Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anachronist (talk | contribs) at 23:55, 30 June 2023 (→‎Convention relating to the International Status of Refugees: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

GreenMeansGo, a Teahouse host

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.


who invented the shark cage

THE SHARK CAGE WAS INVENTED BY JAMES M ELLIS OF PORT LINCOLN SOUTH AUSTRALIA PATENT NUMBER 4166462. Margesson (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. We are here to answer questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question? 09:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC) JML1148 (talk | contribs) 09:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE CLEARLY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SURFACE CAGE SHARK DIVING ( STATIC CAGE ATTACHED TO BOAT ) AND SELF PROPELLED SHARK PROOF DIVING CAGE. Margesson (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Margesson and welcome to the Teahouse. You should make suggestions and raise your concerns at the article talk page. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you make your suggestion, Margesson, it's likely to be taken more seriously if not EXPRESSED IN CAPITALS. (And of course it must come with a reliable source.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hoary.
Thanks for your advice. Can you tell me if there is a company that can assist me in person to edit Wikipedia. I live in Adelaide South Australia.  Regards Margesson Margesson (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hoary.
How do i attach to Wikipedia the patent papers for my shark proof diving cage.
Regards margesson Margesson (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are James M. Ellis, you can see at Shark_cage_diving#Self_propelled_version that they're already there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hoary.
You ask for information from a reliable source.
Australian National Maritime Museum- Signals Winter 2019 number 127
heading--Covering Your Tail.(inventing the self-propelled cage)
The book named AB YARNS History and folklore of the South Australian Western Zone Abalone Fishery, compiled by the abalone industry of south australia heading-The Evolution of the shark Cage. Credit James Ellis.
My cage is used by most of the divers in the abalone industry in south Australia and western Australia
would you like newspaper articles?
Can I attach videos and photos?
Regards margesson Margesson (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Margesson We don't need any of that. The citation is [1]. All that is missing is the page number(s). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike.
Page 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 in AB YARNS and page 58 59 60 61 in the Signals magazine.
Another interesting article is in The California Abalone Industry ( a pictorial history ) page 177
How can i attach videos and photos?
Regards margesson Margesson (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Margesson Media such as video and photos are uploaded/stored on our sister project, Wikimedia Commons and then the filenames can be incorporated into articles. The issue is copyright. You may only upload material which you took with your own camera or which is known to be licensed (in writing) with an appropriate Creative Commons license. For the moment, I suggest you ignore that aspect and just make suggestions for improving the article via its Talk Page, using the sources we have discussed here. You are considered to have a conflict of interest because of your invention and so should not edit the article directly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kotz, Eric (15 November 2019). Ab Yarns: 50 YEARS of BLOWING BUBBLES (1969-2019) History and Folklore of the South Australian Western Zone Abalone Fishery. ISBN 9780648701910.

Changing a wrong title (without Greek letters) to a correct one (with one or more Greek letters)

I asked a similar question before, probably in 2020, in my early days of Wikipedia editing. However, I can't find the discussion now, so I repeat it now with more detail.

There are a huge number (certainly hundreds, maybe thousands) of articles about enzymes that have major errors in the titles. For example, the article on Glucan endo-1,3-β-D-glucosidase is headed Glucan endo-1,3-b-D-glucosidase. There are others where locants that should be in italics are not, for example, the article about endo-α-N-acetylgalactosaminidase is headed Glycopeptide alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase. There are others where the title starts with a lower-case letter (not counting prefixes), for example the article on α,α-Phosphotrehalase is entitled Alpha,alpha-phosphotrehalase. (Notice that Alpha (A) and alpha (α) refer to two different Greek letters, of which only one is correct.)

In principle I should be able to use Move to correct these, but for the ones I have tried the system rejects them. For example, if I go to

Alpha,alpha-phosphotrehalase

and enter

α,α-Phosphotrehalase

as the new name, with Misspelled as the reason, pressing Move page gives

You do not have permission to Move, for the following reason:

The page "Alpha,alpha-phosphotrehalase" cannot be moved to "Α,α-Phosphotrehalase" because the title "Α,α-Phosphotrehalase" matches an entry (?!(User

Notice that I didn't write "Α,α-Phosphotrehalase"; the system just changed it. I don't have any idea what (?!(User means. Also it's not true: there is no article called Α,α-Phosphotrehalase.

I can just about accept that writing D for D and N for N are just a typographical niceties that can perhaps be ignored. But writing α as alpha is much worse, and writing it as a is utterly intolerable, because they change the meaning from correct to incorrect.

I wondered if it was just that one can't have Greek letters in titles, but it's not that, for example the article on α-aminobutyric acid is called α-Aminobutyric acid, as it should be.

When this came up before (in 2020?) it was fixed by someone higher up in the Wikipedia hierarchy than I am, but for hundreds or thousands of articles with wrong titles it would be impossibly cumbersome to use that solution for all of them. Athel cb (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two issues at play here: (1) Wikipedia article names must start with a capital letter, for software reasons, so α gets turned into Α. {{lowercase title}} can be used to make the article show a lowercase title, see IPhone. (2) The other issue is that you seem to have run into an edit filter designed to curb some abuse (we do not allow most users to change article titles to mixed-script titles). You can ask for assistance at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, citing the naming convention WP:CHEMPREFIX to support your request. My apologies that you have run into such difficulties helping Wikipedia. —Kusma (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick response. I visited Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests as you suggested, but I don't think I adequately explained what I was trying to do, and why. Unfortunately the entire discussion there has completely disappeared, leaving no trace. I don't know where it has gone.
I think I understand now how to include Greek letters, italics and small caps in new pages, but I'm not trying to create new pages, just to use IUBMB-approved names for ones that already exist. Athel cb (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move the articles you can as directed, keeping a list of the ones you can't. Then come to WP:RM/TR and we can clean up the rest. RM/TR is not the place for moves that can be performed by regular confirmed users. To move a page, use the "Move" tool at the top of the page under the Page menu. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the answer to the italics question is the same as the lower case one Athel cb: article titles can't have italics, but can be displayed with them, using the template {{italic title}}. --ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's useful to know (together with { {lowercase title} }). Is there a template to allow Greek letters?
I was especially interested in "article titles can't have italics, but can be displayed with them," as it implies that what the user sees is not necessarily what the computer sees. It would be an enormous help to be able to change the title the user sees without changing any links or anything else. Athel cb (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As was already mentioned, {{lowercase title}} will do the trick. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, you're asking whether you can change an article title like "Alpha,alpha-phosphotrehalase" to "α,α-Phosphotrehalase" without a page move using templates? The answer to that is no, that change requires a page move. To minimize confusion, the display title of an article (what the user sees) must resolve to the same article as the actual title (what the computer sees). WP:DISPLAYTITLE has more info if you're interested. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 05:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Athel cb: {{DISPLAYTITLE:}} is the only way to change the displayed title in MediaWiki so it can by definition make all changes which are possible. You can preview a page with {{DISPLAYTITLE:}} to test whether the wanted change is possible. Templates like {{lowercase title}} and {{italic title}} work by calling DISPLAYTITLE but all such templates can only make limited changes and they cannot be combined. Many chemical names will require DISPLAYTITLE. It accepts some markup like <small>D</small> and ''N''. The initial letter can be changed from uppercase to lowercase but not other letters. It cannot change between Greek and Latin letters but Greek letters can be in the real page name. DISPLAYTITLE only affects the page heading. The real page name without DISPLAYTITLE modifications is shown in other places like searches and categories. An initial α unfortunately becomes uppercase Greek Α which looks like a Latin A. It's a different character but almost nobody will see that. Don't use ugly hacks like starting a page name with a non-displayed character so α becomes the second character. It causes too much confusion, e.g. when users try to link the page, and it's not good enough to make redirects. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a sentence

I want to add, "According to an Islamic scholar, if a Muslim man makes sexual advances on one of his wives, she has to oblige him anytime, anywhere.[1]" to the Rape_in_Islamic_law#Marital rape section of the Rape_in_Islamic_law article. Will it be acceptable?-1Firang (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC) 1Firang (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I'm wondering whether the Jerusalem Post is a reliable source on such matters. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @1Firang. The place to discuss such an addition would be the talk page, Talk:Rape in Islamic law. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just my two cents, but that seems like a very serious claim to be attributing to a single cleric. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Islamic scholar: Wife cannot deny husband sex 'even when riding on a camel'". The Jerusalem Post. 28 April 2015. Retrieved 19 June 2023.
Given that there are presumably many Islamic scholars in the world, highlighting the view of any one in particular needs justification (e.g. widespread coverage in secondary sources), otherwise you'll risk falling foul of WP:UNDUE. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page translation

