no guarantee they'll ever see the message. At least you'll have made an attempt. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

QuickQuokka - Well done though! Deb (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Question about biography and crime

Hello. Maybe someone can help me troubleshoot. I made a few edits to Bobby Shmurda, Rowdy Rebel, and 6ix9ine's biographies. Namely, that they are rappers who are also convicted felons in the lead of their Wikipedia pages. I saw Martin Shkreli's profile (that he was a hedge fund manager convicted of misappropriating the funds of his clients and, thus, a convicted felon) and decided to copy that style of writing. After a few days, these edits were reverted with two of the reversions coming from an account that justified the reversions by writing 'not an occupation' — in reference to their felony convictions.

It is true that being a felon is 'not an occupation'. But if that is true, shouldn't people like Andrew Fastow, Martin Shkreli, Elizabeth Holmes, have their respective crimes taken out of their leads? I didn't want to revert the edits made to my edits (and start an edit war) so I decided to come here, to the teahouse, to get an education on the relationship between a person, their crime, and how that crime is displayed on their Wikipedia page. Thanks for any help you can proffer.

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC) SpicyMemes123 (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, SpicyMemes123, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for not edit-warring. But rather than coming here and asking a general question, what you should be doing is engaging with the other editors who reverted you, on the talk page of the relevant article. Open a discussion with them specifically (though of course others may join in), and try to reach consensus. If you (collectively) are unable to do so, then dispute resolution tells you how to proceed further. see WP:BRD for more on this process. ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the answer (in the sense that I have recourse to an official channel to resolve the dispute between what I think the lead of the Wikipedia article should reflect and what my, uhh, interlocutor thinks it should reflect). But I want to know, concretely, why there is an incongruity between how the malfeasance of a financial figure (like Martin Shkreli or Andrew Fastow or Elizabeth Holmes) is reflected in their Wikipedia page and that of three famous rappers (6ix9ine, Bobby Shmurda, and Rowdy Rebel). Five of the six listed are convicted felons yet only two of the six have their felony convictions reflected in their lead. Why is this? Why are some criminals treated differently by Wikipedia than others? What is the rationale here? Do you know? If not, can you link me directly to someone who does? I'm seriously curious.

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

SpicyMemes123, it's a reasonable question. Only one name among the six is familiar to me, and I'm not in a mood to refresh my knowledge of him, learn about the five others, and evaluate the articles. But perhaps the variation among the six articles in their emphasis on malfeasance reflects the variation in the coverage of that person in the reliable sources that are cited. -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, SpicyMemes. The simple answer to But I want to know, concretely, why there is an incongruity between ... is "because that's how Wikipedia is". Even with core areas of policy, such as verifiability, there are thousands of articles which don't conform. For most questions such as yours that come up, there is no easy way to check if the question has been debated in general; and even if it has, and a consensus reached, there may be hundreds or thousands of editors working in the same area who are unaware of it. Obviously consistency is a laudable aim, and most editors will agree that it is desirable, but not many of us are willing to spend much effort on it. Probably the best place to discuss concerns such as yours are on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, (maybe WT:BIOGRAPHY - in fact, if you look through its archives, you may find relevant discussions). ColinFine (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding audio versions of an article?

I noticed some articles have audible versions of them. Is that something only administrators can add or could I make them too? Zorya's Leshak (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Only editors that sound like James Earl Jones, please. Just kidding. You do not have to be an admin. As far as I know, any editor can record these. Take a look at this page. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Account

Hi, I hope you Wikipedians are having a wonderful week, um wondering how do you see your account status e.g autoconfirmed, extended-confirmed?

WilburSoot (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

This may not be the best way but how I know is that you go into the preferences tab, and your statuses should be under "members of groups." NSNW (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Organic Increse45: see Special:UserRights/Organic Increse45. RudolfRed (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Organic Increse45:: I don't know if this is the "official" method, but try this: Go to your contributions page (click on "Contributions" in the menu at the top of every page); in the resulting page, click on "User rights" in the panel at the bottom of the page; scroll to the bottom of the resulting page. You should see a box showing your status and the date that the account was created (or is that the date that you achieved that status?) Mike Marchmont (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

see[[2]], there's a box that allows you to see, if this isn't what you mean then tell me. Smotoe (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Using autobiographies made by the subject as footnotes/references

