Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chocobnj (talk | contribs) at 10:06, 27 August 2023 (→‎Please am new here: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to top
Skip to bottom


Duplicate articles

Shingebiss and Shingebis seem to refer to the same myth. My understanding is that duplicate articles should be merged. However:

a) Shingebis has multiple problems

b) I know nothing about this myth (I was just looking it up and found the two articles)

I'm mainly a reader and very new to editing. What would be the best course of action here?

Thanks in advance! Mogtek (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mogtek! My suggestion would be to copy from Shingebis to Shingebiss any useful information (along with its references) not already there, and then make Shingebis a redirect to Shingebiss.
I am being lazy in assuming that 'Shingebiss' is the 'better' (more commonly used or more authentic), or at least equally good, spelling. If 'Shingebis' is actually preferable, the opposite though more laborious transfer of information could be done, or one could perform a Page move juggle Others may have better suggestions, though. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mogtek Hi, I merged Shingebiss into Shingebis. Regards Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is "This Day In Metal" allowed as a source?

I'm fixing up a certain partial block request about a tour date that happened and one source that seems convincing to me but I don't know if it's convincing to others is this. I would like to know if this source is allowed. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thomas and welcome to the Teahouse. The place to ask is WP:RSN - first search the archives for that page to see if it has previously been discussed, and if not, post your question there. I observe that it has a staff of named writers, which is a good sign, but it needs further investigation. ColinFine (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ColinFine, I've asked Thomas to begin here at Teahouse to learn to assess sources, as the folks here are experienced and generally patient at helping users understand the basics. SKDB's response below is what I was hoping he'd get here: no, This Day In Metal doesn't look like it has editorial oversight, so see if you can find something better. This may be an iterative exercise. Valereee (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'll be honest, we don't have to add something right away at times, maybe I'll look for more sources. Side note, I have been looking at so many pages that needed something removed and so far I got one that I found. If you're curious why I havent been doing requests lately it's because I was looking for things to have removed and working on that Pittsburgh event list. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Thomasthedarkenguine, you could ask at WP:RSN for a more definitive answer. But on brief investigation, the staff writers have only their first names, which is basically pseudonymity, so that's not great. The site has no about page that I can find, and the parent site's about page, here, doesn't say much of anything about its editorial standards. So my inclination were I a writer would be to try to find something better, but to use it if there's nothing better, but only for basic noncontroversial details. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing controversial, I'm just wanting to have a show added on The Spicy Meatball Tour. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. William Longshaw

Dr. William Longshaw was born in Manchester, England April 26, 1836. I have copies of originals like the the Census of 1841 Manchester, England. Willliam was 5 years old when he travelled to the United States. I do have a copy of the census that I did upload to wikipedia. Toshiye6 (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. What is it that you are referring to? 331dot (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think he refers to his edits to William Longshaw Jr. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:No original research may be a relevant read. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that both his birth date and place of birth are in dispute, according to the note in the infobox. Census records alone are not convincing since it is commonplace for two people to share the same name. Cullen328 (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have proof of his birth place. It's a 1841 census in Manchester England. How do I upload this document? Toshiye6 (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate what Cullen328 says above, how do you know it's the same William Longshore? 'William' is a very common name (not in the social sense, of course!); Longshaw is not unusual, and there must be multiple "William Longshaws"s from that era and milieu. The article's references do show that there are contradictory claims about his date and place of birth (unfortunately, there are also multiple "Manchester"s), but you have no proof (so far demonstrated) of a connection between the person in your census record and the subject of the article, it's just one possibility of many. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.15} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that it is not a different person named William Longshaw? There is no need to upload a census report, as it is of no value on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is Father Is William senior. Mother is Margaret and William junior. This is the Manchester England census 1841. This is from Ancestory .com. Also the ,
Communication and Outreach Division
Naval History and Heritage Command
Have the same facts as me. I have his acceptance letter from the entrance to West Point. (202) 433-7880 142.114.202.157 (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The correspondence of the parental names certainly lends weight to your suppositions, but it is not conclusive proof, and the date and place discrepancies with the published references are unexplained. (My conjecture is that maybe he was born before his parents' wedding, and his date and place of birth were obfusticated in the US records to conceal this, at the time, shameful fact, but my imagining this is of no use whatever). Nontheless, Wikipedia only accepts what published sources say, even when primary documents (such as census entries — see WP:Primary, secondary and tertiary sources) suggest that they are in error (see WP:Verifiability, not truth). Note also that Wikipedia disallows sources with user-contributed information as unreliable (see WP:Reliable sources): this includes Ancestry.com (and of course, Wikipedia itself). A line has to be drawn somewhere, and that's where it is.
A way out of this dilemma might be to more explicitly detail all the contradictory sources and their conflicting information (perhaps in the article's existing Note a.) so that the readers can do their own weighing up, but we can't just decide which one we prefer (even if we could agreed) and suppress the rest.
You and Longshaw, the declared relative who is possessed of all these primary documents (and perhaps some secondary ones, with which we can work) need to discuss these matters further with the dissenting editors on the article's Talk page, which is the preferred venue rather than here, and reach a concensus on a solution. Splitting the discussion over two or more venues is not helping, since we are having to read both to see all the declared evidence. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I do have all the corect files. Wikipedia is know for incorrect information. Ancestory is reliable I have all the files. We agree to disagree! I have birthdates dting back to the 1700's. Dr. William and me share the great,great,great,great grandfather. So Wikipedia is not a reliable source! I'll just have to accept that some of the information is wrong on wikipedia. I know what is true facts! Lorraine Longshaw Toshiye6 (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So Wikipedia is not a reliable source!
@Toshiye6: Even Wikipedia doesn't consider itself to be one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what you need to do. Write a historical article (not an encyclopedia article) that concisely, lucidly and persuasively makes your point. Of course, this article must satisfy academic standards. Find a historical journal that is reputable -- is not a mere vanity or predatory enterprise, and is peer-reviewed (by academic historians, not monomaniacs or fringey people) -- and specializes in this area. Submit it to the journal. If it is conditionally accepted, rewrite it and resubmit it as required. Wait for its publication. After its publication, on Talk:William Longshaw Jr., point to the publication, and invite an unrelated editor to consider what it says, describing yourself as its author and thus disqualified from writing up the matter in the Wikipedia article. -- Hoary (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Input on BLP Quality Reliable Sources for confirming that an exhibition, award, or event occurred.

