Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hoary, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Biographical stub for entertainer

This question was archived here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1193#Biographical_stub_article_for_a_self-improvement_coach Not sure if I'm following the correct procedure to revive discussion. Please advise.

The article stub is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Venzen/sandbox I have followed previous suggestions to cite references. Kindly comment. venzen (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Venzen You have still not shown how he meets Wikipedia's definition of notability. For example, your citation #10 looks promising until one reads that it was "produced in partnership with Ascend Agency": presumably his PR company. Hence it is not WP:INDEPENDENT. You need about three sources which meet these criteria. You might find it helpful to read this essay on writing articles. Long interviews on YouTube are equally not independent. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, Mike. I did not notice the Ascend Agency partnership in ref #10. Will keep on looking - possibly reduce the amount of early life info to reduce reliance on 3rd party interviews. As for notability, does the externally verified award and several nominations not qualify? Those same award and nomination organisations seem to have established notability for most other pornstars. venzen (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

According to XRCO Awards, "XRCO members are asked to submit their own nominations", so I'm not very impressed by mere nominations. As to winning, this would be more convincing if backed up by a reliable WP:SECONDARY source, preferably with WP:SIGCOV of Cooper. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Noted, Mike, thank you for the pointers. venzen (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand that XRCO self-publication of awards is not WP:SECONDARY, and to find a independent, reliable source that backs up their award publication is difficult since most are trashy camgirl sites that use porn jargon and company names to gain SEO. I could find this Sports publication: https://www.prosportsextra.com/xrco-announces-2020-adult-entertainment-winners/ . Would that qualify as secondary and independent? venzen (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding The Arena Group https://thearenagroup.net/about-us/ I believe that they could qualify as Independent. And my citation #10 is an article in their publication "Men's Journal" as evidenced here https://thearenagroup.net/our-brands/ . I acknowledge your advice to have 3 independent sources and that YouTube interviews do not qualify to establish notability. I will continue searching. venzen (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

As for the Ascend Agency PR company being involved, well, it would be difficult to find any entertainer or public personality that does not have all media placements managed by their PR agency, not true? venzen (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I always found this independent, secondary source OK! Magazine https://okmagazine.com/p/stirling-cooper-rises-worlds-best-sex-coach/ that echoes the same notability facts as the other sources, and written by staff writers without any PR agency. Does this source perhaps qualify as a citation? venzen (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Could another host kindly gloss over this request for assistance and give advice. Mike Turnbull has made valid points and helped me along the way to find the correct sources, however he now seems occupied elsewhere and this question will soon be archived. Any thoughts from another host? venzen (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Venzen Your best next step is to incorporate all the advice and submit the Draft for review. The experienced editors who do the reviews will give you additional comments if they decline the draft. The Teahouse is more of a place to look for general advice about the technicalities of editing, such as how to format citations and what notability means, rather than advice on content. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@ 83.97.73.91 (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

much obliged venzen (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Help with edits I made through my ip, rather that my account.

Hi, I accidentally made a edit while not logged in through my account, so it was registered through my ip rather than my account. Is there any way to fix this? MrGamerBoy40 (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You could doctor the signature, if the edit was on a talk page or somewhere like the reference desk. Simply, scrub the IP address, and replace it with your username as it would normally be written in signature form. Pablothepenguin (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

That would indicate that an IP address is tied to a particular account, which it sounds like this user is trying to avoid. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Raise a straightforward question on an article

There is a line in a bio of a congressman (Eli Crane) that says "Crane allegedly served in the U.S. Navy from 2001 to 2014." There is no explanation as to why they said "allegedly". I wanted to simply raise that question on the 'talk' page, but I cannot. It is a bio page of a living person and I'm thinking that might be the problem. There is no offer to 'start a topic' on that page as there is on a 'standard' page. I am not looking to edit per se, I want to raise the question. Any help would be appreciated. Cuchulain9 (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Cuchulain9. I removed the word "allegedly" since there are several sources verifying his military service. You could have done this yourself. Neither Eli Crane nor Talk: Eli Crane are protected at this time, and the talk page seems to be functioning normally. Cullen328 (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I knew I could remove it but I wondered why it was labeled 'alleged' and wanted to raise the question. I still don't know why I couldn't do it there but I can do that on other pages. Cheers. Cuchulain9 (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cuchulain9: the "allegedly" was added yesterday by an unregistered user: [1]. It was not immediately spotted, thanks for notifying. MKFI (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"New Editor" seeking guidance on a question regarding in-depth editing on Wikipedia

Hello everyone,

I hope you are all doing well on this fine day. I have been a long-time reader and admirer of Wikipedia, with a deep lifelong interest in mathematics and physics—especially the more advanced topics (e.g. differential geometry). Recently, I have encountered a significant question regarding contributing to Wikipedia in these specialized fields, and I am seeking guidance on the best approach.

Essentially, I want to begin to more significantly contribute to the articles of advanced mathematics and physics topics on Wikipedia. I have been making small edits for quite a long time, but I feel an urge to do more. I have come to a deeper, more grounded understanding of many fascinating and important concepts that were once unclear to me, and I wish to improve the already excellent resource that is Wikipedia by refining the (already quite excellent!) writings with these insights to help others on their own path of learning.

The reason this is not just as simple as "well just start doing it", but is a complex and involved question that I feel requires nuanced explanation, is because it is essentially (fundamentally, even) a social issue. This is especially complicated for me because I am autistic, and I fear accidentally stepping on somebody's toes, so to speak, in the act of "just trying to help" and make Wikipedia an even better place for the world's information, friendly and insightful to all.

However, I am unsure if the Teahouse is the appropriate forum to address such a question, as I don't want to overwhelm the page with a lengthy and intricate query—especially a space that is specifically designed to be friendly for newcomers and the like.

Considering the expertise and experience of the community here, I am reaching out to seek your advice on the best course of action. I would greatly appreciate your guidance on whether the Teahouse is the right place to share my question, or if there is some other place where it would be more appropriate to discuss "The right way, the kind and thoughtful way, to constructively add to (physics & mathematics on) Wikipedia."

Thank you all for your time and patience. I genuinely value your insights and expertise, and I look forward to receiving your advice on how to proceed with my inquiry so I can join the Wikipedia community in a healthy, wholesome, and helpful way.

Warm regards,

Castle. 76.125.192.226 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I suggest that you ask your question here, doing your best to be clear and concise. Teahouse hosts may refer you elsewhere, depending on the technical complexity of your question. Cullen328 (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

We (including those spectrum and 'spectrum-adjacent') will be better able to advise if you identify an article you want to amend. A loose guideline is BRD, as in be Bold in edits, but if Reverted, open a Discussion on the article's Talk page. Be aware that highly technical articles may have few editors watching for changes or keeping an eye on the Talk page, so if you propose your changes on the Talk page first, your effort may be unanswered for a long time. HOWEVER, in your query you mention coming to an understanding of concepts. What you yourself conceive of is 'original research' and is not allowed. Any concept you modify or add must be verified by reliable source references at the same time. David notMD (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Lastly, it appears you have put content at Wikipedia's Sandbox, which gets frequently bot-cleared. Consider creating an account and using your account Sandbox to develop your ideas for either major article revision or a new article. David notMD (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear Cullen and David,

Thank you for your swift and thoughtful responses.

First I want to directly apologize for the length of my response that follows. It seems no matter how I try to cut things down, my post is just interminably wordy. So I will push through my worry for once and just... post it. As it is. And truly hope for the best.

I say to you, please let me know if I am actually posting Too Much Text.

My sole wish is to be peaceful and polite, understanding that I am new to this particular social climate, I don't know what's acceptable or unacceptable behavior.

Above all I want to be friendly and grateful, not imposing or self-important.

Anyways,

Here's what I have to say to what you have said:

---

• "I suggest that you ask your question here, doing your best to be clear and concise."

I would love to, however:

• I don't know if it's bad etiquette to post a somewhat long text here. My current personal draft for my original question is about 1,000 words (too long imho). I can definitely cut it down to the actually essential ideas (I dunno, 200–300 words or something? my post above is ~400 words), but I'm still scared of being "overwhelming". I don't want to just dump a bunch of text like I own the place. (Which... I know is somewhat ironic to say considering what I am posting right now. This post here you are reading is actually around ~1,300 words. So Oops I Guess That Just Went Out The Window. This is a big frustration for me. I'm sorry.)
• Being unfamiliar with the Teahouse, I don't know if or when "questions"/"threads" here get archived/cleared. I am sometimes slow to respond, so I'm scared of "missing the boat" and this discussion getting closed because I didn't reply in time.

In short, "I can do that! I can post a vastly shorter, concise, comprehensible version of my original phrasing of my original question. But is it really okay to do so? I feel shy or anxious."

• "it appears you have put content at Wikipedia's Sandbox, which gets frequently bot-cleared. Consider creating an account and using your account Sandbox[...]"

Thank you for the suggestion. I am well aware that the Sandbox gets auto-cleared, and I used it specifically for testing purposes. It was not my intention to save or "put" the content; I used it purely for rendering wikitext. I have only used it a couple of times for purely technical purposes.

I've been thinking seriously hard about creating an account, and I think that I should, but I'm anxious about doing so because of a number of silly personal psychological reasons. It feels like a "big investment" or a "big step". Even though it would obviously objectively be a good thing for my "status" on Wikipedia, so I'm a "person" and not just a random IP.

• "However, in your query you mention coming to an understanding of concepts. What you yourself conceive of is 'original research' and is not allowed. Any concept you modify or add must be verified by reliable source references at the same time."

I understand very well that "original research" is not allowed on Wikipedia. But at the same time, it seems that a lot of the text on advanced math articles on Wikipedia is in fact original and often didactic or definitional text, written by an expert writing on Wikipedia and contributing directly to Wikipedia, not strictly copy-pasted word-for-word from some source; and then the actual facts that are presented (e.g. each definition, theorem, or concept) are bolstered directly by inline citations to verifiable and trustworthy publications such as textbooks.

Fundamentally, it is not that I wish to add "new concepts" to Wikipedia. First and foremost, I want to clarify existing concepts by adding a few carefully-chosen words or a sentence here and there. Then secondarily, sometimes I feel an urge to "unbury the lede" so to speak, to increase the readability of a page.

• "We will be better able to advise if you identify an article you want to amend."

Math alert, but here is an example so that you may skim over and start to get at least some idea.

A recent example: I am currently learning about "weights" in the context of "representation theory".

{{
The Wikipedia page describes a "weight" as a "linear functional on ${\mathfrak {h}}$".
Specifically it says:
> "let $\lambda :{\mathfrak {h}}\to \mathbb {C}$ be a linear functional on ${\mathfrak {h}}$."
So when I read this, I thought to myself, "Okay, linear functional means, it is a linear map H -> C." Then I asked myself, "A linear functional? That's the same thing as a covector/dual vector, yeah?"
And the article at some point way later, in a totally different section, says, "The space of linear functionals [is] H*, the dual space to H."
And I thought to myself, "...So *yeah,* it seems highly likely a weight is a covector, belonging to the dual space H*."
Then, through reading numerous sources including Wikipedia, lecture notes, Stack Exchange questions, and others,
I came to the understanding that yes, actually it is a covector. It is notably *not* a scalar.
Why does this matter? Because the first paragraph of the article says: "In this context, a weight of a representation is a generalization of the notion of an eigenvalue."
An eigenvalue is a scalar, notably not a covector.
So there is a big potential for confusion here, for someone who is totally new to what a "weight" even is.
Even when I read over the article about four times, it was not clear to me that a "weight" even was a covector/one-form, eating a member of H and returning a scalar from C!