I know about the policy on self-published sources, but I cannot find anything that covers the policy on using autobiographies written by the subject in question that is obviously not me. All I could find was the policy on using autobiographies that you have produced yourself. Does anyone have any knowledge on this, because I have an article that I am planning on promoting to FA status, and a good chunk of the subject's early life and career is based on an autobiography that he co-wrote with someone else. Any input is welcome. NSNW (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Sanders's autobiography isn't an independent source on Sanders. What kinds of claim would you hope to use it for? Consider the article Vladimir Nabokov. The subject's memoir, Speak, Memory, is highly regarded, yet the article makes little direct use of it. The article does make much use of Brian Boyd's two-volume biography of Nabokov. Boyd in turn made much use of Speak, Memory; but if WP cites Boyd where Boyd is actually citing Nabokov, then WP is citing autobiographical material but is doing so with the quality check, as it were, made via a favorably reviewed book by a respected professor. -- Hoary (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary: Mostly claims about his early/personal life. A few times I cited the book in other ways that I wouldn't consider controversial, and there's another book (with used footnotes), in the article that uses the autobiography in the way that you described. I only used the autobiography if I absolutely had to and couldn't find the information anywhere else from a more verifiable source, or if was coupled with a verifiable source. It's also co-written by a friend of his, so may be considered more independent than if he wrote it by himself per se. NSNW (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The main thing I'm trying to figure out is the source is so unreliable that most of it may be stricken from the article. Or if in the future I should stray away from autobiographies, even if there's information in them that I'm otherwise unable to find elsewhere. NSNW (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

NSNW, I'm reluctant to involve myself in this, as it's about American football, one of my very many areas of complete ignorance (and one about which I'm happy to know nothing). But I notice that you use his autobiography as the source for such material as Sanders did not become the starting running back until the fourth game of his senior year, in which he rushed for 274 yards and four touchdowns. During one of those touchdown runs, Sanders cut and darted his way into the end zone, Sanders' high school coach Dale Burkholder called it: "one of the greatest runs I've ever seen by a high school running back." He rushed for 1,417 yards in the final seven games of the season, which earned him all-state honors and was named an Honorable Mention All-American. During that seven-game span, Sanders averaged 10.2 yards per attempt. "Starting running back", "rushing", "touchdowns", "darting": it's all Greek to me. I don't even know what "all-state honors" are. But presumably they're honors (and presumably a [capitalized!] "Honorable Mention" is more than a mention), so it's all praise for Sanders. Praise for Sanders shouldn't come on the authority of Sanders (or a friend of his, or both). And: Irrelevant to your question, but is it OK for measures to be in US units only? (For other subjects, no; but imaginably American football is so American that articles about it don't use units that are used by the great majority of the world's population.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, I'll try to find better sources for this. To answer your question, they are always going to be in U.S. units; as they are counted as such in record keeping. It would be unnecessary and time-wasting to convert American football yards to meters for example. NSNW (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Infobox help requested

I created a page for Robert Sidney Maxwell and I somehow miscoded the Academic Infobox. I cannot find my error. Is there someone who can find my error? Greatly appreciated. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe2: I think I fixed it. You had extra }} in there RudolfRed (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

article

Respectfully, first I made a small article about myself yet it was declined because i have not provided proper links and it was not written properly. then 3 days later an article appeared on everybody's wiki page without my further influence. I would like to remove the article if possible from everybody's wiki page for I hsaven't published it on that page. Also, I have issue with logging on for it doesn't accept my username and password and luckily I have a page opened already on taskbar from first time creating a profile. My name is Bojana Sretenovic- UUrania. If you could hel me with issues I would really appreciate it. best regaards Bojana 109.93.175.132 (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Where to begin? There is no English language article titled "Bojana Sretenovic- UUrania" The Teahouse only helps with English Wikipedia. What language and what title are you refering to? David notMD (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe they're referring to Draft:Bojana Sretenovic. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. EverybodyWiki is not related to Wikipedia at all; they simply copy and post articles, as well as drafts, which are declined or deleted at Wikipedia. No one here has any control over what they do. You'll have to go to their site and try to get the article removed there. Also, your account here will not work there - is that where you're trying and failing to log in? If you're trying to log in here and failing, and you linked an email address to your account, you can recover the password by following the instructions here. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I concur it is Draft:Bojana Sretenovic, twice declined for lack of proper referencing and other reasons. David notMD (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

And as mentioned above, everybodywiki.com has posted the declined draft. David notMD (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

When you clicked "Publish", you agreed that "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." This means that anyone can copy the content, so you may find it difficult to remove from Everybodywiki.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Determining Conciseness And Sources For Media Plot Summaries

