Wikipedia:Teahouse

Dbfirs, 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

What to do when multiple reliable sources publish misleading information?

In regards to Dave the Diver - Wikipedia this article. An administrator previously threatened to block a user for trying to edit the article to state that the game was not an indie game, when in fact it was. The admin's reasoning was due to reliable sources stating the game was "indie". Even though the incident appears to be resolved it makes me curious about how a similar incident would be solved for posterity 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gamowebbed WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gamowebbed WP:DR might be of interest. When there's dispute about whether a source is reliable or not for any particular piece of information, and editors politely but persistently disagree, that tends to go to WP:DRN or WP:3O and maybe eventually WP:RFC. If someone is a dick about it or otherwise disrupts that process, that's when admins tend to step in. An admin shouldn't be using the threat of blocks to enforce a content issue like "what do the sources say". -- asilvering (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info @Asilvering, I have decided to submit an ANI to seek administrator counsel. 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear. -- asilvering (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

For posterity. Folly Mox (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean, it is true that DtD isn't an indie game. Nexon is one of the biggest gaming companies in the world and they are a multi-billion dollar company. Just because it's a small team doesn't mean it's indie, Mintrocket is still just another name for Nexon. There's probably sources that back this up. Nexon/Mintrocket said themselves that the game looks like an indie game but it's not. It's really shady that they pretended to be an indie game studio. WhereverWeAreNow (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I need review and help on a draft, how to get some ?

Hi there ! I'm totally new and wikipedia but working since a couple of month on an article about Soundpainting (a sign-language used for live-composition) and I submitted it twice, and it has been twice decline. I've changed a lot of things, added a lot of other sources, but I don't see how I can improve it more... Could anyone give me some help to make it more read like an encyclopedic article and less like an essay ? Thanks a lot !!

Here is the draft : Draft:Soundpainting

Looking forward to hear/read from you --AnnePernas (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@AnnePernas Wikidata shows that there are already nine other-language articles on soundpainting, including in French, German, Italian and Spanish. These won't be perfect but may give you some ideas. Currently, you have a table of ensembles which I don't think helps the draft, since they are unsourced, and as you say "This list is absolutely non-exhaustive." which is, indeed, essay-speak. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Michael D. Turnbull, it's translated from the French version according to fr:Discussion utilisateur:Binabik#Question de Anne (16 novembre 2023 à 18h54) and HTML comments within the draft itself like auto-translated by Module:CS1 translator -->, hence the translation attribution template at Draft talk:Soundpainting. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 12:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I also wrote this french-english draft. Because I'm french, I thought I could use the french version of wikipedia to create an article in english. So that's why I created it twice. The list however is not a translation, and I think for now, I'll just erase it. I first gave links to websites of every ensemble I was talking about, but it appears that it's forbidden on wikipedia, because it sounds too much like an ad, which I completely understand! So for now, I'll erase it, and maybe one day I'll re-work on it with someone else! Thanks a lot for the tip! AnnePernas (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

AnnePernas: as far as I can understand Draft:Soundpainting, it's about a sign language used by an extemporising conductor to convey their intentions to the performers. it's unclear whether it's about a particular such language, or about any such language. Either way, it would improved by a few examples of gestures and their meanings. Maproom (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes it's exactly that : a specific sign language used by a soundpainter (conductor) to ask specific material (sound, movements...) to the performers. Thanks for the recommandation to add examples of gestures and meanings ! AnnePernas (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Dovevo fare una pagina?

Come trovare un posto per fare un articolo? Snipercobra (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Snipercobra: The first thing to decide is whether you want to write in Italian at the Italian Wikipedia or in English here at the English Wikipedia. Then consider that creating a new Wikipedia article can be quite challenging, especially if you do not have a lot of experience editing existing Wikipedia articles. To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article and summarize what the sources have published, and be prepared for a process that may include waiting for review, declines, and rewrites before an article is accepted. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

hey, pal, this is the english wikipedia, if you want to edit something in Italian, check out the italian wikipedia.

ehi amico, questa è la Wikipedia inglese, se vuoi modificare qualcosa in italiano, controlla la Wikipedia italiana. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me!) (Goo Goo dolls) 16:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

etiquette regarding banned users

Hi, I'm doing some cleanup after an editor who was recently banned permanently for a pattern of POV-pushing. I want to explain on the relevant talk pages why I am removing such large chunks from articles beyond the short explanations I put in my edit descriptions. I've noticed, however, that other editors tend to be very circumspect in similar circumstances. Are there guidelines about this? While I am relieved this editor is off the encyclopedia, I certainly take no pleasure in the fact and wish it had not come to that.