Hi! I edit living artist and designers pages and have questions about referencing that an exhibition or event occurred, that an artwork was in a certain museum or collection, or that an award was granted. I would appreciate other editors opinions on if I (and other editors who are doing the same practice) are referencing correctly.

Once it has been established that the article itself has reliable sources, and I want to establish or add to an exhibition or collection list, can a museum website (like MoMA NY), their collection catalog, or press release be a reference to document that the show occurred when a 3rd party independent reliable source is not available?

For example on these pages:

I'm looking at: WP:REPUTABLE: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.", WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.... and Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article" & WP:RS & WP:BLP


What do you think?


-ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey. I would say that primary sources such as those are adequate for establishing that a particular event or exhibition occurred, but if the only sources for the event are primary then I would question whether the event should even be mentioned in the article. ColinFine (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Submit my page to public: Unicode/Versions

There must be a page for Unicode/Versions on Wikipedia, because there's one in Wikibooks and not one in Wikipedia. AshtonTameirao (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Unicode#Versions.   Maproom (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not it, but my article needs to be published to public so everyone can edit my page. AshtonTameirao (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon disruption by ultras

I have been contributing to the essay Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not allowed on Wikipedia? and I honestly feel like I want to say this (This is based on a few statements I made on its talk page). If you don't know what that essay is about, basically a lot of people who are fans of an animated YouTube cartoon that does not meet GNG caused massive disruption over some years (but especially recently) over trying to shove an article in about their beloved show.

I feel as if a lot of immature kids are on Wikipedia who obsess over children's/preschool TV shows no one else cares about (preschool shows generally don't get more notable–especially in Wikipedia terms–than shows made for other audiences), to the point it can become disruptive and lead to blocks and sockpuppetry. User:Robert McClenon wrote an essay calling these people "ultras". I don't think they can understand the cues here that what they want to happen (i.e. a preschool show and its non-notable characters or settings being promoted by having Wikipedia articles) won't happen (due to a lack of notability and SIGCOV, which in turn could be because they're not relevant in today's world), and sadly they might ignore any warnings and continue until they get blocked.

This honestly makes me concerned, but I do have to feel sorry for those kids who need to understand that Wikipedia isn't just for their cartoons. Furthermore, these kids could be neurodivergent (I am autistic myself), so I can emphasize with them. They need to realize cartoons obsessions that result in things like this are not healthy. There are so many better things they could spend time on rather than just shoving shows into Wikipedia that just don't simply belong here. As CGP Grey said: "Your job is to work on you, and to make yourself an independent person in the world." NOT to spend time on stupid fancruft. 118.149.72.239 (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC) Addendum: some examples are listed on WP:LTA 118.149.80.254 (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bang on. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I learned something today. Thank you, IP user. -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The most current submission by ultras is Draft:Simon Edward Minter (Miniminter). Miniminter and Simon Minter are both currently redirects to the group, the Sidemen, and previous individual articles on Miniminter have been deleted as not notable. A common tactic by ultras is to change the spelling of the title. With regard to Dream Island, we have had Battle For Dream Island and Battle for Dream Island, for instance.
As I explain in the essay, ultras are sometimes mistaken for paid editors because of their stubbornness, but, when an editor says that they are not a paid editor, but a fan, I usually believe them. That does not mean that they may ignore notability, reliable sources, and neutral point of view. They often do ignore those policies, which is why they are often thought to be paid editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Indeed, I mentioned that a lot of them are likely obsessive fans, which is why I am concerned. They could also be neurodivergent; I am autistic myself which is why I am concerned. Indeed they could have done other, more positive things in real life or contribute to more notable topics here, but let's stick to how to deal properly with these people on Wikipedia. 118.149.80.254 (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I've found out as a major contributor on IMDB, a lot of mainstream children's shows from the UK aren't notable enough for a Wikipedia article, as there's not enough information about them.
I'm mainly talking about shows from CITV (which will cease to exist next week after 40 years) on ITV the most watched channel for the majority of British TV history, although most people clearly have short memories.
Why do they have short memories? Partly because ITV is rubbish at promoting it's old shows, and likes to keep its records private, unless you're in the media yourself, then you can get access.
You can find out the basics most of the time, like the fact the show existed, when it was broadcast, a brief plot description, how many episodes it possibly had, and some of the cast and crew members.
However more detailed descriptions, most of the cast and crew, and the episodes themselves are nowhere to be found online at least.
I don't normally do children's shows, however I added/updated a few earlier this year when I randomly found out an actress from my city (who I had never heard of before), who mainly does theatre shows in the West End of London today, was one of the child stars in those shows. Danstarr69 (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Danstarr69: Indeed, I have seen some sockpuppetry go on with a focus on obscure British preschool TV series that I highly doubt are notable and hence deserve to be on Wikipedia, and which I haven't even heard of before (I don't live in the U.K. but do know some British children's television). I personally don't find it healthy. In my opinion, these kids should move on to more relevant media rather than stay stagnant in life with these obsessions. 118.149.80.254 (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mainly talking about children's drama from ITV (which always beat BBC One in the ratings), rather than shows for toddlers, but still the fact remains.
Some of them were massive in the 80s and 90s, and are where a lot of the biggest names in British TV today started their careers.
However information about some of them is scarce.
The BBC have the BBC Programme Index (made from Radio Times TV and radio listings) containing every programme they've ever made, including all the spelling mistakes.
ITV, Channel 4, and Channel 5 however, don't have any public archives containing details about their old shows, and there's no TVTimes TV guide archive anymore. ITV used to have a partial programme index of around 8000 shows available to the public until around 5 years ago, but then they made it private, just like their entire online archive, which is based in the city next to mine.
There's many more places I can look like BFI Collections among other places (a lot of which I've added to my user page), but the majority contain just a brief summary of the simple stuff.
With ITV especially, which used to be made up of at least 17 regional franchises, which have had 100s of different names over the last 68 years, it's even harder to find out information for certain shows, especially when they were made by the region, specifically for the region, and weren't shown nationally at a later date.
For example, there's a Pop Idol/X Factor type show from the year 2000 which I randomly stumbled across in some old adverts, made by ITV's Yorkshire franchise, for Yorkshire, which I doubt was shown in any of the other ITV regions, which probably explains why there's no information about it online.
In case you're confused about ITV, it was basically like PBS, except it's funded by adverts, rather than donations.
I also recently stumbled across another 1990s children's drama, which I probably watched but don't remember, as I was 10 or 11 at the time, containing a former child actor as the star, whose former actress sister works as a teacher just a couple of miles from me (which I also found out by accident, as she's got married sometime in the last 10 years, so has a new surname). 3 of it's 9 episodes exist online, from old VHS tapes, but there doesn't seem to be much more information about it online. Danstarr69 (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, please remember that WP:NOTFORUM applies to the Teahouse as well. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it literally a forum? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Danstarr69: @Robert McClenon: Some examples of these cartoon ultras are the Bucharest Wild Kratts and horror film vandal, HarveyTeenager, Caidin-Johnson, and the Pinkalicious vandal. 118.148.103.96 (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

citing a diagram

What is the best practice for citing a diagram? It is quite simple and can be represented in ASCII like this:

others      ↔            for-the-sake-of-which          ↔        others

(possibility of Dasein’s Being)

