Wikipedia:Teahouse

Marchjuly, 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

How do I create a new article? I’m so new, and I’m nervous about it.

Hello there. I am just basically new at Wikipedia and I wanted to create a new article. How? I’m on mobile! I’m nervous! 🥺 The Industrial Me 1563 (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

1 hour, no replies. Can someone help?

The Industrial Me 1563 (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello @The Industrial Me 1563:. You can take a look at WP:YFA which also has a link to the Article Wizard. Knitsey (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, The Industrial Me, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia.

In my experience, people who try to create an article before they have spent a significant amount of time learning how Wikipedia works usually have a frustrating and disappointing time. Imagine buying a violin and immediately going busking on the streets - it's probably not money that people are going to throw at you.

My advice (as usual to new editors) is to spend a few weeks or months learning how it works by making smaller edits before you even try it. Start with Help:Introduction if you haven't already read that, and then pick up some tasks that interest you from the "Help out" section of the Community portal. Start with the tasks on the first row, but make sure you've done some of the "Check and add references" before you try your own article: references are the foundation of any Wikipedia article, and if you don't understand them, you cannot create a satisfactory article.

The other thing to note is that creating a new article is not the only way to improve or add value to Wikipedia. I remember when I started how much I wanted to "make my mark" by adding new articles. But now I know that bringing existing articles up to scratch is often of more value. I have only every created a dozen articles. ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Does that only apply to mobile or is it for Chromebooks too? Are there any other devices? OddyAwesome (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Did you get the help that you asked for? I can understand but don't be nervous and keep trying. You are not alone experiencing this. Why don't you email to admins or any friend user of yours if not getting in pages? I wish you get solutions soon and help me out as well. 🙂 Yes! actually I am in same situation, not in position to help you otherwise I would have do for sure. 2409:4081:9E0B:CDBD:0:0:CC4A:5613 (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@The Industrial Me 1563 Maybe use the Article Wizard. Babysharkboss2 was here!! 00:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see! Thanks! The Industrial Me 1563 (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Assistance

This Draft got decline https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tupocracy and I am confused because It has some book reviews see [1] and quite a good number of Reliable/ independent reference.Calyx2s (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Calyx2s, I read that "The term 'tupocracy' was coined by Dr. Godwin Akpan Amaowoh": a credible claim. And yes, this coining has been celebrated, but I sense something fishy about the celebration. Consider this cited example, which says: "Nigeria is about to make another strong impact on the global stage with the discovery of a new political theory which may become a major political theory that will be adopted by countries." Which is mere wishful thinking. (Perhaps published on a slow news day?) But you may object that no, this is a serious statement in a serious publication. If so, then we can expect the concept/word to make a "strong impact on the global stage". Well then, let's wait for the impact to occur, and for moral philosophers, political scientists or whoever to verifiably adopt the concept in their analyses. In the meantime, WP:CRYSTAL rules out an article on "tupocracy". -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hoary Thank you for the insight,but do you mean if not on global stage it not notable considering it already been adopted in university especially in Nigeria. Would also kindly like to ask what kind of reference should I look at in order to develop it? And there are some book reviews, unfortunately I don't know how to references them on the article. Please kindly guide, if I can help to still see how I can develop it more.Calyx2s (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Calyx2s, the draft cites quite a lot of sources. I picked two.

First, "Akwa Ibom govt adopts tupocracy as governance model". This says:

Akwa Ibom State [...] has adopted the newly propounded system of [Government] Tupocracy as the system that will run the state [...]. Tupocracy is Leadership by example [...]. When leaders lead by example, they set a standard of behavior that others can look up to and emulate.

Secondly, "Tupocracy established in Enugu, spreads across Nigeria and Africa", which says:

Tupocracy is gaining more grounds in Nigeria as Enugu State has adopted the political principle as a guiding principle. Leadership by example refers to a leadership style in which leaders demonstrate their values, work ethic, and behavior through their actions, setting a positive example for others to follow.

(Incidentally, clicking within the text of that second source in order to copy some of it triggers an additional browser window -- which looked sleazy and which I killed before it could show me anything.)

I infer that tupocracy means government by decent people who aren't hypocrites.

I find it hard to imagine a government that would openly reject this: "No, we are not going to lead by example. Do as we say, not as we do." If leadership by example becomes a talking point, then of course the government will pay lip-service to it. Now, image-making and "spin" can themselves become notable, and certainly there's real content in your draft (so I'm not suggesting that you should give up); but I'd like to see evidence that the concept has actually influenced government policy or that it has been taken up by scholars other than (and independent of) Amaowoh, or some more substance to either the concept or its influence. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary:I found the below two sources and it already existed on the body on the article. Hope it meet your expectations?

https://tribuneonlineng.com/akwa-ibom-govt-adopts-tupocracy-as-governance-model/

Akwa Ibom State under the leadership of Governor Udom Gabriel Emmanuel has adopted the newly propounded system of Govermmennt Tupocracy as the system that will run the state.

https://tribuneonlineng.com/unn-elated-as-scholar-akpan-invents-new-political-concept-tupocracy/

The board of Examiners chaired by an External Examiner Prof. Vincent Nyoyoko from the University of Port Harcourt adopted the dissertation and as well recommended that it should be globally accepted as a Political Doctrine that may be adopted by countries or further studied.Calyx2s (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary:It is also on Urban Dictionary https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=TUPOCRACY Calyx2s (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Calyx2s We have an extensive article on leadership, with several forks for different types. Some of your sources might be suitable for inclusion in one of these. The word "tupocracy" sounds to me as of limited use at present but might be suitable for Wiktionary. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Calyx2s, as you say, both of these tribuneonlineng.com sources are already cited. (Indeed, I've already commented on one.) They may have some value. As you can see in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, the Urban Dictionary does not. Yes, as Mike Turnbull suggests, you might start by creating "tupocracy" in Wiktionary. -- Hoary (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary: I have actually created it "tupocracy" in Wiktionary but I seems lost in the coding of it, Can you please kindly assist @Michael D. Turnbull:Calyx2s (talk) 06:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Calyx2s, you have created an encyclopedia entry for the word tupocracy, and have placed it in a dictionary. But a dictionary is not an encyclopedia. Please examine the entries for bureaucracy, autocracy, gerontocracy, etc to see how dictionary entries should be written. -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

HoaryThank you for the assistance, I have actually created it but as times goes on I will develop it or someone experience can aswell assist and on the draft as you advised there are some substance in it; I will find time to search for more sources to establish it notability.Calyx2s (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Calyx2s:, your term was deleted from Wiktionary by someone. Please see Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion; you can ask questions there at Wiktionary:Tea room. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Automated citation template filling

Dear fellow Wikipedians, all too often I find an article with a reference or two in a simple citation style, eg <ref>authorname, [URL title_string] various things like dates, website names etc </ref> which it would be nice to convert into tidily formatted refs using one or another of the {{cite... templates, thus: <ref> {{cite web |author=author_name |url=URL |title=title_string |work/date/access-date/etc=various things like dates, website names etc}} </ref> - I habitually do this manually, but it's fiddly and time consuming, so I wondered whether there's a tool that would do it automatically?

I've looked in a number of places starting with Help:Citation tools, but can't see the sort of thing I have in mind... Is there a tool that would automate this process? Thanks in advance, Yadsalohcin (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Yadsalohcin: is Wikipedia:Citation expander and the Wikipedia citation bot anything like what you're looking for? Install via Preferences > Gadgets, and access via the tools menu. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Yadsalohcin: for citations, what I use (simpler) is from the edit toolbar, click Cite then Web for example; then paste in the URL and to the right click on the little Hourglass icon, so it looksup and fills in the Title and Website name. A good time-saver. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi JoeNMLC, Thanks for this, I'll give it a go... Yadsalohcin (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @JoeNMLC, it sounds perfect. One of those bits of clutter on the page that actually should(!) be rather useful. Except that when I click the 'Autofill' symbol I get no response, either on my mobile screen or on the laptop... is there something else I need to enable? Yadsalohcin (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Yadsalohcin, Perhaps that URL has some special/unusual characters? It does need to be Exact to the webpage going into the citation. I use that search icon a lot, especially for association football biographies (from reliable source websites) and it works better than 90-percent of the time. JoeNMLC (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi again again @JoeNMLC, there must be something odd along those lines, 'cos I've just had one case of it autofilling several fields even tho' it didn't show in the preview or the boxes in the interface window, and a second case where it didn't do any autofilling. But it's a definite step forward, thanks! Yadsalohcin (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi DoubleGrazing, thanks for the suggestions, I've tried these and found them both a bit intermittent / less than reliable in their response- sometimes some pre-processing (breaking a previously ok citation) will force the issue but that feels rather a cumbersome approach... Yadsalohcin (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yadsalohcin, there is not a tool that will automatically turn manually formatted citations into correctly filled out citation templates. There previously was a tool that did something similar to this, but its error rate was extremely high, and it ended up breaking as many citations as it "fixed". Links to various discussions about this script from earlier this year can be found at the top of the first (of a projected four) cleanup page for examining and repairing the damage caused by this script.

Automatically generating a correct and complete citation template is a science still in its infancy. Pages with complete structured metadata (like journal articles) generally produce good citation templates. Many to most websites don't work to any significant degree, and an attempt to "improve" manually formatted citations to websites by use of automated tools typically results in disimprovement and lost information.

These are known issues, and some of the root sources of the problems are outside Wikipedia's purview in the Zotero community. Some are a bit closer to home, in the Wikimedia Foundation's Citoid library, which has one active maintainer.

There's not currently a shortcut to correct and complete citations. It's a manual process that requires source checking, reading, and typing. Folly Mox (talk) 05:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Folly Mox, many thanks for this- maybe my hours of doing it manually haven't been wasted, then! Yadsalohcin (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yadsalohcin, not wasted at all! Thanks for your efforts in improving citations! They're a mess Folly Mox (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Question

Hello I need some help editing Wikipedia's articles, from a editor because the templates are hard. Words too. Too complicated but why? For me Wikipedia's too hard, Yes i've joined SO MANY WIKIPROJECTS. But you need to edit Wikipedia, But why? The to-do list says so! Thats why i need help. An○~t@○~m○ (talk) 4:03 1 November 2023 (UTC)

NOTE: I am 'bumping' this question from a few days ago as it was accidentally inserted into the bottom of another thread, and we all missed it. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC))

@Anotaomo: The templates are a hot mess, but you don't have to understand them all at once. The best way to learn is to hop in and experiment. Have you found any pages that you want to work on yet? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Rjjiii (ii) ( No, thank you. And thanks for telling me that "The best way to learn is to hop in and experiment." An○~t@○~m○ (talk)

@Anotaomo: can you please fix your signature, it's turned the subsequent text orange! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Im sorry. I deleted the color. An○~t@○~m○ (talk)

@Anotaomo: I'm going to have to ask you to change your signature once again, please. The standard blue text is unreadable against a dark green background. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Anotaomo, you have a few wikiprojects that you've expressed an interest in; do you know how to find the "stub" articles within a project to expand? Or if you're less interested in expanding articles that are also maintenance categories to browse. Let me know if you want help with either, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Im SO sorry

An○~t@○~m○ (talk)

To your question. No I dont know how to find stub article within a project to expand. I need help with editing articles. --Anotaomo (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Anotaomo I have left an explanation for you on your talk page. In addition., I have left a warning for you about the need to demonstrate that you are genuinely 'Here to Build An Encyclopaedia'. At the moment the evidence of your editing suggests quite the opposite. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

My notification is gone! :-d

I was so excited :-( So my notification is..... GONE! when i click the arrow (pointing left) on the top left i had a 1 notification then i clicked the arrow then... BOOM! 0 Notifications. Can you fix this? An○~t@○~m○ (talk)

Anotaomo try checking Special:Notifications. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 11:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Cant see it. Anotaomo (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Anotaomo - Sungodtemple is suggesting you click on that link - Special:Notifications - you don't need to find it - Arjayay (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I did :-| --Anotaomo (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Anotaomo, at the top of Special: Notifications, tap "Filter notifications", then select "All". This will allow you to review notifications that have been dismissed.

If you browse using multiple tabs, the initial notification dot you saw may have been carried over from opening a new tab when you had an unread notification. They won't update after loading a page, even if you've already dismissed them in another tab. Folly Mox (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Essays

I won't be surprised to know this has been exhaustively discussed in the past, but has there been a proposal to give essays a prefix other than "WP"? I really think there should be a distinction, as I keep seeing essays (e.g. WP:NOTTVTROPES, WP:FANCRUFT and WP:CUENOT invoked in discussions as if they are policies, and it's only by clicking through and reading the notice that an editor can see that they aren't policies or guidelines. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose Sorry you've had to wait such a long time for a reply. As nobody else has attempted to respond to your question, I thought I ought at least to have a stab at it for you!