If I see a good page in non-English Wikipedia, can I just translate it to English? Or it would be copyright violation? Thanks. Soorch (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. It's not a violation as long as you provide attribution. See WP:HOWTRANS for guidance. Note that each language version of Wikipedia is separate, with their own editors and policies, and as such what is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which language would you translate it from, Soorch, and how's your ability in that language? -- Hoary (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary I occasionally come across pages in Spanish and other languages that are not on the English Wiki, but I have now realized that the issue here is not so with the copyright, but with their quality in terms of verifiability. It may be easier to re-write an article from scratch, but using good Spanish sources from it, I think. Soorch (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly right, Soorch. Happy editing! ColinFine (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Business

How do I structure my article and make it more business related, neutral and not an essay type. Saleen99 (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Saleen99/sandbox Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi@Saleen99
Your article as it stands would be more appropriate for a blog post or LinkedIn post - not an encyclopaedic article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles only summarise what existing independent and reliable sources say about a topic. Your article currently cites no sources.
It might be worth reading Wikipedia:Your first article which gives you the dos and don'ts of creating an article, and Wikipedia:Five pillars which detail the fundamental principles of Wikipedia.
I would suggest looking at our existing article Business-to-business. If you would like to make additions to that article you are free to, but every fact and statement you add needs to be backed up by independent and reliable sources. This is so anyone can verify that the statements in your article are accurate.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Saleen99!
In addition to what has been said above, I'd like to point out that creating new articles is one of the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia. It requires working knowledge of almost all content-related policies & guidelines. It can be very frustrating to start with something that most likely will not be successful, and new users are discouraged from creating new articles for that reason.
Instead, I'd recommend that you start with easier tasks and familiarise yourself with editing (and all its conventions) organically. Check out The Wikipedia Adventure for an interactive introduction to editing. One of the best tasks for newcomers is copyediting; find articles on a topic you're familiar with (or just go to a random article), and look for places where you can fix grammar, spelling, or add useful links to other Wikipedia pages. Also, feel free to ask any further questions here or on my talk page. Happy editing :) Actualcpscm (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for the useful information, I'll work on the articles and editing. :) Saleen99 (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would further point out that Wikipedia already has an article on the business-to-business market. Shantavira|feed me 13:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Page In Review - Corrected All Suggested Revisions

I have created a page to present the nobility and accomplished accolades of an individual.

The page is in draft and submitted for review. It has been sitting in idle for several months and everyone that made notes after it was submitted have disappeared. I have revised and made corrections according to the suggested input.

All statements are sourced with appropriate citations. I have added appropriate tags and WikiProjects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gray_Leadbetter

It seems that this should be a slam dunk. I dont understand what is taking so long. Any help is appreciated. Manderson619 Manderson619 (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@manderson619: there are 4000 drafts pending for review. that's why it's taking so long. lettherebedarklight晚安 05:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Manderson619, you might reasonably object that one major reason why there are 4000 drafts waiting is that it's taking so long. Another reason why there are so many drafts? Because the number of people reviewing these is so very much fewer than the number producing them. There'd be little need for drafts if only article creators (i) already had non-trivial and successful experience in improving existing articles, and (ii) were free of the seemingly widespread delusion that Wikipedia is a free-of-charge PR outlet. That matter aside, I put a few minutes into (very lightly) editing your draft. As for the task of reviewing it, I'll leave that to somebody who knows more about motor sports than I do. -- Hoary (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Manderson619, some parts of this seem obscure to me. Example: "At the time, her family was not familiar with the intricacies of racing, so she was able to follow her neighbors to support her." This would make sense: "Her family was not then familiar with the intricacies of racing, but she got neighbors to support her." However, I'm unsure whether it's what was meant. -- Hoary (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Manderson619, and welcome to the Teahouse. I notice that you begin above with I have created a page to present the nobility and accomplished accolades of an individual. Please note that while that may be a laudable aim, it has no part writing a Wikipedia article. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view: they must not praise (or criticise) a subject in Wikipedia's voice in any way.
You can certainly list the accolades, provided you can cite independent sources for them. But no Wikipedia article should ever describe its subject as "noble", or any other value judgment. If a reliable source, wholly independent of the subject, describes her as wonderful, or noble, then you may directly quote and attribute the source ("John Doe said in the Observer that ...") and add a citation. Equally, if an independent reliable source attacked your subject, you should probably say so, even if you strongly disagree with them.
I mention this because achieving a neutral point of view can be difficult about a subject you think highly of. ColinFine (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts for edits?

New editor here. If I want to make substantial edits to an article, like reformatting sections or adding lots of new information, how do I draft those? I only see the option to publish edits from the Wikipedia article editor. Thanks! Flipped script (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@flipped script: there's no drafting edits here, though you can use the show preview button to check what your edits will look like. lettherebedarklight晚安 05:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Flipped script: You can work on the proposed changes in your sandbox. RudolfRed (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Flipped script My suggestion would be to start small if editing the article. Add a paragraph or two of new information (well cited, of course) and publish that. Then add the next portion and so on. Don't try to do a wholesale edit that makes massive change all at once because if another editor objects (our bold, revert, dicuss cycle), their response is likely to be to revert all your work. It is quite likely that some of your changes will be uncontroversial while others may need discussion to reach consensus. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have often done multiple, modest-sized edits to an article - at times more that 50 - in the process of raising an article to be worthy to submit to a Good Article review. A common error is to add content, meaning to add the referencing later; another is to remove referenced content without an Edit summary explaining why. David notMD (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Michael D. Turnbull and David notMD! Breaking edits up and publishing incrementally makes a lot of sense. Should I wait a certain amount of time before making each edit to give other editors a chance to review it? Flipped script (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is don't bother. You did not mention an article name, but if not high profile or many watchers, your edits may not draw timely comments. David notMD (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability check

Would a Wikipedia page on an NGO, its objectives, principles, structures, outreach, funding etc. be notable? It focuses on agricultural rural development in Sub-Saharan Africa. The NGO has been funded by FAO, European Commission, USAID and is in close partnership with Heineken so it is a substantial organisation. 2A02:A03F:646F:B700:A0C3:D165:6D41:4436 (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NORG. Is it written about in The Times, The Telegraph, CNN etc? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor. The items you have listed seem like those one would see on the NGO's own website. What Wikipedia needs is what other commentators have been saying about them that meets these key criteria. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I earn money from here?

This once where I though that. If I dedicate my life here editting, keep contributing, focusing on what could I contribute. Can I earn enough money from this? in return. To pay my rent, my internet connection, meals etc. I just thought what if this could be a valid job for my future. Morrowind 14 (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you cannot earn money from this. 119.245.86.251 (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Morrowind 14: All Wikipedia editors are WP:VOLUNTEERS; there are no Wikipedia employees who are paid for their efforts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Morrowind 14 Wikipedia does not pay contributors. If you choose to offer Wikipedia editing services for clients, you must comply with the paid editing policy and declare it. It is permitted, but most will look upon you skeptically. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add that if you ever want to earn money from editing, anywhere, you will be expected to pay a lot more attention to spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Shantavira|feed me 13:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, regarding dedication: potential clients would probably be looking for someone with a proven track record. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, Wikipedia is not a job. Cwater1 (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colorizred text

I‘ve just seen this article and its colorized track listing, it‘s on Pigments (album). I know Wikipedia has a Manual of Style but is there some sort of guideline against colorizing text like this? I saw it and thought it may be an issue to colorblind readers, and that there may be a guideline that says not to do it. Can this be removed? I don't know how to remove codes. Thank you. 2A00:20:B004:FC51:1A9:78D:167A:B7F (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing the mistake, I removed the colors from the tracks. The guideline is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Color. All I did was remove the enclosing {{color}} template. Apmh 13:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article on google search

Good morning,


I am having some trouble with the publication of my article. Is there anything I have to do to get my article on the google search.

I have some issues with the verification even though I have all my citations. Hoping to hear from you all soon.


Thanking you, QMEC

QESMUNB (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, QESMUNB and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you mean Draft:Quartermain Earth Science Centre? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just moved it to draft space to protect it from being deleted. I also left a comment. The draft fails WP:CORP and the references fails WP:Golden Rule requirements.
Also, this is not Google, this is Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not control when an article appears on Google's search results. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@QESMUNB, your username and the way you sign your post indicates that you have some sort of connection to this organization. Please review WP:COI and/or WP:PAID. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My Article is rejecting

i have wrote an article about anim8r - CSS animation studio project.this project is mine.i'm publishing this project at june 22,2023.can you guys help me to edit and finish this article.because i'm new to here.