This is what I mean by "I came to an understanding, which was not immediately obvious merely due to the way the article was written, and I want to make it clearer for other readers in the future."
}}

So what do I want to do to that article? All I want to do is add a parenthetical clarifying statement:

"Let λ : H -> C be a linear functional on H. That is to say, a weight is a covector belonging to the dual space H*."

To me, it seems that simple! In linear algebra, it is an uncontroversial statement that "linear functional" = "covector" = "one-form" are equivalent terms. If it really needs explicit support, there are surely thousands of standard texts I could cite if it really needs a little citation box thingy to the upper right of it. (Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines ? I just don't know how often to make such citations.)

(After reading slightly more about the citation policies, it seems that it may be okay for inline citations to actually be Very Often. If it is OK and expected that statements in mathematics be heavily supported by citations... I don't have a problem with learning to do that! If Wikipedia wants/needs/requires it, I say: I'm surely fine with making lots of citations.)

But I'm scared that somebody else might say "This is unnecessary. Stop adding edits like this." And get mad at me because they immediately understood without issue that "a linear functional = covector = a weight is a covector", and they feel it's just clogging the article to make that intuition-building fact unambiguously clear.

All I want to do is help ease people, learners, on their path to understanding the same things it took me extra work to learn. Inside me, profoundly I feel this is a kind thing to do. But I am so anxious about it being seen as annoying or unhelpful or "unprofessional".

---

Thanks again for your consideration, your time, and your patience. As you can probably tell, these worries have been brewing about inside me for a Long Time. I feel deeply drawn to, and pushed to, helping people, adding insight, clarifying little things, doing whatever I can to improve an already truly astonishing resource (Wikipedia) for the world's information.

All I want to do is find a way I can do it, to pitch in, help out, without... bothering everyone. And doing it all wrong and violating all the rules in the process and making people angry. Because I do care about the rules and doing it right and being nice to people, because people matter.

I care A Lot. 76.125.192.226 (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, IP editor! The following essays may be of interest to you: WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE.

Generally, if you're not sure whether an edit will be useful, you can propose it on the talk page first and invite discussion. You can also notify related WikiProjects to gather more interest, eg. WP:WPMATHS. If you don't find any willing participants after a while, feel free to be WP:BOLD and add your contributions. If anyone then has a problem with them, they should see you're acting in good faith and they might revert and discuss with you as per WP:BRD. Don't fear too many harsh words - if anyone responds unprofessionally to your edits, they're the one who is in the wrong. People here tend to be generally polite, understanding and helpful. HerrWaus (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Additions / edits removed without any explanation.

I spent several days editing a few links on this existing so-called 'stub' page. They were reverted.

Michael Stuart Ani

No explanation. As I made the edits, I reviewed some of the basic Wiki requirements, and am not sure which of my edits failed, and again the administrator didn't say why, just 'too many problems'. For example, I found other living people had links to their various social media pages, so that shouldn't be the issue. Finding authentic links on social media is important to ensure that person's official social media pages are found, and not copycats. I added ISBN reference - deleted. I added career update from 2019 and reference to a registered non-profit's web page - deleted. I added an interesting book review from an obscure source - a Chinese/English art magazine- deleted.

The area where this person is known is in indigenous metaphysical & religious knowledge. I don't know if that influenced this administrators decision, since nothing was said. This area is historically ignored by western media, (while society literally outlawed indigenous religious rituals). So references are hard to find. I did find a few and tried to add into the page.

When I looked at that administrators talk page, another user had a similar complaint, and another complained about losing a draft sandbox, also without initial explanation. I made several statements on the Ani talk page, but no one responded. Do I need to write directly on that administrators talk page to get a response? That seems confrontational.

In course of researching links, I found about a dozen non-profits that focus in this indigenous area, and none appeared to have Wiki pages. This makes it harder to ensure correct references. I started to draft a new page for just one such wiki (see my sandbox). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fbcooper/sandbox

I haven't submitted this new page, since I don't know what was wrong about the few edits I made to an existing page, and my experience with Wiki isn't positive at this point.

If Wiki admins don't bother explaining their choices, why does Wiki say 'please help us improve this stub', and then have administrators say they are too busy to explain? Since Wikipedia has claimed it wanted to be more balanced in covering indigenous topics, why not make effort to educate how to expand details on these areas? Or if an administrator is too busy to explain themselves, perhaps they should not edit other people's work.

Thank you for your consideration. Fbcooper (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Fbcooper, you say: "For example, I found other living people had links to their various social media pages, so that shouldn't be the issue. Finding authentic links on social media is important to ensure that person's official social media pages are found, and not copycats." Wikipedia is, unfortunately, riddled with poor-quality articles. We don't want to increase their number. Ani has what's described here as an "official" website. He's most welcome to provide links there to his "social media" addresses. So, let's look at the recent deletions. Here's one chunk: "He first lived in Mexico’s remote Sierra Mazateca cloud forest of Oaxaca from the end of the 1960’s through the 1970’s. He was the only outsider to have ever been allowed into their sacred cloud forests, and still returns as often as he can to visit the Mazateca indigenous community there." No reference. Why should the reader believe this? -- Hoary (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fbcooper: you asked Do I need to write directly on that administrators talk page to get a response? That seems confrontational. What you're looking for is officially called a mention notification, but everyone says "ping" for short. On any talk page where you post a message that you will sign (like here) you can add a link to the user's page and they will get a notification. There are several ways to do so, most often using the {{u}} or {{reply to}} templates. In this post, I've pinged you with the "reply to" template and in the post above, Hoary has done so by manually linking to your user page. (That previous sentence creates a ping to Hoary using the "u" template.)

When you post a message to an article's talk page, it often helps to ping specific editors. In your case, I see two editors who have reverted content that you've added to the article. It looks like Hoary already touched on the article content. If you are thinking about writing articles from scratch, I would highly suggest reading the essay, Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward. I think it's the best introduction for new users. Take care, Rjjiii (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Rjjiii, this started as a stub created by a different editor back in 2017. Fbcooper, I am a bit surprised by the deletion of "Michael Stuart Ani. Heather Vuchinich (ed.). Ghost Dance - An Untold History of the Americas. ISBN 978-1535547659." (Bbb23 might comment on its deletion.) However, this book, unpromisingly, was published by CreateSpace (the vanity-publishing tentacle of Amazon), and it's rare for reviewers, libraries, etc to bother with books that CreateSpace puts out. -- Hoary (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but the editor also mentioned a Sinchi Foundation draft [2] and when I took a look, the references are either primary sources or other articles here. Rjjiii (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Rjjiii, oopsie, yes, you're right of course. -- Hoary (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fbcooper: Ping ({{ping|Bbb23}}) and ask Bbb23 for an explanation, and hopefully reach a consensus. As other editors have pointed out, there are referencing problems with your revisions, but too many problems doesn't look great when held up to WP:REVEXP- which I suggest you read. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Help

How can I find the cite web template via "<ref name=O_D_summ>", "<ref name=777_O_D_summ>", and "<ref name=BoeingOD>" in the editing page of article Boeing 777?

Because this is a featured article of English Wikipedia and I would like to translate this to Chinese Wikipedia and send to W:zh:WP:FAC if I can. Sinsyuan~Talk 08:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Sinsyuan, the named references and other parts of that article are transcluded from this other article: List of Boeing 777 orders and deliveries. See Help:Labeled section transclusion for an explanation. Rjjiii (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I think there's no named-reference transclusion (Labeled section transclusion) in Chinese Wikipedia, so I have a difficulty finding those for editing. Thanks! Sinsyuan~Talk 09:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sinsyuan: Since your OP mentioned translation, you might want to take a look at WP:TRANSLATEUS for some general information on what's expected when you translate English Wikipedia articles into other languages. The most important thing to remember is that you need to make sure you properly attribute the original source article in order to comply with Wikipedia's licensing. You should also remember that each Wikipedia has it's own policies and guidelines. So, your translation will need to be in compliance with whatever Chinese Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are. If you already are aware of what to do, then good luck with your translation. However, if this is your first time doing such a thing, the TRANSLATEUSE page contains information that you may find helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Sinsyuan~Talk 10:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Are the sources not reliable?

I created a new page for Kojo Soboh and it has been flagged for deletion because the sources provided are not reliable. I doubt the claim since the links used are from notable media houses in Ghana Siagoddess (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Notablity does not confer reliablity. Anyway the deletion discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kojo Soboh. No need to discuss it here. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Where Can I make a Page?

I am new in Wikipedia. I don't know where I can make a page. If anyone can tell me where I can make one it would be helpful. JIsUN (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We prefer to use the term "article" instead of "page", which has a broader meaning. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform here, and it is recommended that instead of diving right in that you first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to learn how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial is also a good idea. If you still want to draft a new article now, please read Your First Article and then go to Articles for creation. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Easiest thing to do is to search the intended title of the page to check if it exists or not. If it doesn’t, then you can click on the first red link that appears. This should take you to a creation page.

Do note however, that you really have to sure the page will contain notable material before you attempt to create it. If you’re not sure it is, then consider proposing the idea to the Wikipedia Articles for Creation service. Pablothepenguin (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, JisUN. Please note that despite what Pablothepenguin says, the system will not let you create a new article by picking a red link until you are autoconfirmed (which means that you have made 10 edits and been here 4 whole days); and even once you are autoconfirmed, I would very very very strongly advise you not to try and create an article in that way, but to follow 331dot's advice. ColinFine (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Are the sources from The List of Newspapers in (Country) reliable?

Hi! Just recently found out that there are these List of Newspapers in different countries (example: List of newspapers in the Philippines). My question is, are they all considered reliable? If not all, how will I know which ones are reliable and which are not? Thank you in advance for your answers. Bmjc98 (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Many newspapers are not reliable, but sometimes it's difficult to tell which they are. I suggest you check out Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Getting a faster AfC review outside of WikiProject tagging

Hello! Retired from Wikipedia a few years back, but back after quite a bit of time and getting back into editing! I recently drafted Draft:Tekesha Martinez and noticed the ~4 month timeline on getting drafts reviewed in the AfC process. I know the box at the top suggests tagging a few WikiProjects and going on their respective talk pages asking for a review, though I've noticed the WikiProjects I've tagged have either become somewhat inactive or don't generally see requests for reviews on talk pages. I was wondering if y'all had any suggestions on other ways to possibly get a faster AfC review — I also know that it's possible to just move it to mainspace myself though I'm a bit wary to do so after not editing for 6 years! MrWooHoo (T • C) 15:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, MrWooHoo, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is that there is no reliable way of getting a quick review, (and some editors see attempts to do so as trying to game the system). The four months is an (approximate) worst case - there is no queue and no order: it depends on when a reviewer chooses to pick it up. Drafts that are obviously not acceptable tend to get declined pretty quickly, but those that take more work can take longer.