I don't actually know the answer to your question (!), but the place to look would be to search the archives of WP:VPP (see results).

You may find further background in this help page (Wikipedia essays) and in the section on Essays in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines which explains their status. There is also an explanatory essay on Essays at Wikipedia:Essays. Taken together, you will see that essays that contradict our policies should remain in Userspace (or may be moved back there if deemed inappropriate... or even deleted).

Unless you are proposing a brand new Namespace, then the WP: namespace is definitely the right place for essays which are not actual policy or a formal guideline, but which nevertheless still serve to explain - on behalf of a number of editors - certain areas of our work which are thought to be useful to users. Essays can ve worked on by not just its creator (unless it's in the creator's userspace, of course)

As you know, each page has a heading template to explain its status, and many editors find essays extremely useful as they nevertheless mostly tend to reflect the consensus of advice and interpretation of policies and guidelines from a range of editors, despite not being adopted as actual policies or guidelines. One example of an extremely useful essay explaining our policies in what people can and cannot do here is WP:NOTHERE, which links to a subsection of a larger essay. It gives examples of the types of activity which are and are not permitted here. Having each unacceptable behaviour type laid out in an actual policy would not necessarily be helpful, yet the essay serves a very useful function in expanding and demonstrating how our community interprets and acts upon those behavioural policies and guidelines. I hope this reply makes at least a modicum of sense! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick Moyes, that's helpful. I hadn't realised that WP:NOTHERE was an essay, as I'd never clicked through to it despite seeing it cited many times. I'll look through the past discussions you pointed to, and probably lose the will to follow up, other than writing my own egregious essay with a shorcut along the lines of WP:IGNOREALLESSAYSEXCEPTTHISONE. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose I'm afraid someone has already beaten you to it by 12 years! See Wikipedia:Ignore all essays. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

How to upload a photo to Commons considering copyright issues

Hello, I am writing a draft about an actress (Link). I would like to add a photo of her. I have learned the hard way (speedy deletion) how not to do it. There are a lot of photos of her over the internet and I also have contact with a person related to this actress.

I wonder if you can recommend me a path how to get a photo to add it to my draft with minimum effort for the persons involved and the eventual result of a problem-free useable photo for my draft. Thanks in advance! Bernhard.rulla (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bernhard.rulla Your first task is to get the draft accepted: the presence or absence of a photo won't matter since the hurdle is to show that she is notable. Later, you can either 1) ask the person you know to take a picture and upload it to Commons (Wikipedia does not allow WP:NONFREE photos for living people) or 2) use the email processes outlined at c:Commons:Email_templates to upload a photo on behalf of the copyright holder and then get them to confirm they did release it under a suitable CC license. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Thank you very much! Yes, I will proceed with the draft first! :) Bernhard.rulla (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Is this image from Flickr alright to upload?

This image would be great to use in an article I am editing. I can't make much sense of the guidelines Wikipedia has for this. It seems to suggest contacting the photographer, but I don't want to bother them. I did want to confirm here though, is it unwise to upload it? Thank you in advance. Slamforeman (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The licence under which the photographer has released it is NOT compatible with wikipedia ... the non-commercial part is a deal-breaker. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Shame. Thanks anyways though. Slamforeman (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Slamforeman In the past, I have had some success by directly approaching a photographer on Flickr to explain my wish to use their image and to ask them to consider changing their licensing to a CC-BY-SA commercial licence. There's no guarantee of success, but some photographers may think the use of one of their images in an article on this platform is worthwhile. It can do no harm to try, though there's no guarantee the person is even still active on Flickr nowadays. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Mika Muramatsu and Draft:Heikichi Yamamoto

I've completed them with all reliable sources that I can find. Can you create their own pages? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.239.125.208 (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Eventually somebody will review them. Please be patient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.33.56.248 (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. 95.239.125.208 (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

For Mika Muramatsu, can you help me to find other info and reliable sources? Thank you. 193.207.220.238 (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Teahouse Hosts are here to advise, but not co-author or find references. David notMD (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I've just added many info and sources, then... 95.239.131.137 (talk) 09:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

What is a sandbox?

I got asked a question involving one and I wasn't (and still am not) sure of what one is. Can you perhaps explain it to me?

Thanks, from OddyAwesome OddyAwesome (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Forget it. Instead, dare to make a constructive, intelligent change to an existing article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.33.56.248 (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I will! Thanks! :) OddyAwesome (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@OddyAwesome See H:SANDBOX. Every account-holder is able to create a personal sandbox in which they can practice editing or develop part-articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@1.33.56.248 No, before you adding something unsure whether it will make a mess to the article, the better place for it is in Sandbox, not to article directly. This is specific for some test edits, or using/changing templates you are not familiar with. -Lemonaka‎ 12:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Within H:SANDBOX there is mention of Wikipedia:Sandbox. That is a place everyone can use to practice stuff. It is periodically blanked. Your personal sandbox(es) is/are places for you to practice or store content. Not periodically blanked. Common examples of use of your own Sandbox are to copy a section of an existing article, edit it to your satisfaction, then paste it back into the article. Another is to format references in your Sandbox, and only when correct, paste into article. David notMD (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay! Where are 'personal sandboxes', though? OddyAwesome (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The page you have already been directed to at H:SANDBOX explains all that. Mine is at User:Michael_D._Turnbull/sandbox for example. Yours would have your Username instead. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Your personal sandbox is User:OddyAwesome/Sandbox, or you can see the right up corner of your page. -Lemonaka‎ 13:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Posting new articles

I notice certain articles on Wikipedia comprising 1 or 2 sentences are published, albeit with notices requiring e.g., citations etc. Nonetheless, they are published.

An article that I have published (my first on Wikipedia), had been rejected and marked for potential deletion. I have posted references to books, papers and symposia.

I find this difference in content approval to be erratic and even discriminatory. I have been pointed to tips on references, reliability etc while these links are generic.

Can anyone care to explain what I may be missing? Francisdsilva (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Francisdsilva Hello, welcome to the teahouse, there are two ways of publishing articles, one is publishing them directly in mainspace, another is WP:AFCH process, we are encouraging the second process which will help you improve your article before publishing, however, some articles are just published in mainspace, without being noticed and patrolled. Can you specific the previous article you talk about? -Lemonaka‎ 12:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be about Draft:Gigamapping. David notMD (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I created this in response to a conference discussion where there was an engaged exchange on more knowledge on gigamapping as a diagramming "language". Francisdsilva (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Lemonaka, for the clarification on the two spaces. The short articles that I am referring to are most likely the unpatrolled area. Francisdsilva (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, where people do what they can when they can, and where standards have changed over time. As such, there are likely tens of thousands of articles that should not exist, but we need help in identifying and removing them. This does not justify more inappropriate articles being added, see other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I appreciate volunteerism and its use in Wikipedia (I joined Wikipedia about 18 years ago with the intent of contributing more than I actually did).

I will gladly delete the article if someone can be more specific on what is inappropriate. Francisdsilva (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

FYI: Content on your User page was Speedy deleted, as that was wrong place for article development, etc. See WP:UP for what goes on a User page. Your draft was Declined, not Rejected, nor scheduled for deletion. David notMD (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I just followed the invitation to describe myself. As a big fan of transparency, I wanted to provide a couple of sentences about myself. (I requested a name change, from the system-generated name I was given, with that aim).

Yes, the article is declined and not rejected. The tone of voice indicated a reject (incl a warning of potential deletion).

To be clear:

I created the article as a stub, with the intent to invite a number of academics to refine tbe article. They agreed to write if I could "get the ball rolling". Since it is not published, it cannot be edited. Francisdsilva (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Since you are editing using your own business name, perhaps you would care to disclose your conflict of interest on your user page. Theroadislong (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I am editing using my given name Francis D'Silva (francisdsilva) and not my business name.

Would you please point me to the template to confirm that I am not being paid for this or other contributions? (I understand that the "paid" template can be used to disclose payments.)

Thanks for your patience in responding to questions. Francisdsilva (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Your user page states "Francis is an independent consultant and student of systems-oriented design and how it can accelerate digitalisation of social systems and enterprises.' that would imply that you have a conflict of interest in the draft you are editing. Theroadislong (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Francisdsilva, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia (I see your account has been here for a long time, but you hardly edited until last month, so I'm welcoming you as a new editor!)

I'm afraid that you are in the same position as hundreds of other editors who plunge into trying to create a new article with little understanding of what is required or how to go about it. I liken this to buying an instrument for the first time and immediately going out busking: you're not likely to get much response that is welcome.

An article begins, stands, and falls, with its sources; and not just any sources: they need to be reliable, substantial, and wholly independent of the subject (see Golden rule). If you haven't found several such sources, there is no point in writing so much as a single word of an article, because almost every word you do write should be supported by one or more of those sources.

It doesn't look to me as if any of your current sources is independent (I haven't looked closely, so I might have missed something). Certainly, if the topic was developed by Sevaldson, then nothing written or published by him, his colleagues, or his institutions, will go towards establishing that the subject is notable. ColinFine (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. And the analogy to new instrument owners :-)

You make a fair point on notability. However, your closing comment seems to suggest that I should write an academic paper before it can be published. Currently, I point to peer-reviewed papers and to open conferences where practitioners and academics (not colleagues) discuss the topic. Imo, that should constitute some degree of notability

The article is far from perfect and my intent was to open the door to invite others to refine the content - co-creation - and to engage in discussion in in-person arenas.

Ideally, I would've appreciated an accept/reject deadline, say (10 weeks), by which time I could've gotten other enthusiasts to contribute towards increasing the articles notability. Francisdsilva (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm not sure what you mean about seems to suggest that I should write an academic paper. If you're talking about the WP article, then no, it's very different from most academic papers, in that it must not present any argument, discussion or conclusion, but only summarise what the sources say. If you're talking about you writing an independent paper that then gets peer-reviewed and use that as a source: well yes, that's possible; but citing your own paper is regarded as a conflict of interest - not that you can't do it, but you'd need to be circumspect. In any case notability requires multiple sources.

The first part of writing an article is to assemble adequate sources that establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability: if you can't do that, you know there's no point in continuing.

If you have the sources, then you can start writing the article, preferably as a draft. There it can remain for a long time, if you wish, being gradually developed (it's not customary to edit other people's drafts, but there's no rule against it, and it's certainly acceptable for people to work collaboratively on a draft). As long as it isn't something unacceptable like pure promotion or an attack page, a draft won't get deleted unless it's left untouched for six months. So there's no deadline to getting it up to standard, and you can submit when you think it's ready. (You don't have to get it perfect or complete to submit: just to the level where it establishes that the subject is notable, and has adequate citing and tone. You and others can continue to improve it after submission, and after acceptance.

Papers and conferences where people unconnected with Sevaldson discuss it can establish notability, but nothing by him or his colleagues can do so. ColinFine (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Francisdsilva: Be aware that notability is an attribute of a topic, not of an article. There is literally nothing you or anyone else can do to increase a topic's notability. (Well, okay, that's not 100% true: you could become an author and write a book about the topic, and that would increase its notability.) Notability depends strictly on what published material is available about the topic, and not whether an article exists about the topic. Just reinforcing what Colin already said, because you said something about "increasing the articles notability" and that can't be done, because article's don't have notability; topics do. Mathglot (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

How to make an article

I joined Wikipedia a couple of hours ago, and I have learnt how to edit. But I'm still not sure of how to make and post articles, can someone help? (Currently on Chromebook) OddyAwesome (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Standard asvice to newbies is learn skills by improving existing articles before attempting to create an article. If you still want to pursue the latter, see WP:YFA. David notMD (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay! I've started that already! OddyAwesome (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, OddyAwesome, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please don't make the mistake of assuming that the only way, or even the main way, of contributing to Wikipedia is by creating new articles! We have over six milion of them, which probably means that we have over five million which are desperately in need of some TLC.

Hundreds of new articles and drafts are deleted every day. In a sense, the work put in by the creators of those articles represents negative value that they have put into Wikipedia - negative, because they have taken the time and attention of experienced editors to determine that they are not suitable and delete them.

I remember when I started, many years ago, how much I wanted to "make my mark" by creating a new article. Actually, in 18 years and 23 000 edits, I've only ever created about a dozen. ColinFine (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Got it! :) OddyAwesome (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@OddyAwesome Hi, for creating an article, you may want to have a try for WP:AFC -Lemonaka‎ 12:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, what is WP:AFC? OddyAwesome (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Article for creation, a process that newcomer can create a draft, then reviewed by Active AFCH reviewers before publishing. -Lemonaka‎ 12:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Nice! OddyAwesome (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Banned or locked steward?