Draft:Anim8r Rizmyabdulla (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rizmyabdulla, welcome to the Teahouse. Your article cites no reliable, independent, secondary sources which could prove that this software is notable - not surprising if it's only just been released. Until someone else publishes coverage of your software, there is nothing to build an article on. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok,thanks Rizmyabdulla (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Notifications

I haven't been receiving any web notifications, even though in my preferences I have them turned on. Is there something I am missing, such as some opt-out thing somewhere else I might have accidentally turned on? I'm specifically looking for the web notifications at the top right, which shows the last one from two months ago... Captchacatcher (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Captchacatcher The set-up is at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo so you should check there: and you should have been notified by my entry here. There are also different notices from Captchacatcher mentions, which this should also trigger. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull Yes, I received a notification, thank you. I believe I was not subscribed to another talk page before, and I found where to see my watchlist. Captchacatcher (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of scanning an image from an English concert program from 1972 in order to include it in an article. It would fall under public domain use here in the US according to the Hirtle chart, but I'm unsure whether it is protected by copyright in the UK. Any help or advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CurryTime7-24 The UK rules are on Commons at c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom. It will depend a bit on whether the image in the programme had a specified author. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:BaagadBillaa Declined

Hi,

I found the draft called BaagadBillaa which is declined two time. The first when it was declined, it is written that 'It is not necessary to add citation in every word' and and time 'Need multiple reviews by reputable critics. Also, The Times of India is considered a weak source because they are known to take payments for promotional articles.'


So I wonder that Almost for all Gujarati Films The Times of India is Reliable Source and all are published however for this article why it's decline and stated that the source take payments for promotional articles? In that case what is actual reliable source? How it should differ under same same category i.e. Gujarati Films? If you can let me know I can try to improve it however as per my knowledge it's meeting Notability Criteria.


Thank You! DevilTheOptimizer (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DevilTheOptimizer. Please read The Times of India#Paid news and Paid news in India. Cullen328 (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Cullen328 Thanks for your prompt reply. I have gone through this article. However, I still have a questions regarding the reliability of sources for Gujarati films on Wikipedia. As far as I know, The Times of India is widely considered a reputable source for news and information, and they have published articles about numerous Gujarati films. It seems inconsistent that The Times of India is generally considered reliable for other Gujarati film articles, but not for the specific "BaagadBillaa". If such case all article which are live and having Times of India link might promotional? If so why it's considerable? How can we differentiate it? DevilTheOptimizer (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DevilTheOptimizer, I recommend that references to The Times of India be removed from all film and entertainment articles, and replaced with references to more reliable publications that do not run paid news. We have 6,675,834 articles and many of then have various problems. You can read the assessment of The Times of India at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DevilTheOptimizer.
It's worth remembering that Wikipedia:Other Stuff Exists. Just because other articles use The Times of India as a source doesn't mean that that is a good thing! In fact, if you would like to Wikipedia:Be bold and find alternative sources to replace The Times of India on other articles, that would be much appreciated.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made a bot but my edits aren't saving

The types of contributions I'd like to make on Wikipedia are adding inflation context to dollar-related facts using the inflation template. Look at my contributions to see some examples of that.

I made a bot to automate this, and the bot runs successfully and says that changes to the article text have been saved, but when I look at the article I don't see any change.

I've tried using the Python libraries pywikibot and mwclient. I've tried using a standard username/password login, a bot password, and oauth keys.

Does anyone know what could be going on? Chrett (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chrett. You must submit your bot for approval. Read Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group for complete information. Cullen328 (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrett: I think Cullen meant to link to Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Approval_process.
You will first need to get consensus for the edits the bot would do. If I understand correctly, you intend to add the {{inflation}} template to any dollar amount found in any page. I am not sure that would be considered desirable for the community. (I would be mildly in favor, if it is feasible; after all I am a big proponent of {{as of}}. But that’s just my opinion.)
Then, you need to get through the bot approval where technical objections can be raised. In particular, I fail to see how you would get the year at which the given factoid should be anchored - for instance, in this edit your addition of the template contains start_year=1988, which you obtained through human judgment, reading the sentence in context. How would the bot know this?
Now, I grant you NLP is a thing, and "finding if the current sentence contains a year" is probably somewhat easy (compared to cutting-edge NLP anyway). But still, that requires some nontrivial programming, and some testing to check any false positives. The bot approval process is designed to refine that sort of thing. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Names and titles for 16th-century nobility

Hello, I have been working on a set of articles centered around Catherine de Parthenay, who is also known as Viscountess of Rohan, Princess of Rohan, Catherine de Parthenay-Soubise, and Madame de Rohan-Soubise.

As I have worked on the article, and referencing related articles, I am realizing that using a surname, which in this case I take to be Parthenay doesn't seem to be quite right. It seems that other articles reference the persons first name + of / de, etc. + the common name, which in this case is "Catherine de Parthenay" or "Catherine de Parthenay, Viscountess of Rohan". This is a bit complicated when there are several people on the page with similar names, like Henri, Duke of Rohan. There is a Henri I and Henri II of Rohan, as an easy example. There are sometimes secondary titles that distinguish them from another similarly named person.

I couldn't figure out what project would be the best to ask this question, so I came here. My question is, after the initial use in the intro, how should a person be referred to when surname (or first name) is not practical?

Thanks so much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna, care to comment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I received this message on my talk page a bit ago, and after a moment of confusion realized it referred to this edit from a couple of months ago. I stand by the edit - I don't think the inclusion of the samples meets the contextual significance requirement for music in an article - but I'm more concerned with whether the comment could be considered a legal threat that needs to be reported. This is a first for me, so any advice is appreciated, thanks! DrOrinScrivello (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an assigned Teahouse person, but I have run into this kind of thing before. It sounds like this is a content ownership and conflict of interest or close contributor person issue.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That article needs a lot of work, there are hardly an citations and is clearly created for promotional purposes. I just applied a BLP tag to the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has the adverstiment tag. Cwater1 (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article for Rvssian does. Cwater1 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also added Talk:Nikki Hornsby#BLP tag. I don't mean to "pile on", but the key issue, I think is that article shouldn't be around in it's current state, and perhaps not at all.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the initial talk page comment about the unsourced addition to Rvssian is not the issue - that was a mistake that I rectified. The message in question is the one from the IP who mistakenly replied to that comment rather than start a new section (which they subsequently did). And I'm not as concerned about the article as whether the comment from the IP consists of a legal threat. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get that. This IP user is pretty much a one article contributor... for an article that isn't cited... and does not own that content. I am happy to add notification / tags to their user page as a first time warning.
It's most likely that they are trying to prod someone into doing what they want them to. The thing is, they don't have legal standing, since Wikipedia content isn't owned by its contributors. It automatically goes into the public domain.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see now. Cwater1 (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson, you puzzle me with the last part. If you're saying that what's contributed to Wikipedia is thereby contributed to the public domain, no, certainly not. As I write this, I am told that I "irrevocably agree to release [this] contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL"; and the CC BY-SA license is very different from the CC0 go-ahead. However, if our minds [yes, I include my own] are addled, perhaps it's because of the original objection: "IF you are licensed by law to remove please refer to that legal section for reasoning unless respectfully it’s your emotionally based decision." I've read this several times but it still leaves me quite mystified. And as for the bigger picture: Yes, this is a PR piece unconvincingly masquerading as an encyclopedia article. -- Hoary (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary I assume they mean if I removed the samples in accordance with some law or statute, to please say which law it is, otherwise I should admit that it was an 'emotionally based' edit. What sounds like a threat is the "the legal source of cjp-nhrecords wants to know...will contact you" bit. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary and DrOrinScrivello: Yes, there are finer points in Wikipedia:Public domain - and you definitely have a better grasp on that. My point is that most COI/ownership issues occur when someone puts something on Wikipedia and thinks it should stay there - that's not how Wikipedia works. And, especially not so if it's non-cited content about a living person.
What I should have said was, I am not a lawyer, but I have run across this issue before. I tagged the article and the talk page that the article should be significantly cleaned up or nominated for deletion, I hoped that I was taking the heat off the one deletion (i.e., leave the issue alone for now and see if they are interested in removing uncited content (which was what was deleted) or not.).–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Downloading Images

I have a question. Can images from Wikipedia be downloaded? I know most has the free to use. I don't intend to download anything at this time. Just a question. Cwater1 (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key question is can you download an image from Commons (which is where most images on Wikipedia come from). That can be done. Just click on the image. You'll see a Wikipedia url, but click "More details" and it will bring you to the commons image.
The files on Wikipedia, and not on commons, are non-free fair use images (like for logos, deceased people).–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Updated how to get to commons.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I was wondering. Thanks! Cwater1 (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwater1: Not all images uploaded locally to Wikipedia are non-free content, but many are. How you may reuse a file largely depends on how it's licensed. For more information on this, see c:COM:REUSE and WP:REUSE. One important thing to remember is that just because you find an image on Wikipedia or on Commons, that doesn't mean it should've been uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons, ot that it's correctly licensed. Both the Wikipedia and Commmons communities do their best to make sure images are licensed correctly (or at least as correctly as possible), but there are no 100% guarantees and you are ultimately responsible to make sure the licensing of the files you want to download and use is correct. See WP:General disclaimer and c:COM:General disclaimer for more on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Taz: Quest for Burger