What I notice in your draft is that there are several citations of primary sources (the Election Commission, and interview with her). When I see a lot of these in a draft, I wonder if the writer is desperately trying to pad out an inadequacy of secondary sources. Since you have journalistic sources for her election, what does it add to cite a primary source as well? ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ColinFine! Thanks for getting back to me super quickly. Totally forgot that interviews are deemed primary sources so will cut those out/replace them since there is a decent amount of secondary source coverage. MrWooHoo (T • C) 18:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggested Edits

In `Suggested Edits` we are shown the pages based on our preferences. But the contents are very random(since it might be just checking the keywords in pages) most of the suggestion I get is not interesting. Is there any provision to make it more restrictive? For eg: I am interested in Computer Science edits. But I get edits about fiction, finance etc.. Wikieditor 2027 (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Wikieditor 2027 Have you tried SuggestBot? That can be made to give suggestions within Projects you are interested in. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Need help with getting an article published

I am working on a page that has been rejected, and I am now trying to work around the issues but need some help with the same! Samyraasmund (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Art.espionage - 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Samyraasmund, and welcome to the Teahouse. You appear to be talking about Draft:Art.espionage - this was declined not rejected, which means that the reviewer thought that it might be worth improving and trying again; and I see you have resubmitted it.

I am not a reviewer, but in my view, there is far far far too much detail about each of the individuals, most of it either unreferenced, or only referenced to the artist themselves. This means that it reads very much as promotion which is forbidden on Wikipedia. Note that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.

I suspect that you have made the extremely common mistake of writing your draft WP:BACKWARD, and the best thing to do would be to study your first article and start again from the beginning. Personally I would never advise anybody to try the challenging task of creating a new article before they have spent several months making improvements to existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works. ColinFine (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Samyraasmund First, remove all hyperlinks from the text. Second, in the descriptions of the artists, remove all of the content in italics, which is what the artists have written about themselves. David notMD (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Artifical Intelligence

He'll all. I know that you probably don't know anything about it, but will AI take over Wikipedia in a few years time, or will Wikipedia always have human editors on it? Looking forward to hearing your response, Roads4117 (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Roads4117. There is ongoing discussion: see WP:AI, and WP:LLM. ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Colin. Roads4117 (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

i'd say "not right now lmao" for pretty much one main reason

ai in general is absolutely terrible at saucing things, and loves making things up

there have been a few cases of people trying to pass their ai written drafts as made by them, and going "idk it's what chatgpt wrote" when asked why the books they mentioned didn't exist cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 18:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Good point, thanks Cogsan :-) Roads4117 (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

we needddddddd a box of blocks roor here

is there any real problem with asking for a ~30 minute block to see how certain things work? cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 18:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cog-san, I'm not sure what you're asking (and your header makes very little sense) - you want to be blocked for half an hour just to see what it's like? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I can block you on https://test.wikipedia.org if you want cogsan ;) --Thanks, Framawiki (please notify me when you reply) 19:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@199,208.172.35 it's a line from some_engineers_make_a_buildin_2day.sylveon, so don't think too hard about it

@Framawiki it's just a thing i wanted to know for the sake of knowing it, so don't worry too hard about it cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 19:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Completed edits of Draft and would now like to have it considered to be published

I have completed ten edits and taken comments on board. I would now like my final draft to be considered to be published. What must I do next. Perhaps someone more experienced can take a look and ascertain whether it now conforms to all regulations of Wikipedia. The article has been cut down dramatically from the original. All references considered to be promotional have been removed and all external links to museums and heritage sites related to the author's books have been removed. Suggested links to google books and other book sites have been added.

My page is Draft: Patric Tariq Mellet. Watsana13 (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added the submission information to allow you to submit your draft for review. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Your draft has zero independent reliable sources and that is what we base articles on. Theroadislong (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

There are four independent and reliable sources in the draft. Googlebooks, Worldcat Books Archive showing a number of Universities in South Africa and Internationally which hold archive copies of the best seller "Lie of 1652" which has had 6 reprints in two and a half years; Johannesburg Review of Books, Tafelberg NB Publishers (largest publishing house in South Africa). I provided much more which I have edited out because someone said that it was SPAM. I am the author, and the Book Covers and phot is my intellectual property by copyright. The well known Camissa Museum in Cape Town and also the Online Museum is my copyright too. Watsana13 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Watsana13, none of those demonstrate how you meet WP:NAUTHOR. It's entirely possible that one or more of your books meets WP:NBOOKS - it might be easier to focus on an article about them. Please review our guideline on editing with a conflict of interest - it is at WP:COI. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

So receiving Provincial Honours awarded for my groundbreaking work and dedication in the field of intangible heritage is not significant recognition; neither is the fact that I founded the Camissa Museum which was funded by the Kingdom of the Netherlands; my Best Seller now cited by many at universities and other fora around the world is also not recognition enough?; nor does it seem that my appointment by our Sports, Arts and Culture Minister of myself to the governance council of the premier state agency for heritage - the SA Heritage Resources Council. And there is much much more when it comes to my well known public contribution in South Africa. I get the clear impression that Wikipedia is simply censoring out the undesirable and going way beyond what is acceptable practice. There is no conflict of interest here. A very simple request has been coming my way from many students and experts in the field that would like me to have a presence on Wikipedia where all of my written work, museum work and other heritage projects could interface as a ready reference for students and other researchers. What started out as a simple mission has ended up not being worth the amount of time spent trying to deal with subjective and contradictory views. I would simply like to submit my piece for a final decision. I will accept the answer whether my contribution is accepted or rejected. That is very simple. Its not the end of the world if one is found to be undesirable to the Wiki "community". Watsana13 (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

331dot (talk) Where will I find this please. At this point I would just like to submit and leave the entire matter to final judgement of the assessors. This process has been like running a gauntlet. Most unpleasant. Watsana13 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I placed it at the top of your draft. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform here. It's even harder when writing about yourself. While not forbidden, it is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not interested in what you say about yourself, Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources say about you. 331dot (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it was inadvertently removed. I've readded it. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Watsana13, you have uploaded several images as your own work, including a photo of the subject and several book covers. Did you take all of these pictures? Do you own the rights to the cover art? Are you associated with this artist in any way? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

At Draft:Patric Tariq Mellet, references to his books contribute nothing toward confirming his Wikipedia notability. What is lacking is refs that are to publications about Mellet. David notMD (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I am Patric Tariq Mellet and can assure you that I am the author and I have copyright of the books and the photograph. This is my intellectual property, as stated in my books which are referenced in the article. I have also provided a review of my best seller book THE LIE OF 1652 in its sixth reprint in two and a half years. In my original post now edited down 10 times to the bare basics. The Johannesberg Review of Books; Tafelberg NB Publishers the largest and reputable publishing house i South Africa; Worldcat Book Archive with reference to a number of South African and International University Libraries stocking my books, and Googlebooks, are surely independent enough as sources for reference to the validity of the books and the author. The motivation for entering it on Wikipedia is the huge amount of requests from students at universities to ensure that it goes of Wikipedia as it helps students who search Wikipedia for reference works on important subjects. In my earlier drafts I included other references to both myself as author and to useful knowledge commons sites with which my books are associated, such as the SA Heritafe Resources Agency, The Castle of Good Hope heritage site, and the Camissa Museum. (the latter for which I have copyright). I was told that I was in infringement of copyright for the latter, and I was told that the museum sites and SA Heritage Resources Agency were SPAM sites. In South Africa I am recognised for my heritage work and have been awarded provincial honours for this work. This was also on an earlier version from which I removed it because rather than seeing this as a reference it was called "self-promotion". I am left even move confused now after so many contradictory statements. I can see why publishers have blacklisted Wikipedia referencing as unreliable. I do believe that this platform has some value, but clearly there also seems to be bias in its universality, and a tendency to be prejudiced. I just would like clarity as to how what I drafted can be adjudicated for publication or not. I will abide by the official decision. My overall experience so far has not been pleasant, and I have seen much much worse published, than my modest effort. Watsana13 (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Watsana13. Your draft currently has four references, all of which were written by Patric Tariq Mellet. What is required are references to significant coverage of Mellet in reliable sources that are entirely independent of Mellet. This is a universal requirement for all new articles, and there is no bias involved. You say that you have "seen much much worse published". You are free to nominate articles that are much worse for deletion. Please be aware that the English language Wikipedia currently has 6,685,019 articles, many of which are of poor quality. Experienced editors work 24 hours a day, seven days a week to either improve poor quality articles or delete them. We do not accept more articles that do not comply with our policies and guidelines just because other non-compliant articles exist. Despite all of this, Wikipedia remains a top ten website worldwide, with billions of page views each month. Cullen328 (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

None of the four references that I refer to are written by myself. I neither own nor write for Googlebooks, WorldCat, Tafelberg NB Publishers, or Johannesburg Book Review. You clearly seem to have a literacy problem or prejudiced bias to come to the conclusion that these are not independent reliable sources. Some articles, particularly about Camissa Africans aka "Coloured" on Wikipedia reference me and my work already, but regardless of your editorial expertise and 6 685 019 articles (not accepted as unbiased and factual by publishers nor universities) you seem ignorant of the fact that I am quoted for my expertise. I cannot continue to waste my time here. Perhaps Wiki needs some anti-monopoly competition. Certainly the anti-African bias needs to be challenged by an truly Universal approach to learning reference materials. Watsana13 (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Watsana13 I will repeat myself. Currently, there are four references. All indicate you are the author of your publications. That contributes nothing to confirming notability. There are also description of reviews of your works. Reviews can contribute to establishing notability, but only if properly formatted as references, not hyperlinks. Basically, you are dabbling in a space without understanding the rules and are complaining about why your flawed efforts have resulted in your draft being declined. Declare conflict of interest (WP:COI) on your User page, fix stuff and try again. Or not. And realize that if you do succeed, the article will not be owned by you. Other editors will be able to add content as long as it is verified by references. David notMD (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Watsana13, please take a look at the "References" section of your own draft. There are four references and you are shown as the author of all four. Google Books is not an independent reliable source devoting significant coverage. It is a comprehensive database that attempts to catalog every published book. The same is true of WorldCat - also a database of every book, and not a source of any value for establishing notability. Tafelberg NB Publishers issued two of your books, so is obviously not an independent source, and is of no value in establishing notability for an author from any country on earth. As for the coverage in the The Johannesburg Review of Books, that is an book excerpt written by you with some additional content written by your publisher. That is clearly not an independent source. I am sorry, but it is clear that you have not bothered to familiarize yourself with the basic requirements for an author biography that apply worldwide. That results in your accusations of anti-African bias ringing hollow. Cullen328 (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

help with draft needed

For this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yves_Winkin I'm trying to respond to critique. I do not understand the comment that I need to use footnotes - I have 31, so what am I missing? I also do not understand the comment about inappropriate use of bold - the only bold is the subject's name, and I can't find anything saying to use more bold, just less. I think I've managed to introduce a better structure to the whole (adding section headings), and hopefully have taken out anything that might seem subjective, which were the other two critiques. (I posted a note to the Wikipedia help channel, but 20 minutes later have no response.) Leeds-hurwitz (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

never mind - I got help on the other forum Leeds-hurwitz (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:HERE question

Does the third section of WP:HERE, i.e. "A focus on encyclopedia building," reflect any specific policy of Wikipedia? Like, I assume having editors around whose contributions are mostly unconstructive (but civil and not POV-pushing) contributions to talk pages and ANI (say) is not for the best. But is there any policy that discourages that? ByVarying (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@ByVarying: People who are stirring trouble can be blocked. But simply being wrong sometimes is not enough. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ByVarying, welcome to the Teahouse. WP:HERE is an essay, but WP:Disruptive editing is a guideline, and WP:NOT is policy. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Notability

I keep getting declined due to my sources, I have made use of every possible coverage of the organisation and I am still encountering difficulties in approval by moderators. link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Corona_School,_Ikoyi Wikicorrections26 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Wikicorrections26, welcome to the Teahouse. If you've used every possible bit of coverage and notability still has not been demonstrated, then it's likely that the subject is just not (yet) notable by our standards, and an article is not (yet) possible. This doesn't mean it's not a great school - just that it doesn't qualify for an article. Many worthy things do not.