Hello, is there any banned or global locked steward in Wikimedia history? That's a strange question but I'd just want to have acquaintance about such cases if there are. -Lemonaka‎ 12:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The closest I'm aware of is Mardetanha's removal of steward permissions ([2] [3]) that apparently came with a temporary global lock ([4]). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

combining wikipedia pages

How do i combine my sandbox with other user's to create a full profile on a person? Mee1uh (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mee1uh, and welcome to the Teahouse. Presumably, this is about Draft:Kieran Hickey, (which you apparently started on your user page: please delete the text from there, as you user page is not an appropriate place to draft an article).

I see that your draft is part of an article: I guess the other person is working on the first half of it?

If somebody else is working on a draft about Hickey, then the two of you should agree which one you're going to use, and simply copy the text from one to the other, and then paste {{db-author}} to the top of the one you are not using, asking for it to be deleted. There are restrictions on copying within Wikipedia, because of licensing requirements, but if it's entirely you own work that you are copying, there is no problem.

I'm afraid that I have nominated c:File:Kieran hickeys photo.png for deletion, as it is pretty clearly a copyright violation. Uploading a scan of a copyright picture to Commons and claiming it as "own work" is a pretty serious mistake. It is possible that you may be able to upload the picture to Wikipedia (not to Commons) as a non-free image, but not until the draft has been accepted into the encyclopaedia as an article. You will need to show that the use complies with all the conditions in the non-free content criteria, which include that non-free images may be used only in articles. ColinFine (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You should absolutely not create "profiles". This is not social media or a means of promotion. Edward-Woodrow • talk 17:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You are not even an administrator and you have made me feel unwelcome in the wikipedia community ! Mee1uh (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, this is for a class for my university and I'm following the instructions from my lecturer, which was to make it on my user page. Also, I was told if I take my own photo it's allowed to be used. I dont appreciate your tone, but thanks for the help Mee1uh (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mee1uh: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your lecturer really should have gone through the Wikipedia Education Program, as everyone is beholden to the policies and guidelines laid out on this site. Taking a picture of a pre-existing image being the main focus does not mean you inherently own its copyright and by extension the image. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

block quoting

For a block quote with multiple paragraphs, how should it be formatted? I think there's a better way than to stack multiple single-paragraphed quotes. Thanks rootsmusic (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Rootsmusic, try {{tqb}}! See the link for its documentation. Best, — Frostly (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

(That template is for talk pages. For articles, see {{Blockquote}}.) — Frostly (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Frostly, I've learned that a better way is to insert html elements into the template. rootsmusic (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, rootsmusic. MOS:QUOTE talks about "Brief quotations of copyrighted text" (emphasis added). Of course it will depend on the details, but in general a multiple-paragraph quotation seems unlikely to meet the spirit of that section. ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Prolific questioner

The following discussions were originally in separate sections and refactored at 18:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC) by Mathglot (talk).

I think nuclide symbols are overused on Wikipedia. They hurt readability IMHO. I wonder what I should do?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nuclear_weapon_design#235U_versus_uranium-235. is a link to a discussion I had about this which, as I see it, was concluded without much rebuttal of my arguments, but rather a refusal to discuss the matter. So I am wondering whether I am really right about this, and also, what I should do, if anything. Polar Apposite (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it U₃O₈ or triuranium octoxide? H₂O or dihydrogen oxide? Personally, I prefer Arabic digits to Greek prefixes. Maproom (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

"Is it U₃O₈ or triuranium octoxide?"

For the nonscientific layman, the latter is plain English while the former is a formula, IMHO.

Literacy on the part of the reader of an encyclopedia article about chemistry can be assumed, I think, but numeracy cannot. For us numerate guys it is hard to keep in mind just how innumerate a lot of people are, including university graduates. I once saw a cartoon showing an office with "Principal" on the door, and a man behind a desk who was obviously the principal. Another man faced him across the desk, saying, "A new study shows that fifty-one percent of educators have not mastered basic math concepts." The principal's speech bubble contains the text, "My God. That's almost half."

"Dihydrogen oxide"? You have got to be kidding me.

Anyway, my question is not about familiar, *relatively* easily pronounced, and understood, but nuclide symbols which are on a whole other level of unfamiliarity, and even when the reader is familiar with them, disrupt reading to a very great degree, mainly because they are essentially pronounced backwards, that is to say, they are read from right to left in some sense. Polar Apposite (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

If someone can't understand middle school level chemistry, we shouldn't be trying to dumb basic concepts down to their level. The concept of chemical compounds is very simple and almost universally known; if they don't know what the specific compound is, we can just link it. AryKun (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

What should I do when I forget to include an edit summary?

Or if I accidentally hit a key and publish an edit before writing the edit summary? Like I did just now. Polar Apposite (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite: You can make a dummy edit (put an extra space somewhere on the page) and leave your edit summary there. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 22:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I did it. Do you have any other tips about edit summaries. Polar Apposite (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Polar Apposite Go to "Preferences" (top line of the page) "Editing" and check the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box - this will remind you if you try to publish without an edit summary - Arjayay (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I did it. Thanks. How about another edit summary tip? Polar Apposite (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Polar Apposite, an edit summary should clearly and concisely describe the purpose of your edit. Do not debate or argue with other editors or be negative or sarcastic. Detailed discussion belongs on talk pages, not in edit summaries. Cullen328 (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I always Edit summary for article content, but never for Teahouse or editors' Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That's been my policy up to now, too. Polar Apposite (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If the edit summary of a revert of someone elses's edit included, "Take your concerns to talk", would that normally be understood to mean, to reverter's talk page, or to the article talk page, or something else? Polar Apposite (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Polar Apposite, I would usually prefer the article talk so that everyone would more easily be able to find the previous discussion before starting a new one about the same topic. Justiyaya 22:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense. But I was asking about the meaning. Polar Apposite (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The meaning is normally to take your concerns about the edit to the article talk. Equalwidth (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

What should I do when my question gets no response?

At least one of my questions at the Tearoom has no responses, likewise on my talk page when I clicked on the "ask for help/ask a question button". What should I do, and when? Polar Apposite (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see an unanswered section on your Talk Page and I'm not going to hunt for the relevant question here, since you have several in total. Please link both sections (here in this section!) and someone will attempt to assist you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not sure I'd be able to find them, and I could be wrong, anyway. I mean, I can't be sure they weren't answered. Maybe I should start making edit summaries for my Teahouse questions, at least for the ones that seem not to have answers, so that I can find them. Polar Apposite (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It's always wise to be judicious in raising points for discussion. Asserting that "At least one of my questions at the Tearoom has no responses, likewise on my talk page" and then conceding that "I mean, I can't be sure they weren't answered" could be construed as disrespectful of the time of anyone who took your original question seriously & investigated the never-found unanswered question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I'll be more careful next time.

On the other hand, my actual question was not "why haven't my all my questions been answered" and there was no need for anyone to search for the (possibly) never answered question. My question was should I do *when* that happens (or "if" as I should have said)?

(By the way, if I reply to an answer with a further question, for clarification, say, and that reply gets no answer, does that count as a never answered question?) Polar Apposite (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Polar Apposite, if you go to Special:Preferences → Editing → Discussion pages, and toggle on "Enable topic subscription" and "Automatically subscribe to topics", you'll get notifications whenever there's a new message in a thread you've started (or manually subscribed to) so you won't miss any answers, even if you're not pinged in the reply.

To answer your actual concern here, you can try to find a more specific venue for your question in a talk namespace. Finding the right venue can be challenging, especially for newer editors or newly returning editors. You can use the {{Help me}} template on your own usertalk page to draw attention to your question. That template puts the page it's called from into a maintenance category that's pretty well patrolled. Folly Mox (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Oops I should have opened the thread below this one, where the same advice was already given. Folly Mox (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Could you delete what you added to this thread, please, if it was intended for the thread below? Polar Apposite (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

What is the difference between asking a question by clicking the button on my talk page vs. asking a question at the Tearoom?

And how to choose between the two options? Polar Apposite (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi there Polar Apposite, Template:Helpme will be answered by volunteers that will post an answer on your talk page, the teahouse will be answered here and by a slightly different set of volunteers. There really isn't that much of a difference between the two, but I'd say that the teahouse is probably a bit friendlier. Justiyaya 22:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there any other difference? Polar Apposite (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The main difference that may matter to you is that questions here at the Teahouse are very visible since many people read this page, whereas your own Talk Page is not on the watchlist of many editors. Hence, if you think that the answer may be of interest to many beginners, it would be better to ask here. The downside is that the thread here will soon be archived. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

What happens when it is archived? Why do they get archived? Can people still reply to it? Polar Apposite (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The archived thread is added to an archive page, where it can be viewed. See the list of archive pages at the bottom of the index at the top of this page. Threads are archived so that this page does not get overlong. People should not reply to archived questions; in general, the idea is to answer questions on this page, preserve answers on archive pages, but not modify archive pages. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I asked a long (about a page long) question on someone's talk page. What it I want to ask it here?

Can I just copy paste it with some small changes into the question box here at the Tearoom? Polar Apposite (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

If it is very long, you could just give a link here to the talk page. Bduke (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Plantsurfer#Fungi. Here's a link to it. Polar Apposite (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure whether it's "very long". What do you think? Polar Apposite (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Polar Apposite One of the issues with long questions is what we call WP:TLDR. Please be as concise as possible in your question, or post a WP:LINK to your previous discussion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

To my eye, Plantsurfer's edit in respect of the singular / plural issue improved the article. Your quoting huge chunks of Strunk and White is not very helpful. I get that you have a preference in the matter, but first you note "I'm not saying you are wrong", and then you go on & on in support of your personal preference. No-one has time for this. It's useful to accept, gracefully, that there are other legitimate forms of expression. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean that you do not have time to discuss this with me? Polar Apposite (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean that there comes a point where your wish to argue a point is a waste of everyone's time. It's always wise to be judicious in raising points for discussion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

But we haven't even started discussing it. I mean, you haven't. Polar Apposite (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Polar Apposite: if you can't make your point without a long boring block of text that no-one will read, it's probably not worth making. Maproom (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was interesting. Polar Apposite (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, I never said I needed to use a long block of text, and indeed, I made the point very succinctly on Plantsurfer's talk page. The block of text, as you put it, was just an update. It takes a minute to read, and was the only relevant stuff I could find during about four hours of Googling. A one minute distillation of four hours of hard work doesn't seem to be a lot. Polar Apposite (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You see, the thing is, a user made an unobjectionable edit to a page. In response, you decided to edit the user's talk page 7 times over the course of about 4 hours. In general, people do not want their lives disrupted in this fashion. WP users should be able to go about their business largely uninterrupted, and certainly not be harrassed by multiple new message notifications because your personal preference differs from their choice. This is very basic stuff, Polar Apposite, very basic indeed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I will be more careful next time. I had no idea that a few purely friendly updates on the results of my googling (or rather, lack of results) could be construed as harassment. Polar Apposite (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Polar Apposite, there is no reason to take The Elements of Style seriously. -- Hoary (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Why not? Polar Apposite (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Because, as the article Hoary links to demonstrates, it is bone-headed, inconsistent, and ill-informed personal prejudice that has somehow bizarrely acquired a sheen of authority. ColinFine (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that the link contains an article *about* the The Elements of Style. I had not noticed that. Polar Apposite (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I've started reading the article. The author shoots himself in the foot by saying at the outset, "The book's style advice, largely vapid and obvious ("Do not overwrite"; "Be clear"), may do little damage; but the numerous statements about grammatical correctness are actually harmful." It makes him look unkind, and perhaps even not to be trusted, to any reader, such as myself, who thinks that the quoted advice certainly does a great deal of good.

On the other hand, I agree with the first specific ( albeit marred by overwriting) nitpick, which is that the TES is egregiously wrong to favor "None of us is perfect" over "None of us is perfect".r Polar Apposite (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed that Pullum shoots himself in the foot *again* (so soon!), making himself look very unkind by speculating that TES is guilty of "breathtaking" arrogance, without presenting any strong evidence. Here's the section:

"The sentence None of us are perfect is given as an example of incorrect grammar; None of us is perfect is claimed to be the correction.

The arrogance here is breathtaking. None of us are perfect is a line from literature. It is uttered by Canon Chasuble in the second act of Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest (1895), possibly the greatest of all stage comedies in English. It is absurd to suggest that Wilde didn't know the rule of verb agreement, and surely false that he wanted to depict the learned Dr. Chasuble as unable to speak Standard English.