Quick question: Is there any way to improve the draft for Taz: Quest for Burger in order to resubmit it as an article for creation? LegalizeAnythingMuppets (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could be reading this wrong - totally possible - but are you asking to move it to an article for creation, rather than fixing the draft where it is?
There's clear guidance on that page of what needs to be done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a concern that it might take awhile to get feedback while in Draft mode, I'd be happy to review the article after changes are made. If you could ping me or post a note on my talk page, that would work.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian spelling (also south and central America)

Does Brazil use USA spelling or UK spelling for the sake of English Wikipedia? I know they use portuguese as their language..

actually this question now extends to all of south and central america. Should the spelling for EN WP be USA or UK of various things? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like per MOS:TIES there's not a specific variant prefered for articles about Brazil. Any variant could be used, so long as its usage is consistent within the article (and if a variant is currently in use, it should be retained). Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 22:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what about guatemala, mexico, panama, honduras, chile, argentina, belize, guyana, etc etc Iljhgtn (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same answer (MOS:TIES). For countries where there's a specific variety of English in common use, articles about that country or topics directly related to that country use the dialect. In other articles, including articles about countries that do not specific varieties of English in common use, any variety can be used, so long as it is used consistently within the article. In existing articles with an established English variety, it should generally not be changed.
If there's debate as to whether a specific variety should be used on an article, the article's talk page is the typical place to discuss and gain consensus. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 22:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

help with first submission

I am submitting an article for review. I am asked to provide a draft title. When i do that, the UI says "Please check draft title. No such draft exists." What am i to do? HalfManLion (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HalfManLion, the correct draft title should be User:HalfManLion/sandbox. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tx HalfManLion (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the capital of ussr?

Moscow 2600:1700:2A14:8250:1851:C0C5:3602:F3F2 (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the Teahouse is for asking about how to use Wikipedia. For general questions like yours, you can learn about that at USSR or by asking at the WP:REFDESK. RudolfRed (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected for G11: promotional material

Hey Wiki community, I have attempted twice to post an article on a recruitment software company called UseVerb. It keeps being rejected because it is too promotional. I'm not sure how I can write it any less promotional? I don't use any promotional language, I only state the functionality of the product and features, but do not make any comments about it being superior or producing any certain results. It is very neutral. I am also not affiliated with the subject.
I have referred to how other similar pages have been written, such as LinkedIn and HubSpot and have followed same structure and tone of voice? I feel like it's being rejected solely on the basis that it is a commercial company?
The page is speedy deleted instantly, so I cannot share it for you to review. But you may be able to see it here: User talk:Therealslimwikieditor
I have asked for help/further from the people who rejected it and they have just told me to ask here.
Thank you for your assistance!

Therealslimwikieditor (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @Deepfriedokra and @Fancy Refrigerator, who deleted and denied the AfC recently respectively 💜  melecie  talk - 04:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Therealslimwikieditor. Hi. Please see WP:NOTPRICE. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: for third opinion if you are available. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Therealslimwikieditor Hello. The draft just tells about the existence of the company and the features of its products, and two of the sources are the company itself. You summarized the information fairly well(though without inline citations, see WP:REFB), but that's not what is being looked for. An article about UseVerb must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company and what makes it important/significant/influential, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. We don't want a mere description of what the company does and what its products do, we want to know what others wholly unaffiliated with the company choose to say about it. This does not include the company website, press releases, staff interviews, or announcements of its business activities(like the release of a product or acquisition of a competitor). 331dot (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is very helpful, thank you so much! I will take this into account. They are a relatively new business, so not much external sources yet. Therealslimwikieditor (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Typically a new or "startup" business does not merit an article- a business must be sufficiently established and recognized in its field to be written about by independent sources. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Therealslimwikieditor, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not an admin, so I can't see your deleted draft. But I'd be willing to bet that, unlike LinkedIn and HubSpot, your draft didn't have the multiple indepedent substantial sources that are an absolute essential to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
It's as though you're saying "I built my house to look just like that one over there, but it's fallen down": what it looks like can be fixed, but if you have not surveyed the ground and checked that it is stable, then it won't stand up. In Wikipedia terms, "surveying the ground to check it's stable" is "finding the necessary sources to establish that the subject is notable. ColinFine (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, this is the sort of feedback I was looking for. Appreciate it. Now I know what I need to do, thank you :) Therealslimwikieditor (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for an article to be checked for B class

Hello everyone! I recently created Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945 and had it copy-edited earlier this month. I think it is B-class worthy right now, but since I am the editor who created and conducted most of the edits on the article, I would like to ask if someone else can check it to see if it is B-class. Thank you in advance! WeatherWriter (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter: You might want to try asking for such an assessment on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed at the top of Talk:Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945 because those WikiProjects are likely where you're going to find editors interested in the particular aubject matter who have a pretty good feel for their respective project's assessment criteria. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cs1/2: deprecated & replacement paramaters list?

is there any special page for complete list of cs1/2 deprecated or replacement  of parameters? రుద్రుడు చెచ్క్వికి (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

రుద్రుడు చెచ్క్వికి, what do you mean by "cs1/2"? -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary what do you mean by "cs1/2" citation style 1 [ cs1 ], citation style 2 [ cs2 ] రుద్రుడు చెచ్క్వికి (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@రుద్రుడు చెచ్క్వికి: Does Template:Citation_Style_documentation#deprecated help? RudolfRed (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RudolfRed Does Template:Citation_Style_documentation#deprecated help? Yes రుద్రుడు చెచ్క్వికి (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editing approval

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sridevi Here I edited twice and still getting rejected in spite of attaching the necessary link with it . At first a senior Wikipedian rejected it because I didn't attach any source but after the attachment he approved it and send me a welcome message but another Wikipedian changed it . I can see there are a lot of places in that page where it should be edited and deserves addition. Now if the editing gets rejected again and again how will I proceed ? SANKURDAS (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SANKURDAS. Disagreements between editors over article content are generally best resolved by discussing the matter on the article's talk page as explained in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. So, what you can do is start a discussion about the content you want to add at Talk:Sridevi and explain why you think it should be added. This will give others a chance to comment and allow Wikipedia:Consensus to possibly be established on whether the content should be added. One possible reason that I could see for your edit being removed is that you tried to add the content directly to the lead section of the article. As explained in MOS:LEAD, the lead section of an article should generally summarize the main points of the article that are covered in the body sections of the article; in other words, the lead section shouldn't really be the only place where something is mentioned (even if supported by a source). Another possible problem with the content could be that referring to a single source referring to Sridevi as the "Last Empress" of Indian cinema might be considered placing too much emphasis on that one single source for Wikipedia's purposes. In that particular writer's opinion Sridevi may be the "Last Empress", but that particular writer's opinion might not be significant enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. There might be other reasons why your edit was undone, and the best way to find out what they are for sure would be to start discussing the edit on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC);[Note: Spelling of "Sridevi" corrected by Marchjuly per below. -- 05:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)][reply]
Sir , be concerned about the name which is taken , She is "SRIDEVI" not "SRIDEV" .I might not mind in others' cases but here ....and thanks for your suggestion. SANKURDAS (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting a change to guidelines

I intend to propose a change to some guidelines, namely MOS:ARABIC. What do I do? Do I open an RfC in that page's talk? 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Festucalex In your case I'd start with just starting a discussion at the talkpage. Rfc is generally meant as a "next step." It may come to that, but that's not a given, perhaps your proposal will seem obviously good to people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creating articles

Please anyone can create article about Baburam Gautam and Sirjana Danuwar in Wikipedia 182.50.66.177 (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP Editor.
Only people who are Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed users can create articles in the mainspace. However, anyone, including users who are not logged in, may create and edit Wikipedia:Draft articles.
If you'd like to create an article about Baburam Gautam and Sirjana Danuwar, please follow the below guidelines. You need to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover Baburam Gautam and Sirjana Danuwar in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft. Note that the sources must be:
- Reliable: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources that are published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
- Independent: Your sources should be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website.
- Show significant coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information or analysis about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- From multiple places: You should find at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject.
- Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a subject, not present new research. This means you should avoid drawing your own conclusions or analyses from the sources. Stick to summarising what the sources say in a neutral tone.
Remember that your article should be written from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
If you cannot find multiple, reliable, and independent sources then I am afraid that Baburam Gautam and Sirjana Danuwar would not meet the Wikipedia:Notability (people) at this time and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for any type of self-promotion or advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: not an advertising platform, directory, or a way to promote a subject.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 08:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Sandbox is not a place to create drafts (as you did) because it is blanked frequently. You are advised to create an account and then use WP:YFA to create and submit drafts. David notMD (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How many news articles are needed for the creation of new Wikipedia page