I just started editing and am a little confused about how to determine what makes sense when it comes to conciseness and citations for media, like a video game. I was editing the Wikipedia for the video game Flushed Away, and there is a large section devoted to plot with no citations. It all seems to be original work. But, the original writer also seemed to just recount the events of the game. Should this plot section be deleted? I found YouTube let's plays of the game, which seem to match up with the summary. Would those videos work as a citation? Pizzarush (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pizzarush: Welcome to the Teahouse. Per Wikipedia:PLOTSOURCE, plot sections do not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary, but if sourcing is available it is encouraged. Don't use YouTube videos as sources, as there are issues with copyrights, especially if they're not from the game developer's account. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Creating a link on Sanying line#Stations

There is a link on Sanying line#Stations (Bade Bus Station) that I want to create, but I do not know the correct article name of the station. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Taiwan stations), I don't know if it should be [[Bade Bus Station metro station|Bade Bus Station]] or something else like that. Can someone please help? AnMRTFan (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean an article or literally a link? blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 10:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Blueskiesdry: Literally a link, the creation of the article can be done later. AnMRTFan (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, given that there’s no section specifically for that station, I guess you’ll have to settle for [[Sanying line#Stations|Bade Bus Station]]. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 11:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Can somebody improve my article and get approval from Wikipedia?

My article with the notes is here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lumbarest_Spine_Decompression_Traction_Therapy Avazo (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

One thing I see off the bat is a question in the Article. I'm no expert but articles shouldn't have questions in them. That is more for essays.

"What is Lumbarest?"

"Background on Lumbarest" could be a better header, try not to use questions. It's makes it more like a script for a video or like I said, an essay.

All in all it's shaped like an ad. I don't have much experience in Wikipedia drafting, after all, I'm still pretty new here. I hope someone with more experience can help.

I used to be a vandal like others, until I took a realization to the knee, that its fun not to vandal.

- Smotoe (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Avazo - If you want to carry on paid editing in a way that doesn't result in your article getting deleted and you getting blocked, take a bit of time to read the Wikipedia guidelines, especially Wikipedia:NPOV. Practise making small edits to existing articles before trying to create one of your own. We aren't here to do your job for you. Deb (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Avazo, welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for declaring your COI. Your draft had (it's now been deleted) several problems - besides the inappropriate tone, as mentioned by Smotoe above, it had no inline citations. Also, it was about a medical device, so its claims fell under the province of WP:MEDRS. Your sources must be very, very good in order to make such claims, per that guideline, and the sources you cited - posted on ResearchGate - don't seem to meet our standards. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

If not clear, MEDRS means that even published case studies and clinical trials (even placebo-controlled) are not adequate as references to establish notability. David notMD (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

History of 138 Dutoitspan Road, Kimberley South Africa

Good afternoon. I am the Manager of Cecil John Rhodes Guesthouse in Kimberley, South AFrica. I am trying to find more history tying Cecil John Rhodes with our Guesthouse, 138 Dutoitspan Road, Kimberley. Is there perhaps anyone available to assist me? 41.163.0.52 (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello fellow IP, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has an article on Cecil Rhodes with many, many useful sources listed at the end, but for a more specific idea of where to look for such information, you could try asking at one of our reference desks - Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities seems like the best fit. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Unable to Get Recognition

I founded Black Scat Books (BlackScatBooks.com), a small, independent press back in July of 2012. Now, as we approach our tenth anniversary, we have published nearly 200 books by established and unknown writers from around the world. I am utterly baffled as to why Wiki will not accept a brief listing for us. Does anyone know how to get simple recognition for a remarkable American publisher. Thank you for your time. Norman Conquest Nconquest (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Nconquest, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia's recognition - of anything - is dependent on who else has recognized it. Quoting from our notability guideline for organizations, a company will only meet our standards for notability "if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Does your company meet that requirement? Can you point to some significant, independent coverage, published by reliable sources? Then an article (I assume that's what you mean by "brief listing") may be possible. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nconquest, I also see you've done a significant amount of editing of Derek Pell, with which you have an apparent conflict of interest. Please read this guide on editing with a COI and comply with the requirements if they apply. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Nconquest, the IP is absolutely correct. There is only one thing that counts, and that's coverage by secondary sources. BTW I looked over some of your edits and I haven't any problematic ones in terms of promotional edits, so thank you--but you DO need to declare that COI, for all the articles you have a COI with. Oh, and please leave out the bold in things like this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Nconquest For those familiar with the purpose of Wikipedia and how it works, the phrase "a brief listing for us" says it all. You are thinking of this as a way of drawing attention to your business. You think that because some other publishers are included in the encyclopedia, you are entitled to be included too. But Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a means of promotion: please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for further guidance. Deb (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Newcomer with a generic question, yet an important one.