Thanks for any advice you might offer.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

While the impulse for transparency is noble, there is also the consideration of prioritizing displaying the most relevant information to the most likely audience for it. I wouldn't worry too much about disclosing to every talk page. People who care to know can usually find out what has happened trivially, so a mention of a link to the relevant discussion or keywords in the edit summary if often more than sufficient. Remsense留 21:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I won't mention it unless I need to in order to justify my edits in response to a challenge. People who have been actively following the articles know what is going on. My concern is just that those who haven't would be understandably alarmed to see multiple paragraphs of sourced material completely deleted. But I'm fine just leaving it to be addressed later, just in the event the issue should arise.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

best of luck, cheers! Remsense留 23:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

{{re|Patrick J. Welsh, as Remsense said, you can just add a brief edit summary like "Removing sourced content added by indeffed POV-pusher; see [[Talk:ArticleName#Discussion|this discussion]] for details." Mathglot (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

"says who"

I think that I have seen an annotation in an Article next to an unsupported claim that is something like [says who]. Have I remembered correctly. How do I put it into an Article> BlueWren0123 (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, BlueWren0123. I think that you are looking for Template:According to whom. Cullen328 (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes that is it.Thank you BlueWren0123 (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there a list of these assorted Templates somewhere? BlueWren0123 (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@BlueWren0123, I'm guessing this? Category:Inline citation and verifiability dispute templates. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 01:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you BlueWren0123 (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

BlueWren0123, yes, it's here:

Mathglot (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

you mean this?

it's {{{According to whom}}} Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me!) (Goo Goo dolls) 19:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Help category new article

Hi, I made a big blunder by creating a page Telugu Desam Party breakaway groups instead of creating a category that I was going to. Please help resolve this. 456legend (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey there. If you do not want that page you've created, you can request a deletion request under the G7 criteria. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 05:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Yea thank you. I just did that. 456legend (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 08:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I Need Your Help for my Issue

Article:Jishnu Raghavan was tagged for Speedy deletion so please help me to rectify that. So only I had created with Page:Jishnu (Malayalam actor) but why do you again moved to page:Jishnu Raghavan I think that's why the another user tagged for G5. So please help me. This article should not get deleted Jeevan shree (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jishnu_Raghavan&diff=prev&oldid=1189341442 Leoneix _(talk) 07:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

OP is now blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Ideenschmied & Erfinder

Ich möchte von Beginn an Berichten, wie der Ideenschmied & Erfinder, entstanden ist, und warum. Darf ich das tun ?

Herzliche Grüße und eine besinnliche Weihnachtszeit. Ideenschmied & Erfinder (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Ideenschmied & Erfinder. This is the English Wikipedia. Please ask at the German Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy holiday season yourself, Ideenschmied & Erfinder. If you can find reliable material about some subject, material that's published and disinterested, you are free to write a draft about it in English for English-language Wikipedia. If you want to do it in German, you'd better ask at German-language Wikipedia. (Each Wikipedia is independent of the others.) But since you, with this username, have so far made a total of one edit (above) to this Wikipedia and none to any other, you'd be wise to practise making constructive additions to existing articles before embarking on a new article. -- Hoary (talk) 08:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

(translating Cullen328's message into German, for OP's ease of reading)

Hallo, Ideenschmied & Erfinder. Dies ist die englische Wikipedia. Bitte fragen Sie bei der

deutschen Wikipedia nach. ContributeToTheWiki (talk • contribs) 13:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

2023 Betelgeuse occultation

As you may know the star Betelgeuse will be occulted in a rare event on December 12 after 01:00 UTC. It has been covered in the star article and also 319 Leona. Can we also have a separate article for it? Aminabzz (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The visual dimming of Betelgeuse because the asteroid will pass between the star and earth is well-covered in both the star and asteroid articles. Personally, I see no merit in the creation of a separate article for this brief, one-time event. David notMD (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Captcha

Whenever I want to publish my edits, I have to do a captcha, does this stop when I'm verified?

