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

Pour les pocheux prémen partou

¹je sit just vetiter 2001:56B:9FF2:CA14:0:5E:6EA7:EF01 (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Google translate is not helping me understand this. If this is about the English Wikipedia, Please post in English. French Wikipedia Teahhouse is at fr:Wikipédia:Forum_des_nouveaux RudolfRed (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I think this is French gibberish. I'm reasonably competent in French, and can't make head or tail of it. None of the apparent content words (pocheux, prémen, partou, or vetiter) is in Wiktionary, and neither "sit" nor "just" has a French entry there. ColinFine (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Not the headline, but the "je sit just vetiter" is being translated as coming from Albanian as "it's just your own site". Lectonar (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that Google is talking through its rear end. "Je" means "you are", "sit" does seem to mean "site" (in the architectural or archaeological sense, but not for a website), and "vetite" seems to mean "property" in the sense of "characteristic". I may be wrong though. ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I am a native French speaker and this is definitely not French, gibberish or otherwise.

"Partou" is Antillean Creole for the (metropolitan) French "partout" (English: "everywhere"), and the rest of the title kind-of sounds Creole when read aloud. However, "prémen" or "pocheux" are not found in any Creole dictionary I found, and a basic online search yields no hits. I am going to assume gibberish. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked from editing an article with a lock

Hi, I found out yesterday or today that I was indefinitely blocked from editing an article which now has a lock on it and was wondering how do I do an edit request if I want a piece edited? How do I get unblocked from editing unreliable sources, and poorly sourced articles? I got indefinitely blocked from editing Earhardt’s page, and now they decline my request to be unblocked 2 times bc I didn’t explain why I want to be unblocked. I’ve been making a few editing suggestions on my account from topics that I choose from that is really easy, and sometimes hard but I try to fix what the article wants. I have given up on editing Earhardt’s article of BLP:DOB since I couldn’t find reliable sources stating her saying she’s _____ this age. But other sources that I have found has her birth year, and date. I stopped editing her page bc I got indefinitely blocked now, and was wondering since I’m blocked from editing her page if I can request an edit but have someone find reliable sources? I have been practicing editing other articles, and have did better so far. I look up the articles, and then I copy the link in the button that says website copy. So far the admin likes some of the edits I did. I only do the copy editing ones since it’s easier for me, and a lot understandable. I’m still a little new to Wikipedia, and editing. Thank u, and will continue editing some more to get better by each article. Dandielayla (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

No you can't request an edit and have someone find reliable sources for you. You'd have to find them yourself and present them in your edit request. You do not have any realistic chance of being unblocked from editing that page. I recommend leaving that article alone for now and moving on. Pecopteris (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

You can find websites there which states which sources are reliable or aren't. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#perennial_sources but even if rotten tomatoes and tv guide are listed reliable they are not so dont use them Veganpurplefox (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

OP now indef blocked from all editing. David notMD (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction

I posted on the talk page about access issues and tagged the page. Other than the very rude reply I got, I couldn't quite see in what way to improve the page. I have a problem with the table and it's very annoying to scroll across on a MacBook, let alone on an iPad or mobile. I wasn't sure how to go about improving the article. It would be nice to have a few other people look at the tables there, or think of a way to improve it. Much appreciated, Govvy (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

You have already started a discussion at the article talk page. That is the correct place to discuss the issue. However, the talk page is for suggested improvements, and you haven't suggested a way to improve it. It is true that large tables are not very mobile friendly; they are not designed to be consulted on a mobile, but large tables are common in Wikipedia. Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Writing about a defunct but still registered non-profit

Hello! Came across the page for the so-called Entertainment Consumers Association. It's a page which has a bunch of issues frankly. It reads a bit like an advertisement, is quite dependant on primary sources, and I'm a bit suspicious of the organization's spin as a consumer advocates organization, when it clearly lobbies for industry interests. The main issue though, is that the organization appears to be defunct. The last year I can find press on it is 2014, and checking the IRS filings, the total reported annual revenue from membership dues dropped to 2$ as of 2018. Its safe to say that while it continues to be a registered non-profit, it is no longer actively working.

This seems like a really obvious question (and maybe I'm just on the sleepy side), but what kind of sourcing do I need to start moving everything in the article into the past tense, as they've obviously wound down their active operating? Is there a way to write that they are not actively operating without it being OR? Handpigdad (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Handpigdad: I don't know if this is the right, let alone the only right, answer, but here's what I'd do. I'd populate the |dissolved = field in the infobox with the dissolution date, and cite a reliable source against it. After that you can presumably turn it all into past tense, based on that. If you can't find such a source or have other hard evidence that the association has been dissolved, then perhaps start a discussion on the talk page? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @DoubleGrazing. This is helpful. I have already started a discussion on the talk page. The issue I'm having is that they aren't dissolved. They dutifully file taxes each year, they've just stopped doing anything public and their expenses are purely administrative. Do you think I could cite their publically available tax return showing no revenues as an indicator that they are defunct? It seems rather unlikely that a better source would come along, but also is clearly innacurate for our article to discuss their various operations in the present tense. Handpigdad (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Handpigdad: sorry, I seem to have confused defunct and dissolved. The Template:Infobox organization also has a |defunct = parameter, which could/should be used instead. Again, you'd need to cite a solid source, and it seems to me that filing effectively nil tax returns might not quite amount to that. But maybe the talk page discussion will shed some light on this, good luck! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Notability questioned for Ostap Korkuna

It appears that @Robert McClenon would like additional eyes on the notability of Ostap Korkuna. Hopefully someone can take a look - IMHO, there are more than enough references in this article, including deep coverage by Voice of America (in Ukrainain), Central News Agency (Taiwan) (in Chinese), Helsingin Sanomat (in Finnish), as well as San Francisco Chronicle, Fox KTVU (local news), and some coverage on KQED, an NPR affiliate. Also, a fresh award from President Volodymyr Zelensky. Thx for looking into this. Qq8 (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Qq8, the first sentence of the article has seven references, for a seemingly uncontroversial statement. This will make readers suspect something fishy. Anyway – which three of the sources cited, in your opinion, do most to establish that Korkuna is notable? The San Francisco Chronicle source doesn't help, as it reports what Korkuna said, and so isn't an independent source. Please not that references are judged on quality, not quantity. Maproom (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Qq8, I lived for 50 years in the San Francisco Bay Area, so I evaluated the sources that I am most familiar with. The San Francisco Chronicle coverage is based largely on what Korkuna told a reporter, and is therefore not independent. The KTVU coverage consists of direct quotations of Korkuna, and is therefore not independent. The KQED source consists of just three sentences, one of which paraphrases Korkuna's opinion. This is not significant coverage. What is required are references to reliable sourced that are entirely independent of Korkuna, and that devote significant coverage to Korkuna. If your other sources are of comparable quality, then Robert McClenon is probably correct. Cullen328 (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Then, I noticed that two of your references are to Medium, which is a self-publishing and blogging platform, and which is not a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Should those two be deleted? Qq8 (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Qq8. Having any obviously unreliable sources in the article is a bad idea. Having any mediocre sources in the article at all is a bad idea, when your goal is to establish notability. As Maproom pointed out above, the quality of sources is vastly more important than the quantity of sources. High quality sources are like solid gold. Mediocre sources are like sand and gravel. Cullen328 (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Qq8 (talk) 09:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328, the Taiwanese source looks stronger, you can open it and translate the page in your browser (if your browser supports that). The Finnish source - also, although it is occasionally behind the paywall. Hopefully, a state award helps too - it's more selective than coverage in the media. Qq8 (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The Helsingin Sanomat article doesn't even mention Korkuna, or feature a picture of him as claimed. Therefore the two statements against which that source is cited are not verified by it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing - you may be looking at the top paragraph and not seeing the entire article. I'll check Qq8 (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Qq8, I cannot read the Finnish source due to a paywall. The Taiwanese source is an interview of Korkuna, and is therefore not independent. There is also a PR Newswire source. They just regurgitate press releases for money, so that is pretty much the opposite of an independent source. Cullen328 (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Qq8: really? Can you tell me where, exactly? I am looking at the entire article (I'm a HS subscriber, as it happens), and I still can't see it. I also searched the text for both 'Ostap' and 'Korkuna', in case my eyes were failing me, but nothing came up. In fact, I searched the entire HS archive, and there was no mention of him. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, apologies. I think I saved an image. Let me check. Qq8 (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, I see six images, and indeed none of them matches Korkuna's image. Let me scan the text - (I don't read Finnish) Qq8 (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems like you are right. It's good to have language expertise handy. Qq8 (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Qq8. I'm not sure that tagging the editor who added the notability tag on this teahouse question is particularly good form. On the subject of your notability request, I would just add that an Order of Merit III degree does not by itself confer much notability. It was awarded alongside dozens of others. Handpigdad (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The thought was that maybe the editor can chime in, but I can accept your point. As for the Order ref, wouldn't it add to other sources? And why being awarded alongside others is a detriment? This happens once per year, much less frequently than, say New York Times articles that you would accept as good references. Thx Qq8 (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Qq8, awards are completely different from reliable news media coverage. An award contributes to notability only to the extent that independent, reliable sources report on the specific award. A Ukrainian government announcement of a Ukrainian government award is not an independent source. Cullen328 (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Got it. But hopefully that's still worth leaving in the article (aside from notability). Qq8 (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328@DoubleGrazing - thank you for detailed explanations and insights. I wasn't sure if it was a good idea to start removing clearly unreliable or irrelevant sources in the middle of the discussion, but can certainly remove the Medium and Helsingin Sanomat. The Taiwanese source seems worth keeping as it covers street rallies and Korkuna's participation.