I've been using Wikipedia since it started, and it's clearly gone through major changes over the last couple of decades. One thing that I've noticed is the trend to give political articles from all sides a more emotional tone, often revealing the party to which the author is affiliated. My question is: Is Wikipedia meant to provide facts like actual encyclopedias, or is it meant to have more of an entertainment factor to it? The question might sound facetious, but that is not intended in any way. I just often notice parts of articles based on opinion alone. It's just good to know the take, because I prefer to read unbiased articles. Anything else should be relegated to opinion pages or tabloids. Thanks. Vox Merus (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to follow, among other things, the WP:NPOV policy, if that helps. To pick a random example, a statement like "Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics, and promoted conspiracy theories." is in line with this policy, even if you feel it reveals the party to which the author is affiliated. There is, however, a possibility that the author isn't American.

More specific examples may give different replies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll just say that I love writing entertaining things, and I would point to the second paragraph of this section. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vox Merus Wikipedia is to have a neutral point of view, but with over six million articles there are always articles in need of improvement by one of the hundreds of thousands of volunteer editors. If you see a political article that seems to have an "emotional tone" it would be helpful for you to do some copy-editing to make the text more neutral. Karenthewriter (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies I added art critic Jonathan Jones at America_(Cattelan)#Interpretation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Not being able to edit the paragraph on the search page

Hi wiki! I wonder how the short paragraph showed up from Wikipedia after a search on google can be edited. I am talking about the little paragraph of description on the side after a google search. That paragraph was originally the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page, but after editing the first paragraph on the page, the side paragraph after searching didn't change. GuangyanLi (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@GuangyanLi: The Google Knowledge Graph collects information from many sources. That info may not be from Wikipedia even if it looks like it is. Or, if it is from Wikipedia, Google may be using a cached version from the last time the page was indexed. You will need to contact Google to get it fixed. RudolfRed (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello @GuangyanLi, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. You may have noticed that your edit has been reverted. The wording of the lede of Traditional Chinese medicine has been much discussed on the talk page; if you want to make changes, especially changes that contradict mainstream scientific consensus, the talk page is the place to discuss them. You may want to read our sourcing requirements for biomedical information at WP:MEDRS. They're quite strict, to say the least. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the response. Yes, the wording of the lede of TCM has been discussed on the talk page, but any unbiased individual would noticed that some negative opinions are very aggressive and are not based on evidence. For example, some user says: "If it does not work, it does not work" and disregards many evidence out this that proves the effectiveness of TCM. A conclusion cannot be drawn from this talk page, nor can it reflect the mainstream scientific consensus. There need to be evidence to supported the so called "mainstream scientific consensus".

Also, Can a random user revert other people's change? Is there a rule about this? If reliable sources that fits the requirement can be found to support my description, can other users still revert my changes? GuangyanLi (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@GuangyanLi, if you get consensus on the talk page for your change, then it will be allowed to stand. But you must get consensus by discussing on the talk page and providing a source that meets Wikipedia's standards. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! How do you define consensus? Also please let me know the rule about making changes and who made these rules. GuangyanLi (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

See WP:Consensus. An essay with guidance about making changes and what to do when you are reverted is at WP:BRD. Besides article talk pages, we have noticeboards where you can bring up specific questions for discussion and potential action: discussion of reliable sources at WP:RSN, of editor behavior at WP:ANI, etc. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@GuangyanLi, you should also be aware that this is a controversial topic area which falls under certain rules called discretionary sanctions. You may find some alerts showing up on your talk page about those. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@GuangyanLi: We have no control over Google's (ab)use of its platform, but as has been noted above, Google caches content for performance reasons. Any edit to the lede wouldn't be reflected in the Knowledge Graph until the cache refreshed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Tried to suggest an article - ended in nothing