↑     ↑

↑     ↑                         towards-which                        

\      \                                (work)                            /      /

\                                       ↑  ↑                                   /

\                 equipment ↔  equipment              /

(ready-to-hand entities)

I could also, however, create an image file from the book in which it appears. Or maybe some other alternative is preferable?

Thank you for your assistance!

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could also, however, create an image file from the book in which it appears. Please don't violate copyright. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm trying to avoid! Richard Polt made the diagram, and I want him to get all the credit. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. You want to insert the diagram into the article? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. It's a helpful representation of the relationships among concepts that are easy to lose track of in discursive presentation. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...and thus we come into the domain of copyright and fair use, not my area of expertise. Also, depending on how close a representation of the diagram your ASCII version above is, it may or may not be a problem. I'll leave the mucky copyright business to more experienced editors. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your attention to my query! Absent other advice, I will use my ACSII representation and cite it with the sfn template in the same way I would with plain text. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello PatrickJWelsh,
  • A fact or concept cannot be copyrighted.
  • An expression like a diagram can be copyrighted, depending on the complexity (this varies between countries).
  • If you translate a copyrighted work into another medium, that's a derivative work under US copyright law.
  • When editing a Wikipedia article, you must release your edit under the Creative Commons license at the bottom of the page.
  • You cannot release a derivative work under a new license without the permission of the original creator.
Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can use {{Cite book}} to cite your source. But I think you mean "copy" instead of "cite" like a reference? RudolfRed (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would consider this a quotation. But it's visual and I wanted to check in about best-practice. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In case it helps, the diagram appears on p.61 of this book: https://books.google.com/books/about/Heidegger.html?id=-CXZN12gHioC.
Also, I should add that I have no connection at all to the author and no particular bias towards his interpretation of Heidegger. I'm just drafting out what I hope will be an improvement on a rather shoddy page about a major philosophical figure (however deeply, deeply flawed he was!). Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PatrickJWelsh Just a note to point out that the ASCII diagram doesn't display correctly on my phone. I suspect the screen is not wide enough. You could get assistance with creating an acceptable drawing at the WP:Graphics lab, provided the copyright hurdles are cleared of course. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So if you go the ASCII route, use a screen-shot to turn it into a .png or similar, and upload it to Commons. Easier to insert, resize and replace if needed. -- Verbarson  talkedits 13:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where to report self promotion

I haven’t really done much with the moderation side of Wikipedia. However, I was reading a (relatively niche) article and noticed that a non notable book was cited as a pop culture example that apparently had a direct Amazon link to it in the article. I read some of the “drama boards” occasionally to pass the time and have learned that this kind of self promotion is pretty common. I took a look at the account that added it, and sure enough, the account that added this book to the page had the same initials in the username as the author of the book, and that they had more edits that were just the same thing. However, I’m not sure if there’s a special board to report it to or if just the regular incidents board is fine. I vaguely remember there being a place to report COI editing, but I can’t find it, so maybe stuff just blurred together in my head. Waverfangirl (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Waverfangirl: What article were you reading? – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 05:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wandjina This one. A depiction of this spirit was added to a game I like and I wanted to learn more about it/Aboriginal people’s thoughts on depictions of them. Waverfangirl (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@waverfangirl: remove it. it's useless. as for the editor, they haven't edited since august 2022, so reporting is unnecessary. ltbdl (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
forget it: i've reverted their edits.
fur future reference, the noticeboard for reporting conflict of interest editing is here.
and as for your userpage, requests for changing your username is here. ltbdl (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Waverfangirl (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help for article

Hello, I come here seeking assistance. I had recently made corrections to the page of Brothers of Italy based on the links provided on the page. I have read the rules of Wikipedia and my changes were based on the rules. I understand that all information must be based on links.

However an editor called Vacant0 has undone them all and called them vandalism. I do not know why they undid my change but what I did was not vandalism. It upsets me that my changes can simply be dismissed like this.

I don't know what to do now since Vacant0 never presented an argument for me to contest or accept so I'm asking for help here. I wish to have my changes passed so that it isn't a edit war. Braxmate (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Braxmate, and welcome to the Teahouse.
The right thing to do is to open a discussion on the Talk page Talk:Brothers of Italy, and ping Vacant0 there (as I have just done here).
Please see BRD for how Wikipedia editing is supposed to work - you made a bold edit, Vacant0 reverted you, and now you discuss it. It must be upsetting to see your edits described as vandalism (which has a specific meaning on Wikipedia), but you need to ask Vacant0 why they thought that. ColinFine (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How will I do BRD if one side doesn't make argument? Braxmate (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits were not based on the rules and you did not correct anything, you have actually violated the consensus for the infobox that was reached on the talk page. If you want to change anything related to the infobox, you will need to start a discussion on the talk page and provide evidence that support your claims. Vacant0 (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are based on the rules, the rules say all information must be completely supported by links and no modifications to what the links say.
Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:No original research
The unchanged article has information which are modified, the links say "first far right" but the article says "first right wing", all given academic links say "neo-fascist" but article says "some academics call it neo-fascist" and some links are used to describe what is "radical right" which don't even mention Brothers of Italy.
And why are you calling my corrections vandalism and what consensus are you talking about? There is nothing on the talk page. Braxmate (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All previous discussions are archived. See Talk:Brothers of Italy/Archives/2023/January, Talk:Brothers of Italy/Archives/2022/September, and Talk:Brothers_of_Italy/Archives/2022/February#Infoboxes_and_political_spectrum. Vacant0 (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
February 2022 archive is not understandable. September 2022 archive says weak consensus because no one gave good links. And in January 2023 archive you didn't even give "neo-fascist" as an option, and no one gave any link, you all just made different personal opinions.
What kind of consensus is this? My changes are supported by the good given links.
What do you want me to do? How am I supposed to make the corrections? You won't make an argument, you won't answer on talk page but you will undo and you have still not answered why are you calling my corrections vandalism? You are just giving me bureaucracy instead of discussion. Braxmate (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please have this discussion on the talk page - not at the Teahouse. If discussion goes nowhere, your other options are described here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And please remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative project: your goal in any discussion should be "How can we reach consensus?", not "How can I make them admit that I am right?" On the other hand, Vacant0, it seems clear that Braxmate is editing in good faith, so I suggest you withdraw the accusation of vandalism. If somebody is editing in good faith they are not doing vandalism. ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Order of templates on the top of the article