I see half a dozen additional sources online - mostly local TV and radio coverage of Korkuna and his woring Qq8 (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Qq8: another question that we should ask is, how did this article come about? There exists an earlier draft, Draft:Ostap Korkuna, which has been twice declined at AfC, which you didn't create but have been involved in editing. I haven't done a text comparison, but a quick glance suggests the article in the mainspace may be a copypaste move – is that so? In which case, please don't do that, as it loses the edit history, which must be retained for legal reasons. (And a histmerge is probably now needed.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Some copying was involved, but I worked on it in my sandbox to add material and see how it looks. Didn't know about histmerge and legal reasons(in this case?) Qq8 (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The first version in your sandbox is 100% identical to the AfC draft as it stood at the time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328@DoubleGrazing - I removed The Medium, HS and the press-release refs. Unrelated, doesn't Korkuna meet notability under WP:ACADEMIC through Ref 6? "2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." A gold medal at ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest fits the criterion. Qq8 (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Two Copies

Thank you, User:Cullen328, User:DoubleGrazing - I didn't do a detailed source analysis, but will explain two of the reasons why I had notability concerns. First, the reason why I didn't do a detailed source analysis was that the article had been reference-bombed. There is a myth among some would-be submitters to Wikipedia that, because sources are necessary, adding more sources is the way to ensure that an article is kept. That is a myth, but it is a widely held myth, and so some authors reference-bomb their articles. Some reviewers look at an article that has been reference-bombed, and think that maybe the author was trying to discourage a source analysis by making it long and hard. So the excessive number of references made me wary. Second, there was already a draft, and the draft had been declined. The draft was then copied into article space. This makes reviewers very concerned. Why did you submit the draft for review if you did not plan to continue to use the review process? Why did you run around the review after it was declined? Creating both a draft and an article is a common practice of paid editors, or other editors who are not in good faith. It has the "advantage" that the article cannot be moved back into draft space by one of those difficult reviewers, because there is already a draft. So, the combination of too many references, making it hard to assess them individually, and both a draft and an article are hallmarks of paid editing or other conflict of interest editing. I don't like seeing both a draft and an article created at the same time. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

High Quality images

Hey, i'm a new wikipedia editor, to get a feel for editing i figured i could try replacing low quality/low resolution images with higher quality images that depict the same thing, mostly on articles for video games since many of those have small, low resolution JPEGS. Just wondering if this would be OK Powder9157 (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Powder9157. Copyrighted images uploaded to the English Wikipedia under the stringent terms of Non-free content - images are required by policy to be low resolution, for reasons related to copyright law and infringement on commercial opportunities. On the other hand, freely licensed and public domain images can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons at the highest practical resolution. Feel free to work with those types of images. Cullen328 (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Linking different languages articles

Hello would it be possible to link the english article to the french article of Edward Hayter https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Hayter Veganpurplefox (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done at Wikidata here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Veganpurplefox (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

AI

Has Wikipedia considered it's own AI? The quality of Wikipedia information could make it a gem. 24.222.250.175 (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Your suggestion is unclear. Numerous virtual assistants already obtain much of their information from Wikipedia. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Somewhat related: Wikimedia(the group that runs Wikipedia) released a plugin for ChatGPT. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

reference in this article

I want to put the the reference in this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimosa_tenuiflora

Because this article says that refernece need.My anchor text is mimosa hostilis. kindly let me know where i can put the reference? Hamisaeed (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Please see WP:REFB. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Hamisaeed: Where to put the reference depends upon which fact(s) it supports. I suggest you create a new post at Talk:Mimosa tenuiflora where you share the reference and ask the other editors interested in this topic for their recommendations. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

My edits in Psychedelic drug. Why they have been removed if Psychedelic therapy poses risks and we know the history of it?

why did my edits in Psychedelic drug page got removed. Psychedelic therapy is not safe. And it poses some risks and we need to talk about that. There were cases where people in Psychedelic therapy have mental health worse and even psychologists are now criticising It. We know where it went in 60s and I don't want society full of esoterics who believe Mind over body. Or people that their mental health got worse after going through it. Risks should never be hidden and underestimated, we should openly talk about them Matejstein12 (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The information you added was completely unreferenced. All information in Wikipedia must be reliably sourced. Please see WP:42. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Just going to add that articles about medical matters tend to be even more highly scrutinized and require even stronger sourcing as explained here that perhaps is required for other types of articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

but Will be there some balanced information about this therapy, because psychedelic drugs are still unpredictable. If I cannot add that, will you? Because people need to have information why yes and Why no. If there is no balanced info, it Feels like they want turn us into mystics so we can be more easily manipulated. So there should definitely be balanced information about psychedelics and therapy part Matejstein12 (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

We're very much in favour of balanced information. Per WP:42 you simply need to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

but someone really should add risks associated with psychedelic therapy. No one can't be just silent about that like if they didn't exist. If there are professional editors than they should add benefits and risks. Matejstein12 (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Matejstein12: Too often new editors think that "balanced information" means "equal weight to all sides". No, it doesn't. That's WP:FALSEBALANCE. We don't "balance" our article on Earth to include the views of flat-earth adherants, for example. Information in the article should be presented according to the weight given by reliable sources. As a consequence, WP:FRINGE views typically don't get presented in articles. If you want to add something to an article, you need to find a reliable source that covers it. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

but psychedelic therapy has a risks. This is supposed to talk about it, not being silent about it. There must be Open minded information about benefits and risks. So if Someone can do that, Then he or she should. Matejstein12 (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Once you have appropriate sources, you may do so. Not before. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

As someone who's had some incredibly powerful psychedelic experiences, both positive and (potentially) negative, I'm sympathetic to OP's concern, even though he's not a Wikilawyer.

I also believe that there are situations where important and valuable information falls through the cracks due to Wikipedia's idiosyncratic sourcing requirements. This could be an example. The statement "taking psychedelics is risky" is not even in the same universe as "the earth is flat", so I reject that analogy and reject the invocation of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Go take 1000ug of LSD and then tell me that concerns about psychological safety are "fringe". Psychedelics do, indeed, have the capacity to be very dangerous, and anyone who's experimented with them at high doses knows this for a fact, whether or not any "RS" says it - which, if they don't, is very negligent and irresponsible of them.

Over the years, I've been a trip sitter many, many times. If someone asked me for advice about tripping, and I painted a picture as rosy as the one the Wikipedia article paints, that would be recklessly irresponsible of me. It would be a shame if someone took psychedelics unwisely because of an overly-cheery Wikipedia article about the topic, and I'd be almost tempted to invoke WP:IAR if there was no mention of the dangers of psychedelics in the "psychedelic drug" article.

Passages like this one in the lede are of particular concern: " Research has been conducted, however, and studies show that psychedelics are physiologically safe and rarely lead to addiction." - physiologically safe, sure, but this makes no mention of the fact that you may be psychologically devastated for weeks, months, or years if you take these things improperly.

However, the "psychedelic therapy" subsection of the psychedelic drug page does include the following passage: "As of 2022, the body of high-quality evidence on psychedelic therapy remains relatively small and more, larger studies are needed to reliably show the effectiveness and safety of psychedelic therapy's various forms and applications."

This is, at least, an acknowledgement that there are unresolved safety concerns that necessitate further scientific study. Also, there is an entire section called "adverse effects" here.

I think a concrete improvement that can be made to the article to address OP's well-founded concerns is to include a mention of the "Adverse effects" section in the lede, rather than only presenting positive information in the lede. These adverse effects would ideally be mentioned directly after the passage that states "psychedelics are physiologically safe. Pecopteris (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pecopteris, feel free to start working on such improvements at the article, or at least to start a talk page discussion about making such improvements (as opposed to carrying on such a discussion here at the Teahouse, where interested parties are less likely to take notice, and to avoid splitting discussion across multiple pages). 57.140.16.29 (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I've started a new section at the article's talk page. I invite everyone to move the conversation to that thread. Pecopteris (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Can someone kindly help review my draft; I was told it has no sources

Hello House, I'd be most appreciative if someone much more experienced can kindly look through my draft for me. I had apparently posted it prematurely and it was then reviewed and sent back to drafts with the note that it has no sources. This was confusing for me as over 15 sources had been cited in the article. Thanks in advance. FlawlessTouch (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I assume this is about Draft:Kolade Shasi. That message looks incorrect. The article does have sources, as specified. I'm not really familiar with the subject or the sources, but I think the best way of getting the draft to be accepted would be to focus on his appearance at the Cannes Film Festival. That should have appeared in multiple international magazines or news outlets, particularly if he's won an award. That should show most people that the subject had achieved international importance in multiple respected sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you, if he had stated that there weren’t enough reliable sources then that would have helped but he just stated that there were no sources, which is confusing. Your suggestions are helpful. Thanks again. FlawlessTouch (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@FlawlessTouch: it is true, as Ritchie333 says, that the article/draft does have sources, however... five of them are not considered reliable, one source (cited three times) doesn't work, at least two are interviews, and some may be based on publicity materials; therefore WP:GNG notability is unlikely to have been fully established. Also, there is quite a lot of biographical detail which is unreferenced, directly contravening the WP:BLP rules. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Aaah, I see, thanks for the clarification, this is certainly more helpful as the original reviewer just stated that there were no sources and as such, that was confusing. Can you be kind enough to point out which source doesn’t work and maybe why it doesn’t work also. Thank you FlawlessTouch (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@FlawlessTouch: the script (MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft) that can be used to draftify articles preselects by default the 'no sources' option, and unless the draftifying editor deselects that option, it gets given as a reason. Probably what happened here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The theustimes.com source (refs #9, 10, 20) returns a 'site cannot be reached' error; I've no idea why.

BellaNaija.com (cited four times) and Linda Ikeji's Blog are not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Can't put a clickable button in navbox!

I was working on my user page and i was thinking: "Hmm, can I put a clickable button in the navbox to make it look speldin'?" So I did, but instead of a button that I could click, it only has shown the text it stored. I used {{Clickable button|TEXT}} template. Please help me! Anton2038 (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it will only show that text. You haven't said what you were expecting it to do. If you want it to take you somewhere you need to add the name of that page. See the documentation at Template:Clickable button Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see the template on your user page now. It would be easier to diagnose the problem if we could see how you're using it. Also note that {{Clickable button}} is merging with {{Clickable button 2}} - see the messages on those template pages. GoingBatty (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

OK! Thanks :)

Press for a cookie ;) Anton2038 (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have special rules about biographies of dead people?