Thank you

Cyprus76 Cyprus76 (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Cyprus76 non-autoconfirmed users have to complete a captcha when introducing a new external link to an article. So yes, this will go away once your account is 4 days and 10 edits old. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Cyprus76 (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Advice on better sources please

I've had a non-contentious AfC rejected several times now on the basis that the references are not reliable enough. I also note when reading the internal help pages that some of Britain's National Newspapers are not considered reliable sources. The organisation in question is a 50-year-old trade organisation. Admittedly it does not have huge membership because it works in the niche field of equestrian sport, but nobody questions its existence except article reviewers here! I use five references in my article. One is a national directory of photographers. One is the British trade body for Sports Journalists, the SJA. Another is a World-famous magazine which has been featured in several films. I realise that these are not the New York Times (but some would question its impartiality on many issues) but the organisation is not the subject of lots of news articles. It's a professional organisation. Not "notable" in the sense of it being exciting, but definitely still worthy of note. Arguable more than some of the random articles which do get approved here e.g. computer games which don't yet exist. On a separate note my copy was deleted because it was similar to the contents of the About page on the organisation's website, which I co-wrote! How does one licence one's own work? Indie (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Indomitable, to answer your first question, the definition of notability is defined by the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for organizations, not the subjective 'notability' described in your comment. Essentially, you need three sources, which need not be online, which are independent, in-depth, and reliable. What are those best three sources?

To answer your second question, see WP:DCP. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Indomitable: you may wish to review the concept of notability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. In most cases, that simply means that the subject has been covered by multiple independent and reliable media (preferably secondary), of their own volition, and in significant extent and detail. This excludes primary sources, sources close to the subject, and any source which cannot be regarded as reliable. How old the organisation is, how many members it has, etc. has nothing to do with notability. I note that on your own talk page you say "We are trying to educate the broader media that a fifty-year-old trade body has changed its name in order to reflect changes in the way media works. My brief as a member of the committee is to update the BEWA website as BEMA and to do things such as create a Wikipedia page to spread the word." Unfortunately, this is of no interest to Wikipedia, and you should not attempt to use this website as your organisation's communication tool. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Indomitable, no one is questioning the existence of the organization. That's a red herring. What is being questioned is the group's notability, as Wikipedia editors define that term. There are millions of organizations in the world, and the vast majority are not notable for a Wikipedia article. It is your obligation to demonstate that this particular organization is notable by providing references to significant coverage of the group in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the group. That means no press releases and no prompting by representatives of the organization. If you can show that your organization is truly notable as defined by Wikipedia, then of course, we want to mention its recent name change. But if not, then the name change is irrelevant to Wikipedia. By no means do the references need to be to publications as well-known as the New York Times. There are many thousands of newspapers, magazines, websites and journals that are perfectly acceptable. And then there are books. Cullen328 (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Badly editing

I wanted to edit life of pi book cover image for a better one though I didn't manage to do it and it didn't work and so you didn't accept it. Could it be possible to replace the image by a better one : The one of The canons editions because it is prettier and more descriptive.

Thank you TherealJojo08 (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

TherealJojo08, to introduce a new image to an article, you need to first upload it. Since the book cover of The Life of Pi is copyrighted, you will need to upload a non-free image under fair use. See WP:Upload wizard to get started. You should also make sure that the other book cover is more descriptive (being prettier doesn't count). Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TherealJojo08: Welcome to the Teahouse! To discuss this with others interested in the Life of Pi article, I suggest asking at Talk:Life of Pi while providing a URL of the image you prefer. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

You gotta upload a non-free version of an image for it to be used. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me!) (Goo Goo dolls) 16:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

TherealJojo08, the current image is of the World's First Edition of the book, which is usually the one preferred (since it relates to the bibliographic details immediately below), and it is of good quality. Why do you want to replace it, and why should one other particular cover of the many that exist (twelve or more can be seen at ISFDB, for example) replace it, other than your personal preference?

Incidentally, by "The canons edition" you presumably mean Canongate Books: of the covers in my external link above, four entirely different ones from Canongate are included – do you mean one of these, or yet another? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.215.44 (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this book an acceptable reference for an article related to pipe organs?

'Registration (organ)' has a template message requesting addiitonal citatins, and indeed the multi-paragraph article currently has only one. The article has had little editing activity. I came across this source unrelated to an intent to edit the page, [1]https://www.scottbrothersduo.com/how-to-play-the-pipe-organ.htm then looked up the topic in wikipedia. Before I buy the book I'd like to know whether it is sufficiently authoritative to cite in Wikipedia. It has no ISBN nor, to the best of my knowledge, any publicly archived paper copy.