As an aside, Wikipedia does not have moderators. We have administrators, but their tools are used to deal with behavioral issues, not content issues. The folks who review Articles for Creation submissions are reviewers - very experienced fellow editors. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for this excellent response! I will continue to look for sources, but if you don't mind, could you have a look at my draft and assess whether it is worthy of approval. Also, please can I have a link to publication sites that meet the reliable status quo.

Best regards! Wikicorrections26 (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Wikicorrections26, as it stands, your draft looks far from ready to me (note that I am not an AfC reviewer!). If you go to WP:RS/PS you'll see a list of commonly discussed sources and the community's opinion on their reliability or lack thereof. It's not a comprehensive list, just a list of commonly discussed sources over at WP:RSN, but it will give you some idea of what to look for. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Wikicorrections26. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It is not a comprehensive list but should give you a sense of the type of sources considered reliable. I also suggest that you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools. Articles about primary schools are usually kept only when the school is of obvious historic or architectural significance. The vast majority of primary schools are not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

License problem

Doubt whether the license holder of the following file is in reality the license holder or not.

File:Jasprit Bumrah In 2023.jpgজয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা, welcome to the Teahouse for English Wikipedia. This is best handled at Commons, where the image is being hosted along with many other images from the same uploader. You can start a discussion with the uploader on their Commons talk page - here - or, if you have evidence to back up your doubt, nominate the image for deletion per c:Commons:Deletion policy. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Block

Considering the kind of abusing language User talk:Proctorr127 has been using which is even to the extent of punishable offence in India, the user should be blocked without any further notice. Also, I, days earlier, made some comments in his talkpage in the heat of the moment (currently visible in his talk page), which I apologised later humbly in my talk page জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা, issues with user conduct should be brought up at WP:ANI. Follow the instructions at the top of the page. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I know it, it was once described as the 'Hornest's nest' but that was a different story. Actually, I want some advice from a veteran in this context before raising the issue over there. Thanks জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

199.208.172.35 is correct. But I have blocked the account indefinitely and WP:REVDELed some edits. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks my dear. জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

creating an article

Hi! I am trying to add an article to wiki abut a professional athlete (also happens to have a similar name to the people who already have an article on the website) and some people keep deleting it. What an I doing wrong? Maria u1 (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Maria u1: Do not try to change an existing article. Create a new draft following the guidance at WP:YFA and then if the draft is approved it will be moved to become an article. RudolfRed (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Maria u1, you have been editing a redirect page, and trying to convert it into an article. This is the wrong approach and you need to stop. Spend some time reading and studying Your first article instead. Cullen328 (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

thank you! I have just created an article using the article wizard and I guess now it is pending review. I am not sure if I should remove Draft from the name or it should not be done by me. My biggest concern is the the person in this article shares a name with two other athletes and there may be confusion Maria u1 (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Changing a title is actually done by 'moving' the page, not by editing the title text, but you don't need to worry about that. The piece is correctly prefixed "Draft:" because it's still in 'Draft space', not 'Article space'. If and when a reviewer accepts the Draft as an Article, they will carry out the necessary move and will also take care of 'disambiguating' the new article from others, typically by adding something like "(athlete)" to the name – they may also add similar additions to other articles already using the name, and perhaps create a 'Disambiguation page' for the bare name that lists and links all the different articles that include it, such as "John Doe (musician)", "John Doe (actor)", "John Doe (athlete)" etc.

That said, I have glanced at your draft and, although I'm not a reviewer, I'm fairly sure your draft will be 'Declined' in its current state. Don't be discouraged, this means that the subject is probably notable enough to qualify for an article, but the draft is not yet good enough, and needs improvement in areas the reviewer will specify. (If it's thought the subject inherently cannot qualify for an article, the draft would be 'Rejected', but I think a professional athlete in a major sport will almost certainly be provably notable – see Wikipedia:Notability (sports) for the most relevant criteria.)

Amongst things I noticed is that, particularly in the Lede paragraph, there are various subjective positive statements about the subject (thus contravening the Neutral Point of View policy), and many of the statements of fact in the text appear not to be cited to published Reliable sources. All this can be worked on (and even if you're waiting for a review, you can continue doing so). Hope this is helpful {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Dmitry Osipov has been submitted for review. This may take days, weeks, or sadly, months, as there is a backlog of thousands of drafts. The system is not a queue. Do not remove "Draft". If a reviewer accepts, that will be handled, and there will be a differentiation in titles. David notMD (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! The article is currently under review, and I have edited it to make it as neutral as possible. Maria u1 (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Much of your content is not verified by references. David notMD (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

added as many as I could now without basically repeating the same source with all the stats and transactions between the teams. Hopefully it is better. Maria u1 (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Unable to format my page for US rocket pioneer

Hello,

Because it doesn't exist I started a wiki page for American rocket pioneer Edward S Forman who was one of the founders of Aerojet Corporation. His name appears on many other wiki pages...Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory, Frank Malina, Jack Parsons, but there's no landing page for him). He has been written about in books as well as press. Unfortunately I completely stalled out because the formatting was way too difficult for me. My sandbox page start has now been sitting unfinished for 5 years. I'm a professional writer so the writing, references and citations are no problem. It's the page building. Do you have freelancers who will actually build the page for me?

Thank you LynnMaginnis (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

LynnMaginnis, all the references currently cited in User:LynnMaginnis/sandbox/Edward Forman are to a single book that's about somebody other than Forman. So, currently, the referencing is a problem. (Please see WP:GNG.) The freelancers would have to search for information about Forman. As for the formatting, you've done it pretty well; what's the particular problem that you face? -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for getting back to me. The article is much longer and uses multiple references. I had to quit writing in the sandbox so started writing the rest of the draft in Pages/Words. Getting what little is there on the page formatted was so frustrating and time consuming I had to quit. I can't do the sidebars, indexes, expanded photo boxes with birth, death, organizations, etc. I don't need freelance writers. I have plenty of sources. I need freelance page builders. LynnMaginnis (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

LynnMaginnis, I've already made a few edits to formatting. A sidebar or expanded photo box (or "gallery") is completely unnecessary. The list of contents has been generated automatically, and if you add or subtract headers then the list of contents will be updated automatically. Formatting tables prettily is tiresome but you probably won't need any table; formatting anything else is pretty easy: just try; and if you're stuck, ask here. (Free of charge!) -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

PS LynnMaginnis, if by "freelancer" you mean somebody who'd do this for payment, please forget the idea. It's unlikely to bring a happy result, for any of a number of reasons. -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

So who can help me? Wouldn't Wikipedia want to fill in the missing history of a person who is mentioned on your other pages? LynnMaginnis (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Really, LynnMaginnis, do your best to DIY. Easier for you, after a little initial irritation. If/when you get stuck, ask. If you're using Pages or Word, one problem you'll probably face is that plain, single quotation marks (' ') will be autotransformed into "typographic" single quotation marks (‘ ’). Their italicizing and emboldening functions will thereby be lost. Solution: Copy out of Word/Pages and paste into a text editor; use the text editor (I use Geany but any should be OK) to convert "typographic" quotation marks to plain ones; continue editing in the text editor. -- Hoary (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

LynnMaginnis, we can help you here at the Teahouse as often as you want, but you are going to have to do most of the work yourself. Your content should be in the draft where experienced editors can see it, not in some "Pages/Words" document off-Wikipedia. Do not worry about sidebars, indexes, expanded photo boxes with birth, death, organizations, etc. because all of that is secondary. What matters far more that that stuff is well written, neutral, well referenced encyclopedic prose. On another note, you uploaded File:Ed Forman1.jpg, a photo taken by a staff photographer at Noel Studio in Pasadena in 1931 or 1932. You claimed that photo as your own work. With all due respect, I consider it unlikely that you were a professional portrait photographer in 1931 or 1932 and are now editing Wikipedia in 2023. The math seems implausible. Please clarify the provenance of this photo. Cullen328 (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Teahouse Hosts are generalists, here to advise on Wikipedia practices, but not be co-authors. Consider the Malina and Parsons articles as models. David notMD (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

If we don't know when the copyright holder of the photograph died, and if we have no compelling reason to think that the photograph predates 1932, then according to Prof Hirtle we have to assume that it remains copyright until 2052. (Thanks, Disney Corp!) So I'd be looking for a published photograph to replace it. -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

So did you delete the photo and box that I had? This morning I see it's gone now. I wanted to fix it instead of start over. LynnMaginnis (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@LynnMaginnis, it was removed by Theroadislong as a potential copyright violation. It still exists over on Commons (link) but it will be deleted in six days unless you can provide proof that it is not a copyright violation. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course I am not claiming provenance on the photo...the error is there because I have trouble with the tools. Even in Visual Editor, which is all I could use..,.forget html source code. I am using the Jack Parsons pages as a model. I am a 77 year old grandmother trying to fill in a gap of history. I'm pretty surprised at how unfriendly and critical some people have been on this forum. LynnMaginnis (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this tip LynnMaginnis (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Hoary on the text editor. LynnMaginnis (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary ... I think it was you that cleaned up my citations (the a,b,c format with one source footnote instead of several), which was one of my issues. How did you do that? I've seen it on other pages but didn't know how it was done. LynnMaginnis (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