We have WP:BLP. How about dead people? Aredoros87 (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello Aredoros87 and welcome to the Teahouse.

Recently deceased persons are still covered by the polices at BLP.

Otherwise, content is subject to Wikipedia's normal polices on verifiability, notability, and so on. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for response. How do we define "recently"? For example, is 6 months can be considered as recent? Aredoros87 (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Aredoros87: see WP:BDP (part of BLP). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Aredoros87 As you are a new editor, I'd advise you to treat dead people the same as living ones. The over-riding policies are WP:V and WP:NPOV, which you should read. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Aredoros87 (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Aredoros87: "Recently" does seem to have some slop in it, doesn't it? Here's the way to think about it: Traditionally, Wikipedia has allowed to stand statements that seem true even if they are not cited or not cited to a viable source. At least, until someone objects. BLP applies an extra requirement: unsourced or poorly sourced statements must be removed. This tradition of allowing unsourced statements has largely faded away in newly added material, but we are not going back to aggressively police existing articles in this respect. Maybe we should, but there's a lot of work involved, since – properly done – it involves first finding possible sources rather than simply removing – think about why {{citation needed}} is used. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Aredoros87: BTW: the policy language says "indeterminate", but then clarifies with "six months, one year, two years at the outside". — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Cannot find a page I started but not published yet

Cannot find a page I started but not published yet

It is a bio for Bjarne Berg Wig

Many thanks Elsa Haagensen Karlsen (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Other than this page and the Help Desk(please do not use more than one forum for a question) your account has no edits. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

FYI

Answered at Help Desk. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

How to make little coloured boxed in user page

I got told how to make a babel box but how do we do a box with interests,and things that i noticed many people on Wikipedia have on their user page. Is it for everyone or just for reviewers? Veganpurplefox (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox You can certainly copy the style of other long-term editors on to your own user page. The general guidance is at WP:UPYES. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox: If you want to find already-created userboxes about interests and other topics (there are tons of them), you can look through Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries. Should you want to create a custom userbox for yourself, there are instructions at Wikipedia:Userboxes. Deor (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

How to remove Non Notable entry

how a non notable Wikipedia article is removed? Irbasdude (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Irbasdude, if a Wikipedia article is not notable under our current guidelines, it may be nominated for deletion via the articles for deletion process. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 16:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Do we use oxford comma or no?

I know it isn’t that big of a deal, but I feel like standardization should be good. Janlopi (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Janlopi: Either style can be used, but it needs to be consistent within an article. See the guidance at WP:SERIAL RudolfRed (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok thank you so much! Janlopi (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Reversing out of own mess

Help! I tried to alter a sidebar template, realised I was making a mess. (Template:John Cain Jr sidebar → Template:John Cain sidebar and Template talk:John Cain Jr sidebar → Template talk:John Cain sidebar) I wasn't too worried, thinking I could self-revert, but now when I try that, it says the edit has already been 'undone' [good], but does not actually appear to be so on my view [bad]. Can someone check it's okay and apply repairs as needed? (I'm suitably chastened and have already self-administered a slap for the over-confident meddling with templates. Sorry!) AukusRuckus (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [Added: I see I'm supposed to click "move" again (of course!), not undo. I do feel stupid, but I'm not going to try to fix this myself, in case I make a bigger mess. Updated: AukusRuckus (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)]

Looks like someone has already performed a rescue. Phew. AukusRuckus (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

How to get an experienced editor to review my article?

I’m currently working on an artticle, and I’m close to being finished. How can I get it reviewed by someone? Janlopi (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Janlopi: you can submit it for pre-publication review at WP:AFC. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Janlopi: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you're referring to a draft, then I agree with DoubleGrazing. If you're referring to an article, then it will be reviewed by the WP:New pages patrol. You can also have either one reviewed by adding the appropriate WikiProject templates to the talk page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

who

am i going to dye my hair 130.156.76.100 (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a help forum for asking about editing or using Wikipedia, not a general one about hair dyes. Qcne (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

guys i dont know if this is the right place for this, but on the simple english wikipedia fr33kman got his talk page griefed

the IP is 212.18.120.215

block it KeroppiKid (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Already blocked, in the future you can use simple:WP:AIV Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 19:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:GroupM

Hello! On behalf of GroupM, I've submitted a draft article for review at Draft:GroupM. However, the draft was rejected by an editor who said "Corporate notability is based on what independent reliable sources have written about the subject" and "Portions of this draft contain marketing buzzspeak". I am under the impression all of the sources I've included are appropriate for Wikipedia, and I've not been given any specific examples of "buzzspeak" to address.

Since I was invited here to ask for assistance, I would appreciate it if editors could identify any problematic sources or text on the Talk page. I look forward to working with editors to address any concerns. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

:Please explain "On behalf of GroupM" since you state on your user page that you are familiar with WP:PAID. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Ah, never mind, it is declared n the draft talk page 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent: (edit conflict) Sure! I've submitted the draft on behalf of GroupM as part of my work for Beutler Ink, as noted on my profile page (User:Inkian Jason) as well as the Talk pages for both WPP plc (Talk:WPP plc) and the draft (Draft talk:GroupM). I'm hoping for specific feedback about how the draft can be improved, and how I can demonstrate corporate notability for the largest media buying agency in the world. Of course, I would welcome direct improvements to the draft from editors, too. I hope this helps, thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason As you see, I struck my question, having worked it out. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, great! Let me know if you find anything in the draft worth discussing. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I didn't reject the draft. I declined it. Many submitters don't know that those are two different actions, and a decline permits the submitter, or someone else, to improve and resubmit the draft.

I will note that I, and at least some other reviewers, have a relatively high bar to establish separate corporate notability for a division or subsidiary of a parent company that is the subject of its own article, and will often recommend that information about a division or subsidiary be included in the parent article on the parent company, in this case, WPP plc. That was also taken into account in the previous deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I am working to further improve the draft based on editor feedback, and I hope to resubmit at AfC with support from others. GroupM is the world's largest media buying agency, and the business houses EssenceMediacom, which is the world's largest media agency network. Per CNMall41's request, I've shared sources which I believe demonstrate notability, but I would welcome your feedback if there are specific ways I can make corporate notability more clear. As far as I can tell, none of the content at Draft:GroupM duplicates WPP plc. The parent company has dozens of independently notable divisions and subsidiaries, so covering them all in one entry would be difficult. Inkian Jason (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I've made ten edits (a week ago) how do I contribute my own page? Thanks!

Hey, I'm trying to contribute two new pages, and went through ten edits. Am I missing something? Please advise. NAXman (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. You should be able to directly create articles, but it is highly recommended that unless you have prior experience getting articles accepted that you use the draft submission process to find any problems before your work is placed in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@NAXman: Help:Your first article is a wealth of information. GoingBatty (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"my own page" is problematic. Do you intend to create a draft about yourself? See WP:AUTO as to why this almost always fails. Wikipedia prefers the term "article" to "page", and states that there is no ownership - once an article exists, all editors are able to edit it as long as content is supported by reliable source references. David notMD (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

How do I cite an audio interview?

Also, is it possible to cite precise moments from an audio interview, rather than the entire thing? As always, thank you. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

General advice is in Citing - Audio and video sources, and more detailed advice on the use of templates, etc. — including the advice on "minutes in" which you're asking about — in AV media template details. Hope this helps!  Podstawko  ●talk  22:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

My first DYK nom

I nominated a new article for DYK. It was reviewed, and they said it checked all the boxes, except that there was a paragraph in the article with inadequate citations. I fixed the problem, and nothing has happened since. I notified the reviewer, but they haven’t gotten back to me for a couple days now. Could they be busy? Is there anything I need to do? Is there a deadline? Professor Penguino (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Professor Penguino, I'm not finding anywhere on the nomination page or the reviewer's talk page where you notified them, and it doesn't look like you mentioned them by name in your replies to the thread on your talk page, which they may not be watching. I may be missing an obvious venue, but you might want to try politely nudging them with the {{ping}} template on the nomination page. Folly Mox (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do that. Thanks. Professor Penguino (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Copied Draft

I have just noticed that an IP address user copied everything from my draft into Typhoon Saola (2023). What Should I do? Songda Talas 23:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

IP editors are restricted from creating new articles, so it should have been reverted, especially since the original draft was pending for review, but it's too late for that. Since the both pages now has substantial history, I recommend a WP:History merge to fix attribution issues and deleting the AfC template since it is now in mainspace. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"Latest stable version numbers" often out of date – how to edit?

Wikipedia pages for software almost always have an infobox at the top left, and, in turn, it usually contains the version numbers of the latest stable releases for popular platforms (Windows, iOS, etc.) These are often in fact NOT the latest numbers, but when I want to update them, and edit the infobox, the version numbers are not in any of the listed fields. I think they're instead pulled in from Wikidata pages, but I don't know hoe to find those pages in order to edit them. Also, when I edit the infoboxes using the visual editor, I can't see what part of the template generates the list of version numbers.

I've been editing Wikipedia for years, but I still find this and a number of other things hard. And Googling for help on them seems remarkable fruitless. Shouldn't there be more tutorial pages available to Wiki editors?

BTW, 95% of the time, I use the Visual Editor – though I'm not scared of editing markup. Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

hi @Spel-Punc-Gram and welcome to the Teahouse! I believe that what is displayed as the latest stable release in the infobox is the value of software version identifier currently considered preferred in the Wikidata item (for Visual Studio Code, it would be Q19841877). to edit it, you may add another value with the current version (as well as a version type of "stable version" and the date it was released as the publication date) and make it the preferred version, while making the other version normal ranked. wikidata is kinda complicated, so if you want to understand more about it, check out Wikidata Tours. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 01:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Spel-Punc-Gram It may be worth mentioning that the articles you are interested in should (in the default vector 22 skin) have a menu item on the right called "Wikidata item": which is a direct link to the correct page to make the alterations Melecie described. There should be no need to search Wikidata. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This section explains the mechanism for "Moving release data outside the article". @Spel-Punc-Gram: I agree that the documentation is not very accessible. My critique on the process can be found here (answers from supporters of the mechanism too). --Kallichore (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Question about the Georges Feydeau article

Before I say my query, if I posted this in the wrong article, please let me know.