People say, "None of is perfect", "No one is perfect", "None of us are perfect", "No one's perfect", and so on quite a lot. It's a common idea. So maybe one or both of the authors of the TES heard it, or heard someone say it is right or wrong, and started thinking about it in that way. How does Pullum know that they knew that that phrase is in Wilde's work? Pullum says nothing to back this claim up. He just takes it upon himself to accuse the TES of arrogance (stating it as a fact) quite casually, quite arbitrarily, rather boldly, rather self-assuredly, rather... (what would be the best word here, I wonder?) Polar Apposite (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• speak Standard English"

Polar Apposite (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

This page is a place where users can ask for help about wikipedia. It is not a forum for your opinions on The Elements of Style. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

May I suggest that you read the whole thread? You may wish, having done that, to revise your position. Polar Apposite (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

For your information Polar Apposite, Geoffrey K. Pullum is an internationally renowned Professor of Linguistics who has written prestigious textbooks on these matters. I happen to think he is a little too hard on the now-very-dated (originally 1918) guidebook The Elements of Style – it may serve to make very poor writers' work a little more comprehensible – but it was always intended as a compilation of hints and suggestions (perhaps over-emphatically stated), not an iron-clad rulebook. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.5.208 (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That is hilarious. I thought he was a blogger. That does *not* reflect well on internationally renowned Professors of Linguistics who have written prestigious books on these matters.

Regarding TEoS, I know next to nothing about it, and consequently have no opinion on whether it is good or bad. All I know is it is wrong about "None of us are perfect", and doesn't say anything about my, possibly original, rule of thumb that you should use the singular form whenever you reasonably can, as it leads to greater clarity. Like I said, this is possibly an idea I came up with on my own, and AFAIK no book, not even Pinker's awesome Sense of Style mentions it, so this is not a criticism of TEoS in particular.

My rule of thumb says that "When men and women get married they usually produce children." is not as clear as, and therefore not as good as, "When a man and a woman get married they usually produce a child." or ""When a man and a woman get married they usually produce children.". Which of the last two you use would depend what your intended meaning is.

My failure to find any trace of this of this idea anywhere, despite half a day of my best googlefu, is matched only by my inability to find anyone who will say that it is a good rule of thumb:) Polar Apposite (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• matched only by my failure to find

Polar Apposite (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Is it a rule to be friendly at the Teahouse?

Or is it just said to be a friendly place? Polar Apposite (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite Hello, welcome to the teahouse. It is a policy that you should be civil on the whole Wikipedia, for this, please have a read on WP:CIVIL -Lemonaka‎ 13:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

So you think anyone has failed to be civil in any of the threads I have started in the Teahouse during the last twenty-four hours? Polar Apposite (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Do

Polar Apposite (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite What, I cant quite catch you. If you want to report who is failed to be civil, feel free to WP:ANI, not here. -Lemonaka‎ 17:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I just thought you perhaps found civility more interesting than friendliness, so I thought I'd give you a chance to expand on that, while keeping it relevant to the Teahouse. Plus I'm not sure anyone *has* been, it's just a strong suspicion right now. I thought you might be able to clarify that. A lot depends on how you define incivility, and examples of what is what isn't counted as that would be very helpful. So I thought that if you said "This one and that one are both almost but not quite, but the rest are no where near incivil by Wikipedia thinking", say,

Could we get back to my original question, please? Polar Apposite (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• say, that would give me a clearer idea. The last thing I would want to be is incivil.

Polar Apposite (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You have not been uncivil, but your edits at Teahouse and elsewhere have been evaluated and found to be annoying to the point that you are now temporarily blocked, in part for WP:NOTHERE. See your Talk page for details. David notMD (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Does the MoS say anything about when to give an example?

Does the MoS say anything about this? I'm asking not about recommended the form of the example, but rather when to, and in what part of the article, and how many examples should be given, and do on. Polar Apposite (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it doesn't (I've checked). This would be a matter of general writing competence, entirely dependent on specific circumstances, not something that could be prescribed in the MoS to fit all occasions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.5.208 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Can I ask another editor not to contribute to threads I start at the Tearoom?

If a particular editor seems to never contribute a constructive comment in any Tearoom thread that I start, but frequently contributes unconstructive ones, can I ask him or her to refrain? Polar Apposite (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You can ask, but they are under no obligation to follow unless you have a wp:IBAN. Most users would probably listen to the request. Also, are their answers so bad/hostile that you don't want to see them? See wp:hound if you think they're intentionally following you. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 18:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You can ask. They may comply, within reason. There may be other views on "seems to never contribute a constructive comment in any Tearoom thread that I start". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course you can ask. Whether they accede to your request is another thing entirely. Then there is the difference between "unconstructive" and "replies that I do not like". You have asked a lot of questions in the last three days, and it seems like you have decided to camp on this page, exclusively; not to the obvious benefit of anyone. You might consider giving it a rest and finding a new game to play? There is a WP concept of NOTHERE and it's my view, fwiw, that it describes your behaviour. It is possible that you have a difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms; but I think it clear that you have a difficuty. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly advise against it, because it will come across as very hostile. I wouldn't necessarily encourage it, but if you must, I would suggest that you instead describe the sort of content you object to, e.g. "I don't want to hear about a rule from The Elements of Style" or "Please don't bother making any suggestions to change between singular and plural". While you might consider these as being too personal, at least I'm not directly objecting to the person who's making the suggestion. Fabrickator (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying I should stop asking questions at the Teahouse (not Tearoom, I got confused). Would that be for all time? If not, for how long? Polar Apposite (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not addressing the question of which is the proper forum or what sort of questions are suitable for the Teahouse, but about your specific proposal to ask somebody not to contribute. Perhaps saying something about the nature of the content you are hoping to hear would be better. I'm not sure. While I can imagine getting tired of hearing from the same person whose suggestions you've found unhelpful in the past, try to describe in positive terms what you think would be helpful. Granted, we should all WP:AGF, but having someone tell you that your input is not desired is kind of asking for a hostile response. Fabrickator (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Polar Apposite temporarily blocked, per notification on Talk page. David notMD (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Why do I already know from other parts of Wikipedia so many of the people commenting in threads I have started in the Tearoom?

There are about a hundred thousand Wikipedia editors, right? But, out of about twenty people who have commented in Tearoom threads that I have started in the last few days, I recognize two of them (I mean their names). And I guess I would only recognize about thirty people's names out of all Wikipedia editors. I get that I, and the people I recognized in the threads I started, are among the more active of the hundred thousand editors, but it still seems remarkable. Polar Apposite (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Polar Apposite, you are certainly among the most loquacious. Could it be time to take a break from asking questions here? (Article improvement is always welcome.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.33.56.248 (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, there are millions of people who have created accounts, but only a very small number who have the requirements and interest and energy in being Teahouse Hosts. David notMD (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite: Hi there! Please note that this is called the Teahouse (not Tearoom). GoingBatty (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

What does "friendly" mean here?

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia#What_%22not_here_to_build_an_encyclopedia%22_is_not it says:

"In a small number of cases this may lead to a friendly block with warnings or even bans in some long term cases." Polar Apposite (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Whatever it means you appear to be getting close to a "friendly block". Theroadislong (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Really, for what? Polar Apposite (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite I would refer you back to a post on your Talk Page entitled "Word to the wise" in which your constant, pedantic nit-picking and sometimes seemingly pointless question-asking is reaching the point in some editors' minds where your activities are liable to be deemed as WP:Disruptive editing.

The kind of 'friendly block' is one that I might be minded to offer someone such as yourself for what we see as disruptive editing and constant question over trivia, but which you seem to see as quite justified and normal behaviour. It would be done without enmity for your own good, as well as to avoid further wasting the time of volunteer editors. Initially it would probably be applied for a relatively short period of time, which might lengthen if that disruptive behaviour continued. (For the sake of clarity, there is no formal definition of a 'friendly block', it was just a term used in an essay, but I would hope you are capable of getting the gist.)

NOTE: As I draft this reply, I see that @Cullen328 has imposed just such a 'friendly block' on you. It seems quite justified to me.

When it expires and you choose to return to editing, you need to have changed your approach to engaging with other editors here, and take time to understand the norms of this community and its editing guidelines and policies so that it doesn't need to be applied again. Some people might call that 'learning to read the room'. We wish you well and hope you will return to constructive editing from now on without such time-wasting over trivia. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Nick Moyes has explained the block so well that I don't need to. Cullen328 (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

"Friendly" in this context means short. i.e., 31 hours. "Unfriendly" would mean an indefinite block, reversible only with a successful appeal to an Administrator. David notMD (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion, I would suggest that in this context, "friendly" is properly described as a euphemism. Fabrickator (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Too true! Nick Moyes (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep Passing the Open Windows

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Keep_Passing_the_Open_Windows?searchToken=6vw09vvl3yo8f5p9d7c5m413v Newtatoryd222 (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Newtatoryd222, and welcome to the Teahouse. What is your question about editing Wikipedia? If it is about why Draft:Keep Passing the Open Windows has been declined three times today, it is because it does not have a single independent source. Please review the requirements for notability.

More generally, I would advise that new editors who plunge straight into the challenging task of creating a new article before they have spent a significant amount of time learning how Wikipedia works (by making edits to improve existing articles, starting with superficial ones and passing through the stage of finding and adding suitable sources to articles which lack them) often have a frustrating and miserable time. I liken it to buying an instrument you've never played before and immediately going out busking. I suggest you hang out at the "Help out" section of community portal for a bit. ColinFine (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Newtatoryd222. Your draft was declined for the reasons set out at Draft:Keep Passing the Open Windows. Without more detailed citations, the best you can do is create a WP:REDIRECT to the relevant section in the relevant section of the album. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

How to delete a template?

Hi guys. I found a bogus template, Template:Haiku. This template is present on about one article, and is otherwise entirely a WP:LINKFARM of redirects, which are all WP:FANCRUFT WP:TRIVIA WP:NOTMANUAL and which were all never WP:N, and should never have been created. It looks like the only way to delete a template is Template:Deleted_template, whose docs are typically baffling. It doesn't even have an option for providing a reason for deletion. So am I supposed to simply put {{deleted template}} and a comment containing the reason, at the top of Template:Haiku? Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 21:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

HEllo, Smuckola, and welcome to the Teahouse. Try WP:TFD. ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Smuckola:, I've added this to TFD on your behalf. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 November 5#Template:Haiku. Mathglot (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Adjusting the break-line height to a fraction ratio

Hello dear editors. Can someone explain for me how can I adjust the break-line height which is placed between 2 lines using <br> ? I need to adjust it to 1.5 times a normal line height.

Thank You for your help in advance ! Bezyjoon (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You've asked this also at WP:Help Desk, where it being answered. Please don't ask the same question in two different places. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

First Off, I didn't see any answer until half an hour ago. Secondly this is the first time which I'm seeking help and I was not sure which platform is the best to use. Bezyjoon (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That's OK. The convention here seems to be to ask in just one place: either Teahouse or Help Desk. Generally within a hour or two someone should give at least some sort of response. Feline Hymnic (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Twinkle

I downloaded Twinkle. It is now showing in my Wikipedia's User page and wherever I edit. It is showing as TW in top right corner. Is it downlaoded? How can I warn people and use other tools? Can someone please explain? TheProEditor11 (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

You installed it correctly. Twinkle is abrevieated "TW" for menus. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 03:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@TheProEditor11: Welcome to the Teahouse! See Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc for the documentation. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

You can test a subset of Twinkle functions at User talk:Sandbox for user warnings. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thankyou @Rotideypoc41352.. I was in confusion where to try those stuff. Also Thankyou @GoingBatty and @NightWolf1223. TheProEditor11 (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Redirect discussion

Where is the suitable Wikipedia project to place and discuss a redirect's deletion, I placed a db:nonsense tag on two redirects; Sikiru Alimi and Kadisha Martina, but they were removed by administrators stating that I used a wrong tag. The latter redirect is in fact not related to the main article, it is just like Cristiano Ronaldo being redirected to Real Madrid, they should be on red links until created.Jõsé ^hola 05:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Josedimaria237, see WP:RFD. Best, — Frostly (talk) 05:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Table edit help

I want the below table First two year columns in dark. Can somebody help me....