Thank you very much. Rosie Willis (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Rosie Willis: It's a self-published PDF. It is unlikely to be in wikipedia terms a reliable source, per WP:RSSELF, although if there is evidence that the author has been published by reliable, independent publications, it may be acceptable. In this case, it's probably quite a harsh judgement; I think the author does know exactly what he's talking about :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. That's in line with what I expected, but since I agree with your last comment I wanted to check. Rosie Willis (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

How to deal with excessive detail

On the page firefighting there are sections with excessive detail that would only interest some people (like me) I am wondering if I should 1. make it more simple and to the point 2.just get rid of some of it or 3. put it in a different page 50tr5 (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@50tr5: Any of those are options, and there's also option 4) leave it alone. I suggest WP:BRD is your friend. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello 50tr5. You may want to make a comment on the article's Talk page, stating you are considering removing excess detail, and possibility making a new article for the removed information. Ask if others have objections to that, and if they have other options. Wait a week or two for replies before making major changes. That way those who may be watching the article will have a heads up and can discuss the matter if they have strong opinions. Karenthewriter (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

thanks to both of you I will do that 50tr5 (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

How to create a page for a famous person's wife that is now notable?

How to create a page for a famous person's wife that is now notable? She is listed on her husband's wikipedia page, so now how can a page be created that will link to her own page? Knight0071 (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Knight0071: Probably, read WP:YFA. If an article is successfully created, it can be linked to from her husband's page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for such a fast response! I read somewhere that you can post for this article to be written, is that true? If so, where can I post? Knight0071 (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Knight0071: There's Wikipedia:Requested articles, but I doubt that it works. If you want an article, you're best off rolling up your sleeves and diving in. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Knight0071 You can make suggestions at WP:RA but as that page says Most requested articles will not be written.. In this particular case, you may be better off making the suggestion at the Talk Page of the husband as editors who have the page on their watchlist are most likely to be the ones interested. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Awesome, Thank you! I'll give that a try :) Knight0071 (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Right margin is broken

Can anyone tell me why the right margin is broken at the start of the 2023–24 Northeast Conference men's basketball season#Postseason section? How do I restore or reset the right margin? Taxman1913 (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks broken on my end too Lewcm Talk to me! 19:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Taxman1913. Fixed by [2]. If a section preview looks OK but not a full page view then there is usually something unterminated earlier in the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, PrimeHunter! I searched and search but couldn't find the problem. Taxman1913 (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Book has Editors not Authors

Is there a accepted way to identify the named 2 people as Editors. When I try to put (Editor) after their names I get a Template warning about the names being Generic. The Template has the option for many Authors but only one Editor BlueWren0123 (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC) oops "an accepted..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueWren0123 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, BlueWren0123, and welcome to the Teahouse. You need to go into the source editor and directly edit the {{Cite web}} template. ContributeToTheWiki (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Will give that a go. BlueWren0123 (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I want to put out my family

I want to publish a document about my family describing it Amo117 (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't really understand you. Do you mean you want to publish a page about your family? If so, it's highly discouraged. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me!) (Goo Goo dolls) 20:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Its not really my family but I have heard of it and asked thats why i am asking if I could post in in Wiki the family has risen from rubbish to wealth in the last 50 years so yeah Amo117 (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, going over your only edit, it's vandalism of the Family page. But, you can make any page as long as it follows the wiki rules and has good sources. the All seeing omni-potent wikipedia article wizard could help Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me!) (Goo Goo dolls) 21:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

you now someone that can help me make it better because I am doing it in german Amo117 (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

and also thank you very much for your help Amo117 (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Amo117 (edit conflict) Well, for starters your edit to Family was in German. If you want to contribute in German, you'll have to do that over at the German Wikipedia, though - here at the english Wikipedia we can only accept English contributions. That being said, As written the post wouldn't be appropriate for either Wikipedia (even if one translates it to english) as it is entirely unsourced, something which is not permitted both here and there and contains non-neutral terms such as malerischen Stadt Bogovinje, bemerkenswerten Erfolg and herausragenden Leistungen, which is also not permitted both here and there. I'll drop a welcome message with more info on your talkpage. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

My request got declined but I don't know the reason. I couldn't find the reason yet ,what to edit. please help

"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

what does this mean? Editohub (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Editohub. You are using your userpage for a fake encyclopedia article. This is not permitted. Your usepage is to tell other Wikipedia editors (not the world) about your interests, plans and accomplishments as a Wikipedia editor. If you are writing about yourself, then please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, as this is strongly discouraged. If you are trying to develop an encyclopedia article, then this should be done in draft space. Currently, the content is entirely unreferenced and is therefore not appropriate for the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I believe this is about their declined draft, Draft:Asif Iqbal Jewel.