My question was that my recent edit to an article faced opposition as someone reverted it, specifically removing an infobox that I had inserted. I am seeking clarification on the broader policy regarding the inclusion of infoboxes in Wikipedia articles – whether they are mandatory or discretionary. Furthermore, I am keen to gain insights into the rationale behind the removal of the infobox from this specific article. Notably, the article had garnered recognition by being featured as the 'Article of the Day,' which led me to anticipate the possibility of differing opinions concerning my edit.

I would like to know if infoboxes are required on ALL articles or some if they have a lot of information or disregarding the amount of info and just putting the infoboxes there automatically. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not compulsory. The guidelines (at WP:INFOBOXUSE) state “The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.” That article has never had an IB until someone tried to force it in today (probably without knowing that no article needs an IB). - SchroCat (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I've left a comment on at the Georges Feydeau article expressing my opinion and asking a question that will hopefully move the discussion forward. Pecopteris (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

A wise move. Being a rather scatter-brained and muddle-headed wombat of an editor, I do recall that there was some discussion about this in the past, but can't remember exactly where. Some articles have infoboxes (for example: Mandy Rice-Davies) and some articles don't (for example: Noël Coward). I guess you could say that sometimes Mandy Rice-Davies applies, and sometimes it doesn't.--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that, but i don’t think it’ll change anything about the consensus. In my view, I believe the consensus was unfair and should be challenged. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@TheAlienMan2002, the best way to do that would be an WP:RFC, either at the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes (depending on which consensus you want to challenge). 57.140.16.29 (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

57.140.16.29 Well, I already challenged it at the article. But I guess they already came to a conclusion. Very disapointed.TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Are checkuserblock-account blocks logged somewhere?

If yes, where are they? NM 01:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Northern Moonlight: All I know is to go to Special:BlockList, tick the boxes to hide range blocks, autoblocks, and single-IP blocks, and click Search. Then use your browser to find occurrences of the word "checkuser" in the list.

This searches only active blocks, not the history of blocks. Maybe someone else has a better answer. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Special:Log/block also shows now-inactive blocks, but I don't see a way to remove IPs or blocks placed by bots from the list. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 03:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I’ve phrased my question wrong, I can see the log, but it doesn’t really say what abuses the account had done. NM 04:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

That's because they're based on secret evidence. See Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser blocks. Folly Mox (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Northern Moonlight: Checkuser blocks are almost always for sockpuppetry, ranging from one individual who has a couple of accounts to massive rings of linkspamers and undeclared paid editing organizations. The evidence seen by checkusers is not publicly available. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Articles for deletion

Recently I have nominated an article for deletion Veer Teja Vidhya Mandir School but still there are no any votes on weather to delete it or to keep it, why ? I think that the article is for promotional purposes. WikiAnchor10 (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Many nominations and not enough editors wishing to participate in the discussions? There were 67 other nominations on the same day. Give it a week. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 46.65.228.22 (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to use {{Copyvio-revdel}} on boards like WP:EFFPR?

I ask because of <this>, which appears to have been a copyright violation (it was definitely copied at any rate). – 2804:F14:80FB:2E01:4CA1:2349:2447:241C (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a manpage or several. To answer your question, the copyvio policy applies to all pages on the site. Backroom dealings like WP:EFFPR are not excepted. Folly Mox (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Folly Mox: My question is just if it's appropriate to use the template to summon a revdeling admin to said boards - it doesn't look like a particularly big template, and IPs don't even see it, but I'm just worried about it seeming disruptive for use in boards.

Not sure what the copyright of manpages is like, but the comparision page in the toolforge link in my summary (the right side) has a copyright section. – 2804:F14:80FB:2E01:4CA1:2349:2447:241C (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I've only ever placed that template once, months after I had reverted the copyvio, when I learnt it was required to revdel it as well. I don't think I've ever seen one live; they seem to be actioned very quickly (there are four transclusions to non-talk pages at the time of this edit).

So I'm certainly not an expert in how others feel about where it should be used. My apologies for the unclear communication above; I did mean that the template is appropriate for any page in any namespace, since it's the standard method to flag RD1 material in revision history, and the policy applies everywhere. My assumption is that since copyvio is taken so seriously, the template will be actioned and subsequently reverted before it can be perceived as disruptive.

As to the copyright status of the diff you reverted, I know equally little about that, but the Teahouse is slow this time of day. Linux manpages are certainly GFDL, but I'm unsure about other Unix genera, and the copypasted material could have a different source. Sorry I'm not a more authoritative source in this area. Folly Mox (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions for special cases has some alternative guidance around placing {{cv-unsure}} on a talkpage, which may feel more comfortable. Folly Mox (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Folly Mox: That is interesting to know that a template for when you're not sure what the source is even exists, shame there doesn't seem to be a way to put the ones where you do know in the talk page instead (I guess it would just add another layer of complication). I've requested with copyvio-revdel at EFFPR, since that was cleared, but thanks for the help anyways. – 2804:F14:80FB:2E01:4CA1:2349:2447:241C (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not disruptive. At least specifically for WP:EFFPR, users don't usually see the full page until they save their edit and create a new section. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef: Alrighty, I've <requested it>. Thanks. – 2804:F14:80FB:2E01:4CA1:2349:2447:241C (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Please assist. I am stuck in an edit war with the intent of the other party clearly showing malicious content with the aim of casting a bad light on a profile. Unfounded accusations are made in an attempt to cast shadows on a person. Can a profile be locked on request of the person in question so edits cannot be allowed? Regards Wisdommonitor (talk) 10:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly removing sourced content. Instead of edit warring you should discuss this on the talk page of the article. If you continue to edit war your account may be blocked. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

OP is a brazen COI account. They were warned about their edit-warring and COI status in 2021, but have returned to engage in the same behavior. Thenightaway (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This is about Tale Heydarov, and edit disputes do date back to 2021. The involved editors have not attempted to solve this on the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Your account has been involved in original placement of unfounded content in 2021 and there seems to be malicious intent involved to place this individual in bad light. I will take this up in the talk page of Tale Heydarov Wisdommonitor (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking for editor

hello, I'm looking for someone who can make an individual wikipedia profile Abdeljabbar Odeh (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not social media. We don't have profiles but articles on encyclopedic topics. You can request an article at WP:Requested articles but I suggest you first read WP:42 to appreciate what constitutes a Wikipedia article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject tags

Hello! I recently made and submitted a draft for an article about the band Macula Dog, and I added a tag I think I should remove. I added the alternative music tag thinking it was just generally about alternative music, but the tag that was added onto it seems to be more about alternative rock, and Macula Dog isn’t really a rock band. The thing is, I’m not sure how to remove it. I just don’t wanna get into any sorts of trouble for possibly tagging it wrong ) : Poppedcolonels (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Poppedcolonels close enough, the short description says 'experimental band' anyways. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 12:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Poppedcolonels! You should never get into trouble here for making an honest mistake, still less a judgement call that others may disagree with: everybody makes mistakes; it's how we all learned to edit here. If someone disagrees with an edit you "Boldly" make, they'll Revert it, and if you don't agree with the reason they (should) give (in their edit summary) you can Discuss it on their Talk page or that of the Article and come to an agreement – this is our standard procedure: see WP:BRD.

This applies to actual Articles, and even more so to a Draft, which is exactly where possible inclusions can be tried, thought about, and kept or discarded. When the Draft is Submitted for Review, it's part of the Reviewer's (and any other Commenters) task to think about such details and change them or ask the Drafter to.

I see your Draft has just been Declined, but with suggestions of how it can be improved so as to be acceptable. This is quite normal and a good sign – if the Reviewer thought it had no chance of becoming an Article, it would have instead been Rejected. Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.146.221.109 (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Meaning of the name Simon.

What is the meaning of the name Simon? 2600:4040:935B:2200:549E:4F59:AB63:E91B (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Is this what you are looking for, Simon (given name) Knitsey (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Making an edit

My article was rejected so I made an edit and I *think* I resubmitted it. How can I tell if I have resubmitted for review? Carolinemoncure (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

You didn't - click on "Resubmit" at the end of the boilerplate at Draft:Dario Wolos. NotAGenious (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Done! Carolinemoncure (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Carolinemoncure After the draft was declined, you removed some non-neutral wording but added nothing. In my opinion, if you re-submitted it now it would be declined again. Please read this policy and note that all facts must have inline citations to reliable sources. At present, several items do not have this. Note also MOS:SURNAME and the continuing use of non-neutral language like first hand experience of the passion etc. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Carolinemoncure (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Please update Bethel, Alaska article

Would someone please edit the Bethel, Alaska article to include Anthony (Tony) Vaska under Notable People: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel,_Alaska Here is his information: https://www.kyuk.org/politics/2021-10-15/remembering-tony-vaska-who-dedicated-his-life-in-service-of-the-y-k-delta Thank you 2601:603:5401:65D0:9130:FB8E:CE6A:3CDB (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Our policy on listing notable people can be found at WP:LISTPEOPLE. Since there is no existing Wikipedia article for Anthony Vaska his name should not be included in that list. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Would someone please create a biography page on Wikipedia about Anthony (Tony) Vaska from Alaska. He was a notable person from the Yukon-Kuskokwim region (Kalskag/Bethel) and contributed much to those communities and Alaska as a whole. Here is some information about him. https://obituaries.adn.com/adportal/listing/Anthony-Vaska/W0025560.html https://www.kyuk.org/politics/2021-10-15/remembering-tony-vaska-who-dedicated-his-life-in-service-of-the-y-k-delta 2601:603:5401:65D0:9130:FB8E:CE6A:3CDB (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. This isn't the proper forum to request an article- that is at Requested Articles, though that page is backlogged to the point of uselessness- the best way to see that an article is created is to do it yourself, though that is a difficult process. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Please don't create multiple sections about this topic. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Second opinions?