I want to write an article about a person, but it got failed. Now, I want to know that how many news articles Wikipedia needs for verification. Narendra7302 (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Narendra7302.
To be able to pass the Wikipedia:Notability (people) threshold, your Wikipedia article should have at least three separate reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss your subject. See Wikipedia:Multiple sources for some more information. You can use primary sources for basic facts (such as a date of birth).
Note that your sources also must be independent of the subject, for example not self-published or from the subject's own website. You also can't use User-generated content as a source, for example IMDB or another Wikipedia.
If you cannot find multiple, reliable, and independent sources then I am afraid that they would not meet the Wikipedia:Notability (people) threshold at this time and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Narendra7302 and welcome to the Teahouse. If you're talking about Draft:Sidhraj Singh, then the reliable sources mentioned above also need to give significant coverage to the subject of the article, in this case Sidhraj Singh. Also, please don't delete the details of previous AfC submissions (the coloured box/boxes and comments at the top of the draft). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Taz: Quest for Burger

Hello, can someone who has watched this film help in writing of a plot summary, production, and/or critical reception? I AFC'd the article but was asked by the submitter to help which I cannot adequately do. 1TWO3Writer (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse hosts are here to advise, but not to be co-authors. David notMD (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@1TWO3Writer: Alas ...nope. That's not how Wikipedia works. Based on your contributions listing, I expect you're a Wikipedian old enough to know that writing a plot summary or info on production by someone who has watched the film, based on the fact they watched the film, would be an Original research, which is forbidden in Wikipedia. Please see the relevant policy on OR at Wikipedia:No original research.
If you want such info in an article, you need to find Reliable sources, independent from the subject (movie company or movie distributors, in this case), which discuss the subject in depth (not just mention its existence), and then summarize in an objective, impartial and non-promotional way what those sources say. You may want to see WP:NPOV & WP:PROMOTION for more details.
Please, don't be disouraged by the amount of work which appears necessary before you write (or substantially expand) an article – this is necessary for Wikipedia to keep a high quality of contents it offers. And remember to NOHURRY! --CiaPan (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One quibble - a plot summary can indeed be written based on watching the film/reading the book/etc., since in this case the work itself is considered to be an acceptable primary source (see here). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry for wasting your time. I have seen articles without sources in plot summaries so I assumed that that was normal. I'll get to helping this guy the best I can. Thanks again and sorry again! 1TWO3Writer (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is entirely normal, @1TWO3Writer. WP:PLOTSOURCE has the relevant guidance. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the person some advice here. Hopefully, that'll get them on the right path. Thanks again @CiaPan and @119.208.172.35! 1TWO3Writer (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Player Profiles For NBA Players.

Can you add a Profile for Each of these NBA players So that I can see descriptions of each playing style. I want to have a player profile for Anthony Davis and Kyrie Irving since both are great players. JwillWiki454 (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JwillWiki454. We have articles for both Anthony Davis and Kyrie Irving. Qcne (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want you add a profile for both of these players. For example, like Kobe LeBron Giannis Jordan KD Curry JwillWiki454 (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have suggestions for those two players, you can either Wikipedia:Be bold and make the additions yourself, making sure that the additions you add are all sourced by independent, reliable sources. Alternatively you can make an edit request Wikipedia:Edit requests on the article Talk pages. Qcne (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have "profiles" here, we have articles. As noted, we have articles about the players you mention. Are you trying to say that those articles are missing content? If so, and if you have reliable sources to support new content, please propose edits on the relevant article talk pages. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know what Im Doing, I want somebody to have a Header For Legacy for both of those players. Anthony Davis Kyrie Irving JwillWiki454 (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can Someone please edit it for me. Include a Profile as a Header for AD and Kyrie JwillWiki454 (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JwillWiki454, there is no rule on Wikipedia that every article within a given subject area (such as 'basketball players') has to have the same structure. Different articles are written by different editors, and as long as they conform with Wikipedia's policies and do not misrepresent facts, they will be acceptable.
What you request is not required, and would take considerable work by someone in order to re-structure and expand the articles.
I would add that many people understand "legacy" to be an assessment of the effects of someone's career after it has ended. Davis and Irving are still both active players, so it is probably premature to talk about their "legacies." Wikipedia does not have deadlines – wait until they have retired. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.177.243 (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont want the legacy header for both of them, I just want somebody to add a profile for both since both are or were great players in their prime. I see Draymond Green have one, why cant those two have one on their article. JwillWiki454 (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JwillWiki454, there's no reason they can't have one, but there's also no way to force anyone to create such a section. Wikipedia editors are mostly volunteers who do whatever strikes their fancy at the moment. No one has taken a fancy to adding such sections on those pages. You're free to make suggestions on the talk pages, but if you're not willing to put in any work yourself, your suggestions may simply be ignored. Perhaps you'd like to check out WP:WikiProject Basketball if you want to get involved in working on such articles. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add LEGACY FOR RAPPERs

I seem to see wiki added LeGacy on Lil Wayne wiki page. Can you add one for Jay-Z, Nas, and Kendrick. And also give me more descriptions of each of these rappers styles. ( wayne kendrick jay z nas eminem ) JwillWiki454 (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JwillWiki454, the responses you got to your request immediately above apply to this request too. -- Hoary (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Errors when translating a company page from English to French

Hello,

We have a company page called Fednav that had been left unedited for a long time up until a few weeks ago when I went in and made some changes to the English (this is my first time ever editing or translating on Wikipedia). I tried translating the page to French but I get these notices at the top and don't know how to resolve.

- The formatting of this article needs to be improved

- This item is orphan . Fewer than three articles are linked to it

- The admissibility of this page is to be checked (June 2023).

Reason: No sources. The English page only shows self-sourcing


Any bit of help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks NG243197 (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NG243197. I believe your asking for help on the French Wikipedia? Unfortunately this Teahouse is only applicable to the English Wikipedia, as every Wikipedia is a different project with their own policies. Qcne (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, would you know where could I get help regarding French translation issues? NG243197 (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry- just realised my initial comment was a bit dismissive. So, looking at the English Wikipedia page you can see that the four references at the bottom are problematic, and that's why the French Wikipedia has said the sources are "shows self-sourcing". The references all (other than #4) point towards Fednav's own website. Sources should not be connected to the subject: they must be Independent and not from the subject's own website.
Your best bet is to scour the web for independent third-party sources that discuss Fednav in detail, and use those as references in both the English and French Wikipedia articles.
Note that as time goes on, Wikipedia policy on referencing has gotten more strict: so even though this article has been up since 2008 it would not pass the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) threshold if it were to be created today, due to the poor references.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @NG243197 and welcome to the Teahouse. The big issue (for me, at least), is that the English original, Fednav is very poorly sourced (primary sources). So that really needs fixing first. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Esowteric, I'm new to editing and translating on Wikipedia so I'm kind of learning as I go. To improve sources, is it as simple as adding a citation where Wikipedia says "Citation Needed"? Should this, in the long run, help with my errors I'm getting when publishing the French translation? NG243197 (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, certainly you might try to provide a citation wherever it says "citation needed", or remove some text before the tag if you can find nothing, or leave that for now in the hope that other editors will be able to provide a reliable source. For sourcing, see WP:GOLDENRULE. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NG243197: First, you have failed to declare your conflict of interest with this topic. Having changed your username from Fednav to NG243197 does not absolve you of this responsibility. Second, you should concentrate on fixing the issues with the English language article that have been pointed out here. Third, as others have noted, fr.wiki has its own set of rules, policies and editors. Your French translation has been tagged by users of the fr.wiki so you'll need to communicate with them to resolve those issues. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiDan61 In order to remove any kind of conflict of interest with the Fednav wiki page, does this mean nobody from the organization is able to update and maintain the page? I don't quite understand how the page is to be updated otherwise. Seeing as though the last time this page was properly updated was a few years back, there is company information that needs to be made relevant. Curious to know how to move forward.. NG243197 (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NG243197: As you're saying that Fednav is, by your words, our company, there are two things that need to be addressed. The first is that if you are employed by the company, you are considered to have a paid relationship, in which case you must disclose said relationship, most preferably on your user page at User:NG243197. The second is that you are giving the impression that your account is being operated by more than one person. Shared accounts are not allowed.
The most appropriate avenue of conduct is to submit a request through Wikipedia's edit request system. Make sure to use the {{request edit}} template. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu the account NG243197 is being operated by one person. NG243197 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. You still need to disclose your paid relationship as mentioned above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NG243197: Nobody from your organization should be editing that article at all. You may make minor corrections to spelling, grammar, names, etc. You may add citations to reliable sources that are independent of your organization. You can revert obvious vandalism. Anything more substantive, you must propose on the article talk page for other editors to review. You may preface your proposal with the template {{request edit}} to cause your proposal to be listed on a category page monitored by some editors. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'round

this is about one very small detail that, as far the manual of style cares, isn't important enough to mention, so it wouldn't be surprising if there was no actual answer to this

when using approximations (like "Prime claims to have personally killed 12 trillion people" when there were 12,265,918,177,013), is there any concern with the actual number, such as not being able to use a larger number (like saying there were around 12.3t), or having to go with the nearest multiple of 5, 10 or whatever other multiple of 10?

i would assume it's just using the nearest number with the least amount of characters required to write it, or getting a citation from someone else's words and running with what said citation says cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 13:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should simply report what your reliable source says. Shantavira|feed me 13:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 13:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cog-san If you felt a very specific number was too detailed, it would be acceptable to round it down to, say, "over 12.25t, but I would avoid anything that approximated something over what sources say. Doing it as I suggest would allow a user to follow the citation and determine the precise number, but any vagueness or summary should never permit over-interpretation of a number. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vusi Thembekwayo

Hi, I need the forum's input regarding this article. Just wondering why this article is not showing on Google up until now. Also, it's not been indexed on Google just yet. Is there a reason behind this, please? Happy to discuss the options. Thanks Oceanview1590 (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Vusi Thembekwayo. Moved to mainspace on 31 May 2023‎. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noted! Thanks. Still within the 90 days circle. Oceanview1590 (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oceanview1590: Welcome to the Teahouse. New articles aren't indexed on search engines like Google until it has been approved by a new pages reviewer or 90 days have passed, whichever comes first. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tenryuu Thanks appreciate the input! Oceanview1590 (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

provide awareness and understanding for an NGO that is doing great work globally so people can understand the mission.