Is there any convention to those templates on top of the article -- like what order they should go into? I am wondering if I should put the translation notice or the more sources on top. Artwhitemaster (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Artwhitemaster. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Order of article elements mentions some things but not that detail. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up articles that looks like an advertisement

I stumbled upon an article for Armbian, which doesn't conform with the Wiki standards, but I don't pretty much know how or where do I continue with cleaning up the article or at least, make it look like an actual article than an advertisement for it. Thanks in advance. Signed, Lucss21a | Talk | Contribs 06:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: that article is garbage. It cites nothing but the product's website. I see no reason for the article to exist. Maybe some subject-matter expert will notice it in an AFD and disagree, but it looks hopeless as-is. Pecopteris (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a notability tag to it, but a cursory search didn't turn up anything like a good reliable source, so imho this should go to WP:AFD to be evaluated. It isn't an obvious speedy-deletion candidate, though. Lectonar (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's badly written. It doesn't make it clear what Armbian is. I suspect that the word "image" in its first sentence doesn't mean what most readers are likely to think. Deleting the current version would leave room for someone to write a comprehensible article on the subject, if they can establish notability.   Maproom (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think almost everyone will agree that this article should go to AFD, so I've sent it there. Pecopteris (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki politics

Hello. I mainly edit on the French wiki on articles concerning the Inca, so I usually don’t get in to Wiki polotics. I did cause quite a mess lately because of my, I do admit somewhat irrational, excitement about a complaint about foundation expenditures. Still I’m not getting the big picture. I think I understood the general organization, but I’d like to know if there are any cercles and such. To know some deeper politics. So here I am asking for answers Reman Empire (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're familiar with the WP:SIGNPOST, but there may be articles there that you find interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Reman Empire Specifically, WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-08-15/News and notes. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And there's more in the archives. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to expand an article but don't know how!

I have been working on an article but so far couldn't have been able to add other topics to the main article Zahirdaud24 (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zahirdaud24 WP:TUTORIAL may be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You recently moved Haji Abdullah Shah to mainspace. To continue work on that article, you should edit it in the normal way, as explained in the tutorial. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Zahirdaud24 (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever I Google search the article, the search results come up with talkpage instead of the actual article.why am I facing this issue Zahirdaud24 (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it's due to how wikipedia's search engine indexing works: see WP:NOINDEX for details but basically Wikipedia asks search engines not to index articles which are less than 90 days old and have not been patrolled. Once one of those conditions are met, google should start to show the article in its results. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help to switch off

I can't get off Wikipedia, I had a particularly shitty interaction with a group of editors yesterday and to get over that have been editing Woodcote Park, and trying to reach out to friendly users. But I need to switch off, haven't done any proper work yet (which means I'll have to make that up) and have other better things to do. Really, I'd like someone to say I'm appreciated for what I do and then maybe I can just forget the negative stuff. I know this is perhaps an unusual request, given i'm not a new user and am axtually a host here. All the best Polyamorph (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Polyamorph Welcome here! Firstly, I want to let you know that you're "appreciated for what you do". Being a Reviewer, Page mover, etc isn't an easy job and you're loved for committing yourself here :) Secondly, You did a great job at Woodcote Park seeing your recent edits there.
Lastly, you just can't switch off because that's funny to me.
Regards! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Polyamorph Anyone like you with >25,000 edits is clearly making a great contribution: congratulations! If by "switch off" you mean you would like to be blocked for a period, then I think that admins like Nick Moyes are happy to help. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Polyamorph A quick look at your talk page shows that you provide a great help to other users - most recently helping someone out with citations - especially when you consider that not every editor you’ve supported will leave a message there to thank you (I’d wager that it’d be a minority). I don’t think I’ve seen you before today, but if the thanks you’ve been given - both on your talk page and here - is anywhere near reflective of the work you do here (which I have no reason to believe it isn’t), then you seem like the kind of editor this project could do with more of. And I’m certain that you’re silently appreciated by many other editors for the help you provide, and for the improvements you bring to Wikipedia.
If you feel you need to take a wikibreak, by all means go for it: it’d certainly be well-deserved.
All the best. A smart kitten (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you all so much. I felt embarrassed asking, and wasn't sure how well received it would be, but you guys are wonderful. Actually bought a tear to my eye. I'd also turn it around and tell you how much I appreciate your contributions here. I think maybe I will be taking a short break, you've really helped alleviate the negativity I was feeling. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Polyamorph ❤️ Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Polyamorph I would be quite reluctant to give someone with your long and good-standing an editing block, as it might not look good should you ever feel you wanted to be considered for admin rights at an RfC. But there are other ways. See WP:WIKIBREAK and the wikibreak enforcer script at WP:BREAKENF. Sometimes one can feel burned out by spending so much time and emotional effort on Wikipedia. Getting time away, and making time for real friends and family is really important. But, yes, your efforts are certainly appreciated here. I guess you could also put the Wikipedia url on a blacklist on your own router - but that's not something I've ever tried. Nor can I recommend any specific browser extension, but one of these might be of interest if you use Chrome by default.
Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disabled javascript to be here. @Nick Moyes: the user that upset me considerably has followed me to Woodcote Park to instigated their preferred "formal name" in the prose I submitted. I consider this verging on harassment now, and would like it to stop. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my new entry rejected?

hi there! I just submitted my first-ever new Wikipedia entry and it got declined. I carefully read the reasons for the decline and I guess I'm still puzzled. The subject of my article has been cited by many reliable secondary sources. Can you offer advice please? Thank you! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chris_Molanphy MarcdePezenas (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered at the Help Desk. @MarcdePezenas, please only ask in one place (Teahouse or Help Desk), not both. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I note that your draft only has two references, which I would not consider "many", and the first one falls under WP:ABOUTSELF, as it's produced by the subject, and thus not indication of notability – a core Wikipedia concept. Notability is a test to see whether a subject deserves its own article. Your draft was declined as not proving notability. Generally, subjects need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, but there are exceptions. Would the declining reviewer, Theroadislong, like to comment? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#August 25. Theroadislong (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have a chat with a Wikipedia Editor

Hi, I would appreciate it if I can talk to an editor? I keep getting this Draft:Freeme Digital rejected and I am really curious to know why. 1. How can a child of this be approved and not the parent company? 2. How is the controversy page here not enough for notability? I mean this incident was and is still talked about in African music ecosystem till forever.