LynnMaginnis, yes it was me, and this (which incidentally is called a "diff" in Wikipedia-editing-speak) was the edit. It shows you precisely what I did, but I realize that it may not be so easy to understand and digest (one reason being that I moved one quasi-paragraph from the foot of the draft to its head, thereby getting other paragraphs out of sync). ¶ I noticed that you had several references to the same book, each reference being to a specific page, or page span, of that book. (What you'd done had a system to it, and it's an entirely legitimate way of referencing: please keep reading.) I guessed that this was a draft that would eventually cite a larger number of sources, and that (my personal preferences aside) the existing referencing system would make it unnecessarily hard to edit, without particularly benefiting its readers. And so I retained one of your references, renaming it from the opaque ":0" to the slightly less forgettable "angel", and removing the page number, for which I instead used Template:Rp. Thereafter, you, or I, or anyone, could refer to the book via combinations such as <ref name="angel" />{{Rp|page=125}} and <ref name="angel" />{{Rp|pages=32–34}}, etc.; the labeling of each instance as "a", "b", "c", etc would be automated by Wikipedia's software. ¶ As mentioned above, I happen not to like the system you had used (entirely separate references for each cited page, or page-span, of a book), but it is a system, and Wikipedia makes it very clear that "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change." So, very unusually, I broke a rule here. I did so because in this particular situation "seeking consensus" seemed likely to do little more than further confuse and annoy. -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@LynnMaginnis Have you tried using Visual Editor? That will look and behave more like a word processing program than source code. -- asilvering (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

asilvering, I only used the Visual Editor, and when I struggled with that I figured there was no hope for doing myself. LynnMaginnis (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Alas, sorry to hear it. But it really does look fine so far. Don't worry too much about making it look perfect. Most articles that go through draft reviews at AfC have some kind of formatting error or other. There are editors who seem to actually enjoy fixing those minor things, adding infoboxes, and so on, and it's perfectly acceptable to leave some of that for someone else if you're getting frustrated. If your draft has citations that are so broken a reviewer doesn't know what they are, that's a problem. Otherwise, don't sweat it. -- asilvering (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the insights asilvering. LynnMaginnis (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello LynnMaginnis. Back in 2010 I’d had a few magazine articles published, but was intimidated by the Wikipedia article process. Here’s what helped me. I created my encyclopedia article offline, adding the formatting as I wrote, using Help:Cheatsheet. For needed formatting I didn’t know I’d find a published article that contained what I wanted to learn, and clicked on "Edit" to see the formatting.

When my draft was finished I went to Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1/Ready for submission and, for my first article, I used the draft option. I copied and pasted my article title into “Enter your draft name here”, then copied my article manuscript, clicked on "Create new article draft" and pasted the article in the space provided below the Instructions section. After that I clicked on "Show preview" to see what needed corrected. The next step was clicking on "Publish page" which saved everything to the public drafting area. I then had the option to come back later to work on the draft some more, or I could click on "Edit" then add subst:submit (with double brackets around it) at the beginning of my draft, which indicted that I wanted my draft to be reviewed. I am thankful that I received a Notice informing me that my article had been accepted. I hope that you find this helpful. Karenthewriter (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks sooooo much Karenthewriter. This is the kind of nuts and bolts help I need. Glad your article was accepted! LynnMaginnis (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Copyright Images

How do I identify that which images are copyrighted or which are non copyrighted on News websites, so that I can upload copyright free images on wiki articles. And also should I upload AI generated image on Wikipedia because they are non copyrighted WikiAnchor10 (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Unless something specifically says otherwise, assume it is copyrighted. Only very old images will be out of copyright and anything licensed for reuse will say so. RudolfRed (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Creating a page for a young company

Perhaps someone can help me or point me in the right direction? I am writing about an Autonomous Driving company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Inceptio_Technology. The company has been around for only 5 years so there are not a lot of independent sources, just press releases. I looked at companies like TuSimple which is in the same business space. How did they get approval for publication when their sources are about the same as ours? Just1544 (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

You can see the guidance at WP:NCORP. If you can't find in-depth coverage in an independent reliable source, then it is WP:TOOSOON. A quick glance at the other article seems to show sources such as Wall Street Journal, IEEE, and Forbes, but I didn't look at those in-depth. RudolfRed (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

If it is considered too soon, what do you suggest? How do some companies get published? Just1544 (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Just1544, TuSimple didn't "get approval for publication". Instead 1namesake1 created it and nobody has yet suggested that it should be deleted or "draftified". Its sources aren't obviously bad, although, like RudolfRed, I haven't looked at all closely. Which of its sources would you say are mere press releases? -- Hoary (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you consider WSJ not press releases? Just1544 (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Just1544, as WSJ is behind the Great Paywall of Murdoch, I'm unfamiliar with it; however, en:Wikipedia says it's usable. -- Hoary (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for your insight. Is there anything you would suggest? I read the WP:TOOSOON article; it was not helpful since it focused on actors and films. Just1544 (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Just1544 depends on the piece. Does it have a byline? Then it's probably not PR. -- asilvering (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that the IBM article, there are articles that have nothing to do with IBM; their CEO played in a charitable golf tournament and that was considered "relevant." My own sources are from independent tech journals. Just1544 (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Gosh. I just looked at TuSimple, and I'm truly not sure what to say if you think the sources on your draft are equal to the ones on that article. -- asilvering (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you please clarify? Just1544 (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I really am not sure what to say; that wasn't hyperbole. Your draft has 8 sources, none with apparent bylines, none from major, mainstream news outlets, almost all announcements, none features. TuSimple has 20 sources, most cited multiple times, including coverage of controversies, from a variety of outlets including Reuters and WSJ, almost all with bylines. This is a spot-the-difference exercise for which I have been given two completely different images. -- asilvering (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Just1544, and welcome to the Teahouse. Some of the phrases you use above suggest that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. You ask How do some companies get published? The answer is that companies don't "get published". Somebody writes an article about a company - preferably somebody with no connection to the company, but somebody with a connection is permitted to do so if they are open about it and follow Wikipedia's policies. That article does not belong to the company, and it is not in any way for the company's benefit. (Obviously, many companies, and people, do benefit from Wikipedia having an article about them, but that is incidental, and no part of Wikipedia's purpose. Some people and companies wish there were not an article about them: see An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.)

You ask If it is considered too soon, what do you suggest? My answer is "stop trying to write about this company, and work on something else". If the company does not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then continuing to work on the draft is not only a complete waste of your time and effort, but is not adding any value to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

WikipediAn Heroes?

Hello,

My question is if any Wikipedia editors have become an hero, and if so, would anyone be interested in having an memorial page dedicated to them? I have an associates degree in web design and I am very familiar with an range of webpage syntax, so creating an memorial page in Wikipedia space would be as easy as one two three for this guy. Thanks. Rodthrust (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rodthrust Wikipedia is not a place for memorials Lightoil (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

While @Lightoil is correct - Wikipedia articles are not memorials, Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians does exist which may be the sort of thing @Rodthrust is looking for. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rodthrust An hero? As in, successfully committing suicide? And you propose we glorify that? Either you have a serious moral disability or this is obscene trolling bait which you should be banned for. Please do reconsider! Jaiquiero (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Ancestry.com as only source of birth date

At this writing, I am preparing a draft page on Marlene Fanta Shyer, one of whose books (1983's Stepdog) I did a Wikipedia article for on Sunday morning (thanks to the Judith Schermer connection--for which you can thank my rescue mission on Mouse in House). After following Google search's lead--Shyer was born in 1932--I have nothing else for this date of birth except for this 1940 U.S.-census snippet provided by Ancestry.com, which is about as reliable as it gets for the time being. Not even Gale's Contemporary Authors listing mentions it. As such, putting my efforts on hold until I receive advice on how to handle this case, or get lucky with a secondary source somewhere. (Perhaps Newspapers.com--owned by the same company--might lend us a hand here before long?) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Slgrandson any chance it's on the copyright page of one of her books? -- asilvering (talk) 06:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Skimmed across the Open Library previews--highly doubtful. I'll keep looking. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia drafted article is completed. How do I get it published live to the public?

Hi everyone,

I am pleased to let you know that my drafted article for an actor is completed. How can I move forward to make it go live publicly?

Many thanks

Shivay Shivaay02 (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Shivaay02/sandbox

Shivaay02 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You should not attempt to publish it to the encyclopedia, as it is completely unsourced. All information about a living person in an article must be sourced, see the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Please see Referencing for Beginners. The best way to create and submit a draft is via Articles for Creation or the Article Wizard. I'm wondering if you are associated with this actor in some way. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Yes, I am associated with an actor. And the web links are already attached in the article. And no, I am not looking to publish it to encyclopedia. Thank you :) Shivaay02 (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

When most people say they want to make their draft "live to the public" they mean as part of the encyclopedia. Your draft is currently visible to anyone who can find it or knows where it is, though it is not searchable by outside search engines. If you don't want the draft in the encyclopedia, why are you writing it?

If you work for this actor(such as being their agent/representative) the Terms of Use require that to be declared, please read the paid editing policy. Regardless of the relationship, you need to declare a conflict of interest, please read WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I will need to send the drafted article for a final review first. How do I do that? Because today is the fourth day since opening my Wikipedia account. Shivaay02 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Right now your draft is completely unsourced, and would be declined quickly. You must make the required disclosure, then provide citations for the article content, see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

2021 Houston Astros season fix

Hello and good day. Go to above article, scroll down to pitching table section. Cant figure out how to get rid of double border on right side of table.Thanks for your help.Theairportman33531 (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Theairportman33531, Houston Astros is a long article, but doesn't have a section named "pitching table", nor any table that's obviously malformed. Maproom (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done You had a stray "|" character at the end of the "Totals" row, which was creating an empty column on the end. ColinFine (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 10:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help today. Theairportman33531 (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Making An Entry For A New Album

Hello there, I'm a music fan and am trying to create an entry for a new album that came out this year. I've managed to get the album page started and it's awaiting approval. But I have challenges with trying to get the album cover uploaded which, in tradition with Wiki album entries, should be in the 'infobox'.

There seems to be a hurdle in the 'rights' of the album cover.

I have looked at another example and from what I see, it can be uploaded by someone who does not own the image if it is a 'Non-free media information and use rationale'.

Here's an example of another artist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Anchoress_-_The_Art_of_Losing_(Album_Cover).jpg

But I do not know how to do this. Can anyone help? Or even upload the image for me? I would really appreciate it. Thank you! Martin 23M23 (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Martin, and welcome to the Teahouse. Non-free images (which album covers almost always are) cannot be used unless every one of the non-free content criteria is met. One of these is that the image is used in an article - it must not be used in a draft.

So, don't worry about the image until your draft has been reviewed and accepted. An image will not affect the review process. ColinFine (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks so much for your help. This is the first time I've created a page. Is there anyone on Wikipedia who can look at it to check I've done it correctly. Apart from making the new entry, it's also meant to be an nice birthday gift for someone, so I'm keen for it not to get pushed back by 4 months if I've done something wrong on the entry. Would be great to get an expert's eyes on it if that's possible. Thanks again 23M23 (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@23M23 Your article is rather brief, which may not be surprising given that it is about a recently-released album. You need to add more reviews, if possible. Also, at present it is an immediate "fail" because your citation #4 is linking to an image which is a copyright violation. Instead, use {{cite news}} to give the full citation to the original review in The Times. Sources do not need to be online to be used in articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, thank you very much for your help. I'll do as you suggest. Thanks! 23M23 (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@23M23 Also, your very first citation (which had an error I've fixed) was a Press Release by a PR Agency, which means it is not independent. To be acceptable, drafts need about three sources that conform to the golden rules. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello again Mike, thank you for making the fix. I followed everyone's kind advice on here and added a lot more. It's been several days of work getting all the information together for the article. There's a lot more to add, but it would be disappointing if it's not accepted for some reason that I am not aware of, so I will take a pause. If there's any chance you can give it another look now that I have added more information and give me any notes, that would be so appreciated. Thank you again! 23M23 (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you again, I'm having trouble with the 'Cite News' code. It ha s a url field to fill in. Do I still use the link to the image". This is the code I found:

{{cite news |last= |first= |date= |title= |url= |work= |location= |access-date=}} 23M23 (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello again, Martin. Please see Referencing for beginners. For most sources, a URL is an optional extra, a convenience for the reader. The important parts of the citation are things like title, author, publisher and date - so that a reader can find the source if they need it (even if they have to order it from a major library!), and can readily assess the likely value of the source (eg, is it a heavyweight newspaper, a book from a major publisher, or a chat magazine or a self-published blog? Is it likely to be independent of the subject, or is it an interview or based on a press release? Is it likely to contain significant coverage of the subject, or just a namecheck?)