States	Year
	Oct–Dec 2019	Jan–Mar 2020	Apr–Jun 2020	Jul–Sep 2020	Oct–Dec 2020	Jan–Mar 2021
Delhi	2.44	1.53	0.95	1.71	1.56	1.25
Gujarat	0.87	1.72	0.40	15.6	5.23	0.65
Karnataka	2.38	1.90	1.35	2.31	2.71	1.30
Maharashtra	3.13	4.13	1.17	2.45	10.02	2.53
Telangna	0.31	0.37	0.55	0.12	0.19	0.30
Tamil Nadu	0.53	0.48	0.44	0.49	0.74	0.65
West Bengal	0.06	0.13	0.25	-	0.13	-
Source: Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal trade

103.241.226.199 (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe something like

States	Year
	Oct–Dec 2019	Jan–Mar 2020	Apr–Jun 2020	Jul–Sep 2020	Oct–Dec 2020	Jan–Mar 2021
Delhi	2.44	1.53	0.95	1.71	1.56	1.25
Gujarat	0.87	1.72	0.40	15.6	5.23	0.65
Karnataka	2.38	1.90	1.35	2.31	2.71	1.30
Maharashtra	3.13	4.13	1.17	2.45	10.02	2.53
Telangna	0.31	0.37	0.55	0.12	0.19	0.30
Tamil Nadu	0.53	0.48	0.44	0.49	0.74	0.65
West Bengal	0.06	0.13	0.25	—	0.13	—

Source code

{| class="wikitable sortable" ! rowspan="2" |States{{Efn|All values in Billion USD}} ! colspan="6" |Year |- !Oct–Dec 2019 !Jan–Mar 2020 !Apr–Jun 2020 !Jul–Sep 2020 !Oct–Dec 2020 !Jan–Mar 2021 |- ![[Delhi]] |2.44 |1.53 |0.95 |1.71 |1.56 |1.25 |- ![[Gujarat]] |0.87 |1.72 |0.40 |15.6 |5.23 |0.65 |- ![[Karnataka]] |2.38 |1.90 |1.35 |2.31 |2.71 |1.30 |- ![[Maharashtra]] |3.13 |4.13 |1.17 |2.45 |10.02 |2.53 |- ![[Telangana|Telangna]] |0.31 |0.37 |0.55 |0.12 |0.19 |0.30 |- ![[Tamil Nadu]] |0.53 |0.48 |0.44 |0.49 |0.74 |0.65 |- ![[West Bengal]] |0.06 |0.13 |0.25 | {{n/a}} |0.13 | {{n/a}} |}

and put the source for the data somewhere else in a <ref> tag and add the {{n/a}} template on the cells without data. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 08:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks 103.241.226.199 (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Notes

Wiki censorship

What is wikipedia doing to fight the growing concern it is turning into a narrative support machine (censoring by removing pages and/or disabling editing after false info added). What are you doing to ensure impartiality to everyone so that wiki can be legitimate 'goto' for accurate information going forward? Jason200669 (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia makes no guarantees that the information presented is accurate, please see Wikipedia:General disclaimer. Wikipedia also does not determine what is "true" and "false". Wikipedia only works to ensure information is verifiable. Wikipedia is not censored, but content not in keeping with policies is removed. If you feel policies have not been properly applied with regards to something, please discuss it on the relevant article talk page.

Wikipedia also does not claim to be impartial, as all sources have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves in determining what to believe. You are free to read an article and disagree with everything in it. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have a non-negotiable Neutral point of view policy. It's not a guarantee of course, but it does mean that we try. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Jason200669 You have made a total of five edits, none on controversial topics and none reverted. Can you provide specific examples of articles you believe encompass bias? David notMD (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not a monolith; we're all volunteers editing the pages we're interested in, and every page's bias depends on the editors who happen to be interested in that article. Nobody at Wikipedia's doing something about this, because we don't have some central editorial committee to determine our point of view on every article; we just try our best to reflect what the reliable sources say without being biased. AryKun (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Help with reference reliability

Hi there, I am trying to get this page published and have received notice that there is "Not enough independent, significant coverage." This is an artist who is well known and has published several interviews in reliable journals, which I referenced. Wondering if anyone can help me solidify this with correct references. Thanks so much! Draft:Aleksi Perälä (hoping this link works) Pam Embert (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Pam Embert, an interview with somebody doesn't carry much weight. What matters are descriptions and comments both (i) written by people quite independent of Perälä and (ii) published by reliable sources. (And sorry if this sounds harsh, but starting a sentence with "Notably," doesn't make what follows in the sentence seem more notable.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pam Embert: I agree. Multiple references to edited independent sources doing in-depth stories on the artist. (Only one is an interview, Hoary.) I've promoted the article as Aleksi Perälä. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Much obliged :) Pam Embert (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: actually, of the five sources cited, two are explicitly interviews, and two are clearly based on interviews. (The fifth is a primary source.) Just saying. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll concede that. I'm still comfortable that they pass GNG. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Notably as in, in particular, or especially. Not as in, of particular note? Does that make sense? Anyway, article now published. Thanks! Pam Embert (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pam Emberet:, regarding your "notably" question: the problem here, is that while "notably" may have been all right in the standard English sense of "in particular", the word "notable" at Wikipedia has a very special meaning related to whether a topic deserves to have its own article at Wikipedia or not. Mathglot (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Ping User:Pam Embert correctly. Mathglot (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

We really should consider calling the encyclopedia's definition of notability something else, like wikinotability, so that this confusion amongst new users should not be as bad. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 Meaning

Hello! My apologies if there is a more convenient way to source this information. I was wondering what it means if a user replies to another user's talk page message saying just "+1?" Llangrannog (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Llangrannog, I'd start by guessing "I agree with the comment that appears immediately above." Thus if User:Tweedledum comments "Excellent article; should be 'featured'", then User:Tweedledee's comment of "+1" immediately below that is likely to mean "Yes, I agree with User:Tweedledum: this is an excellent article and it should be 'featured'". -- Hoary (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much! That makes sense. Llangrannog (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

New voice

Dear staff,

I ask help to you to create a new voice Ilsic92 (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ilsic92 There are no staff here, only volunteers. I don't understand exactly what you want. Please give more details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

i can't edit pages

It says "This page is currently semi-protected so that only established, registered users can edit it." How do i edit them??? Willowers (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Willowers Welcome to the Teahouse. You canot edit a semi-protected page unless you are 'autoconfirmed', meaning your account must be at least 4 days old and have made 10 or more edits. Such pages are relatively rare, but are usually the high profile ones that attract a lot of attention from passing vandals and idiots.

However, you can follow the instructions at WP:EDITREQUEST to call attention on the article's Talk page to any suggestion you want to make as to an edit.

You will need to be very specific, stating "change text: xxxxxxxx to text: yyyyyyyyyy, based on source: zzzzzzzzz."

Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

About Full name translation and Reference

Hello, can I ask one question of Vladimir Samsonov's full name information in Teahouse? It says that his full name is 'Uładzimir Viktaravich Samsonaŭ' on romanized Belarusian language, but has no reference in it. Can I get help whether this translation is correct or not or information of translating Belarusian language into Roman Languages? As I'm not used to asking questions in English Wikipedia, I write the question of it in the Teahouse. Sorry for the inconvenience. --YellowTurtle9 (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, YellowTurtle9, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's a good question, and no inconvenience. That's what we're here for! I couldn't find any mention of an alternative name in the sourced used as inline citations (= references).

However an External Link at the bottom of the page took me to this link which does use that spelling. I don't know the website, but it does appear to have some degree of editorial control by historians in their field, so may well be regarded as Reliable. That link could actually be used as an WP:INLINE CITATION so support the alternative spelling of the name within the article, rather than leaving people confused as you were. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help! I'll update the information as soon as possible. Have a great day! --YellowTurtle9 (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

reputable sources?

hi, new here. i was wondering for citations how to know if a webpage holds up to Wikipedia's standards of reputability. the wikipedia adventure touched on the topic a little, but it was (i thought) rather vague. Sebimus (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

Which website were you looking to cite? It really depends, because if you want to cite someone's personal blog, for example, then I think that wouldn't be allowed unless it was to verify facts about the creator of the blog. LOOKSQUARE (👤️·🗨️) talk 15:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

it was nothing specific, just a general query for future use. Sebimus (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sebimus: Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources has some examples that can help you understand Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

thanks for this! Sebimus (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sebimus: keep in mind these aren't always true and there are exceptions, but there are a few things you can look for. If you can't find basic information about the source such as the name of the author / byline or the date of publication then it's less likely to be reliable. If the article says that the author is a contributor or freelance journalist rather than being on staff that's generally less reliable. If it's a blog or the content is user generated like a wiki that's almost always unreliable. If the website has a page with their policies, guidelines, and standards for their published content that's helpful. Also look out for sponsered content or press releases as they are not reliable. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sebimus: as a general rule of thumb, if you're uncertain about a web page and it's not in perennial sources, then start a new discussion at WP:RSN naming the website in question, and you will get good advice from experienced editors there. Mathglot (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Change name on my draft

Hello

How do I change name on my draft?

Thank you in advance for your help with this matter

Regards Chevalier de Tarascon (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Chevalier de Tarascon Your draft (Draft:D'Avignon (family)) appears to already have been renamed this morning. Are you saying it should be changed again? If so, leave a note on the draft's talk page (or add a note at the top of the draft itself) for a reviewer to easily see and give the preferred page name in the event that it is accepted. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

How to draft article and transfer to the real article about Retired Lieutenant General Georgios Dritsakos

It is my decision to know how to draft article to have it transferred to the articles about the Retired Lieutenant General Georgios Dritsakos and he is now Governor of the Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority. How do I draft it and turn to transfer to the regular article? Can you help me out? 108.21.67.83 (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

IP editor. You have created Draft:Georgios Dritsakos and he is mentioned (and is a WP:REDLINK on other articles including Konstantinos Stephanopoulos, for example). A template has been added by another editor at the top of your draft so you can submit it for review when you are ready. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Followup to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1204#Working_on_Vital_articles_list

I needed help with using AWB, but I didn't get a response from GoingBatty and it got archived. I was hoping that someone can guide me with using the tool so that I can fix the list. Interstellarity (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Cite Journal and specific pages

The Cite Journal template has a "pages=" parameter for indicating the pages in the Journal that have the relevant article. However, sometimes journal articles are over ten pages long, and it can be helpful to indicate which specific page contains the fact cited. Is there a way to do this? I have seen an article where someone put {{rp|14}} after the cite journal to indicate which page (page 14 in this example)—it looks like this: . Is this OK for an article that is seeking to receive a rating of GA? TwoScars (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TwoScars. Yes, you can absolutely use the {{rp}} template in the GA article - I've done it many times. That template is best used when you plan to cite one article more than once.

It leaves the actual page numbers for each cited fact separate from the citation. If you only want to cite one page in a long article and only ever envisage using it only once, you just need to decide whether to use the |page= or the |pages= parameter (but not both.) If you use |pages= you should not give the page range of the full article - just the page range where the cited fact can be found. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@TwoScars rp isn't used as often as sfn so you may encounter a GA reviewer who asks you to change it. You are entitled to hold your ground! Any citation style is allowable for GA. -- asilvering (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Can I see an example of the sfn usage? TwoScars (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Two journals are cited using sfn in Draft:Frederick Woodward Blanchard, for instance. I think the advantage of sfn is that the ref shows the page number, rather than the page number being associated only inline with the reference number. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. TwoScars (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Notability

Is it enough to be a mayor of a small city to be considered notable? I want to create a page for Jeremy Levi. I have a few reliable sources, but not many.

• https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/hampstead-fines-israeli-conflict-1.7018622
• https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/hampstead-to-fine-those-who-remove-posters-of-israeli-hostages

DaringDonna (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @DaringDonna: per WP:NPOL, local politicians are only notable if they meet the WP:GNG standard for notability, ie. have received significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. This excludes routine campaign etc. coverage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @DaringDonna No, I'm afraid it isn't. See WP:POLITICIAN for our criteria for notability for such people because of their positions. However, if there has been sufficient coverage about them in national mainstream media because of other aspects of their lives, they may then meet our general Notability of living people criteria. Neither of the sources you linked to show anything other than passing mentions of the people. I have hundreds of such newspaper clippings mentioning me during my working life, but none of them make me 'Notable' in Wikipedia's eyes, nor when taken altogether, either. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

New Page Guidelines.

Can you please check the new page, "List of US Fighter Aircraft". It's incomplete, but I want to know so far, does it follow all guidelines for new pages? This is the URL - List of United States fighter aircraft.