I really need answers.... Factscheq (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can go to the user's talk page to chat with that user. Cwater1 (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Try moving on. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Factscheq: didn't you ask this at the AfC help desk recently? Your question there has been answered. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how to avoid "Rv, not a forum" have to face being deleted 2 "Talk"´s comments ?

Hello, here is what has been reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Humus&oldid=prev&diff=1172168818

Maybe the ´half´ is forum-like to call from what ever, but I cannot recognize from what, that claim, that pronouncement.
If this is in consent with Wikpedia´s definition of forum and as unacceptable comment for "Talk", then this should be explained some-where, please, how to understand the difference those both.
So what, please, defines a clear to understand the difference of talk and forum ?
Thank You.
Visionhelp (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for WP:NOTFORUM and maybe WP:TPG? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 15:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Visionhelp, the purpose of an article talk page is to discuss specific ways to improve the article, based on what specific reliable sources say. It is not for general, unfocused discussion of the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My intention is to improve.
My expectation to Wikipedia is the claims of Wikipedia already with reliable sources.
The statement "humus, is essential a waste product with little food value" cannot find a reliable source anywhere, please.
Pointing to it in "Talk" is not forum, please.
The claim of forum as reason to delete that, to my understanding, this all is being put from foot to head.
This just simple reason (the claim forum) this way, to me not defined clearly, allows to do what wants to be done.
This I cannot take really serious.
Thanks the interesst.
Visionhelp (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Visionhelp: I'm having some difficulty understanding your comments. Are you using machine translation? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Visionhelp: The diff you linked to showed you commenting about the subject, not making any suggestions for improvements, and linking to a site that violates the WP:NOTHOWTO guideline. I can understand that the previous comment was also forum-like and am surprised that Plantsurfer failed to delete it, as it expressed a personal belief without citing anything. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable draft article question

I've been around the Wikipedia block, but it's been a long time since I've been back to this side of the block. Re-learning to edit/review.

How are draft articles treated when the subject appears to be either sarcasm/humour or outright disrespect (can't assume PoV). Is the subject ignored until it comes up for review, or is there a process to suggest deletion? e.g. Draft:Translender (identity) CMacMillan (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 15:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Birth dates

Hello. I am planning on making a draft and have some questions about birthdates. How do I know which date to put. I'm quite certain it's 1878 but I have two conflicting sources saying September 16 of that year and the other saying September 18. If I'm not sure do I just put 1878 and explain the discrepancy in the text below? If it helps, the September 18, 1878 date comes from the subjects own hand written for his WWI draft card. Thanks in advance! Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans! See WP:BIRTHDATE. I'd personally just use the birth year or September 16/18 and make a footnote. Asparagusus (interaction) 15:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping sort this out. Have a good day! Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

African American and not African-American

MOS shows that we should not use "African-American", instead we should use "African American".. what is the best way for me to search out this incorrectly hyphenated use and correct for it across Wikipedia? i have heard of some kind of wiki web browser??? Iljhgtn (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're talking about WP:AutoWikiBrowser. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
maybe, would that help me to search the entire wikipeida for "african-american" instances so that I can work on correcting those to "african american"? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have never used it myself, but making changes like that seems to be one of the main functions of AWB. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Census and other Ancestry Record

Hello. I need to cite some census records and other things from Ancestry.com and I'm not quite sure how. Ancestry gives a source citation you could use but I'm just not sure how Wikipedia deals with it. Thanks in advance! Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You probably shouldn't use Ancestry.com as a source, numerous discussions have determined that as a user-generated cite, any information in Ancestry.com should not be cited directly; in cases where Ancestry.com is being used as a host for documents such as census records, you would cite the census record as though you weren't usinG Ancestry, like if you were looking at a copy of the document in a library somewhere, you could just cite the original documents without reference to Ancestry at all. Furthermore, census records are of exceedingly small utility at Wikipedia, as noted in policy "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." I'm not sure what you're using census records for, but if you're trying to use them to show that a person lived at an address, or was a certain age, or had certain parentage or siblings, or whatnot, it's probably insufficient for Wikipedia to do so. You need a secondary source (as explained at WP:SECONDARY) that themselves published such information. --Jayron32 18:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I need it for really the subjects birth date as it can't be found anywhere else, the day he married his first wife and the 1900 census to show the fact that he lived in Philadelphia for a while. I believe these to be useful pieces of information that can't be found in secondary sources. I just don't know how to create a citation for a Federal Census, New York Marriage Index and Social Security Death Index. If using these pieces of information is really frowned upon though, I shall refrain from using them. Thanks in advance. Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Usurping an article without destroying history

Hi, I've been working on cleaning up the disambiguation and primary topics for the 3 people named Francois Morel. Before, the primary topic was the composer, even though pageview statistics are strongly in favor of the actor being the primary topic. I have added a disambiguation page, and moved the composer to Francois Morel (composer), but am unsure how to move Francois Morel (actor) to the automatically created redirect other than copy and pasting, which would destroy the history. Morel8910 (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Morel8910: WP:RMTR exists for this purpose. Well technically admins and people with page mover rights exist for this purpose, but if you don't know how else to flag one down, that's the page to make the request. Thank you for not copy-pasting. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have page mover rights (I moved the composer). But I don't know how to move the actor to the main page since the redirect exists. I'm basically looking for technical help Morel8910 (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion, when I say page mover rights, I meant Wikipedia:Page mover, which is more rightly called 'extended page mover'. The page on extended movers mentions the 'delete-redirect' right, which is the thing you're lacking. You'll be wanting that first page I mentioned. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Morel8910 (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Morel8910: A page move like you propose would be controversial, to base a primary topic decision on page views. I have moved the disambiguation page over to the primary title instead. If you want to make one of the three articles on the disambiguation page the primary topic, see WP:RM to start a move discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