We have a number people desiring awareness of the great work Amigos Internacionales is doing globally to fight sex trafficking, child hunger and water wells. How do we get an article on Wikipedia about this great work? Amigos Internacionales, Inc (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Amigos Internacionales, Inc, welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, since your user name seems to represent an organization rather than you personally, you should apply for a change of username as soon as possible, as you are in violation of our username policy. Please see WP:CHU for instructions.
Wikipedia has articles about organizations which are deemed notable by our standards (WP:NORG). The most important thing you need is significant independent, secondary coverage of your organization which has been published in reliable sources (WP:42). If you have such coverage, please declare your conflict of interest per WP:PAID, then you can begin writing a draft. Full instructions at Help:Your first article. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for the username/promotion as I was responding. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for the purpose of "building awareness" of the "great work" that any organization does. Instead, our goal is to provide neutrally written and well referenced encyclopedia articles about notable organizations even if they do terrible work, such as organized crime groups for example. Cullen328 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stash error issue facing

I am creating wikipedia account and while publishing account i am facing stash issue ⧼No stashed content found for 0/0d467389-15d5-11ee-8306-d094663b2868⧽.

So, please help with this issue.

Page Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&create=Create+draft&editintro=Template%3AAfC+draft+editintro&preload=Wikipedia%3AArtist+biography+article+template%2FPreload&title=Draft%3ASanjay+Raina Sanjayr1505 (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sanjayr1505 and welcome to the Teahouse.
Since we are dealing with this issue at IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help, other helpers should probably ignore this entry at the Teahouse. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 18:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UnitedHealth Group requests

Hello! I've been submitting some edit requests for the UnitedHealth Group article at Talk:UnitedHealth Group. I've disclosed my conflict of interest appropriately and I've been using the edit request template so other editors could review proposed improvements. I thought I was following Wikipedia's COI process correctly, but one editor has marked five of my requests as answered and left a comment suggesting I was not using the template appropriately. I'm not exactly sure what I did wrong but I don't feel like the content changes I've proposed have been considered sufficiently. Can someone please take a look and clarify if I should have used the template differently, or weigh in on the specific requests? Any feedback here would help me understand how to submit better proposals. Thanks! Barbara at UHG (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barbara at UHG: the editor who closed the requests gave a fairly clear answer. The number of the requests and their apparent lack of organization made them impossible to review. I suggest you make one request at a time, in whatever priority order you feel is appropriate. If you do make multiple requests, they should pertain to different sections of the article, and be quite clear about what you want changed and why. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Original research' and how to overcome it?

A while back I submitted some pages on a piece of software I wrote over 10 years ago, following my PhD, called Enguage. This has been available as free, open source, software and has been an Android app since 2013. It demonstrates how speech is Turing Complete: we can say that speech is information bearing medium - which is an appeal to common sense - but this software demonstrates how this is the case. I have written many academic papers on this over the years; it won the British Computer Society's Machine Intelligence competition in 2016; and, I just want to share this knowledge. However these pages were rejected because it is 'original research'.

I don't disagree that 'original research' should not be included in Wikipedia - I could just make something up and submit a page, which would pollute Wikipedia. And this is particularly important in a post-truth world: we need objectivity! As a scientist, my work is repeatable and supported by demonstrable software. My (academic) papers have been subjected to a peer review process, so these should be a 'reliable source'? Certainly, my software exists and is there for everyone to repeat my findings. However, my reviewers (in doing their job diligently!) just pointed this out that the pages are not acceptable.

However, there are plenty of other pages on other software, such as Alexa and ChatGPT, which have pages describing them (the new kids on the block, IMHO!), surely is should be possible to produce some pages on my work - just not written by me?

Is this how this restriction be overcome?

Is it simply that as the original author I can't write anything about it? So Isaac Newton simply couldn't write a page about Gravity? We'd be floating about, waiting for someone else to write their interpretation of his work, before things settle down? Surely, it can't be that pages can only be written about non-obscure things, I'll agree that my software is not as well known as ChatGPT or Alexa!