Thank you! BeeboMan (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@BeeboMan: Welcome to the Teahouse! Please add a reference for each entry in the list. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Special search

Hello, Teahouse. Today my question is: how do you bypass the normal redirect function? I'm trying to search for pages containing a term but keep getting redirected to the wikipage. Is there a way to bypass this? Thanks, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 19:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@UnexpectedSmoreInquisition If you type something into the search-box, at the bottom of the dropdown of suggestion you should see a clickable "Search for pages containing". Does that help? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I was looking for! I do have another search-related question now, however; is there a way to omit search results manually? This would make my role of fixing the typo "upto" a lot easier, as some pages contain the term in different correct contexts. Best regards, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 20:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk, any wisdom on this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

There is H:EXCLUDE and more generally, the rest of that page seeks to explain what can be done with CirrusSearch. There is also https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:CirrusSearch --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

That ↑ unless there is a specific example of what is not wanted.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk@Tagishsimon Thanks, I probably won't use the feature if it's an extension- not a safety concern per se, just a preference. Much obliged, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 20:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It isn't an extension; just a feature of the normal search mechanism.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Wow- the feature library is very impressive. I had no idea this existed, and will use it going forward! It's even better that it's built in. Thanks! Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 20:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Notability for animals

Why is there no notability criteria for animals? We have several pages like this that are stubs and unable to be expanded. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 20:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

There definitely should be if there isn't one- I see pages like that as unacceptable in their current state. Can't speak on whether or not there is one, but you bring up a great point. Please ping me if there turns out to not be one. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 20:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:NBIOL may have something of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTarantula and UnexpectedSmoreInquisition: I suggest taking a look at WP:NSPECIES. While many species are effectively perma-stubs, we still de facto consider them notable. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTarantula I don't really understand the premise of your question, nor do I really accept the suggestion in one of the responses to you, saying that many pages are effectively 'perma-stubs'. I could easily get that article up to a basic C-standard if I wanted to invest the time and effort - but I'm not interested in this taxon. And therein lies the real issue. Too many notable species, and too few editors inclined to work on them.

Wikipedia regards every species of animal and plant on this earth as inherently notable, providing it is a properly described and validly-named taxon, and not a synonym (See WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES). Homo sapiens is just one of around 8.7 million species inhabiting the earth, and there are countless tens of thousands still to be discovered and described (unless we manage to destroy their habitat before we find them).

There are around 1,500 beetle species within the Elmidae alone, from which your example, Stenelmis concinna, comes. Every single one of those species is notable! There is absolutely nothing whatsoever stopping you creating or expanding any stub article about any species. The problem comes in that very few editors are interested in wading through the literature to create these stubs on obscure taxa, let alone put the work in to expand them further. And not every species has been studied and written about in popular and easy to access magazines (unlike pokemon characters, pointless social media 'influencers' or minor singers who've never had a hit, but which someone thinks is nevertheless worth making an article about.) So it does take a lot more effort and access to resources than usual to unearth the gems such as monographs, and to understand the technical biological terms so as to write about them effectively.

But, honestly, just a quick search for a good references for Stenelmis concinna could let me add add a suite of locations to demonstrate which regions of North America it has been recorded in. I could create a 'Description' section, telling you that it is between 3.3 to 3.6mm in length and approximately 1.3 to 1.5mm in width; I could describe its general colour, form of its head, pronotum, appearance of its elytra, and describe its legs (tibia and tarsi).

I could tell you that the holotype of S. concinna]] was a male specimen collected from the Hudson River in New York NY, and that that first specimen from which the species was described and named is in the Francis Huntington Snow collection of insects at the University of Kansas, with further paratype specimens in the Canadian national collections. It was first described as a new species in 1938 by Sanderson in his major monograph of the Genus (which I used as one of my sources to give you this quick reply)

Looking at other sources, I could tell you that it is a species mostly found in clear water streams and rivers, and that a number of ectosymbiotic protozoa have been recorded attached to the upper abdominal sclerites, and even the elytra, of this species. If I did more than a 10 minute search for sources, I am sure I could tell you a lot more and improve this, or virtually any other stub you gave me so that each article at least included Description, Range and Habitat and date of discovery and the names of any synonyms. It's often information on the ecology of these species that is hard to find as they've often not actually been studied. Luckily, I get the feeling that S. concinna is regarded as an indicator species in water quality assessments of rivers, and so i might be able to find out a bit more on it if I were to try.

TL;DR: All properly-named species of animals and plants are inherently notable, and don't ever be fooled into thinking that stubs about obscure animal or plant species cannot be improved. They can if you put your mind to it! There's just an awful lot of them, and many more red-linked taxa yet to be written about at all here! Pinging @UnexpectedSmoreInquisition, @Elli and @Gråbergs Gråa Sång for their interest. Regards to all, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I assumed that animals that can be proven to exist would be practically immune to AFD. I agree the articles should be kept and are able to be expanded upon- but should there not be notability guidelines for animals specifically? That part confuses me. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 23:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

For species, the notability criterion is "its existence has been documented in the scientific literature". DS (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but what determines the validity of the scientific sources? Does information need to be refuted to be considered valid? Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 02:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Basically, nearly all Scientific sources are considered valid/reliable until proven otherwise (such as if the jounal is a Predatory journal or Journal of questionable editorial judgement (i.e. fringe journal) etc.) Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@UnexpectedSmoreInquisition If you're really interested in this, I think you need to read and understand the concepts of Species description and Taxonomy (biology).

Imagine a biologist finds what she thinks is a new species. She would need to publish in the scientific literature (not the Daily Mail or New York times) a proper description of it in a manner that allows another biologist to understand the difference between that species and other closely related ones within the same Genus that are already known about. That biologist has the right to name the new species according to the rules of Binomial nomenclature. The fact that that individual specimen of animal or plant exists is not in doubt - it's there in the biologist's collection (see Holotype) on her bench.

Initially, we can regard that new species (providing it has been correctly described and named in a valid scientific publication) as Notable by Wikipedia's standards. We can write a short article about it here! Yay - I feel a stub coming on!

However, along comes a taxonomist 20 years later who reviews the entire genus or family of creatures and publishes an academic review of all the specimens they have studied. They may publish a revision of the Classification of the entire group. That revision and any nomenclatural changes made in it will probably stand for the next 20 years or so until another expert does a further revision of the group or species.

Now, just imagine if our first taxonomist concluded (and nowadays we use DNA analysis to help us, not just morphological features) that the new species is a valid one to erect, and the name stays. Or, maybe, they decide (after studying innumerable other specimens in museum collections around the world that those matching the holotype are simply variants of an already known species which had been described and known about for many decades. The taxonomist will publish their detailed classification revision in a way that clarifies that all specimens with our lady biologist's name and matching its description should be subsumed into some other species. From now on, that name will simply be regarded as a Synonym of the other name (until, that is, some other Lumper or Splitter of a taxonomist comes along in another 30 years or so and re-revises the classification all over again in the light of new discoveries, and the nomenclature (naming) changes yet again.)

Meanwhile, back on Wikipedia, we now need to merge together into one article what were formerly two separate articles about what we believed were different, but closely-related species. We can create a WP:REDIRECT from what the scientific community of experts now regard as an invalid name (based on that published revision of the group's classification) to the other article which is regarded as the correct name to use nowadays.

Luckily for us, it was just a tiny stub article that you were asking about, so all we might need to do is just add the synonym to the Infobox!

Meanwhile, the specimen (now transferred to a museum collection for safekeeping) remains available for study and for any future revisions of the group. Who knows? - it may change again. By way of example, you might like to view all the synonyms on the Wikipedia page Infobox for the English Bluebell. In my lifetime, its accepted name has changed three times, I think. But it's still the same old notable species!

Does that help? (bet you didn't read it though. LOL!)

Oh, and don't get me started on 'Common Names'. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Lavalizard101@Nick Moyes I did read through, and I can say you have successfully changed my stance on the article length; when I said the length was unacceptable, I really meant frustrating. I wish more information was available! Alas, the scientific community can only do so much. The process is really quite fascinating. One article that comes to mind is the axolotl article, which I haven't checked in a while, but I found the lack of availability of sources for the status of the species frustrating. Regardless, my other question on determining scientific validity has also been answered, as I see it it's pretty much the same as elsewhere here; the best source stands unless a no source is available and reliable. Thank you both, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 13:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's an example of two articles I created (although I did copy from a source that had a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License) Arisierpeton or Hypselohaptodus (which I'll probably expand at a later date). Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Nice ones! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@UnexpectedSmoreInquisition I'm glad you read it and that it changed your thoughts! You know, I still don't think it's fair to blame the scientific community for short, stubby articles on Wikipedia. My point was precisely to highlight that there is often easily enough information out there within the scientific literature to turn a stub into a C-class article (or a pretty useful Start-class one, at the very least), containing the basics of Taxonomy, Description, Distribution, Date of Discovery, and possibly Habit.

But it's still down to the Wikipedia Community to do the work to take that literature and make the articles better than mere stubs. As a biologist, I guess I must take some of the blame for failing to do that, as I've only created five new articles on living species (and only one has been assessed at C-grade.)

re Axolotl: I'm stunned you struggled with finding sources. I've not looked at the article either, but within the last 5 years I'm sure I remember hearing that it was now nearing (or had reached) the status of 'Extinct in the Wild' because of pollution and abstraction in Mexico City area. Unless you looked for status info at the time when IUCN were still reviewing their Red List status for this species, I'm surprised you had difficulty. That's certainly the definitive source that I'd look at. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

For the axolotl status, the population count wildly varied by sources from nearly extinct to 10,000+. With the sources I have available now, I'm sure that's just an arbitrary point. And yes, it's not the scientists' fault that they can't answer every question- just the unfortunate need to wait for the passage of time to get that answer. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 18:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Jenna Kerr - Tattoo Artist

Hello All, After 2 days of writing an encyclopaedic page for the artist Jenna Kerr, it was removed within days.. I believed she to be notable, successful and relevant enough for a page to be created. I have the HTML script still in word to reapply, but would anyone be able to help me to draft and hopefully have it published.?

Many Thanks Astro Astroscobee (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Astroscobee. Your draft article was overtly promotional. Promotional content is not allowed on Wikipedia, and all content must comply with the Neutral point of view, a core content policy. Cullen328 (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, Thank you kindly for her help here, I didn't realise it was promotional content I was posting, I was honestly tagging reference links to validate the notable claim. Thank you very much for your help here. Astroscobee (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Astroscobee, and welcome to the Teahouse. The question, always, is Can you find several places where people wholly unconnected with Kerr have chosen to write at some length about her, and been published somewhere with a reputation for editorial control? That is (approximately) the special meaning of notability in Wikipedia.

If you can find such sources, then you can write an article based almost entirely on what those sources say. Do not try to build an article either on what the subject or her associates say, or on what you know or believe about her. Only material citable to such sources is acceptable. ColinFine (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Try this sample, Astroscobee. "Jenna's distinguished popularity came following a feature with Business Insider in 2017, coupled with a second feature in 2019." To which were appended two links to insider.com. One is to a short video (less than two minutes) about her work; the other is to a video of under seven minutes that promises "25 Tattoo Artists Taking Tattoos to the Next Level". So where's the evidence that this pair were followed by distinguished popularity (whatever "distinguished popularity" might mean)? This kind of prose seems a shaky attempt to aggrandize Kerr, whereas an encyclopedia should provide a soundly based description of her. -- Hoary (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Hoary,

That'd wonderful advice and yes, it's worded much better, It seemed very obvious to me, with time stamps that Business Insider was responsible for being discovered internationally, I likely have gone a little overboard with wording, very appreciated and very grateful. Thank you so much. Astroscobee (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Addresses and names of relatives in articles; Familysearch and Ancestry as sources.

1. As I understand it, names of family members and addresses are not to be used in articles. Why can they not be used to distinguish people born in the nineteenth century from those with identical or similar names in the same geographic area?