Writing an article "as a birthday gift" is a really bad idea, for several reasons. First, in Wikipedia there is no deadline. If you were an experienced Wikipedia editor with a track record of accepted articles, you could safely bypass the WP:AFC process and create it directly, but otherwise the timescale is dependent on volunteer reviewers deciding to look at your draft. (If you try to create the article directly and it is not ready, New pages patrol will knock it back to Draft status anyway). If your draft is so egregiously bad that a reviewer can see at a glance that it is not acceptable, then it will probably get a swift review, but obviously that doesn't help you. What Wikipedia wants is high-quality articles, and it is quite willing to wait to get them.

The second reason is that a Wikipedia article is not for the benefit of the subject. Obviously, many people and organizations that have articles about them do benefit from it; but some definitely do not. Suppose you write a draft, and it is accepted, and in the future the subject becomes embroiled in some scandal: if that affair is reported in reliable sources, and is not trivial, you can expect that it will be added to the article - and neither you nor the subject will be able to get it removed. ColinFine (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

This is so helpful, thanks again. Actually, the main reason is to create an article of a recent and notable work that has becoem critcisally acclaimed in a short time. I was surprised it was not on Wikipedia. The birthday gift side of it is part of my nephew's interest in becoming a wikipedia contributor, to show him how one is done. Which is why i really appreciate all the help. I picked this subject because of the attention the record has garnered in terms of raising public awareness about mental health and technology, which I believe is a vital contribution to the cultural landscape and therefore important to include on Wikipedia. I hope as experts on Wikipedia, you're in agreement :-) 23M23 (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@23M23, Wikipedians generally appreciate a good cause - we tend to view Wikipedia itself as one. Just keep in mind that our #1 good cause around here is building a good encyclopedia, and other good causes, while important, are secondary to that. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It will be easy to add more reviews. There are a lot of them. I will start to do that. Really appreciate your help. 23M23 (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

First, you should verify that your sources are WP:RS and provide WP:SIGCOV for the topic while establishing WP:NOTABILITY per WP:NALBUM. McAynus (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

My new account

I'm a retired metallurgist and have been using Wikipedia for 20+ years. I have also contributed money to Wikipedia because I believe in the goal of making all human knowledge available for free to every human being with access to the internet.

Not sure how I can personally help but I would like to help if I can. Metalsguyiowa (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

If you want to help, that's great! Check out Help:Introduction for a guide to editing and Wikipedia:Task Centre for some suggestions. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Metalsguyiowa, welcome to the Teahouse. If you're interested in helping to improve science-related articles, you could head over to WikiProject Science and check out the various pages which explain what they're working on. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Experts who can also write in an encyclopaedic style, appropriate to the general reader, are a very valuable resource. Too many of our technical articles are either incomprehensible, outdated or wrong. If you can improve our technological articles to the level that we manage for actors/actresses and sporting teams, you'll be a wonderful asset! Happy editing! Elemimele (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Metalsguyiowa May I just add my thanks for your interest in helping improve articles. I'd like to emphasise that, as expert as you no doubt are, it's important that you don't simply try to add content from your own personal knowledge (as valid and correct as that may be). Nowadays, we need to ensure that anyone using Wikipedia can 'verify' any statement for themselves. To do that, it's essential that we use reliable, up-to-date references to sources that can be checked out by anyone with access to a library or the internet. They don't have to be online - books and periodicals are fine. But personal knowledge and personal websites don't quite 'cut the mustard'. It can be difficult to get the hang of things, at first. Just remember that, if you get stuck, the best thing is to ask questions and enjoy the learning adventure. Good luck!

BTW: we have a myriad of help pages and lots of friendly people here to help you if you get stuck. Just like driving a car, start slowly by doing small things at first, then work up to going on bigger journeys. Good luck with your own 'Wikipedia Adventure'. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry, Nick Moyes makes a very good point there. One of the best things the expert has in his or her head is a knowledge of which review articles have been useful, which books are widely read and accepted as reflecting the state of the art. It's really important to cite these sources. Elemimele (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible linkvio?

Is this citation on Dogs Playing Poker a possible linkvio due to linking directly to a copyrighted work without any context? Should it be removed?

On that note, I'm also not very certain of the whole article's notability. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 15:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, QuickQuokka. I agree with you about the linkvio, so I removed that. In my opinion, the topic is definitely notable, although the "Popular culture" section is very poorly referenced, as is common with articles like this. Cullen328 (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka: The topic is notable, but that "Popular culture" section needs to be gutted. Particularly for video games, if a game includes a trivial mention or brief appearance of such a painting and it isn't central to the game or otherwise significant, delete it. A good rule is, if we don't have an article on the popular culture topic, delete the entry. As a corollary, if we do have an article and there is no source cited about the painting, or if the article doesn't mention it, then delete the entry. "Popular culture" sections should be more than mere trivia. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

How to get the semiprotected paragraph back as it was?

i tried to change somethin in then text but i cant publish it because it says there is conflict, how to fix it? Eron Lushaj (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Eron Lushaj: An edit conflict means that another editor wanted to edit that same page at the same time you did, so you may need to wait for them to publish their edit, and then you can make your edits. Hope this helps. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 15:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hi there! I have created an article that is been awaiting review now, and the person has the same name to people already having articles on wikipedia (both are athletes and play hockey, but in different contries and have different birthday). A comment about disambiguation was placed on the article, and my question is - do I need to do something or it will be done once the article is reviewed? I don't want to make it confusing and alter the disambiguation page myself, since I was told it is not ok and can be vandalism. Thank you! Maria u1 (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Maria u1, welcome to the Teahouse. Don't worry about it - the accepting reviewer will take of that. The note is basically there to remind them of it when the time comes. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

thank you very much! I was worried that since it is the same name, my article will be deleted. Maria u1 (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Marking an edit as minor on mobile

How do I mark an edit as minor while editing on mobile? The option isn't appearing for some reason even though I can do it on my PC. Is there some sort of setting I have to change?  theomached  (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Theomached. Unfortunately, the mobile site is not fully functional. Fortunately, the desktop site works just fine on most mobile devices. If you scroll to the bottom of any page in mobile, there is a link that takes you to the desktop site. I do almost all of my editing that way on Android phones, and things work just fine. Cullen328 (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

... but if you do want to use the app and it prevents you from marking the edits as minor, don't worry about it! The minor-edit feature is not particularly important, often misused by new editors who don't know what "minor" means in WP's context, and no one is going to criticise you for failing to tag minor edits, especially if you have a suitable edit summary. Elemimele (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Location of publication, Place of publication

Visual edit has fields headed "Location of publication" and "Place of publication". The former is followed by "Geographical place of publication; usually not wikilinked; omit when the publication name includes place", the latter by "Publication place shows after title; if 'place' or 'location' are also given, they are displayed before the title prefixed with 'written at'". What is the difference? How should each be used?

I've searched the Teahouse and Help desk archives but not found anything mentioning both. Mcljlm (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mcljim. These are explained at Template:Cite book/doc#Description. It says If only one of publication-place, place, or location is defined, it will be treated as the publication place and will show after the title; if publication-place and place or location are defined, then place or location is shown before the title prefixed with "written at" and publication-place is shown after the title. So place or location (they are alternative names for the same parameter), if used as well as publication-place, show where the item (eg a news story or article) was written.

These are the names used with the template in the source editor. I'm not quite sure how they map on to the fields in the Visual Editor, because I've never used it. ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Writting A Article by Machine Translation

[DON'T USE MACHINE TRANSLATION!] why not? Machine translations are always 100% incorrect and wrong with source target language equivalent text? (I asked this question on wikpedia translation page but nobody does'nt give a answer that's why I am asking this question here again). Machine translations are wrong? is that the reason to don't use machine translation for wikipedia? NiesNi (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@NiesNi: (at least some of) the reasons are enumerated at WP:MACHINE. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be 100% wrong to be unusable. RudolfRed (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@NiesNi: You can use it as a starting point, but be wary of its flaws and don't believe every word it generates. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 19:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I dream of a world in which machine translation has become so good that it is no longer necessary to have wikipedias in multiple languages; a single version of an article could be instantly reflected in any language, and edits made in any language instantly embedded in the underlying article, which could be in any language or some machine-esperanto for that matter. But that day is not here yet. Even a very subtle misunderstanding can mess up an article. And many Wikipedia articles are on quite technical subjects, where a word may have a very specific, technical meaning. A good example is "civil" in law, which can either refer to law that is not criminal, military or religious, but can also mean "law derived from that of Ancient Rome". At the moment, a machine translation may appreciate we're in a legal context and not talking about lawyers saying "Good Morning" to one another in a civil manner, but it's highly unlikely to work out which legal meaning of civil is intended. Editors therefore need to have a very good understanding of what they're translating, and if your language skills are that good, it's unlikely a machine translation will be terribly useful. It is at best a sanity check, and a starting point. Elemimele (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Elemimele: You may be interested in the Abstract Wikipedia. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 20:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

QuickQuokka, well I'll be blowed: sumgly, I'm clearly an under-recognised genius (or fools seldom differ). It's impossible to have an original idea nowadays! Thanks for that fascinating link. Elemimele (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Changing a post

It was described as not helpful. But leaving out the political aspects of her talking points that come directly from politics seems misleading. Painting a false picture of a scientist is how we ended up with Fauci destroying the credibility of the medical system and the politics that govern them. I understand not agreeing with my point of view, but without information how do you expect to educate yourself in order to not be another pointless face in the crowd screaming about nonsense that is so unrealistic its astonishing. 2601:CF:80:2660:89C6:6A63:E251:B6E9 (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Note to other editors passing by: the edit in question clearly had ill intent and the editor is now WP:SEALIONING. Don't waste your time. WPscatter ^t/_c 19:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Note to those other editors: This revision was deleted for containing defamatory content. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 20:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Emailed the oversight team to suppress the defamatory edit QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 19:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Block

User talk:Surya7902 has been constantly taking pics from twitter of celebrities and claiming them to be his own, as he has done in Jasprit Bumrah. Let those images be removed and the user be blocked instantly. জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা: Hello! You are correct that it isn't allowed to upload random photos on the Internet here unless they're freely licensed, but files are uploaded at Commons, so you may want to take your request there. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 19:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not experienced enough to do that, that's why I asked here for aid from somebody veteran like you.