@Editohub The english Wikipedia only accepts articles about subjects which meet our inclusion criteria, called notability (in this case, WP:DIRECTOR) and almost always boils down to multiple independent reliable sources devoting significant coverage to the subject.

Since the subject is still living, Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people applies, with more stringent rules, including but not limited to that we require inline citations.

I am afraid that I had to tag most of the images you uploaded to Commons for speedy deletion under c:COM:PCP as it's unlikely a production company would put movie posters under a CC-0-License. In the case that they did, or if you are authorised to do so, please see WP:DCM.

I see now that you asked about this both here and at the AFC help desk, please only ask in one place at a time to avoid wasted volunteer effort. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The userpage content and the draft content appear to be identical. Cullen328 (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Userpage content now removed. David notMD (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Content for Biographies of Living People? Halp!

Ok. So.....I've been trying to be active in helping edit biographies of living people. However, almost ALL of them contain copious amounts of information that is unverifiable or irrelevant -- like "so and so was in a Shakespeare play in high school."

In reviewing the WIKIpedia rules, i found -- "No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles.

So, does one just delete irrelevant and unverifiable info? Or? Slacker13 (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Slacker13, you should ensure that the citations placed after a claim within the same paragraph do not verify claims—presupposing you have, and the claims are spurious, unverifiable, or could possibly be contested (in the case of BLP), you are indeed encouraged to remove the unsourced claims. Remsense留 00:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

In general, if you wish to improve BLPs in this respect, you'd either seek references for claims, or you'd remove the claim. Equally, starting from a hyperbolic premise of "almost ALL of them contain copious amounts of information that is unverifiable or irrelevant" is itself problematic; it is unlikely that almost all of them of them contain copious amounts of information that is unverifiable; and the question of irrelevancy is surely a value judgement and an issue distinct from verifibility? If you're on a crusade, the possibility is that you'll do more harm than good. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Granted, I haven't reviewed ALL the BLP's, but the ones I have seen -- ALL read like marketing fodder (original research, non-neutral POV and non verifiable), rather than factual biographies. Not that I'm on a crusade, but man, if these people are paying for their bios to be written it can't be any more obvious. Does the general public really need to know what high school play you were in? Slacker13 (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Slacker13: For the specific example you raise, I think context is important. If the subject of the BLP is, say, an astronaut, then perhaps it is not important. If the subject is an actor, then it is absolutely arguable that it is relevant to discuss the first production he played in. Because it is a subscription website I cannot read the source from which that claim seems to eminate on the John de Lancie article. I do come away with the impression that your assertion of the unimportance of this information in this biograhy is questionable and leaves something to be desired; and also come away with concern that the information may well be cited, contrary to the premise in your original post. It leaves me wondering what all this is about. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

really? This was the cruxt of my original question. How to determine relevant information when it doesn't match Wikipedia guidelines. In the case of John de Lancie -- you really believe that being in a highschool play is relevant to his career? I would then posit then that all the actors should list their highschool plays -- but only if it is non original research and varifiable -- which seems silly. Most children in gradeschool in the US are in some sort of production -- should all actors list them? I would imagine, yes, to list it if it was unusual in some way -- like he was given an award for it, he was written up for it. etc. Otherwise sounds like Marketing text to fill up and page and make the amount of work seem more relevant. Slacker13 (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You are potentially conflating the distinct concepts of due weight and verifiability, they are sometimes related, but should usually be evaluated separately. One should not be used to directly imply the other. Remsense留 01:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll review and keep in mind. Slacker13 (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Tagishsimon Oh you can read it, using my loophole of how to get around paywalls [3] Danstarr69 (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

TagishsimonSlacker13 John de Lancie What made you decide to pursue a career as an actor? "I was not a good student, and the reason I was not a good student is that I didn’t know how to read. … I was dyslexic, but at the time that was not really a word that was used. What was used was “mildly retarded” or “slow.” I ended up flunking out of a couple of schools. The last school I went to, they said “Oh, no, no, we think he’s dyslexic,” but nobody really knew what to do with that. I probably was 14 by that time.