A draft I started was declined at AfC for not passing WP:NACTOR and WP:CITEKILL. I have removed some refs to comply with CK but I believe it passes WP:NACTOR, WP:NBASIC or WP:ANYBIO. Anyone think it is worth resubmitting or publishing as is? If not, would like further insight. – Filmforme (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't see this meeting either NACTOR and certainly not ANYBIO. I've no opinion on BASIC/GNG, haven't analysed the sources in any detail (but did have a quick look through, and didn't think they satisfied that in any obvious way). HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Thanks, I will see what else I can find before resubmitting. Filmforme (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Unblocks

I remember reading about this in someone's RFA, but can't remember. Is there a consensus to decline non-admins from marking unblock requests as declined (or reverting them), if it's uncontroversial cleanup, such as when the request is empty or when the user block has already expired? NotAGenious (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

User:NotAGenious, the biggest row about declining unblock requests at an RfA that I can remember was at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Oshwah 2, although the cases were not all completely uncontroversial. I don't know if this is the same thing you're remembering. Folly Mox (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly what I read. But I was wondering, has clear cosensus to prohibit or allow these kind of closes (what I suggested) been achieved through an RfC or similar? NotAGenious (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Links Not Approving

Hi, I've started an article about a song but when I added the links like YouTube links or external links the thing is it's not publishing which I have created as a draft on my sandbox. XERI MUSIC (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:XERI_MUSIC/sandbox TheLonelyPather (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@XERI MUSIC Hello and welcome to the teahouse. To clarify, do you mean to add external links as references to your draft article? Please be mindful that

• Your draft was declined because it shows no references. Read WP:CITE for this.
• I do not encourage you to use YouTube videos as references. See WP:YOUTUBE for why.
• I also do not encourage you to put external links in the body of the article.
• If I am mistaken and you wish to add external links, do this:

This is the link to [https://en.wikipedia.org English Wikipedia].

This will produce

This is the link to to English Wikipedia.

Kindly let us know if you have any questions. A final word: please check the notability of your subject. Articles on Wikipedia must pass a certain threshold of notability (see WP:NOTABILITY for this).

Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi XERI MUSIC. Please don't embed external links into the bodies of articles as TheLonelyPather seems to have suggested above in bullet point #4; this is not considered acceptable as explained here. If the link is intended to serve as a citation, please format it as an inline citation as explained here; if it's intended to serve as an external link, please add it to the "External links" section if it's appropriate to do so. Please also be very careful when adding YouTube links to any Wikipedia pages as explained here and here: lots of content found on YouTube is unacceptable for Wikipedia because of copyright reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @XERI MUSIC. It's possible that the YouTube links you're trying to add have been run through a URL shortener. This is relatively common, but here on Wikipedia, most such sites are blacklisted - see this if you want to learn more. 57.140.16.29 (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@XERI MUSIC: When you want to link to youtube, please use the full www.youtube.com URL, rather than the youtu.be shortcut, i.e. [1] rather than https://youtu.be/3fgZ1Q0uG9o

@57.140.16.29 I checked the OP's spam blacklist log(note: not accessible to IP's), your hunch was correct. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

error publishing page

trying to create a page in wikipedia and publish it. but it got rejected saying it's not a place to put resume. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Waikhom_Vishwanath is the page i am trying to publish. can someone help guiding me through? MeiteiNupa (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The draft is not suitable to be published on Wikipedia. You have already received feedback at the draft but the most important thing to know is that everything on Wikipedia needs to be referenced and your draft contains no references whatsoever. Please read the guidance you have been provided with already.

I would recommend reading some of the other articles here on Wikipedia to get an idea of what kind of information they contain. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 18:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Crazy Train and content removal by user claiming to be "Ozzy's management team"

Tough one for me - I've reverted twice and ceased. The account removed a reference to a third party's contribution to the song Crazy Train, along with cited reference material from a known source. Their justification for removal is "This is Ozzy's management team so we know the history better than ant articles written by those who were not involved."

With or without a grain of salt, that's a bold claim without CoI declaration. However, I don't see this is as immediate vandalism so stepping back for 3RR. Thoughts? CMacMillan (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @CMacMillan, welcome to the Teahouse. That claim to be the managment team (at User talk:HWGA) actually comes from an IP, though of course it's being made on the account's talk page in response to your question. I recommend leaving COI notices for the parties involved and continuing the dispute resolution process as normal. Start a talk page discussion. Ping the account to it and leave a note for the IP. Might be a good idea to check the removed material against the source just to be sure it's accurate (I'll take your word for it that the source is reliable for this sort of information). If the other party isn't open to discussion, then you can go to WP:COIN or WP:ANI, or if they keep edit warring, to WP:3RRN. 57.140.16.29 (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring, specifically an indefinite partial block from the page in question. Doug Weller talk 20:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Youtube-videos

I have removed a Youtube-video link referenced from the page Draft:Exeger Operations AB. When is it ok to include a Youtube-video? Derekhal22 (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Derekhal22, welcome to the Teahouse. Have a read of WP:RSPYT which explains. Qcne (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for directing me to this guideline (which I agree with). My submitted YT-video that was questioned was this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFEZ-TET0qA&t=302s ("Henrik Lindström and Giovanni Fili - Flexible solar cells for portable devices"). Beneath the video pane it is clearly stated that the video channel is owned by European Patent Office. As far as I can see, this video and this channel is a legimitate exception to the deprecation of YT videos. Or am I wrong? Derekhal22 (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Derekhal22 Per European Patent Office I think so, but context matters. To some extent, this seems a WP:ABOUTSELF source, an inventor talking about his own invention. I think you can use it, but some care may be needed. Template:Cite AV media may be of use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Derekhal22 You use to prove facts ie "He appeared on this" or "He did that" etc.

I mainly use Youtube when updating articles about musicians, which I don't update very often.

One musician article I updated was nominated for deletion by someone who is clearly not British, or has no idea about some specific music genres in the UK.

My Youtube additions probably took up at least 75% of the references, and mainly consisted of a few TV documentaries he had appeared in, and countless national radio shows he had performed live on.

Someone decided I had linked to to many Wikipedia articles for the radio stations, radio shows, the other guests on those shows, and the radio presenters who presented them (there's a specific term for that I can't remember) even though I hadn't, as I only used one Blue link for each one, except when someone else was covering because the main presenter was off sick or on holiday, so they removed some of the Blue links, however everything else remained unchanged, and the article was removed from the nominated articles for deletion.

However I've just noticed that just a couple of months later, someone who clearly likes nominating articles for deletion, has added a template saying "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification, as its only attribution is to self-published sources; articles should not be based solely on such sources. This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view." Even though there's countless references, none of them are self-published, and there are no fan type claims like "He is the greatest musician of all time." Danstarr69 (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hinduism Portal

Hello, I have a question for the Hinduism Portal but I am not sure how to contact anyone on there? Can someone please guide me? Hemmingweigh (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Check this out. Near the top right of the page, under the section "Alerts", it says this: "Alert contributors of Hinduism-related pages to current events by posting here (including current peer review requests and nominations for featured status)."

Click on the word "posting", and it will take you to a page where you can make a post that will be seen by other interested editors. Pecopteris (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Hemmingweigh: You can post your question at the portal's talk page Portal talk:Hinduism RudolfRed (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both very much! Hemmingweigh (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on this post perhaps please, thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nokia_7260 Dscarbon333 (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

You have improved the referencing since it was last declined on August. I know nothing about the topic, so cannot comment on notability. David notMD (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dscarbon333 The grammar and wording of parts, e.g. beginning that arguably sort of defined the aesthetic of said line of phones. The design of the phone is also arguably.... is terrible, as another editor already commented. Please make the wording more encyclopaedic. Who made that argument: you? If so that's not allowed and if someone else, you need to cite them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

undelete a page

A page I contribute to was deleted, apparently by a self-appointed grim reaper. Maybe this person is doing god's work most of the time, but in this case it's an error. I don't have access to the Special:Undelete/ mechanism. Ddyer (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ddyer, welcome to the Teahouse. Only admins can delete or undelete a page. As Liz said on your talk page, you should start by bringing this up with the deleting admin. If you tell us the name of the page, we can find their name for you, and explain your other options (they will depend on why the page was deleted). 57.140.16.29 (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The page in question is boardspace.net (Which is my site). I appreciate that

you don't want the wiki to become a dumping ground for promotions, but it ought

to be a place for reliable facts. Ddyer (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ddyer, Wikipedia hosts articles on notable subjects. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BoardSpace.net determined that your website did not meet the then-current notability standards. The deleting administrator was Northamerica1000, who is only occasionally active nowadays.

If significant coverage of your site has appeared in multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources since May 2020, an article may now be viable. I recommend reviewing WP:42 to get a better idea of what, exactly, is required. Also, you should review and comply with WP:COI and/or WP:PAID (depending on whether you make money from your site). 57.140.16.29 (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, you must comply with WP:COI whether you make money from your site or not. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject ...

The page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Meneilly cites every fact possible. Yes, one of those sources (www.villagepres.org) is close to the subject as this is the website of the church he founded. But there are numerous other sources cited as well: www.presbyterianmission.org www.legacy.com www.dignitymemorial.com www.monmouthcollege.edu www.mainstreamcoalition.org The Washington Post newspaper Kansas City Star newspaper

The only other references come when the page talks about stances that Robert H. Meneilly took (often controversial ones for someone in his position such as environmental protection, civil rights, separation of church and state, etc) and so I thought the BEST way to source those comments was to link to audio recordings where the user could actually such stances in Meneilly's own words ... far more authoritative to the subject at hand than some journalistic report of what he was supposed to have said.

Which references do I need to improve to remove this "article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject" tag? TDinKS (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It's great that you're asking this question rather than just getting angry at the person who added the tag, as many editors might have been tempted to do. That speaks well of your judgement.