2. Familysearch and Ancestry.com are on the list of sources considered unreliable because they're user-generated. However, they also contain scans of censuses, vital records, city directories, etc. What repositories of these kinds of documents are considered reliable? Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Oona Wikiwalker, please read Reliable sources. Secondary sources are always preferred. Primary sources such as scans of censuses, vital records, city directories are among the raw materials used by professional biographers and historians. They have the training and experience to draw conclusions from such materials. It is not the role of amateur volunteer Wikipedia editors to do that type of research. Our task as Wikipedia editors is to cite and accurately summarize what reliable sources say. Cullen328 (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• That's such sound advice that I had already read that page. But what if you're dealing with a person to be too obscure to have a biography? I was copy editing a page without sources. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_Punch) I found the text had been lifted nearly verbatim from a site on the blacklist. The person the page named came up only on very sketchy websites. So I did some extensive digging and I found the actual creator, but he's so obscure that no one's written a biography of him. The only way to counter the false online claim would be to offer the original sources. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

A search for Delaware Punch on a newspaper archive website seems to come up with a plurality of hits; right now I'm reading the Spokane Chronicle of 20 Aug 1985, which talks about no-one knowing how the flavour originated, but identifying one Tom Lyons as the first name to be concretely associated with the drink. I don't know if that matches your source. Nor do I know what your source is: if it's user generated content, then it is of no use to WP fullstop. I'd advise exhausting the newspaper archive first - "Delaware Punch" in quotes gets 23k hits. It's more than likely there is whatever you're looking for in there. Ironically the archive I'm using - Newspapers.com - is run by Ancestry; it's available via the https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

To come back to your specific question: exactly what is the "original source"? Right now, as we do not know what the source is, it's hard to give any better advice. That the platform is Familysearch or Ancestry may not be material if the source itself is not user generated. It is possible to use WP:PRIMARY sources, but with great care, should your source be primary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• The original sources I was using were a combination of census records, marriage records city, directories and patent office records showing Thomas Lyons being raised by a vinegar producer, going into the same business himself, being granted a trademark for producing a syrup for beverages, having that business dissolve and then being listed as the president of the Delaware Punch Company. These records don't reflect the public story, probably because it took a few years to straighten out the legalities around the trademark. This last is educated speculation, but I do understand it has no place in a Wikipedia article. I took the vital records research route because Lyons was not an uncommon name in the city where Tom was born and lived his first 30 years, and neither is Tom. I wanted to be certain I was naming the correct person. And, as I've shown, newspapers don't always get told the truth, so they don't always have truth to pass on.Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• All of this sounds like the kind of original research that wikipedia doesn't do. If a reliable source publishes this research into the origin of Delaware Punch, we can cite that. If it's clear that an apparently reliable source says something wrong, we can make an editorial decision not to cite that. But if all the reliable sources say something is true, it's not our place to say something else based on the interpretation of a bunch of different primary sources. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  Then what should be done about the article? It actually seemed very unimportant topic. It's a discontinued soft drink that was always rather obscure. The article, as it was suggested for copy editing, contained: 1. a false origin account copied verbatim from a site on Wikipedia's blacklist, 2. a mention that Coca Cola had made it and discontinued it, 3. and an extensive list of products Coke makes (it was more like a promotion for Coke brands than an encyclopedia page). I'm finding this all extremely confusing. Different people are weighing in, and that's okay, but no one person is continuing this dialog and you all have a slightly different reaction from the editor who inspired me to ask these questions in the first place... Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Pasay City West High School

Could someone take a look at this article and adjudicate the reversion of my recent edit. Thank you. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Your removal was perfectly appropriate – I have undone the reversion. Tollens (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I am tempted to stub the whole article, honestly. Tollens (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I see no evidence it passes WP:NSCHOOL - I would XFD it. About 80% is original research, with every reference primary. May even be tempted to CSD it.. Qcne (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It's now been XFD'd. Qcne (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! 76.14.122.5 (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

need help with inserting a chemical equation

I copied a chemical (nuclear) equation \mathrm{

^{210}_{\ 82}Po\ \xrightarrow [138.376 \ d]{}\ ^{206}_{\ 80}Pb\ + ^{\ 4}_{\ 2}He

} from https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E9%92%8B-210&action=edit&section=2 , but when I paste this wiki-formula into the English version of the same article

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polonium-210&action=edit&section=2 ,

the equation in the English article does not get formatted like it is in the Chinese article, where it came from: please check out this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium-210 section "Decay properties".

How do I change the wiki-equation in the English draft, so that the equation looks correct on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium-210  ? Walter Tau (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you missed the math tags - see this diff --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Select your correct radiotelephony alphabet of su and we kana

This is rerun of this post

す/ス

1. 寿司のス
2. すずめのス

ゑ/ヱ

1. ゑびすのヱ
2. かぎのあるヱ

Everyone press reply to answer 2001:44C8:4510:2F12:A428:487C:964:3868 (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

2001:44C8:4510:2F12:A428:487C:964:3868, for language-related questions, please see the reference desk. Best, — Frostly (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Better, just see the article ja:通話表. -- Hoary (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Formatting code blocks

There is a fairly serious problem with the code in C signal handling#Example usage. I wrote a replacement for said example, and I was going to reply to a user on its talk page who had pointed out the issue to find out if others believe it is satisfactory before making an edit. To format my code, I attempted to use syntaxhighlight tags. However, colons precede each line in my response. (See my response to Talk:C_signal_handling#Correct_code_in_"Example_usage"). Could someone tell me why they exist and how to get rid of them? 169.236.78.22 (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

169.236.78.22, welcome to Wikipedia! You can remove the extra colons from every line except for the first one, where <syntaxhighlight lang="c"> is. (You might have to edit it manually in the source editor after you post with DiscussionTools). Cheers, — Frostly (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Need to change password on Wikipedia account, but lost access to the associated email

I no longer have access to the email address that I used to create my Wikipedia account, but I need to change the password. Would appreciate help. (I do recognize that I might not even be asking this in the right place, sorry.) Thanks! Catalinaeddie (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If you can't log in, and you don't have the password, and you don't have access to the email that was used to create the account, then you're pretty much out of luck, sorry.

Don't worry, you're not the first person to lose access to an account and have to start over. DS (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Catalinaeddie: If you are logged in - and it looks as if you are - try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences ... towards the bottom there's an option to change email addresses. No clue if you'll manage, but worth giving it a go. Search on the page for "Email options". The same page enables you to amend the password. I'd deal with the email first. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Catalinaeddie I can confirm the above advice! Had to do this some time ago. Log in with old Password, change the email adress. Then get your new password. If it worked for me, then it will work for you! Good luck! --Maresa63 ^Talk 05:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Maresa63 and Tagishsimon! That did it. Much appreciated. Catalinaeddie (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Excellent news. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

Translating from different wiki

can translating whole or expanding from different language Wikimedia need contributer's permission or any attribution or it is a completely allowed. 2409:4041:CEB8:85EB:0:0:3C4A:4E10 (talk) 08:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Translation and/or Wikipedia:Translate us depending on what you have in mind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP 2409:4041:CEB8:85EB:0:0:3C4A:4E10. You can find out more about this at WP:TRANSLATE, but you will need to properly attribute the source article you're basing your translation on. However, you might want to take a look at WP:OTHERLANGS and WP:42 for reference before translating anything. It's important to understand that each Wikipedia project is a separate project with its own policies and guidelines, and its own community applying those policies and guidelines. Lots of the other language Wikipedias have policies and guidelines that may be similar to English Wikipedia in many ways, but there also may be some important differences. Moreover, even if the policies and guidelines are similar, they might not be being applied as consistently or as rigorously as they are on English Wikipedia. So, there's no guarantee that any translated content you add won't be challenged or even removed by other English Wikipedia users; if that happens, the WP:ONUS will fall upon you to establish a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of its inclusion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

IP 2409, you can translate from other Wikimedia properties and copy it into an article here without requesting permission from anybody. You must provide attribution to the foreign article in the edit summary of your translation; this is a requirement per Wikipedia's licensing, and can never be ignored. See WP:TFOLWP for a model attribution statement that you can copy and use. As Marchjuly said, English Wikipedia has stricter requirements for new articles than many others, so I would start by translating only a few paragraphs to see if it is acceptable here, before devoting a lot of time on a long translation that might ultimately be rejected. Mathglot (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

How to notate strange behavior of archived link

Hi, I found a reference that only exists archived on the Wayback Machine, but also can only be reasonably accessed with JavaScript turned off, as it for some reason redirects to a non-existent URL inside the Wayback Machine. Is there a way to notate this? Is this expected behavior from the Wayback Machine?

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SumTotal_Systems#cite_note-7

direct link: https://web.archive.org/web/20210517201023/https://tb.sumtotalsystems.com/KBFiles/kb/History.html Precociouspi (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Precociouspi It's perfectly normal.

In September 2018 someone tried to archive the page, but it failed. Why it failed I have no idea.

Since September 2018 the page has clearly been changed, which is why the May 2021 archive, tries to redirect to the new page which hasn't been archived. That new page doesn't exist anymore, therefore it can't be archived now either.

I see this a lot, especially when I'm trying to find out which company/charity/organisation is credited in a production, and there's been multiple companies with the same name or acronym which don't exist anymore.

There's even single pages or entire websites which I've saved on The Wayback Machine and/or Archive Today in the past, which haven't been available on The Wayback Machine and/or Archive Today, even though they were supposedly saved perfectly fine at the time, which is why I now save everything I archive on both sites, just in case one of them fails. Danstarr69 (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for replying. The link is archived on May 2021, you can see it if you disable Javascript in your browser, so I want to know if I can note that somehow. Precociouspi (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Needing more independent, significant coverage

My article was recently declined.

The comment from the reviewer was "Close, but not quite enough independent, significant coverage."

I would like some help please on what exactly is insufficient with the current references and I how I can improve. Sirius Stella (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Sirius Stella Did you intend to claim that you personally created the logo of your company, and want to make it available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution?

Most of your sources summarize the routine activities of the company- which does not establish notability- you need independent reliable sources that on their own decided to write about your company and describe what they feel is important/significant/influential about the company as they see it(not as the company itself sees it). 331dot (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sirius Stella: ideally, you should ask a question like this either here or at the AfC help desk, but not both. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Binge.buzz

why my article submission was declined AreezZbd (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Binge.buzz

Hi @AreezZbd: it was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice, namely that the draft is unreferenced and promotional. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Sir this is not a promotional article and sir I will give reference from where AreezZbd (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Quote: An OTT video streaming platform that offers limitless entertainment through live TV, web series, movies, dramas and Binge Exclusive Originals, Binge truly serves its motto of 'Entertainment Made Endless' Now, Binge has become an "All in One’’ streaming service, offering its users an endless entertainment experience with its wide and diverse range of 3000+ original web series, movies, dramas, award-winning TV shows, dubbed contents, documentaries, kids’ content, Live TV Channels and much more! AreezZbd, it's not an article, but it is (or was) promotional. -- Hoary (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@AreezZbd, I've also noticed that you're using Wikipedia as a source. That is not a reliable source. Also, you've resubmitted your article again without fixing the problem. It's very likely that it will be declined again. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 11:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Sir then what can I do please suggest me can I give the news article and web site as referenced AreezZbd (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, AreezZbd, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you are in the same position as thousands of other people who ask questions here, who register an account, and immediately plunge into one of the most challenging tasks there is: creating a new article. This is like buying a musical instrument you have never played before, and immediately going out busking: you are going to have a frustrating and miserable time.

I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our six million articles before they try to create a new article. (They will probably over those months add far more value to Wikipedia than they would by trying to make an article before they are ready).

When you think you might be ready to try creating an article, read WP:YFA and especially NCORP (if it is a company). For most companies in the world you will quickly discover that there are not sufficient quality sources to establish notability, and there is no point in trying to create an article about them. ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

AreezZbd First, the salutation "Sir" is not needed. Second, drafts on this topic have been Speedy deleted three times, albeit the first and second not submitted by your account. Consider it very unlikely that you can succeed. David notMD (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

AFAICT "sir" is just a common thing in Indian English. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but not Wikipedia English. David notMD (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia English? Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ca: On the talk pages of the English Wikipedia, it's more common to ping the user you're responding to instead of using a salutation. GoingBatty (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

ip block question title

do ip or ip range blocks also block any users associated with those ips (unless they're specifically exempt, which is a thing that can apparently happen), however that seems to work? cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 11:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Cog-san Depends. Wether to block registered users using the IP in question is an option administrators can choose when blocking an IP adress. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

oh, so ip block exemption seems to be a thing that keeps admins from accidentally doing that to the wrong people

thanks cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 13:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Translation from German into English or visa versa

I apparently don't have the rights now to fully publish translations of pages? I can press the buttom publish after doing the page translation but if i am searching for the English page, I can't find it. What is the procedure? Does it take usually a while until a German Wikipedia page can then be found in English as well? Are there any experienced editors/translators to whom I can reach out? This is the page I am trying to translate. I would like to contribute more. Also, the automated translation tool doesn't seem to work. What might be the reason? Kindly! Ap crazydate (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ap crazydate Automated translation does not work because we do not want automated translations on en-wiki. See WP:HOWTRANS for info. The article you translated is here: [5]. You need to move it to mainspace before you can find it on a search. However, I don't recommend doing so, as it will immediately be draftified for having no references. -- asilvering (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ap crazydate Note that the English Wikipedia has very strict sourcing requirements for biograpies of living people. Please read that link very carefully. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ap crazydate: Your draft would work better in draft space where others are more likely to find it and help out, or at least comment on it, and ultimately review it and move it to main article space. I can move it to Draft space for you, if you like; let me know.

Other issues: you should remove all your in-line links to German Wikipedia and convert them either to a plain link (which will be blue if the article exists here, and red if it doesn't), or in the case of redlinks, in preference to an {{interlanguage link}}.