But the way that user has been uploading images, he should be immediately blocked in order to save our Wikipedia from copy scamp. জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা:  Reported -- QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 20:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I also filed a report at the Commons Administrators Noticeboard, জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা. Cullen328 (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Gracias জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা:  All their files were removed --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 21:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I've checked it, thanks again. জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Error in sorting/consistency for a category being alphabetized?

(Please forgive the extra spaces, I am making sure that the punctuation in my sentence is not confused with the stylized punctuation in the article titles.)

In the Category:Massively multiplayer online role-playing games in fiction, .hack , .hack (video game series) , .hack//G.U. , and .hack//Link are all alphabetically listed under "." but .hack//Quantum is listed under "H" . I checked the default category sorting options for .hack and .hack//Quantum , but they seem to be the same, so I'm not sure what's causing this. QuietCicada (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@QuietCicada: They are not the same. .hack doesn't even have a DEFAULTSORT so it sorts under the pagename which starts with a period. .hack//Quantum has {{DEFAULTSORT:Hack Quantum}} so it sorted under H before I added a different sortkey for the specific category.[3] See more at Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort keys. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! QuietCicada (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

How to change a picture of Town in Town page

Picture on our town's page is about as bad as it gets. I previously changed to one of our main park after discussion with town. Somehow picture back to another terrible one. What is the process to change it back to park picture. Buttheadsmith (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Buttheadsmith: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I don't see any activity in your contributions relating to any towns, however, if you would like to upload a photo of your town to Commons (that's where all the pictures are), it needs to be freely licensed.

You could take your own photo and release it under a free license, or find a freely licensed photo, or ask the author of a copyrighted photo to release the photo under a free license. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 21:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

We have the picture uploaded in commons by fogleew. I don't know how to get it from there to the town story. Buttheadsmith (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Buttheadsmith: That's wonderful there's now an image that can illustrate your town's page better! To see how you can add it to the page, see Help:Images. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 15:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Sanjana Ganesan

About 95 per cent of the article is uncited, containing hyperbole fan cruft. Shouldn't it be nominated for deletion? জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা:  Listed for deletion (again) QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 21:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা:  Deleted QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 16:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again 🙂 জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, First of all, I wish you a healthy and beautiful day.

I've been planning to send you a message for a while. We need to make some contributions on the OGUsers item.

OGUsers was created in 2017 by 2 partners. However, as one of the Partners was legally prosecuted, the Local Government confiscated the domain as it is Partner's property.

After this situation, they continued this process with the OGU.gg domain for a while. However, due to too many cyber attacks, they have updated their Name to "Flipd.gg" with its Current Name.

I urge you to take a look at the Flipd.gg website. You can see thousands of forum topics and active user records since 2017.

Fake imitation sites like ogusers.gg are constantly vandalizing the article to appear on the first page of Google.

I request you to review the information I have provided, update the Information and renew the item as a Protected item.

I also have multiple information about the Forum as I have been a registered member of the Forum since 2018. If you'd like to review additional information and documents, I can provide links URL links that can tally what we're saying.

I will be waiting for your positive or negative feedback.

Kind regards, KarsliPasha (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello @KarsliPasha and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you say that OGU.gg changed their name to Flipd.gg, could you provide the source? 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 23:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for your kindness.

There is an official description of the OGUsers owner here;

https://flipd.gg/Thread-Update--1056623

Also, if you visit the site, you will see that it is not a fake site. This is their official website.

If you examine the official Reddit address, where the Founders of the Community made a statement, they announced that Flipd.gg is an Official site to protect people from copycat sites.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ogusersforsale/

The reason for the rebranding of the OGU.gg founder is that he now wants to be a legal and secure Platform.

The owner of Swapd, a well-known forum, started a Discussion thread about it when the brand name changed, and there people said that the Ogusers site was updated to Flipd.

Link to discussion on Swapd site;

https://swapd.co/t/ogu-gg-old-ogusers-com-shut-down/852010

and

https://swapd.co/t/ogu-gg-old-ogusers-com-shut-down/852010/31

Also, if you look at the screenshot of any Ogusers.com site on Google Images, you can see that all the members and topics you see on flipd.gg are present in perfect shape.

If you want more information, let us know what kind of resources we need to provide you.

Please update the article as a protected article even if you don't want to make any edits. Because we have received a lot of reports from Google that websites imitating the Brand name are defrauding users of the Platform.

Time is the most important resource in life. Thank you very much for your valuable time. If you examine the Flipd.gg site for only 2 minutes, you can clearly understand that this site is the official site.

I'll be waiting for your feedback.

Kind regards,

KarsliPasha (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@KarsliPasha Although the topic is out of my field of experience, I don't feel any of those sources are anything other than user-generated content and discussions on other platforms. Nothing there seems sufficiently reliable to merit making changes. How would we know if the admin notice was itself placed on a fake website? An article in Mashable or something like that might do it. But to be honest: I think this discussion is best held on the article's own Talk page where editors who know the subject may be able to offer more specific advice. But please continue to declare your Conflict of Interest per the instructions at WP:COI. You are right to be attempting to make an WP:EDITREQUEST rather than editing the article yourself. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for your response and kindness. Assuming I'm telling the truth, what do I have to do to prove it? KarsliPasha (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@KarsliPasha Simply find some [[WP:RS|Reliable] published sources that prove it. It's as simple as that. No disrespect is intended, but we simply cannot take the word of any user who offers unreliable, user-generated sources as evidence. I may be wrong, but my interpretation of those sources you linked to was that they were not authoritative. I still suggest you raise the issue on the article's talk page. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Are there any Wikipedia pages that are so notable that they have meta Wikipedia pages about themselves?

For example, if the Wikipedia page Turkey itself was notable, then there could be a wikipedia pages called Turkey (Wikipedia article). does any such article exist? Michael7604 (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Michael7604 and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm guessing you're talking about the disambiguation page? Here it is > Turkey (disambiguation) 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 04:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I mean like if a Wikipedia article itself was so notable in the media that that page itself had a Wikipedia article about it. Like an article about an article Michael7604 (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think those kinds of articles exist. It's totally unnecessary to have an article about a Wikipedia article. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 04:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident is about the article John Seigenthaler; and there may be one or two other examples. -- Hoary (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are quite a few that come to mind in fact. I was just looking at one of them today. You can find them in various places on meta and on Wikipedia. Lilbrownhole (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

It's Commons, not Wikipedia, but File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg has Monkey selfie copyright dispute. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Jar'Edo Wens hoax, as another example. But if anyone is looking at this discussion, thinking "If I create a great hoax, even after it's found out and deleted my feat will live on in Wikipedia history", and salivating, better think again. Living on in history will be very much less likely than a humdrum indefinite block, all for a squalid little incident known to no more than a dozen people. ¶ How about the opposite: a Wikipedia article famed for the right reasons? Unlikely, as Wikipedia is conservative: never perceptive or innovative, always merely regurgitating. -- Hoary (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

You may find something interesting in categories like Category:Wikipedia content, Category:Criticism of Wikipedia and Category:Wikipedia controversies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Since it's "pages", we can also include wikipedia topics that have articles, such as ARBCOM's. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

How do I make the metadata for my spoken article look right?

I made an audio recording for Preening and uploaded it okay, but when I click on the file individually it doesn't have the nice blue text indicating the corresponding article version, dialect, and so on that audio files for pages like Archaea or Evolution has. How do I make mine look like that? Indochina2 (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I ended up finding a template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. Sorry for the trouble. Indochina2 (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

How do I fix this signing issue I am having?

Sometimes when I am finishing making a reply or section, it makes another signpost without me doing anything. Is the wiki servers having issues, and if not, is there a way to fix this bug? Much appreciated Wolfquack (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Wolfquack. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "signpost". How are you posting? Do you click on "Edit" in the discussion thread heading and then add your post? Do you click on "Reply" at the end of another user's post and then add your post? I believe if you do the latter, the software will automatically add your signature to post unless you manually do so yourself. I think this is a relatively new feature that was added to take care of those cases where people forget to sign their posts. If I'm completely off the mark with my answer, then perhaps you can provide an example of the problems you're experiencing or at least describe exactly what you're doing step-by-step to see if another Teahouse host can duplicate the problem. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Wolfquack I assume you mean this edit? It looks like you created a new topic on another user's talk page. Nowadays, doing it that way automatically adds your signature for you (rather than requiring the more usual four tildes (like this: ~~~~) to be typed in manually. It's very easy to forget sometimes, so I'm wondering if you may simply typed the extra set of tildes as well, just as I'm about to do when signing this reply to you, and the system failed to spot the duplication and it slipped through. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes I’m reffering to that edit and a couple more that have been happening to me. Thanks for helping! Wolfquack (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Wolfquack, if it keeps happening, the best thing to do is make a report at WP:VPT. That's where the tech specialist types hang out. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok I’ll try that if it keeps happening. Wolfquack (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Author articles

Hi, does anyone have any guidance on writing articles on authors that clearly meet WP:NAUTHOR (In this instance multiple books/works with many reviews), but for whom there is a dearth of secondary sources on the author themselves? :3 F4U (they/it) 06:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Freedom4U. The guideline (which is not policy) assumes that an author with multiple books/works with many reviews will also have the type of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that enable an informative, policy compliant Wikipedia biography to be written. If that is not the case, focus instead on writing articles about his most notable books. Guidelines are rules of thumb and are not 100% effective, and those that repeatedly prove to be ineffective get withdrawn. Former assumptions of notability of association footballers and porn stars have been deprecated in recent years, resulting in the deletion of many low quality articles. Quality concerns come first in 2023. Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U There was an extensive discussion on this now archived at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1194#Concerns of notability re: children's author, 1980s-present + possible workaround which you may find interesting. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm that was an interesting read, though not necessarily helpful. She does also meet the notability criteria of WP:NPROF if that is helpful. I was asking this question more for advice on finding sources. :3 F4U (they/it) 12:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

For any biography, I tend to put the individual's name into the search box on The Wikipedia Library but for authors the hits tend to be difficult to disentangle from all the book reviews. You can of course use WP:ABOUTSELF sources from their social media for some information. I assume you don't have a specific author in mind but are asking in general? Sometimes their Virtual International Authority File or WorldCat entries can give clues as to where to look for sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library is a good idea, I'll try that out :) I've been using Google Scholar or searching directly on JSTOR/Sage, but I think I'll find a better variety of sources there. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Visual Editing vs Source Editing

Hi. I am still new to Wikipedia. One of the things which I wanted to ask is that whenever I am editing a page, I see the option of "Source Editing vs Visual Editing". And honestly speaking, I find the Visual Editing extremely easy as compared to Source Editing. Just wanted to ask which one is better? Visual Editing or Source Editing? Thanks Charsaddian (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Charsaddian, welcome to the Teahouse! Out of old habit, I use the source editor myself, but I think VE is easier for beginners for most things. I have been told that there are some things the VE is worse at, but I don't really know what they are. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not just worse, there are some things which cannot be edited with VE at all (this list is not exhaustive)