I would suggest two things: 1) Start a conversation about this at the "talk" page of the article. 2) Ping the user who added the tag to get their input. Other than that, I don't have a strong opinion here, since I'm not familiar with the subject. If need be, I'll take a closer look at the article later to see if I agree with the tag. In the mean time, try steps 1 and 2 and see where it goes. Take care. Pecopteris (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

TDinKS Legacy is apparently unreliable. I can't remember why or who claimed it's unreliable. However I used it a few months ago as an additional source for something I can't remember, and it seemed accurate to me, as it said the same things as the reliable sources I used. Danstarr69 (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

That seams reasonable as the Legacy information is *probably* written by the deceased's family members. I'll remove that reference from the page. TDinKS (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Need Help

I am abit confused, I feel this Draft Draft:Dekunle Okunrinboye been Decline has enough sources to meet notability. Can it be reviewed by another editor? I can provide sources if need be and also open for advice as well. Fmnoble (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Fmnoble: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you're confused about why the draft was declined, you could invite the reviewer to discuss their decision on the draft talk page. After you update the draft, you can resubmit it to be reviewed again. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I was wondering if this source is reliable? Could i use it for Draft:Mattias Inwood ? : https://www.programme-tv.net/biographie/389622-inwood-mattias/ Veganpurplefox (talk) 00:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox: Welcome to the Teahouse! There's a dedicated place to ask questions about source reliability: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Veganpurplefox (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Improve draft

Id like to have advices about my draft Draft:Mattias Inwood i believe he's notable but would like to know if everything is okay Veganpurplefox (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

anything that need fixing/improved/added/removed? Veganpurplefox (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

What comments on his work have there been from reliable sources? 2A00:23C7:F834:9C01:DFE:46D8:3AC1:A180 (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I will look into that. Also there's something wrong with this link: https://www.bfi.org.uk/preview/page/cfa4a40b-c655-4699-9fcc-b0e97551371b/working-copy/1684234680/6_p2ELUsFyId3V-mwEy3ObfGotrJtoAqvgVjVUYKZZs

that I noticed it doesn't work for him. Do I still add it or should I not add it to the draft? Veganpurplefox (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Would Stuff co nz be okay? There are things i could add from this site but not sure of its reliability. I also can take a few infos from NZ Herald, but not from the Deadlines articles as everything was added there as was just infos as who represent him and series he was in. Veganpurplefox (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Extremely embarrassing question

I apologize, as this is my first question here I would believe to show technological incompetence, but how do you center text in a table? Best regards, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 04:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@UnexpectedSmoreInquisition: You should be able to add style="text-align: center;" after the opening {| of the table - more information is available at Help:Table#Aligning text in header cells versus other cells. Don't worry - table markup is complicated! Tollens (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Tollens. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 04:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Categories

QUESTION: How can I remove an article from a maintenance category that is generated from a template? Thanks in advance! Professor Penguino (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Just remove the template? It would be easier to answer if we knew the name of the article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Once you fix all issues related to it, you may just remove the template. Though I would be careful about removing certain ones like neutrality and BLP violations unless you are sure about it. ✶Mitch199811✶ 11:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

How to make a article semi-protected?

Narendra Modi Stadium is sheduled to host the final of 2023 Cricket World Cup. I witnessed that some IP user trying to add unsourced lines between sourced info. Their is denger that the article can be vandalised and tell me in future, where I can request to protect any article? Tesla car owner (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

You may request protection at WP:RFPP. Articles are not protected preemptively, there must be a demonstratable problem with vandalism or disruption like edit warring. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Possible Bot Needed to Replace BFI Pages which were Deleted Today (or in the last few days)

I don't know where to post this, but...

Today I've noticed that all the British Film Institute Film-TV-People pages on the site BFI Films TV People have been deleted, and there doesn't seem to have been any news posted by the BFI about it.

I knew this day was coming, but I would have thought that they would have fixed the occasional loading errors on BFI Collections first before they started deleting pages from the main site.

BFI Collections is the replacement for the BFI Films TV People pages, according to Natasha Fairbairn aka the woman in charge of the collections at the BFI, however every now again you get an error when trying to search, which can last from as little as a minute, to as long as an hour or more, before it's working again.

Maybe they have fixed the BFI Collections errors, and I haven't noticed because I've barely used it in the last month, as I've mainly been updating newer stuff directly from the productions themselves, rather than old TV shows from 30, 40, 50+ years ago. Danstarr69 (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. I don't see how we can advise you about the BFI website. You will need to contact them directly. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I think perhaps @Danstarr69 is explaining that any external links from articles to BFI pages will now be broken? Qcne (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Qcne Correct. Shantavira, I'm saying they will be dead (unless it's a production partly funded/produced by the BFI, as some of those I've noticed redirect to a new page) so will need to be replaced with Wayback Machine/Archive.today links, or replaced with a link to the page on BFI Collections.

However, because of type of website that BFI Collections is, you probably won't be able to make a bot for that, especially as the people/production/company numbers for the BFI Films-TV-People links (13 digits) and the BFI Collection links (9 digits) don't match. Danstarr69 (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

And this insource search has 3,750 current hits, so manually fixing things will be a chore. Worse, the link to https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/ mentioned above now lands on a page for something called Laratravel. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Michael D. Turnbull *Laravel Danstarr69 (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Shantavira here's an example.

Here's the BFI Films-TV-People link for Peaky Blinders (TV series) [2] which is now dead.

Here's what the BFI Films-TV-People link for Peaky Blinders used to look like [3]

Here's the BFI Collections link for Peaky Blinders [4] Danstarr69 (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Snow White and the 7 dwarfs remake

In Snow White (2024 film) article, Rachel Zegler is still in the list of cast, but she was reportedly dropped from the movie. I added sources in the talk page, and i can't do anything because the page is protected. 201.188.151.218 (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at the article talk page. That is the place to continue this discussion. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Help with 2023 ArbCom election guidelines

Hi hosts, I was wondering, since the 2023 ArbCom elections are coming up, what are the minimum requirements for voting in the election? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 12:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@The Corvette ZR1: per Wikipedia:5-minute guide to ArbCom elections#Voting process:

An editor meeting the following criteria is eligible to vote:

• has registered an account before 00:00, 1 October
• has made at least 150 mainspace edits before 00:00, 1 November
• has made at least 10 live edits (in any namespace) within one year of 00:00, 1 November
• is not blocked from the English Wikipedia at the time of their vote

Hope this helps! Tails Wx 13:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tails Wx Thanks! Also, what is the difference between "Mainspace edits" and "Live edits"? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 13:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

"Mainspace" edits are when you edit an article in an article-space (including disambiguation and redirect pages.) Live edits are when your edits are published on any namespace. In this case, if you have published an edit within one year of 00:00 1 November, and have at least made 150 mainspace edits before 00:00 1 November, then you're good to go. Tails Wx 13:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Michael Gambon

Can the years active ending date get changed from 2023 to 2019?

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/sep/28/michael-gambon-star-of-harry-potter-and-the-singing-detective-dies-aged-82

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66949848

Thanks. 2601:18C:9082:A6F0:A159:3D1E:875A:F4A3 (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

How do you know it was 2019 when he stopped being artistically active? Neither of the above sources seem to confirm that. If anything, the years are 2012 or 2014 depending on how one interprets it.  Podstawko  ●talk  13:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Reuters and WSB-TV both say Gambon retired from the stage in 2015 after suffering long-term memory problems but continued to act onscreen until 2019.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/british-irish-actor-michael-gambon-has-died-pa-media-2023-09-28/

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/trending/michael-gambon-who-played-dumbledore-harry-potter-films-dies/2HE5JPO4C5EKLOSQ6YHHXD3QQQ/

2601:18C:9082:A6F0:A159:3D1E:875A:F4A3 (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This has been addressed at Talk:Michael Gambon, which is the correct venue. 57.140.16.29 (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Skins (and table header rows)

I’ve been using Wikipedia for years, but only realised this month that there is a choice of skins – I mean, until I noticed someone talking about them, how would I have know they existed?!

Since then, I tried a couple of alternative skins, and could see no difference whatever in what I was seeing. Are they all very similar to each other?

Also, the most desirable feature (or me) that I saw mentioned as being in the latest skins is the fact that the header row of a table will "freeze" at the top of the screen so it’s always visible. So useful for long tables! BUT, it doesn’t work in Firefox for Windows, my preferred desktop browser; and it doesn’t seen to work in Chrome for Android, my preferred mobile browser. (I saw the Firefox issue mentioned, but not the Chrome-for-Android one; I also realise that it’s probably the fault of the browser.) Which browsers support this, which will it work in? (I’ll install an alternative browser just to use Wikipedia if it makes the tables easier to navigate!) Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Spel-Punc-Gram The vector 2010 and (current default) vector 2022 skins are different enough that there was a furore when the latter was introduced. To freeze table header rows, you need to set this up in your preferences at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets: there's a comment there about which browsers it works with. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Error for publishing after translation

Hi. I translated a page and want to publish my draft but i have an error. " Automatic edit filters have identified problematic content in your translation. Filter hit: All namespace abuse " I've checked and corrected what I thought was a problem (too many spaces) but I still have the same error, I admit I don't know what's blocking it. How do I know which part is the problem? Thank you Ghost In The Shell (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Ghost in The Shell, and welcome to the Teahouse. That appears to Edit filter 906 "All namespace abuse", but I can't find it in the filter log, and the content of that filter is hidden, so I don't know what it is about your draft. It won't be anything to do with spaces (namespace is a technical term).

What is the article you're translating from, and how are you doing the translation? ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you copy the content into a text editor, and then paste chunks from there into the edit box and publish it, say, one paragraph at a time. That should enable you to identify the offending passage. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Is this reference legal?

There is a reference marked as a ^{[user-generated source]} that I don't know how to deal with. I was originally going to post on the article talk page, but I thought asking for help here may be a better idea. I got no reply on Kiwi IRC.