period inside of quotes "" or not

should i put the period inside of the "quotation marks" or not at the end of a sentence? ex. john and jill walked up the hill, john said, "jill you are a dolt." or is it, "jill you are a dolt". Iljhgtn (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn Hello and welcome here. As much as I understand, In American English, periods and commas are typically placed inside quotation marks, like this "jill you are a dolt."
However, in British English, the placement of periods and commas depends on whether they are part of the quoted material. If they are, they are placed inside the quotation marks. If they are not, they are placed outside. For example: "jill you are a dolt".
Hope this helps! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so ENGVAR applies then. i will need to leave these alone mostly so i dont have ENGVAR provlems Iljhgtn (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
per mos:lq, the answer depends on the quote, not the variety of english
so quoting an entire phrase like Karol claims that "Collecting the D-O-N-G letters was always the best part of DKC." would be correct and not even wrong
but if you want to quote a phrase until before it ends, like Karol's favorite part of DKC was "collecting the D-O-N-G letters". would be cool and good cogsan(give me attention)(see my deeds) 19:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn: In case you didn't see the previous reply. This isn't an ENGVAR thing. We have a guideline, MOS:LQ. If the quotation ends with punctuation, put the punctuation inside the quotation marks, otherwise put it outside. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist Thanks for the reply! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

visual editor

there are notices at the start of some articles that mention redirects and disambiguation pages etc. Check out, Daylight saving time for a good example of what I am talking about. i want to be able to make those from visual editor, source editor is not easy for me to use. how can i do this? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

its like ""DST" redirects here. For other uses, see DST (disambiguation)." is what im talking about Iljhgtn (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn: That is from the {{Redirect}} template. I don't use VE, but my understanding is that one of there is a drop-down or menu option for placing templates. See Help:VisualEditor#Editing_templates RudolfRed (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
fix ping to @Iljhgtn: RudolfRed (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! This is how you make hatnotes and such in Visual Editor: In the visual editor first type in two curly braces ({{) then type in and enter "for" in the search bar. A menu will then pop up which can allow you to change the template parameters to make it say certain things. Regards, #prodraxis connect 20:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft automatically became article?

I tried to create a draft for Stenogale and it became an article? Did not mean to do this, is there a way to move it back into draft space? Chainsawpunk (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to Draft:Stenogale. Ruslik_Zero 20:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chainsawpunk: You blanked the article before it was moved to draft. I just unblanked it. Please proceed developing it. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a draft article for a new Korean cross-over quartet called Crezl. There is very little information available on the group in English, which was the motivation for creating this wiki article using articles in Korean. Could I get advice on how to increase the possibility of review and approval for the article if sources are written in a foreign language? I have tried to follow the Forestella wiki article as reference, as they have many citations written in Korean. In previous q I have posted here, suggestion was to use translation citation, which I have done. Anything else? Echohk (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! As for the sources, whether they are in Korean or English it does not matter; they just have to describe the subject in detail and be reliable. However, please read the comments submitted in the draft as well. You cannot use Namuwiki as a source as it is unreliable and edited by ordinary people just like Wikipedia. #prodraxis connect 20:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Per previous guidance, I have removed all references and citations to Namuwiki... Echohk (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Echohk: I noticed references 16 and 17 are identical. Please don't duplicate references. Use named references instead to consolidate them together into a single citation, while still being able to cite it multipe times. See WP:NAMEDREF for guidance. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, this was very helpful. Consolidated the citations, which helped clean up the reference list. Any other suggestion is greatly appreciated. Echohk (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Double entries, sort of...

There is a page on artist Monika Fleischmann which I am working on updating now. There is also a page on this artist at Monika Fleischmann and Wolfgang Strauss. What is the best way to handle this? Should they be merged, stay separate, etc? Thank you LWu22 (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC) LWu22 (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to discuss this with contributors at the other article, it looks like there's been activity there quite recently. You can try posting on their user talk page to get their attention, in case they're not keeping an eye on the article talk page. In any case, some useful questions to consider include:
- do reliable sources show that each one is independently notable enough to have their own article?
- if the combined article is split into separate pages Monika Fleischmann and Wolfgang Strauss, how much overlapping content would there be in the separate articles?
- how much prose (not lists of works, exhibitions, awards or publications) can be written about Fleischmann without involving Strauss?
Hope that helps, —2406:3003:2077:1E60:B664:BB58:22E3:BD8D (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hiatus

When a artist announces a temporary hiatus, how should that be reflected in their page? Should it remain 2000 - Present / or / 2000 - 2023 / or / 2000 - 2023 (Hiatus)? Ladybord (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ladybord. If the source you have cited states that an artist has stopped being a creative artist, you can cite that source as saying that, at point X, they ceased being creative. 'Present' is not a useful term, as it depends on when one encounters it. Now? Or 30 years in the future?
I would suggest something like: "In 2000, artist X announced that they would stop working" [cite source]. Leave it to new sources to indicate if/when they resume activity. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification on this matter! Ladybord (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone else please handle the clueless (?) new user turning the abovementioned into an outright advert; I've already made two reverts. (Possibly connected with earlier reverted edits by other user / ip, all insist on changing the make to Isuzu.)
Thanks in advance! 2406:3003:2077:1E60:B664:BB58:22E3:BD8D (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Restored the most recent stable version and warned the user on the talk page; though I see that the user already has been warned. SpaceEconomist192 03:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove attached accounts

Hi there! I was reviewing my global account information and noticed that I currently have 78 accounts linked to my global account. These accounts were created by simply accessing the corresponding project's website. I was wondering if it's possible to detach these accounts from my global account? I don't wish an Armenian or Vietnamese account. Many thanks. SpaceEconomist192 03:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@spaceeconomist192: this is currently not possible. ltbdl (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SpaceEconomist192: they're not accounts per se, more like local branch offices for your global account; in any case, most are likely to be just empty placeholders with no edit history. The system sets them up when it sees you access a different language version of Wikipedia, so that if you decide to do any editing, it has somewhere to log your edit history. Don't worry about them, they do no harm and cost you nothing. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly clear, SpaceEconomist192, you only have one account. If you use your account on other Wikimedia projects, you may see an illusion that you have multiple accounts. But what you really have is a single account active on multiple Wikimedia projects. Cullen328 (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia source for Wikipedia?

Hi!