My teacher, who was really quite a wonderful teacher … we would do projects. One year, we would do Handel’s “Messiah.” Another year, we did “Marriage of Figaro,” and then this particular time of the year, it was in the springtime, he said, “We’re going to do ‘Henry V’ and de Lancie, you’re going to play ‘Hal’ [King Henry V].” I could barely read it, but I learned it, and I did it, and a gentleman who had come … took my father aside and he said, “If your son has an interest in this, you should encourage him because he has a flair for it.”

And so it came to me mostly as a life preserver, quite frankly." Danstarr69 (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This is interesting context. I didn't see where this was added as a source for the high school play. What number is it? Slacker13 (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Slacker13 Number 4. It was added at the end of the long paragraph. It's now added in two sections of that paragraph, and might be useful for other sections of that paragraph, or elsewhere in the article. Danstarr69 (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

thanks! Slacker13 (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Slacker13 It depends. For example something like "Jane Doe starred in Shakespeare play at high school with John Doe. They later went on to work on a Shakespeare TV show together," would be fun trivia.

I can think of many examples like that related to my city, one of which are a married couple I based by example on, as they met on a TV set in my city where they played the two lead characters, then went on to work on another TV series together, which was also filmed in my city.

Whereas something like "Jane Doe starred in a Shakespeare play" by itself, is just useless information. Danstarr69 (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. If it's interesting, absolutely. But in the case above, i don't think it met that criteria. Just my opinion. Slacker13 (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Your opinions are worthwhile! But luckily for everyone who may have them, as I noted above this discussion falls under the distinct, but helpful concept of due versus undue weight. Remsense留 01:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll spend some more time reading through the link you gave. It actually is very helpful. Slacker13 (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Danstarr69. @Slacker13:, as I noted, if the subject is an actor, then it is absolutely arguable that it is relevant to discuss the first production he played in. You'll forgive me if I say that I find your tone & argument somewhat deranged. Why would you not want to know when and how an actor got into acting? Why exactly would you think such information is Marketing text to fill up and page and make the amount of work seem more relevant. Of course, you are entitled to your view and entitled to write about your view. But for me you're singularly unpersuasive and your particular animus for what seems like pertinent and what is now confirmed to be sourced information seems more likely to be a risk of harm to the encyclopedia than a good. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't make the change. I asked a question. I'm concerned that you've flagged my activity in asking questions, explaining my thinking, voicing an opinion, and contributing to active discussion -- as deranged and a risk of harm to the encyclopedia. Is this what i should expect if I ask a relevant question? I find your comments NOT kind, respectful, nor conducive to open discussion. Slacker13 (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It is what you should expect if you are economical with the truth - that the context was an actor - if you mislead about the premise - the information was sourced - and if your tone is one of scorn - really? - when measured arguments are put to you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

not scorn. disbelief. active debate allows for that, I would hope. Slacker13 (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Disbelief that it is relevant to specify when an actor got into acting? as you put it, really?. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

no. disbelief that it would have been important to cite a high school play WITHOUT the context of it being the reason he got into acting -- as Danstarr69 mentioned below. Slacker13 (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Notwithstanding Danstarr69's contribution, the sentence is He began to act around the age of 14, performing in a high school production of William Shakespeare's Henry V. It explains how & when an actor got into acting. Again: why would that not be relevant to the biography of an actor? --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This is my question, truly. If it had not had special weight given to it because it helped him with dyslexia, etc. I, personally find it irrelevant simply because I would imagine a vast majority of people can point to something similar in whatever career they end up choosing. So where to draw the line? Yes, some facts are fun bits that add context, but I don't think all of them are. So, it really is my question -- how to draw the line? Slacker13 (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, yes, the factoid had a citation attached to it that provided context -- but for other BLP where there isn't a citation or context, how do you make sure it passes the "no original research" test? Slacker13 (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, as guidance, I beg to suggest that information on 'when & how did you get into your career' is highly relevant to a biography, fullstop. "When did you become an actor" is exactly one of those questions that an encyclopedia should be able to answer on the biography of an actor. It's not a 'fun fact'. The subject is notable as an actor. Information on when they became an actor is material to that which they are notable for. 'How to draw the line' is a difficult question to answer, but here I suggest that for each claim the author needs to ask 'does this information reasonably add to our understanding of the subject?'. For an actor biography, 'When did you become an actor': yes. 'What sort of car do you drive': no. Meanwhile if there is no citation and it is a claim which is worthwhile challenging, it can be removed. But you do need to check. In this instance, inter alia, you made the assertion that the information was not cited, but we now know that it was cited. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Slacker13 Basically...