• Anything which isn't using the wikitext content model
• raw editing of most HTML attributes, including style="" and id=""
• complex template structures (including Help:Conditional expressions and most other parser functions)
• raw editing of behavior switches (some can be modified via the page options dialog. Others not)

Plus several things that are doable but painfull

• <syntaxhighlight>
• variables (no autocompletion)

Additionally, VE has no support for resolving edit conflicts, and if you take too long (several hours) to save your edit, it might get lost irrecoverably. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt Thanks for the feedback. Right now I am only using SE when it comes to making edits in Tables/Templates. Charsaddian (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for welcoming me. Yes agreed that VE is easy for the beginners. I also find VE easy currently but maybe once I gain more experience, I will become more comfortable with SE as well. Charsaddian (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Charsaddian "Old hands" here tend to use the source editor since the VE only became available much later. It also gives you slightly more direct access to tricks from the cheatsheet. However, those who are familiar with modern word-processors will find the learning curve with VE much smaller than with SE. The main area where I find VE is inferior is in the way it handles named references. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

indeed, AFAIK reusing refs isn't great, and if a reference doesn't have a name, it will get something like autoNumber Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I generally enjoy visual editor more, but there are still certain features that it lacks. Sfn references (like Mike mentioned) are difficult, as are tables and lists sometimes. If I tried to use visual editor 100% of the time, there would be some errors I would never be able to fix. In addition, it's quite slow on larger articles in comparison to source editor. :3 F4U (they/it) 12:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Source Editor can open and edit just one section or sub-section of a page, whereas WP:VE opens the whole page at once. I tend to switch between them quite a bit. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Thanks for talking part in the discussion. Do you think having Technical Background is important for getting understanding of Source Editing? Charsaddian (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Charsaddian Absolutely not. I don't know if you're old enough to remember a very famous piece of early word processing software called 'Wordstar' (precursor of WordPerfect and then MS Word). Every typist and office worker (like me) just had to learn a few simple characters to place before and after any word or sentence if they wanted to italicise it, embolden it or underline it. They all managed it and none had technical backgrounds. To be honest, it's very much like that.

There is one really useful (and often overlooked) editing icon in Source Editor that you should not ignore - it's a slanted grey pencil icon for 'syntax highlighting'. You can toggle highlighting on and off, which adds colour to all the tiny commands which make up reference templates, hyperlinks, wikilinks and usernames. It leaves actual text black, allowing you to ignore the coloured source code elements if you want to, rather than have everything on the page all one colour. It's really useful, and great for getting to the heart of any problem that's making something not display correctly. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U I agree what you mentioned about the Tables and Lists. I found Source Editing very useful when editing Tables/Templates Charsaddian (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Charsaddian: Welcome to the Teahouse. I find it depends on what you're planning to do. If it's surface level like adding/editing citations or text, the visual editor is a lot better to use. If you're going to be editing a lot of tables or templates, you might want to get acquainted with the source editor. It's good to have some experience in using the source editor, as not all namespaces (such as article/user talk pages) allow the use of the visual editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tenryuu Thanks for the detailed feedback. I feel due to lack of Technical Background, I will be having difficulties in using Source Editing frequently. Am I right? Charsaddian (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. Michael D. Turnbull up above linked to the cheatsheet, so it's got basic formatting options for you that the visual editor covers. It's just that the visual editor has to go through more hoops than the source if you're trying to do something like putting parameters into a preexisting template. I personally like to be able to tell what's what in source, so I usually enable syntax highlighting so that it's easy to tell at a glance what's been italicised, what's a reference, and what templates are in use. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response. Really helpful Charsaddian (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

it's rewind time

is there an option to reset the time you're watching an article whenever you make an edit on it? because setting the watch time on some drafts back to 6 months can get extremely, inconceivably mildly annoying cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 12:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@cog-san: there is a watch permanently option. lettherebedarklight晚安 12:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Finding articles needing edits

When I first made my account I remember there was some way to find random articles that were flagged as needing edits, but I forgot how to do that. Can anyone help me out? Pernicious.Editor (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pernicious.Editor The WP:TASK page has many possible things to do, including some of the type you mention in its first box. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking about Special:HomePage? You might also want to try SuggestBot. OutsideNormality (mobile) (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

2011 Cincinnati Reds season fix

Hello. Go to above article, scroll down first to batters table, go to last entry in table, Daryl Thompson, put his data numbers in line and centered with others above. Scroll down to Relief pitchers table, go to last entry in table, Travis Wood, put his data in line as well. Cant figure out what went wrong here. Thanks for your help today.Theairportman33531 (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Theairportman33531 Looking at 2012 Cincinnati Reds season for comparison, the equivalent table is properly sortable and looks OK. I'm not an expert on tables but you may be able to work out how to fix 2011 Cincinnati Reds season using that as a guide. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Needs more experts intervention

Greetings,

There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of the article "Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance" regarding its abbreviation, which is officially designated as INDIA according to the majority of reliable sources and an official announcement. While some sources have used I.N.D.I.A as the abbreviation independently, it is important to note that the alliance's logo does not include any dotted or dashed abbreviation.

In accordance with the Wikipedia guideline on abbreviations (WP: Abbreviation), the prevailing abbreviation supported by the majority of reliable sources and official announcements is INDIA. However, some users have expressed disagreement, arguing that it matches the country's name and, therefore, should not be used. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that abbreviations pose no issue, especially when they are used within the infobox and lead section of the article.

To achieve a resolution, we invite experts in the subject matter to kindly review the ongoing discussion, utilizing their expertise to assess the matter and establish a consensus on the appropriate abbreviation to be used for the "Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance."

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and we look forward to a productive resolution based on reliable sources and the collective expertise of our contributors. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 14:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @TheChunky, welcome to the Teahouse. While WP:CANVASS recommends posting notices in relevant locations to draw more people to a discussion, be very careful about your wording - especially the bit about neutrality. Also, the Teahouse isn't a good choice for such notifications; related WikiProjects would be better, or a noticeboard if one exists. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm welcome to the Teahouse, and I appreciate your valuable advice regarding posting notices and maintaining neutrality.

My intention in posting here was to seek assistance in resolving an ongoing edit warring issue involving multiple users. I recognize the significance of neutrality in discussions, and I assure you that my invitation to experts was with the sole purpose of facilitating a fair and informed consensus. My ultimate goal is to put an end to the edit warring and prevent any further vandalism of the article.

I understand now that the Teahouse might not be the most suitable platform for such notifications. I will take your suggestion into account and consider reaching out to related WikiProjects or relevant noticeboards in the future.

Once again, thank you for your understanding and guidance. I look forward to working together with the community to foster a constructive and collaborative editing environment.

Best regards, ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 14:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

why my first change removed

I want to provide informative content related packaging to Wikipedia users and I want to contribute but my changes are removed when I made my first change my website is [redacted by an admin]. Dave pell (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dave pell Welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit was reverted because it was purely promotional, serving only to advertise your business and not in any way relevant to this encyclopaedia. If you can source detailed independent references such as text books, journals and periodicals that give additional information, you may cite these. Please do not add that url again, as spammersinvariably get permanently blocked from editing (please read WP:PROMOTION) to understand why. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Tables and article format

I am attempting to remove some lines of data from the end of a table to make it less unwieldy and fit better in its proper section. Each time I've tried - once using the Visual Editor, once doing source editing (see here) - it removes the data but also moves the entire table out of its proper section ('Government') and into a different one further down the page ('Media'), for no reason I can discern. Working with tables is admittedly not my strong suit, but I am at a loss as to what I'm doing wrong. Any assistance would be appreciated, thanks! DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you removed the "PresFoot" template at the end of the table. If you just replace the final "PresRow" entry with "PresFoot" it should fix it. CodeTalker (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@CodeTalker - that was exactly it, and exactly why I try to avoid tables as I usually miss something small like that. Thanks for your help. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

What should you do on your own sandbox?

Can you get to do anything you want on your personal sandbox?

Thx Myrealnamm (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

No, not anything. See Wikipedia:Misuse_of_the_sandbox for some of the restrictions. RudolfRed (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Initiating a new page

I have someone I want to add to Wikipedia -- someone who was a US trade ambassador under Clinton, has written three notable books on the U.S. Senate, and was a key player in several important pieces of legislation as a. Senate staffer. I wrote up what I want to say in a Word document. How do I create a page for him on Wikipedia? I've read the criteria for having such a page, and I think he meets the criteria. Thank you. Linda G. Ellicottsimple (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Linda, and welcome to the Teahouse. My advice to new editors is always not to try the very challenging task of creating a new encyclopaedia article until they have spent a few months making improvements to existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works.

Then, read your first article. Note that unless you have found the reliable independent sources that talk in some depth about him, you will not be able to establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability: nothing said, written, or published by him or his associates will contribute to this. ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The person you describe sounds more likely to be notable than many of the people that editors inquire about here, but Colin's advice still applies. I would search to check to make sure we don't already have an article about him, and if we don't, then you can start one at Draft:NameOfThePerson. Be sure to include citations to reviews of his books in high-quality sources. Then use {{subst:submit}} to submit it for review. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Before you try to write a new article, you are expected to read and understand everything in Help:Your first article, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:SIGCOV, WP:DEV, WP:RSP, WP:BLP, and WP:COI. Lilbrownhole (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Marking a not verifiable page

How do I add the 'this page doesn't cite reliable sources' warning sign? Lucuusb (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Lucuusb, and welcome to the Teahouse. You find the appropriate template in Cleanup templates - probably {{more citations needed}}, but you might find a more appropriate one - and insert it at the top of the article (in the double curly brackets). ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Bug Report

When I download an article as a pdf, sometimes an error page will appear when I hit download. This first started happening yesterday. It does not always happen and and I don't see any pattern. My wifi connection is stable. Where should I report this bug? Khainelives (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Khainelives: You can ask about it at WP:VPT, please give more details about your browser, OS, and what the error message is. RudolfRed (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dan_Snyder_(artist)

On July 17, following DoubleGrazing’s clear instructions on how to proceed with my draft edit for Dan Snyder (artist) I was able to complete a full page edit using the visual editor. I pressed the publish button and received this error message:

Something went wrong

⧼No stashed content found for 1140753667/e08e44c8-1f5a-11ee-8c71-b04f13be4f10⧽

I went back to the help forum and asked how I should proceed. A member made an edit and now I have lost my edited page and I no longer have access to the visual editor to redo it. Can I undo what has happened by undoing that persons edit (which I can not decipher) or is there another way to get my visual editor back?

Thank you Jjcoste2 (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jjcoste2: Unfortunately, if you look at the contribution history of that article - see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Dan_Snyder_(artist)&action=history - there is no recent edit from you, so what you did is lost. Undoing the other editor's last edit would not recover what you submitted because what you submitted was never saved.

I understand that the visual editor does not handle edit conflicts well; this is when someone else submits an edit while you're in the middle of editing it yourself, causing your change to be for an older version of the article because someone else's edit created a newer version. The source editor tells you when there's an edit conflict and shows you both versions so you can reconcile them. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)