Is there anyone who can help? I just want to share my knowledge :) MartinWheatman (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinwheatman: We publish articles on topics that have been covered in depth in reliable sources that are independent of those topics. Alexa and ChatGPT meet that criterion for inclusion. If your software has been written about in depth in reliable sources that are independent of you, then your software could possibly have an article also. Your academic papers are not independent of you, regardless of peer review. If you feel the software meets the notability criteria for inclusion, then go to WP:AFC and follow the instructions to submit a draft for review. Because you have a conflict of interest concerning your own software, you should not attempt to publish an article in article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Update) @Martinwheatman: I just noticed that you already have a draft that was deleted due to inactivity: Draft:Enguage. If you want me to restore it for you to work on it further, drop me a note and I'm happy to do so. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Martinwheatman Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You might want to review the conflict of interest policy. It isn't forbidden for someone to contribute about a topic with which they have a conflict of interest, but they must do so in accordance with that policy. It would be better if independent editors wrote about your work, but you aren't prohibited from doing so indirectly.
If you just want to tell the world about the existence of your software, that's what a personal website, social media, or other wiki type website with less stringent requirements are all for. Wikipedia is primarily interested in what others have to say about your software and what makes it notable as defined by Wikipedia. Your own academic papers can't support an article about your software, even if peer reviewed. If others independent of you write about your software in an academic paper, that might be okay. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Martinwheatman. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable, published sources that are entirely independent of the topic say about the topic. A topic which has received such coverage is considered notable as defined by Wikipedia and therefore eligible for a Wikipedia article. Clearly, this excludes anything that a software developer has written about their own software. Any such article needs to be based on what has been published in completely independent sources. This is a matter of policy. Cullen328 (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist @Cullen328 @331dot Thanks for the quick replies, everyone. The inactivity was simply due to the reaction I got then, and that I'm getting now, that /I'm/ not welcome at Wikipedia. I could edit these pages all I like, it would still be me writing. If I need to be popular on social media, or on my own website, first, well it would be my own hand (again!). Self aggrandisement is the last thing in the world I want. Don't worry, I get it!
No, what I'm really asking, above, is if someone else wrote these pages - might this be the key to overcoming the self-interest/first-hand account? Could they explain what it does, why it is significant by referring to the original papers. Or do pages need to be third-hand: someone writing a page about what someone has said about my work. Otherwise, all I can write a page which lists the fact that Enguage won the 2016 BCS MI Competition, but not the reason why. As I said above, I'm not disagreeing with any of the policies - it is just how to work with them.
If there might be a way forward, it would be great to have the pages restored, but I'm getting the feeling I'll just get 'original research' thrown at me again, rather than help in editing pages. For example, could it be left as a stub with requests for help - is that a way forward?
As for conflict of interest, my software is free and open source, this should separate me somewhat from 'interest'; however, and more importantly, I'm completely open about the fact that I'm the author of this software (i.e disclosure).
Sorry, if this sounds a little negative on my part, I'm just trying to find a way forward.
Just as an aside, as a natural language engine, Enguage also reads Wikipedia pages to serve as an information processing system as an option for people with difficulties with screens and keyboards (it caches them to throttle access to your servers!) I suppose I could also put in reference to the cease-and-desist letter I'll be getting from your lawyers? ;-) MartinWheatman (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of interest does not necessarily mean profiting from something. It just means that you have a connection to the topic(as the creator) and presumably you have an interest in telling the world about it(and it could be for a selfless reason, and not personal gain).
We welcome everyone who is willing to participate here. It just needs to be done the right way. 331dot (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm willing to participate, but I think the 'right way' is that I don't share my ideas here, at best I share what others think of them :-/ MartinWheatman (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly right. Think of it like a police procedural. It's not what you know, it's what you can cite. MrOllie (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the sources cited by your draft aren't independent of the article's subject (because they were written by you). That is the main problem. The conflict of interest caused by you writing the Wikipedia article is a concern, but it isn't the main concern - we would need sources that cover your software in depth that were written and published without any involvement or association with you. You mention Alexa above - there are many books and articles written about Alexa that are completely independent of Amazon - that is why we have an article on Alexa, but not one on your software. MrOllie (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, that's why I asked my original question. If I wrote a book on my software, it wouldn't be independent of me. MartinWheatman (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinwheatman I'd suggest you read WP:N to understand Wikipedia's definition of notability, and WP:RS to understand what kind of sources an article needs. As your article stands right now, there are 16 references, but 12 of them were written by you, so are not independent sources. Of the remaining 4, as far as I can see, none of them even mention Enguage or your name, so obviously they don't count as "significant" coverage. Your next step should be to locate several reliable sources that are independent and contain significant, in-depth coverage of Enguage. And remember that everything in the article should come from those sources, not from your own personal knowledge or memory. CodeTalker (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to my article so I can't comment, but yes you're right, I did quote my papers - they can be edited out, rather than writing an empty stub and hoping someone puts something in. The lack of third party sources is my stumbling block. But I do read Wikipedia pages every day which have issues with them - I don't want to have issues with mine. I can't make someone else write about my work (or can I?) but I'm guessing nobody is going to do that. It is the failure of popularity in life which is being judged, not my work which is repeatable and demonstrable which I feel should be the important point. MartinWheatman (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Martinwheatman, you are absolutely welcome to contribute to Wikipedia as long as you comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is no workaround regarding the three core content policies, and No original research is one of those three policies. Creating a stub that violates policy is not an option. Every article must comply with core content policies, or it is subject to deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Martinwheatman: First, you are welcome here. Just because you chose to write about a topic that may not qualify for inclusion doesn't mean you aren't welcome.
The problem is that you don't understand Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and we are trying to explain this to you. You also don't seem to understand conflict of interest, which has nothing to do with financial gain. On Wikipedia, "conflict of interest" means you have an association with a topic. Everyone has a conflict of interest about themselves and their work.
It doesn't matter if someone else writes the article. The only difference is that someone else wouldn't have the same conflict of interest you do. However, in the end, the author of an article is irrelevant. Bottom line, if there is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic, then the topic cannot have an article on Wikipedia. That is the basic underlying policy that allows any article on Wikipedia to exist. See WP:Golden Rule to understand what kind of sources are required.
You went about writing this article WP:BACKWARD, starting with what you know instead of what independent sources say about the topic. That's a common mistake made by many new editors trying to write their first article. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is now commenting about my previous draft, but I don't seem to have access to it and, anyway, I'm not defending it! The offer to restore the draft is clearly not a way forward as the original issues with the page still stand. And yes as a newbie, I will make mistakes, I certainly made them! I'll say again, I'm not disagreeing with the policies (especially the conflict of interest, which I didn't say it was all about financial gain - it's about any perceived gain and the obfuscation of it!) And, from abandoning my draft, I do already know that I can't simply create my own page - but this wasn't my original question, above. And, I already have a personal webpages in my source code repo on bitbucket and github.
My original question was about how much help, and to what degree of independence, do I need to a page being written? Much of this is answered in the COI page, thanks. I think @331dot mentioned "independent editors", but unless someone spontaneously writes an page on Enguage there'll always be a perceived COI. I don't think a Enguage will ever exist on Wikipedia pages (it'll still read them for people!) The evidence for this is in the software, not someone's opinion of it. Sometimes I do wonder if I'm down a "rabbit hole", but one of my own making, when people ignore my work? But when people do look at it, they seem to be impressed with it.
Sorry, I'm not now looking for 'a way forward' :) So, even if one of you guys downloaded and ran my software and thought it was cool, or whatever, that wouldn't be 'notable'. I do realise you're trying to help by pointing me at the policies and guidelines, and I thank you for your time and effort(!), but I'm not the one writing this page, right?
I think I'll leave it there (again!) And, thanks! MartinWheatman (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Typically articles are written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic, who take note of coverage in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it, summarizing those sources that describe what makes the topic notable. So yes, most articles are written spontaneously. As I said above, you are not absolutely forbidden from writing an article(the preferred term, not the broader "page") about something for which you have a COI, but your main problem is that there is little to no independent coverage of your software to summarize. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone reading this discussion, I have restored the draft in question: Draft:Enguage. Martinwheatman may continue improving it. For the draft to be accepted as an article on Wikipedia, it needs multiple citations to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to cite a particular musical score?

I'm going to start writing and revising some articles using a new critical edition of a composer's complete works and had a question about citing from it. I know the "author" parameter would be used for the composer's name and that "editor"... speaks for itself. But there is often a third and sometimes fourth person involved in each volume who is neither the composer nor editor, but is the author of the critical commentary and/or of the notes explaining and describing the score sketches and manuscripts. How do I cite them correctly? CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CurryTime7-24, ...| others=With a critical commentary on the orchestration by Joe Bloggs and supplementary notes on the holograph by Josephine Bloggs. | ...; or indeed whatever you like after "others=". -- Hoary (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much!! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pop up changes settings

Today (6/29/23) I began getting a pop up message on my phone (Android v.11) that says,"en.m.wikipedia.org says Please reload your page to use hotcat. Cancel ... Ok". Regardless of what action I take, after I clear the pop up, my Settings have been changed to activate Advanced Mode, which changes how my Watchlist is displayed. I de-activate Advanced Mode, but the pop up will soon reappear and my Settings will be changed to Advanced Mode again. I haven't been able to determine what particular sequence of my inputs (if any) are triggering the pop up. So far, I am unable to control this behavior. Any insight available? DonFB (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DonFB. Few people here know much about how the software behaves. I suggest asking at WP:VPT. I@m not sure whether you're talking about the website on your phone or the Android App; if it is the latter, have a look at m:Wikimedia Apps. ColinFine (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfD closed by a non-administrator

There was an ongoing AfD of the page Raiden Shogun, with multiple votes for merge and multiple for keep, that was closed before 7 full days were up by a non-administrator. From my understanding, AfDs must be allowed to run for 7 full days, and they should normally be closed by an administrator. However I don't know how to bring this up to the AfD committee, or if I have the right or a good reason to. Jaguarnik (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A textbook WP:BADNAC, with the editor in question being WP:INVOLVED at the article to boot. I've reopened the AfD and warned the closer. signed, Rosguill talk 05:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguarnik: An AFD need not run for a full 7 days in certain situations, for example: the outcome is an obvious "keep" per WP:SNOW, or the nominator stated a desire to withdraw the nomination, or an early closure would otherwise be non-controversial. In that case, an uninvolved editor can close the discussion; it doesn't have to be an administrator. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain

what is public domain material on wikipedia. [ie...] articles, movies, pictures. and what is not public domain, and is strictly copyright? M.S. Sekuloff 07:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sekuloff (talk • contribs)

Hello Sekuloff and welcome to the Teahouse.
Most material on Wikipedia is not public domain. Instead, it is copyrighted by the contributor and released under a Creative Commons license. Most of the time a general attribution to Wikipedia is sufficient if you wish to copy Wikipedia material elsewhere. See WP:Copyrights for more details.
Some material on Wikimedia Commons is public domain. There is license information accompanying each file which you can check. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a UPE

Can someone remove the UPE from Draft:Oleg Rogynskyy? We've already discussed this story around here, and @Hoary was kind enough to remove a UPE from a related page. To state it bluntly again, there is no payment of any kind, just an overzealous patroller who now disappeared. Comments on the draft are welcome too. Thank you. Igor Markov 10:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable request, Igor Markov. I've removed it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help with my book reference

I’ve added a book reference. this is how I added it: The Making of Enter The Dragon. USA: Unique Publications. 1987. p. 177. ISBN 0865680981. {{cite book}}: External link in |author-link= (help) and it looks totally wrong. How do I fix it? I thought I did the right thing Urgeback (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Urgeback, in order for author-link to work, you need to specify an author. You haven't done so. Author-link must be an internal link. Also, thriftbooks.com I think is a retailer, and amazon.com.au definitely is a retailer; don't link to retailers. Isn't the location more specific than "USA"? -- Hoary (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tried again and this is what I got: [1] Despite rumours to the contrary, he was not deaf.The Making of Enter The Dragon. Burbank, California, USA: Unique Publications. 1987. p. 177. ISBN 0865680981. {{cite book}}: External link in |author-link= (help) Urgeback (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Urgeback, not last= |first= |author-link= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Clouse but last=Clouse |first=Robert |author-link=Robert Clouse -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bio was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

My Article Got Rejected

Hello Wikipedians,

I don't know why my article got rejected Please share some tips What can i do now? Nawaz Chandwani (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Nawaz Chandwani/sandbox Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking about User:Nawaz Chandwani/sandbox (which was declined, not rejected, and as long ago as 4 April)? Or, Nawaz Chandwani, are you asking about something else? -- Hoary (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, Nawaz Chandwani
While I only speak English and French, it does look like some of the citations are quite questionable. For example, "official song" or "full video" which could imply a personal connection. If you want more details you can either ask me or the reviewers. Also, please don't cite a Google search page. ✶Mitch199811✶ 12:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nawaz, and welcome to the Teahouse.
I'm afraid, looking at your draft, that you have probably made the same mistake as most people do who try to write an article without having first learnt how Wikipedia works: you have written it BACKWARD.
My "tip" would be to throw away what you have written, and start again by finding sources that are reliable, independent, and contain significant coverage of the Sabri brothers. See Golden rule for more explanation, but what I will say here is: ignore anything created, published, or commissioned by the Sabri brothers or their associates, and anything based on their words (i.e. interviews or press releases). Especially do not include links to their works: it may be possible to add some in later, but they will not contribute in any way to making the draft acceptable as an article. This is because 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.
If you cannot find such sources, then you will know that they do not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article on them will be accepted. If you do find the sources, then you can write a draft. Forget everything you know about them, and write a draft based entirely on what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help setting up a new wikipedia page

Hi I am an and want to set up a page for an Artist. Can anyone help me please?