For example, in line two of the lead, you link directly to German Wikipedia for "Compact magazine", thus: [[:de:Compact_(Magazin)|Compact]]. But we already have an article for that; all you needed to do was to code [[Compact (German magazine)|Compact]] which renders as blue link "Compact".

In the case of your direct link to the German wiki for "Islamische Zeitung", we have no article here for that, so you could code that either as: [[Islamische Zeitung]], which renders as a plain red link: "Islamische Zeitung", or much better as this interlanguage link:

• {{ill|Islamische Zeitung|de|valign=sup}} which renders as " Islamische Zeitung ".

Same thing with all the other links with "de" prefix. See the documentation at Template:Interlanguage link for how to code these links. Mathglot (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you help me with this article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Advanced_Technology_Centre_Shah_Alam

It is a notable vocational training center in Malaysia. It was first declined (but to be fair I only put two references at the time). It is also related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_Latihan_Perindustrian_Kuala_Lumpur. I resubmitted with more references and pending review, in the meantime how can I prove the notability of this college? thank you Editing and contributing (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Editing and contributing The relevant notability criteria are listed here. You need as many sources as possible meeting these criteria. (I've not checked your draft to see if any of the existing sources do so.) Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Help to edit an organization page

Draft:Superintendence for Cultural Heritage - Wikipedia I drafted this but not being proficient in reference editing I'm not sure what it needs to being approved. Being a major government agency in Malta I feel like it deserves a page on Wikipedia Indigomoi (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Indigomoi: I think the article was well-enough cited. I've added one more reference and promoted it as Superintendence for Cultural Heritage. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Why my page Henoel Grech has been blocked for publishing??

What can I do to satisfy the minimum reference of Wikipedia? Mythodea2023 (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mythodea2023. In short, because it does not have a single inline citation, and because the "references" floating at the bottom are bare URLs, that make it difficult to evaluate them.

Please read the notices at the top of Draft:Henoel Grech, following the blue links in them if there are words you don't understand. Then if you have read those and still have questions, please come back her and ask. ColinFine (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

question #2 already

(my bad for the second question in just 3 hours lol, i'm just asking here because it can apply to other things)

per the existence of "gen 9 pokémon" (and currently only gen 9) as a redirect to the list of generation [stinky roman numeral for 9] pokémon, would making according redirects for the gens 1-8 or nominating the gen 9 redirect for deletion be the more uncontroversial decision? cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 14:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Cog-san . From my understanding, this article exists as if the pages were combined, the article would be too long and weighty to read comfortably. Best regards, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 14:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I read your question wrong, please forgive me. Yes, I believe you should make the according redirects. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 15:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

okay, thanks

i'll be finding out how to them in an hour or so cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 15:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's how to do it so you don't have to dig. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 15:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

oh yeah wow that makes things a lot easier

thanks again cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 16:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 16:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Quincy Jones Comedian Update

I updated his page with current information and it was deemed not constructive, Not sure why Truth23Teller (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Truth23Teller Hello. Your edit to that article was unsourced; all information about living people must be sourced to an independent reliable source, please see the Biographies of living persons policy. Your personal knowledge or observations are insufficient. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Add game info to 10-team bracket

So I want to use this 10-team bracket format:

	First round					Quarterfinals					Semifinals					Finals
						1
	8
	9
						4
						5
						2
	7
	10
						3
						6

But I want to add game info above matchups like in this 8-team bracket (21 November, Málaga)

Quarterfinals

Semifinals

Final

21 November, Málaga

Canada

24 November, Málaga

Finland

22 November, Málaga

Czech Republic

26 November, Málaga

Australia

23 November, Málaga

Italy

25 November, Málaga

Netherlands

23 November, Málaga

Serbia

Great Britain

When you look at the "Usage" section of the "Template documentation" for the 10-team bracket (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:10TeamBracket), it shows how you can add certain options to the bracket by inserting lines into the code, and the code shown there looks a lot like that of the 8-team bracket. However, when you look at the code of the actual 10-team bracket, it appears different and the syntax "RD1T1-loc=" used in the 8-team bracket to add game info does not work. Thanks. Redacwiki (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Redacwiki: Welcome to the Teahouse! The best place to ask questions about the template and request syntax changes is the template's talk page: Template talk:10TeamBracket. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Notability of Ines Schwerdtner

Hello, I want to prevent the deletion of the Wikipedia article about Ines Schwerdtner. How could I proceed? I think one Option Is to Just wait till she gets more news coverage in the process of the European election. Which Is likely. Or Could put the article in a draft space and then bring it back when there are more news articles. Or I could check if there are more news articles on her in general. How should I Proceed? Aberlin2 (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Aberlin2. Please read the Notability guideline for politicians. Unelected politicians are rarely notable unless they have an unusual amount of coverage as compared to other candidates in the same race. Cullen328 (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I already guessed this. This Is why I would like to know how to proceed the article from deletion. As I understand you the Article could probably become more notable by providing more sources on other aspects of her career like publishing, activism or academic works. Or I could move the article to the draft space and wait a few months. I wondered if this is possible. This is why I was asking. Aberlin2 (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Coloring My Signature

Hello, Teahouse. Today my question is a more technical one. (I believe involving HTML/Wikitext.) I am attempting to recolor my signature, and followed the template, putting this: " My Username is UnexpectedSmoreInquisition, but feel free to call me USI (talk)! " but it came back with the error "Your signature must consist of a single line of wikitext." Could someone experienced with wikitext help solve my problem? Thanks, My Username is UnexpectedSmoreInquisition, but feel free to call me USI (talk)! 19:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Please don't colour your sig. First, I cannot read it. Second, it is disruptive in threads. And, ideally, don't have a signature half a line long. It's basically disrespectful. People do not want to have to read that lame joke again and again and again. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't help you with the error, but please don't set that as your signature. The links are impossible for me to read; better contrast would be advisable here. -A Fluffy Kitteh | FluffyKittehz User Profile Page 19:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@FluffyKittehz Yep, should have used sandbox for that one first- definitely need to work on the color scheme. @Tagishsimon Respectfully, what joke? Part of the reason I'm coloring it in the first place is to make it so people don't get confused with it being part of my comment. My Username is UnexpectedSmoreInquisition, but feel free to call me USI (talk)! 19:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"My Username is UnexpectedSmoreInquisition, but feel free to call me USI (talk)!" is a sentence; the exclamation mark frames it as a joke. "Tagishsimon (talk)" is a signature. Please have a signature. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The exclamation mark was left over from my previous signature, but thanks for reminding me to remove it. My Username is UnexpectedSmoreInquisition, but feel free to call me USI (talk)! 19:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Take a look. Half of your message immediately above is your signature; your sign is indistinguishable from text because of the amount of text you have stuffed into it. Please take it from me: it is wasteful of the time of everyone else on WP; it is disrespectful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This is exactly why I'm trying to distinguish it with the font color- if you have nothing further to add to this, you may go on to do other things. My Username is UnexpectedSmoreInquisition, but feel free to call me USI (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

You would be better off removing the additional words. Your attempted brush-off is also disrespectful. Maybe take some time out to think about your hubris. I assure you that it is not appreciated. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I find your claim of disrespect to be hypocritical in regards to you nagging me on making a change that seems to only bother you. Again, if you want to discuss this further, please bring the relevant rule to my talk page. If you wish to answer my question, feel free to help me here. Best regards, My Username is UnexpectedSmoreInquisition, but feel free to call me USI (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If you want my two cents, I agree with Tagishsimon. Giving your username a background color makes the text hard to read and disrupts flow in threads, not to mention your signature is super confusing. There is no policy in particular that prohibits it, however, so do what you want, just keep what we said in mind. Industrial Insect (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm just going to pop in here to point out WP:SIGLENGTH and let others determine if that signature's length is pushing it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tenryuu@Tagishsimon@Industrial Insect Is this a better length? UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@UnexpectedSmoreInquisition: For the technical issue, it appears that you have included newlines in the span tag of your proposed signature: span style="background-color:⏎#800000; color:⏎#FFFFFF;" (I have replaced the newlines with the U+23CE ⏎ RETURN SYMBOL in the previous text). However, please follow the advice of the above comments and modify your signature. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 20:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Need help writing an article about a product which I know for a fact exists, but can't find any good information on it.

I am writing an article about the Gateway Select computers, a line of computers from Gateway that released in the year 2000, including the Gateway Select 1000 and 1100. I know these computers certainly exist because I own one and can find them for sale online. The issue is, I can't find any documentation regarding these computers or even currently available news about their existence. I have found this listing from an old web site (which the citation wizard refuses to cite for some reason), and this article from PCmag UK which no longer exists (and returns a 410 HTTP response, suggesting intentional and permanent deletion). How am I supposed to get any information about these computers to cite in my page? Even proving their existence is needlessly difficult, considering I already know for a fact that they do exist. -A Fluffy Kitteh | FluffyKittehz User Profile Page 19:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The probability is that if they were notable, they'd have been reviewed in the PC magazines of the era, and so you need to find a newspaper archive which has such magazine. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I was able to find a single archive of a PCMag article about these machines on the Internet Archive. -A Fluffy Kitteh | FluffyKittehz User Profile Page 19:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Internet Archive is not a very complete newspaper archive. Maybe try newspapers.com via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library ? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Inserting Authority Control Database box

Hello, I'm working on an article on a living person and would like to insert an Authority Control Database box at the bottom of the page. The subject already has an entry on Wikidata (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q57220594), and I've added "authority control" on the Wikipedia page, but I'm not sure how to link the two. Would really appreciate guidance on how to do this. Thank you so much! Katrinpark (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

{{Authority control}} will work once the article is in mainspace and linked to the WD item. Don't worry about it whilst the article is in draft. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Tagishsimon! Appreciate your response very much. Katrinpark (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

How can I find our what's wrong with my translation?

Hi newbie here! 👋

I'm passionate about Christian theology and I want to translate the page about Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement into my native language, Romanian. So I do just that, right? However, when I want to publish it I get the complaint that "obscene" language was detected. Now... that's just not true. So I'm stuck!

Any help, please? Dan the protestant (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Is this not a question for the Romanian wikipedia? (It may have abuse filters; no-one here will have a clue b/c this is the English wikipedia). --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, ok.

Right, so I go to ro.wiki.. and then? Dan the protestant (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

They'll have a forum somewhere where you can raise it. Raise it on their main chat, perhaps. Spell out what you did so someone else can try it. Bottom line is, each language wikipedia is its own thing. EN wiki people have no clue how other language wikis do their thing, for the mostpart. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Article was declined, for missing reliable sources. However the only English book in existence is cited at the bottom of the page. The page is about a very little known and even less documented Taekwondo form. What other sources should I use if there really are none? Dogil32769 (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If there are none, then the subject is not notable in WP terms. That's just the way it works. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Dogil32769, this being the English language Wikipedia, E-L sources are preferred if they are available, but non-English sources are allowed. However, they are more difficult for any reviewer who does not speak the relevant language to check (and many reviewers will not undertake the task), so it will likely take longer for a Draft using them to be reviewed. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.5.208 (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Notable person with criminal record

can a notable person who has a criminal record have that mentioned in their description?

I.e. Notable Graduates ..... Dawn Dumont- writer and convicted criminal ...... 174.92.126.39 (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

yeah

see the article on sam bankman, it specifically describes him as "convicted of fraud" cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 20:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Where the primary notability of a subject is not regarding their criminal conviction, published Reliable sources can be cited in order to mention it, but the mentions should not be disproportionally large compared to the article as a whole. To invent an extreme example, if a distinguished novelist had a conviction for Driving without due care and attention, that could be mentioned if it has significant impact on their life overall, but should not be detailed at greater length than the text about their novels. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.5.208 (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If you're talking about this, no, that sort of thing is not appropriate. First, any claims about a living person need to be reliably sourced. Second, "criminal" is way too vague. You could be describing civil disobedience, or serial murder. In Dawn Dumont's case the convictions look to be related to her illegally taking her own child across a border during a custody dispute in which she alleged abuse. The case is highly contentious. That needs to be put in full context, or not mentioned at all. Just saying, as you did, "author and convicted criminal" or "author, who has been convicted for child abduction" leads the reader to imagine something far worse. There's no room to add context at List of Queen's University people, so just leave it to people who click on the article. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

searching help to complete translation draft of a Feminist magazinedraft

Hello, I created a draft translation regarding a feminist magazine in germany. Im searching for help to complete the draft so that the article can be moved to the article space. I already added a block refferring to the wikipedia women Project and the germany project. What else could I do to find more contributors for the draft Aberlin2 (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)