In the Janus (spacecraft) article, we are currently linking to proprietary information from a forum post, originating from the Lockheed Martin Intranet (intended to be kept confidential, according to [5]). Here's the link -- read warning below before clicking: [6]

Not only does this seem questionable from a WP:V standpoint, and because the link automatically downloads a file of unknown origin to the user's computer without warning, it is not clear to me if this is even legal? Lockheed Martin is a defense contractor, after all, and this is Wikipedia, not WikiLeaks... Renerpho (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

How do I stop User removing large amount of information without discussion

I have a problem with a user who keeps removing statistic tables from Records and statistics of the Rugby World Cup article and which I believe is vandalism. I have tried to engage with him on the talk page.

User:PeeJay has removed two tables outlining the Head to Head statistics at Rugby World Cup. On his original removal of the tables, he gave the reason as "please argue for the inclusion of this statcruft on the article talk page". When I reverted his vandalism, he removed the tables again stating "I have policy-based grounds to remove this, what is your argument? that people worked hard on it? I'd argue they shouldn't have wasted their time". After reverting his vandalism again, he removed the tables for a third time stating "see WP:NOTSTATS". I have read WP:NOTSTATS, which states

Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. (e.g., statistics from the main article 2012 United States presidential election have been moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election). Wikipedia:Notability § Stand-alone lists offers more guidance on what kind of lists are acceptable, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Selection criteria offers guidance on what entries should be included.

While I accept the statistics were lengthy, they were contained within a collapsable table where a person could open and close the tables (as they appear below). Secondly, these are the head to head statistics of all the games of the rugby world cup and are a valuable Commodity for an Encyclopedia which Wikipedia strives to be. Thirdly, the policy that User:PeeJay cited also gives the option of spliting the statistics into a separate article and summarizing them in the main article. User:PeeJay does not do this. He deletes all this information permanently and does so without seeking discussion with other editors on the talk page. He puts his own wants over the many editors that have worked on these tables over the many years. I think these tables should be placed back into the article or as the policy, that User:PeeJay cited, states that split the statistics into a separate article and summarize them in the main article but not to delete them. How do I go about getting this to happen?

Click to open Head to Head statistics at Rugby World Cup

Head-to-Head The highest number of Head-to-Head matches between two nations currently stands at eight meetings, encompassing four teams (Australia, France, New Zealand, and Wales) in two Rugby World Cup rivalries. On the other end of the table, there are currently seventy-one Head-to-Head meetings involving one game between two nations. The following table lists the Head-to-Head statistics of the Rugby World Cup, ranging from the inaugural tournament in 1987 to the latest tournament in 2023 (as of September 27). It is organised first numerically, with the more Head-to-Head meetings appearing at the top of the table and the less number of meetings, such as one meeting between two nations appearing at the bottom of the table, and second, alphabetically by teams. Legend R1 Round 1 (Pool Stage) R2 Round 2 (Quarter-Final Playoff)(2) QF Quarter-Final SF Semi-Final 3rd 3rd/4th Place Playoff (Bronze Final) F Final Games Team 1 Head-2-Head Wins (Draws) Team 2 Year(s) Rounds 8 Australia 5–3 Wales 1987, 1991, 1999, 2007, 2011, 2015, 2019, 2023 3rd, R1, QF, R1, 3rd, R1, R1, R1 France 3–5 New Zealand 1987, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011, 2011, 2015, 2023 F, SF, 3rd, QF, R1, F, QF, R1 7 Australia 3–4 England 1987, 1991, 1995, 2003, 2007, 2015, 2019 R1, F, QF, F, QF, R1, QF 6 England 3–2 (& 1 Draw)(3) France 1991, 1995, 2003, 2007, 2011, 2019 QF, 3rd, SF, SF, QF, R1 Italy 0–5 (& 1 Draw)(3) New Zealand 1987, 1991, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2019 R1, R1, R1, R1, R1, R1 5 Australia 4–1 Ireland 1987, 1991, 1999, 2003, 2011 QF, QF, R1, R1, R1 England 1–4 South Africa 1999, 2003, 2007, 2007, 2019 QF, R1, R1, F, F Fiji 1–4 Wales 2007, 2011, 2015, 2019, 2023 R1, R1, R1, R1, R1 New Zealand 5–0 Scotland 1987, 1991, 1995, 1999, 2007 QF, 3rd, QF, QF, R1 New Zealand 3–2 South Africa 1995, 1999, 2003, 2015, 2019 F, 3rd, QF, SF, R1 Samoa(1) 0–5 South Africa 1995, 2003, 2007, 2011, 2015 QF, R1, R1, R1, R1 4 Argentina 0–4 England 1995, 2011, 2019, 2023 R1, R1, R1, R1 Argentina 2–2 France 1999, 2007, 2007, 2019 QF, R1, 3rd, R1 Argentina 3–1 Ireland 1999, 2003, 2007, 2015 R2(2), R1, R1, QF Argentina 2–2 Samoa(1) 1991, 1995, 1999, 2023 R1, R1, R1, R1 Australia 3–1 Fiji 2007, 2015, 2019, 2023 R1, R1, R1, R1 Australia 2–2 New Zealand 1991, 2003, 2011, 2015 SF, SF, SF, F Canada 0–4 France 1991, 1999, 2011, 2015 R1, R1, R1, R1 Canada 0–4 New Zealand 1991, 2003, 2011, 2019 QF, R1, R1, R1 England 1–3 New Zealand 1991, 1995, 1999, 2019 R1, SF, R1, SF England 4–0 United States 1987, 1991, 2007, 2019 R1, R1, R1, R1 Fiji 0–4 France 1987, 1991, 1999, 2003 QF, R1, R1, R1 France 3–1 Ireland 1995, 2003, 2007, 2015 QF, QF, R1, R1 Ireland 4–0 Romania 1999, 2003, 2015, 2023 R1, R1, R1, R1 Japan 1–3 Scotland 1991, 2003, 2015, 2019 R1, R1, R1, R1 New Zealand 4–0 Tonga 1999, 2003, 2011, 2015 R1, R1, R1, R1 New Zealand 4–0 Wales 1987, 1995, 2003, 2019 SF, R1, R1, 3rd Samoa(1) 0–4 Scotland 1991, 1999, 2015, 2019 QF, R2(2), R1, R1 3 Argentina 0–3 Australia 1991, 2003, 2015 R1, R1, SF Argentina 3–0 Georgia 2007, 2011, 2015 R1, R1, R1 Argentina 3–0 Namibia 2003, 2007, 2015 R1, R1, R1 Argentina 0–3 New Zealand 1987, 2011, 2015 R1, QF, R1 Australia 3–0 Romania 1995, 1999, 2003 R1, R1, R1 Australia 2–1 South Africa 1995, 1999, 2011 R1, SF, QF Australia 3–0 United States 1987, 1999, 2011 R1, R1, R1 Canada 1–2 Fiji 1991, 1999, 2007 R1, R1, R1 Canada 0–3 Italy 2003, 2015, 2019 R1, R1, R1 Canada 2–1 Romania 1991, 1995, 2015 R1, R1, R1 Canada 3–0 Tonga 1987, 2003, 2011 R1, R1, R1 Canada 0–3 Wales 1987, 2003, 2007 R1, R1, R1 England 3–0 Italy 1991, 1995, 1999 R1, R1, R1 England 3–0 Samoa(1) 1995, 2003, 2007 R1, R1, R1 England 3–0 Tonga 1999, 2007, 2019 R1, R1, R1 England 1–2 Wales 1987, 2003, 2015 QF, QF, R1 France 3–0 Namibia 1999, 2007, 2023 R1, R1, R1 France 3–0 Romania 1987, 1991, 2015 R1, R1, R1 France 2–0 (& 1 Draw) Scotland 1987, 1995, 2003 R1, R1, R1 France 2–1 Tonga 1995, 2011, 2019 R1, R1, R1 Ireland 2–1 Japan 1991, 1995, 2019 R1, R1, R1 Ireland 1–2 Wales 1987, 1995, 2011 R1, R1, QF Japan 2–1 Samoa(1) 1999, 2015, 2019 R1, R1, R1 Japan 1–2 United States 1987, 2003, 2015 R1, R1, R1 Japan 0–3 Wales 1995, 1999, 2007 R1, R1, R1 Namibia 0–3 New Zealand 2015, 2019, 2023 R1, R1, R1 Romania 0–3 Scotland 1987, 2007, 2011 R1, R1, R1 Samoa(1) 2–1 Wales 1991, 1999, 2011 R1, R1, R1 Scotland 0–3 South Africa 1999, 2015, 2023 R1, R1, R1 South Africa 3–0 Wales 2011, 2015, 2019 R1, QF, SF 2 Argentina 1–1 Italy 1987, 1995 R1, R1 Argentina 2–0 Romania 2003, 2011 R1, R1 Argentina 2–0 Scotland 2007, 2011 QF, R1 Argentina 0–2 South Africa 2007, 2015 SF, 3rd Argentina 2–0 Tonga 2015, 2019 R1, R1 Argentina 0–2 Wales 1991, 1999 R1, R1 Australia 2–0 Canada 1995, 2007 R1, R1 Australia 1–1 France 1987, 1999 SF, F Australia 2–0 Georgia 2019, 2023 R1, R1 Australia 2–0 Japan 1987, 2007 R1, R1 Australia 2–0 Scotland 2003, 2015 QF, QF Australia 2–0 Uruguay 2015, 2019 R1, R1 Canada 0–2 Ireland 1987, 2015 R1, R1 Canada 0–0 (& 2 Draws) Japan 2007, 2011 R1, R1 Canada 1–0 (& 1 Draw)(3) Namibia 1999, 2019 R1, R1 Canada 0–2 South Africa 1995, 2019 R1, R1 England 2–0 Fiji 1999, 2015 R2(2), R1 England 2–0 Georgia 2003, 2011 R1, R1 England 2–0 Japan 1987, 2023 R1, R1 England 2–0 Scotland 1991, 2011 SF, R1 England 2–0 Uruguay 2003, 2015 R1, R1 Fiji 2–0 Japan 2003, 2007 R1, R1 Fiji 2–0 Namibia 1999, 2011 R1, R1 Fiji 0–2 South Africa 2007, 2011 QF, R1 Fiji 1–1 Uruguay 2015, 2019 R1, R1 France 2–0 Japan 2003, 2011 R1, R1 France 2–0 United States 2003, 2019 R1, R1 France 1–1 Wales 2011, 2019 SF, QF Georgia 2–0 Namibia 2007, 2015 R1, R1 Georgia 1–1 Uruguay 2003, 2019 R1, R1 Ireland 2–0 Italy 2011, 2015 R1, R1 Ireland 2–0 Namibia 2003, 2007 R1, R1 Ireland 0–2 New Zealand 1995, 2019 R1, QF Ireland 2–0 Russia 2011, 2019 R1, R1 Ireland 1–1 Scotland 1991, 2019 R1, R1 Ireland 2–0 Tonga 1987, 2023 R1, R1 Ireland 2–0 United States 1999, 2011 R1, R1 Italy 2–0 Namibia 2019, 2023 R1, R1 Italy 2–0 Romania 2007, 2015 R1, R1 Italy 1–1 Tonga 1999, 2003 R1, R1 Italy 2–0 United States 1991, 2011 R1, R1 Japan 0–2 New Zealand 1995, 2011 R1, R1 Japan 1–1 South Africa 2015, 2019 R1, QF Namibia 0–2 South Africa 2011, 2019 R1, R1 Romania 0–2 South Africa 1995, 2023 R1, R1 Samoa(1) 2–0 United States 2007, 2015 R1, R1 Scotland 2–0 Tonga 1995, 2023 R1, R1 Scotland 2–0 United States 2003, 2015 R1, R1 Scotland 2–0 Zimbabwe 1987, 1991 R1, R1 South Africa 2–0 United States 2007, 2015 R1, R1 South Africa 2–0 Uruguay 1999, 2003 R1, R1 Tonga 2–0 United States 2007, 2019 R1, R1 Tonga 0–2 Wales 1987, 2003 R1, R1 Uruguay 0–2 Wales 2015, 2019 R1, R1 1 Argentina 0–1 Fiji 1987 R1 Argentina 1–0 Japan 1999 R1 Argentina 1–0 United States 2019 R1 Australia 1–0 Italy 2011 R1 Australia 1–0 Namibia 2003 R1 Australia 1–0 Russia 2011 R1 Australia 1–0 Samoa(1) 1991 R1 Chile 0–1 England 2023 R1 Chile 0–1 Japan 2023 R1 Chile 0–1 Samoa(1) 2023 R1 England 1–0 Romania 2011 R1 Fiji 1–0 Georgia 2019 R1 Fiji 0–1 Italy 1987 R1 Fiji 0–1 New Zealand 1987 R1 Fiji 0–1 Romania 1991 R1 Fiji 0–1 Samoa(1) 2011 R1 Fiji 0–1 Scotland 2003 R1 Fiji 1–0 United States 2003 R1 France 1–0 Georgia 2007 R1 France 1–0 Italy 2015 R1 France 1–0 Ivory Coast 1995 R1 France 0–1 South Africa 1995 SF France 1–0 Uruguay 2023 R1 France 1–0 Zimbabwe 1987 R1 Georgia 0–1 Ireland 2007 R1 Georgia 0–1 New Zealand 2015 R1 Georgia 0–0 (& 1 Draw) Portugal 2023 R1 Georgia 1–0 Romania 2011 R1 Georgia 0–1 Samoa(1) 2003 R1 Georgia 0–1 Scotland 2011 R1 Georgia 0–1 South Africa 2003 R1 Georgia 1–0 Tonga 2015 R1 Georgia 0–1 Wales 2019 R1 Ireland 1–0 Samoa(1) 2019 R1 Ireland 1–0 South Africa 2023 R1 Ireland 1–0 Zimbabwe 1991 R1 Italy 1–0 Portugal 2007 R1 Italy 1–0 Russia 2011 R1 Italy 0–1 Samoa(1) 1995 R1 Italy 0–1 Scotland 2007 R1 Italy 0–1 South Africa 2019 R1 Italy 1–0 Uruguay 2023 R1 Italy 0–1 Wales 2003 R1 Ivory Coast 0–1 Scotland 1995 R1 Ivory Coast 0–1 Tonga 1995 R1 Japan 1–0 Russia 2019 R1 Japan 0–1 Tonga 2011 R1 Japan 1–0 Zimbabwe 1991 R1 Namibia 0–1 Romania 2003 R1 Namibia 0–1 Samoa(1) 2011 R1 Namibia 0–1 Tonga 2015 R1 Namibia 0–1 Uruguay 2023 R1 Namibia 0–1 Wales 2011 R1 New Zealand 1–0 Portugal 2007 R1 New Zealand 1–0 Romania 2007 R1 New Zealand 1–0 United States 1991 R1 Portugal 0–1 Romania 2007 R1 Portugal 0–1 Scotland 2007 R1 Portugal 0–1 Wales 2023 R1 Romania 1–0 United States 1999 R1 Romania 1–0 Zimbabwe 1987 R1 Russia 0–1 Samoa(1) 2019 R1 Russia 0–1 Scotland 2019 R1 Russia 0–1 United States 2011 R1 Samoa(1) 0–1 Tonga 2007 R1 Samoa(1) 1–0 Uruguay 2003 R1 Scotland 1–0 Spain 1999 R1 Scotland 1–0 Uruguay 1999 R1 South Africa 1–0 Spain 1999 R1 South Africa 1–0 Tonga 2007 R1 Spain 0–1 Uruguay 1999 R1 1 Samoa competed as Western Samoa from 1924 to 1997. 2 Round 2 was introduced at the 1999 Rugby World Cup and consisted of the five group runners-up and the best third placed team playoff for one of three places in the quarter-final. It was discontinued for the 2003 and subsequent Rugby World Cups. 3 Three Rugby World Cup 2019 matches; involving Namibia versus Canada, New Zealand versus Italy, and England versus France, were cancelled and recorded as a 0–0 draw due to Typhoon Hagibis 4 TBD (To Be Determined) are confirmed Pool games for the forthcoming Rugby World Cup. (1 TBD)(4)