I was looking at the Group 9 elements and I noticed that barely anything was there. Then I looked at each of the elements and saw that a lot was written, so can I use the elements' article as info for another article? UB Blacephalon (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blacephalon, unfortunately no, as per WP:CIRCULAR, Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources. You are welcome to add reliable references that is used from one article to another! Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 03:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Am I allowed to use other articles for info to put there? UB Blacephalon (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For Wiki as a source, no. If you would like to copy text from one Wiki article and paste on another Wiki article, you can do that and follow directions at WP:PATT. Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 04:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears i dont understand the directions on that. Could you explain it in simpler terms? UB Blacephalon (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you want to copy text from a Wiki article and paste it on a different Wiki article, then you need to provide attribution – which WP:PATT explains. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia also states Wikipedia's licensing requires that attribution be given to all users involved in creating and altering the content of a page. This applies for copy-and-pasting text from one article to another, as stated above. Hope this helps! Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 05:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I just have to say that I copied it and this is where its from? UB Blacephalon (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! For example, copied content from Oklahoma; see that page's history for attribution. Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 06:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Is there any way I have to say it? Formally of course. UB Blacephalon (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blacephalon, this is an informal project with great flexibility. Simply state clearly and unambiguously in your edit summary where, specifically, you are copying the content from, and for what purpose. You are the only person who can state your intentions clearly. That is the purpose of edit summaries. Cullen328 (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh OK. Thank you! UB Blacephalon (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damodran Nair to Damodaran Nair

Per latest sources available on the internet, [1][2][3][4][5], I guess this should be moved? Jeraxmoira (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@jeraxmoira: if you're confident, you can do it yourself. under "tools", click "move this page". if you're not confident, make a requested move. ltbdl (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I have moved it now. Jeraxmoira (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aspect Ventures

Does anyone have time to merge this and delete the article. The one founder looks like she already has a substantial section on it.. the other needs a couple sentences.. Aspect Ventures 2607:FB91:8808:D6E6:AC39:D1F1:66E0:DB84 (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

edited article disappeared

I am trying to submit my first article 'Arne Johnson', nuclear physicist and spent yesterday 6 hours to totally rewrite the article. When switching to the talk page to get some feedback, apparently everything disappeared, only some sentences at the end, that should not be part stayed in the text. Are there ways to retrieve what has been lost? Do edited pages disappear when switching to the talk page? RamonWyss (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is here Draft:Arne Johnson it has not disappeared? It requires re-formatting per WP:MOS before it can be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you have edited the article on 25 August and there is no edit history of it. If you did not publish the edits before switching to the talk page, a pop-up box will appear saying "Leave site? Changes you made may not be saved". You will lose all your edits if you proceed to switch to the talk page. But sometimes, the Chrome/Wikipedia has a cache mechanism I guess? which stores your edit even after you close the tab without publishing it. And when you reopen your visual editor on the same article, all the content you have added/ edited will still exist. Jeraxmoira (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A reminder that not everyone edits using Chrome, Jeraxmoira. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Not sure how other browsers work w.r.t this issue. Jeraxmoira (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've had Firefox unload the editing interface on me because I tabbed into a different app. Save early and save often. Folly Mox (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article for creation, what am I doing wrong?

Hi, I am a relative newbie and I would really like to know how I might improve the article I have submitted for creation at Draft:Gail_Renard. The references I've added seem to be the concern.

1st rejection was "By no means can the current sourcing be considered significant. Please read the guidelines before any additional submissions."

2nd rejection was "Please cite sources, and ensure that the article describes what the sources discuss."

Can someone steer me in the right direction for how I make this work? HGoody (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HGoody, what you have to do first is demonstrate that Renard is notable (as notability is defined by and for Wikipedia): after all, it's the failure to demonstrate this that is cited in each of the three "decline" notices. Is there significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about [her] in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of [her] (and of each other)? If so, please start by -- here, in this thread -- nominating three sources of this kind. -- Hoary (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt, I will attempt an answer.
-Decades of writing for TV (IMDB & other wiki pages talk about the shows)
-Creating a show that won a BAFTA (covered by the BAFTA site and news sites)
-Being with John & Yoko at the Bed-in for peace (covered by BBC)
I guess my answer is at the crux of the problem. If a writer creates a show & it wins a BAFTA, then are sources that back up that fact not enough for notability? Do I need to also find evidence that people are talking about her doing it? HGoody (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A ref that confirms that a person won an award is useful, butif name only, as in X won Y, that is considered a passing mention, hence not sufficient as confirming notability. You need at least three refs having been written about Gail. David notMD (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're running up against WP:NOTINHERITED here. Plenty of people write a notable show (or book, or whatever), but are not independently notable themselves. Wikipedia requires sources that are primarily about the author rather than the thing that they wrote. Similarly, the Bed-in stuff speaks to Lennon's notability, not hers. MrOllie (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HGoody, I invited you to nominate three sources. Admittedly this word has various shades of meaning, but in this context it means published texts, written and published independently of Renard, describing or discussing Renard or her works. (For joint works to which she contributed, her contributions to these need to be described or discussed.) These need not be online; and if a source is online it may be behind a paywall. And they needn't be in English. However, sources in English that are online and aren't behind paywalls would be more welcome. A quibble with MrOllie: I don't suppose that Renard had a starring role in "the Bed-in stuff"; but if she didn't, no matter: perhaps her involvement was itself written up by others; and the draft tells us that she had a reputable (non-vanity) publisher publish a book about the experience, a book that may have been reviewed. If a substantive write-up or review was published, feel free to nominate it as one of the three sources. -- Hoary (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your continued patience. It's really helpful to get all of this feedback
How would you rate these as sources?
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2008/apr/30/johnlennon
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2012/01/give-me-chance-book-review.html
https://televisionheaven.co.uk/reviews/echoes-of-louisa HGoody (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

I started translating The Secret Belgian Army. When I went back to finish my translations dissapared. Can you help? Hentieger46 (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. Your edits are stored in the edit history, but they were removed because you were overwriting the English article with your Afrikaans translation- you need to go to the Afrikaans Wikipedia to translate an article to there from here. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hentieger46 When you do translate an article from English, please follow the guidance at WP:TRANSLATEUS which has important information, including how to link back to the source here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Near East

Hello, the quarrels of Pakistani editors do not seem to stop, the fact is that there are many nationalities in Pakistan - Punjabis, Pashtuns, Balochs, Sindhis and others, well, I noticed that the editors on the history of Afghanistan and Baloch edit according to the rules of Wikipedia (actually) but the Punjabs do not welcome this, here is one of them https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1172364468 RamanBalach (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RamanBalach. Sutyarashi reverted your edit, with an edit summay Unreliable per WP:RAJ, also it doesn't contain the claim of "Rind Baloch". Plus, atleast reply to messages posted on your talk page.
You then revert their revert with no edit summary. Your action is edit warring, and is not acceptable. Please review WP:BRD, and then discuss the matter as directed there. (Note: I am making absolutely no statement about the rights and wrongs of these edits: I have no knowledge or interest in the matter. I am simply directing you to follow Wikipedia procedures). ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ramanbalach has been reported to SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ali banu sistani. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do I suggest a review to remove tags from 2012?