Can this done without publishing until it is at least semi complete? TRMODELS (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TRMODELS.
You can create a draft article and submit for review at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Please note there is a four+ month waiting list, as articles are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers.
For your article to have a chance to be accepted the artist must show that they pass the Wikipedia:Notability threshold. In essence, you need to find significant coverage of the artist in independent, third party, secondary, reliable sources. If you cannot find those sources then the artist cannot have a Wikipedia article at this time.
It would be worth reading Wikipedia:Your first article which gives you the dos and don'ts of creating an article, and Wikipedia:Five pillars which detail the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, plus the Wikipedia:Citing sources guide that explains how to cite sources.
Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for any type of self-promotion or advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: not an advertising platform, directory, or a way to promote a subject. Wikipedia is not a social media site like Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn.
Hope that helps! Qcne (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention, if you are connected in any way to the artist, then you must declare your Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Qcne (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, TRMODELS, and welcome to the Teahouse. One more point in addition to the good points that Qcne has already made: You use the words "set up a page", which suggests that you think that you will in some sense own that page, and can subsequently change it as you wish . Please note that nobody owns a Wikipedia article: anybody may edit it, and you will have no more right to do so than anybody else. In fact, if you have a COI (as Qcne mentions at the end) then you will not be allowed to edit it at all, but only to make suggestions for changing it. ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As in not edit it afterwards if you succeed in getting a draft accepted as an article. David notMD (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

edit in more than one language

Hello, I would like to edit in more than one language, how do I add this to my profile? And how do I get edit suggestions in a different language than English? Many thanks! Pascale Kamacites Place (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Kamacites Place, and welcome to the Teahouse. That's a really interesting question!
You can add one or more WP:USERBOXES to your userpage to show what languages you are fluent in. There is a huge library of existing userboxes you can select from - you simply add the code to your userpage.
Your registered username will work across all language wikipedias. So, once you're logged on, you can simply move to, say, fr.wiki or ru.wiki and edit there. Remember that each Wikipedia has slightly different rules, often affecting notability criteria and reliable sources, but the principles of collaboration and proper citation are the same everywhere. i.e. you an't just add your opinions - the content you put in must be based upon published sources of high reliability.
You can find an article on one language Wikipedia and click the language link at the top of the page to see what other languages that topic has an article on. You might wish to expand one of them if it seems much poorer than the others. There is also further advice at WP:TRANSLATION on how to credit (=attribute) content written in one language when all you are doing is simply converting it directly into a different language. Does any of this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamacites Place In addition to what Nick has suggested, you can look for articles in the English Wikipedia which have been tagged on their Talk Page with one of the "Expand [another language]". So, if you are fluent in German, for example, you would go to the template page {{Expand German}} and click on "What links here". That would give you the list of about 16,000 articles where it is known that the German article has more content than our does. The advantage of this approach is that the topic is likely to pass our notability criteria and the only issue will be to ensure the new sources are OK. I assume that similar templates exist on other-language Wikipedias if you want to write in the foreign language based on what is already here in English. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Status of my draft article

Curious to know the status of my draft article, Draft:Haiti Victory and Duke of York Collision - Wikipedia. I think I addressed the concerns raised in the initial review. If there are remaining issue, I'd appreciate some guidance. Mgeverest (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mgeverest You would be best to resubmit the draft so that those experienced in reviewing them can formally comment. I assume that the copyvio issue has been fixed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a formula to add together multiple lengths?

Hello. When editing User:Roads4117/A508 road length, I was wondering if Wikipedia had a formula for adding together multiple numbers or lengths, or if you have to do it all manually? Looking forward to seeing your response. Roads4117 (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Roads4117. There is Template:Sum, but that needs to be given its parameters individually, so will be of limited help.
But Help:Table#Summing or averaging a list of numbers looks as if it will do what you want (I never use the VE, so I haven't tried it). ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at A507, in my view there is already a lot of original research in it, together with inappropriate tone and verging into WP:NOTTRAVEL. (I'm not sure how much of that you have introduced, and how much was already there). ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine, thanks for your help. I have mainly added citations, and a few paragraphs of the route section of the A508 page. Roads4117 (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started

Hello! I am a new user and am looking for resources in general of how to get started and some less controversial articles to help with! I started with some more controversial topics by making suggestions in the Talk Pages and afraid I got WP:BITE I'd really love to find out more about policies, editing, and to edit drama-free! AevumNova (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AevumNova: Well, if you're inclined to do a lot of reading Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines is a starting point. The main ones for a new editor are probably WP:Reliable sources, WP:Neutral point of view, WP:No original research, and WP:Notability. As a general good practice, see also WP:BRD.
If you want to try to write an article, go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation and follow the direction, but be mindful of WP:BACKWARD and WP:Golden rule.
That should be enough reading for now! ~Anachronist (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I had two follow up questions.
How can I search for meta Wikipedia information? And how can I find out what articles need smaller scale intervention? AevumNova (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image publishing problem

If I'm writing a new article or draft, how do I add an image or logo without getting a copywrite claim or something? Even though I do not own the rights to any image made by someone else, I find it slightly difficult to add an image to a draft i'm writing. Could you give me advice on how to add an image to a draft easier without getting a copywrite notice? Please and Thank you!

Love: The G-Man ❤ Gaered Linn (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaered Linn: Normally, the copyright holder of the image needs to write to VRT to release the image to the Wikimedia Foundation under an acceptable free license. The template for such an email is found in WP:CONSENT. If you can contact the author, you can ask if he or she is willing to do this.
If you're referring to Draft:The Great Wolf Pack: A Call to Adventure, then you can upload a scaled down image of a movie poster to Wikipedia (not to Wikimedia Commons, which accepts only free-license or public-domain images), and specify that you're uploading it with a "fair use" rationale for use in one specific article. However, this would normally be done after your draft is accepted by a reviewer, because we cannot use non-free content in drafts. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gaered and welcome to the Teahouse. Note also that images are not generally something that reveiwers look at when judging whether to accept a draft: what matters is the sourcing, and the tone. Most issues of format (including a lack of images) can be sorted out afterwards, and don't affect the review. ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to appropriately create Wikipedia pages

for musicians who have little to no press or exposure Meta eli (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Meta eli. A musician who has received little to no press coverage is not a notable person and is therefore ineligible for a Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A musician with little or no press exposure could be notable by meeting any of the criteria described in WP:MUSICBIO. However, generally meeting any of those criteria would result in press exposure. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Convention relating to the International Status of Refugees

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution
 – –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a growing issue of mass migration of refugees fueled not only by war, violence and economic reasons, but increasingly due to climate change which is making previously fertile lands barren and increasing heat making regions trending to uninhabitable.

A search on this issue led me to a now deleted Wikipedia article:

So I reached out to the editor who deleted this page and was advised that the article had been deleted because it had been created by an alleged sock-puppet of a banned user, per WP:CSD#G5.

I have no idea what previously existed in the subject page and, notwithstanding that this page was allegedly created by a banned user, I am curious to know what it previously contained. I understand that I am liberty to re-create the page, but would not want to start from scratch if there is material content that was summarily deleted.

Enquire (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Enquire. Talk pages are usually for discussing the article that they're attached to, in this case Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. In the future, general questions can be posted at WP:TEAHOUSE. But anyway, Convention relating to the International Status of Refugees was a redirect to Convention Relating to the International Status of Refugees, and the latter article contained 2 paragraphs and 2 sources. If you'd like the contents of that article possibly sent to you, you can make a request at WP:REFUND. Hope that helps. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Enquire: The two cited sources are here: [1] and [2]. If you want, you can build an article around that, but the deleted article didn't have anything substantive. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=1162756132"