Click to open Head-to-Head statistics of tier 1 nations at the Rugby World Cup

Tier 1 Nations Head-to-Head The table below shows the current dominance in the Head-to-Head meetings of tier 1 nations at the Rugby World Cup from the first tournament in 1987 to the latest tournament in 2023 (as of September 24). Currently, New Zealand has the best record amongst the other tier 1 nations, achieving more wins and culminating in a superior Head-to-Head record over eight other tier 1 nations, and equal with one other (Australia). Italy is at the bottom of the table, and has an inferior Head-to-Head record with eight other tier 1 nations, and parity with one other nation (Argentina). There are two tier 1 Head-to-Head meetings that have never been played at a Rugby World Cup: England versus Ireland, and Scotland versus Wales. Team Ranking Tier One Nations Head-to-Head Wins (Draws) Total Head-to-Head Meetings Argentina Australia England France Ireland Italy New Zealand Scotland South Africa Wales Superior Equal Inferior Never Played New Zealand 3 - 0 2 - 2 3 - 1 5 - 3 2 - 0 5 - 0 (& 1 Draw)(1) - 5 - 0 3 - 2 4 - 0 8 1 0 0 Australia 3 - 0 - 3 - 4 1 - 1 4 - 1 1 - 0 2 - 2 2 - 0 2 - 1 5 - 3 6 2 1 0 South Africa 2 - 0 1 - 2 4 - 1 1 - 0 0 - 1 1 - 0 2 - 3 3 - 0 - 3 - 0 6 0 3 0 England 4 - 0 4 - 3 - 3 - 2 (& 1 Draw)(1) NP 3 - 0 1 - 3 2 - 0 1 - 4 1 - 2 5 0 3 1 Wales 2 - 0 3 - 5 2 - 1 1 - 1 2 - 1 1 - 0 0 - 4 NP 0 - 3 - 4 1 3 1 France 2 - 2 1 - 1 2 - 3 (& 1 Draw)(1) - 3 - 1 1 - 0 3 - 5 2 - 0 (& 1 Draw) 0 - 1 1 - 1 3 3 3 0 Argentina - 0 - 3 0 - 4 2 - 2 3 - 1 1 - 1 0 - 3 2 - 0 0 - 2 0 - 2 2 2 5 0 Ireland 1 - 3 1 - 4 NP 1 - 3 - 2 - 0 0 - 2 1 - 1 1 - 0 1 - 2 2 1 5 1 Scotland 0 - 2 0 - 2 0 - 2 0 - 2 (& 1 Draw) 1 - 1 1 - 0 0 - 5 - 0 - 3 NP 1 1 6 1 Italy 1 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 3 0 - 1 0 - 2 - 0 - 5 (& 1 Draw)(1) 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 1 8 0 1 Two Tier one Rugby World Cup 2019 matches; involving New Zealand versus Italy, and England versus France, were cancelled and recorded as a 0–0 draw due to Typhoon Hagibis

79.154.65.115 (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily have any advice, please refrain from using the term "vandalism" for good faith edits.Vandalism has a very specific definition on enwiki and should never be used to describe edits in good faith, which I believe the mentioned edits were. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 16:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not think they are good faith edits, since the policy he cites states different to his actions, hence the reason I wrote I believed his edits were vandalism. But in any way, we will leave it there. Shall we. 79.154.65.115 (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there any way I can go back to the old interface of a couple months ago?

This new one is good but recent changes such as moving the whatlinkshere tool and certain custom ones make it impossible to use Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 16:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle You can go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering, go to "skin" and tick Vector (2010). That will switch it back to the old skin. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 16:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Reducing size of infobox image

Can someone reduce the size of image at Shivnath Singh Kushwaha. Since it is only face, its looking weird. Admantine123 (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done, Admantine123. The image_upright parameter I added can be tweaked as you see fit. It's a multiplier to the standard image size, so you might consider values between about .5 and .9 or so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Admantine123 (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Editing conflict

I just commenced a new draft stub of an article entitled Vishnu Yamala (Sanskrit literature) on my user page and I have an editing conflict. Someone is deliberately messing up my inclusions and editing on this draft article page. How can I stop this from happening and resolve the issue? B9Joker108 (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)