HI This page has substantially improved since the warning in 2012--but I do not know the process for suggesting that someone review it again? What is that procedure? The page is:

Clockwork Watch - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_Watch Thank you. LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LoveElectronicLiterature Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If I'm not mistaken, if you feel that the problems are adequately addressed, you can just go and remove them. There isn't a process for assessing problems with articles and tagging them; any user can do it by using templates. Hope this helps. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Thank you. I removed these tags:
 – Removed tags to prevent accidental maintenance categorization. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
with the explanation that all of these issues have been resolved. Does anyone else review? LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nobody whose job it is to review such things. If there are people who have that article on their watchlist, they may notice the change and go and check for themselves. If you really want to get somebody else's eyes on it, you might ask at the WikiProject mentioned on the article's talk page - here, WT:WikiProject Science Fiction. I don't think the project's very active, but there may be people monitoring its talk page. ColinFine (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orangemike is an active editor with a deep interest in science fiction. Cullen328 (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User Sutyarashi (talk) accused of racism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131551905

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131547359

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169138069

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1159469798 RamanBalach (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RamanBalach, those are edits to Wikipedia articles. They are not "accusations" of anybody for anything.
If you mean that you are accusing Sutyarashi of racism, you should read about no personal attacks. If you think there is a behavioural issue that needs addressing, take it to WP:ANI - but read the notes at the top of that page very carefully first. ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Liz Read! Talk! 19:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia directions

Hello. I am aware this is a Wikipedia chat but I have a quick question regarding Wikimedia. I believe this File:William Campbell (Medal of Honor).jpg may not actually be the person it says it is. I have further reasoning at the talk page of William Campbell but I would like to see if there is a relevant forum on Wikimedia to discuss potential changes to the data of the original file. Sorry for the lack of relevance to the chat and thanks in advance! Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Clyde. That file is on Commons, so the best place to discuss it would be commons:Commons:Help desk. ColinFine (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Image removed from article until issue settled at Commons. David notMD (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to cite info from Ancestry.com?

I'm trying to expand and improve the article on actress Amzie Strickland, but having a hard time finding reliable secondary sources that confirm her birth date, location, and parents. The only sources I can find that do are personal records on Ancestry.com. I was wondering if anybody could please explain to me how I can properly cite these records in her article? Please keep in mind that I will only use these records to attest her date and place of birth, as well as the identity of her parents. They will not be used in any way that contradicts the guidelines in WP:PRIMARY. Thank you kindly. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CurryTime7-24. Per WP:ANCESTRY, do not cite Ancestry.com directly. Instead, cite the specific documents directly. Cullen328 (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup section vs cleanup article

I'm looking at Iranian University Entrance Exam right now and two of the sections are not up to standard. Should I apply two cleanup sections or one cleanup article template? There are citations but errors in the typography. Artwhitemaster (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use one template for the whole article. In a very long article that otherwise didn't require the template, it'd be best to apply cleanup section templates to the problematic sections individually. But with an article this small, I'd just do one template. The other reason for doing so is that there's a good chance that there are other typographical errors to be found elsewhere in the article. Pecopteris (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Non-Roman Alphapet Macro & Maiden Names

  • The entry for [Tito] uses the macro '''Josip Broz''' ({{lang-sh-Cyrl|Јосип Броз}}, {{IPA-sh|jǒsip brôːz|pron}} for Tito's name. There is no problem with this entry, but Vesna Goldsworthy's maiden name is entered without an indication that the Gaj's Latin Alphabet is being used. I cannot find an index of language abbreviations for use in the above macro. Vesna Goldsworthy used a Roman chacter spelling of her maiden name after arriving in England [1] Can you tell me where these language abbreviations are listed?
  • Is it better to use the macro {{nee|Bjelogrlić}} as been done by the editor who added her maiden mane or just use 3 names as Goldsworthy once did, i.e., Vesna Bjelogrlic-Goldsworthy, and state in the article that she married a man named Goldsworhy [1].

Oldsilenus (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Goldsworthy Vesna. Chernobyl Strawberries. Wilmington Square Books. London, UK.2005

{over-quotation} for a section?

Is there a way to add an over-quotation template for just a section, or should I use template:long quote instead? I'm looking at Gérald Darmanin#Intimidation against the Human Rights League. Artwhitemaster (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@artwhitemaster:
{{over-quotation|section=yes}} ltbdl (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Artwhitemaster, it appears from the quotation marks that a miscellany of people who I'd expect would be expressing themselves in French have instead been expressing themselves in English. This is odd. Another oddity is the care currently taken to present what was merely "mentioned". (The writer probably doesn't fully understand the nuances of this verb.) And certain uses of the present tense, though normal if this were in French, are odd when it's instead in English. -- Hoary (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This passage cites an article that is entirely in French, so as far as I can see nothing within the quotation marks is actually a quotation, therefore I suggest you simply delete all those quotation marks. Shantavira|feed me 09:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article Translation

Hello, I intended to create an article in English, which was actually a translation of a Persian article. Due to the lack of sources in English, I made the article with minimal information, but still it is not approved. This article in Persian is very complete and comprehensive and includes many Persian sources, but unfortunately there is such a problem for the English translation.

Draft English article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mohsen_Bahrami

Persian article in Wikipedia: https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%86_%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C TheRealRainbowFlick (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. Please note that each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies, so what is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. I cannot understand Persian but I do see that article is significantly longer- it is possible that a fully translated version might be acceptable, if it establishes that this man is notable as we define notability. It is not required that sources be in English. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. The article in Farsi has very reliable sources, but for English, there is only a summary of the sources, so it is much shorter than in Farsi. TheRealRainbowFlick (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please am new here

Hello please I'm a new Wikipedia editor. First and foremost I would like to thank the Wikipedia theme on inviting me here to learn more and to become a professional editor. I would love to ask and to get guidelines on how to edit. I sincerely love to become an editor here on Wikipedia and I will love the guidelines and group of people or an individual who can support me by guiding me all through so I can be an editor who understand the mission. thanks. Chocobnj (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]