Tried to suggest the page: Synthetic nicotine or perhaps two capitals Synthetic Nicotine the result was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles#Natural_sciences 152.115.75.158 (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, a request for an article on Synthetic Nicotine is probably not notable. You may be able to add a section on the Nicotine page, as it is probably not suitable as its own article Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Probably correct. However I cannot find to make such suggestion. I am not interested to edit or write. 152.115.75.158 (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello fellow IP editor. I don't see any such request from this IP, and the page you linked is a general one with links to specific subpages where requests can be made. A request for an article on synthetic nicotine would probably be most appropriate on the chemistry page - specifying the exact compound(s) might be better. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I followed the links make suggestion ... 152.115.75.158 (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I'd recommend following this link: link, clicking "edit" next to the heading "Other chemistry terms", and adding Synthetic nicotine to the list between Pseudo-noble-gas core and Thermal neutron flux. Copy the formatting of the other entries. Maybe someone else will come along with a better idea of where to put it, but that's my best guess. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Suggesting/requesting new articles rarely works. David notMD (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP editor. I concur with the comments above that there would be no reason to have a separate article on synthetic nicotine. However, I was surprised to find that our article on nicotine doesn't have a section on its chemical synthesis, only its biosynthesis. Per WP:Manual_of_Style/Chemistry/Chemicals#Preparation we usually have an account of the first synthesis of a compound. In this case, that might be for racemic and/or chiral samples. We would also describe the industrial synthesis if relevant. Do you happen to have citations for any/all of these, to save me time looking? If so, I will happily write something appropriate for the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The first synthesis is likely to be DOI:10.1002/cber.19040370206 which is mentioned in the history section of the article but not fully described. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Obituary Quotes

Can the published obituary (published in a newspaper) of a person be quoted in "full" and not rewritten or summarized? It will be sourced with a link to the newspaper. GlennEarls (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Summarise it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, GlennEarls. No, that would be a copyright violation, even if attributed. Cullen328 (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. GlennEarls (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Review of Page: Alabi Oyinkansola

Hi there! This is Andrea here. Hope you all are doing great. The page I recently came across, Draft:Alabi Oyinkansola seems to have notable and is in a neutral point of view. I do know that posting here does not make the review process faster, but it would be really great if a fellow Wikipedian will assist me in adding any Edits needed to the page now. This is just a request, kindly apologise if I said anything wrong.

Best Wishes, Andrea Jocelin Andrea (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Jocelin Andrea First, Teahouse hosts are not necessarily Reviewers. Second, the system is not a queue, so while could take months, could also happen in days or weeks. David notMD (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi there @David notMD, as I did say in my post that I understand that Teahouse hosts are not reviewers, What I meant is that it would be great if someone would take a look into the draft and suggest me ways to improve if it is lacking anything. Thank you! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

At three spots there are six or more refs in support of simple facts. The draft would be better with one or two refs from reliable sources. David notMD (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Will look into it. Jocelin Andrea (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

There's also Draft:Oyinkansola Alabi, about the same person (and made by another SPA). Neither draft makes her notability (as understood in en:Wikipedia) obvious to me. -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Shortcut?

hi is there a shortcut to publish in wikicode editing? thanks account moved to viwiki 03:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Dulken, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not entirely sure what you're asking - does Help:Wikitext have what you need? 97.113.167.129 (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

additionally, there's CHEATSHEET which is a quick reference for wikicode. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 04:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

And instead of clicking the publish button, you can also ctrl+enter on a computer to save your changes. Kpddg ^(talk) 04:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

And if you mean a keyboard shortcut to the Publish button, it's ⇧ Shift+Alt+P. If you hover over a button or other element, a tooltip will show you the shortcut, if there is one. —Wasell^(T) 🌻 04:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hang on let me check something first

will get back to you Ember Tesfaye (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Differential operator typesetting

Hi, my recent change to an article was reverted. Does Wikipedia not use ISO 31/XI typesetting in which operators are written in roman font? The "d" is an operator and therefore should not be italic. See this explanation under section 2.2, point 6.

I have noticed some articles use roman font while others do not (like the article I corrected).

I was referred to the teahouse by @Pulpfiction621 who reverted my comment. 213.55.220.91 (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. For questions about a specialist area like this, I suggest going to the relevant WikiProject, in this case WP:WikiProject Mathematics. I see there is a link to the relevant MOS page in that, or if you can't find an answer, you can ask on the WikiProject's own talk page. ColinFine (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Visual editor grayed out

I seem to have lost the ability to swap between source editor and visual editor when doing certain tasks. I have the preferences set so I show both Visual Editor and Source Editor as I like to move between both. However, now when I do something like edit source at AfD discussions, the visual editor option is grayed out which means I can no longer preview the source code I have written. I am pretty sure this is a new issue, though I cannot pinpoint exactly when it started happening. Thanks in advance for any thoughts. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean, you cannot use visual editing in Afd pages, just like in talk pages. See Wikipedia:VisualEditor#Limitations. Kpddg ^(talk) 12:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, OK. That seems unfortunate, but at least I am not missing a check box somewhere. Thanks. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean: Note that its still possible to use the Visual Editor in namespaces where it isn't enabled, by using a URL similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insert URL-encoded page title here?veaction=edit, as long as the page you're trying to edit uses the wikitext content model. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Victor Schmidt - I will try that out, on the first page I tested it looks like that will be a good solution. Thanks for the help. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)