1 - John de Lancie - "Starred in a Shakespeare play" = Irrelevant.

2 - John de Lancie - "Starred in a Shakespeare play, because it helped him to read, and made him want to become an actor" = Relevant.

Just like how the singer Gareth Gates helped to cure his speech problems by singing as a kid. Danstarr69 (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree. But I did see the link to the article listing context for it. Which is why it originally raised questions for me. Slacker13 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• did not see the article

Slacker13 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It actually is quite an interesting topic. Thank you all for your answers. I really am looking for guidance and I also really do have opinions. Always willing to discuss. Slacker13 (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Could I use a picture avatar of an artist when I am not affiliated with the artist?

I'm creating an article on an artist named Inabakumori, and I'm wondering if I am allowed to use his picture avatar without explicit permission from them. If not, I can try to find someone to request permission. (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Vanillyn: You are not allowed to. You would need to get the artist to release the image under a permissive licence before it could be used on WP. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright! I can attempt to send the artist an email asking him to release the image under a permissive license. I've checked the WIkimedia Commons guidelines, which doesn't seem to contain any information on profile pictures and the like.

How would I know the image is licensed correctly? Would he have to upload it to somewhere like Flickr? (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You can have the artist send a confirmation email to WP:VRT that the he published the artwork in a free license. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You can use their pfp, if it's in public domain. so, If they have something like a winnie-the-pooh profile pic of YouTube (idk, it's the first PD thing I thought of), we could use it on their page without permission, since Winne--the-pooh is public domain. but if they have something else, that's copyrighted (like a James Bond pic or something), we'd need permisson. we only upload/use non-free pics. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me!) (Goo Goo dolls) 14:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Remeber to tell the artist that if the avatar is of his own making, I believe that giving permission would allow anyone to have free use of the image everywhere (coffee mugs, T-shirts...). David notMD (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

nukunukunigirimeshi is someone that worked closely with the artist for years. I believe the avatar itself is by the artist, as it's been the same since 2016. (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Question

What's the difference between visual editor and source editor? Bzik2324 (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The visual editor attempts to be WYSIWYG and hides the wiki markup. The source editor shows the markup and provides an option to preview the end result. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

In addition, the Visual Editor suffers from a number of limitations. Many of these probably won't be relevant to day-to-day editing, but others will be. See WP:VE for details. Mike Marchmont (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I want need

Recently, I had created one article under title Draft:Jishnu Raghavan Alingkil but again it was moved to draftspace and it was rejected. Considering beacause G5. I'm crating article for one of notable well-known actor in Malayalam Industry. what to do now Vicky Kumar26 (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

(User indeffed, draft deleted.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

okay, but, you gotta be honest, I want need has to be the funniest title i've seen yet on here. (anyway, good job with banning them!) Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me!) (Goo Goo dolls) 14:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

IP Problem

A IP here was warned for causing problems on a few pages, deleting references to "genocide" without reason. The IP is now on different IP's, causing more of the same problems. The changes can be seen here.

How can this IP can be stopped? Marwanaircalm (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Reported to WP:AIV. ContributeToTheWiki (talk • contribs) 11:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Deletion a Draft

The next draft was deleted and marked as G-11. What causes the G-11 problem to be detected, what should I change so that this does not happen? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nano_nuclear_energy_in LucasEmanuelRocca (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

LucasEmanuelRocca Draft:Nano nuclear energy inc was tagged by another editor who thought that it was unambiguous advertising or spam, per WP:G11. I cannot see the deleted draft, but it should be obvious why it is advertising. You may wish to read WP:NOTADVERT. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Admins might also wish to delete Draft:Nano Nuclear Energy Inc., yet another incarnation of the same article which is currently blanked by the user. G7 or G11, take your pick. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding an article of a prominent living person

Hello, this is Yamantakks, hoping your day was going great. I was just randomly surfing about the web and lastly went to the article narendra modi and was reading the outer paragraphs which were written. I saw major criticism even on the topics like Article 370 which was, I believe, being misused even after the SC's verdict approving it. I believe that even if a figure is criticized, it should be kept under a seperate headings unless a major, inhuman crime is seriously linked with the personality and is supported by legal proofs. I think that the article needs serious rewriting because there are also any good deeds creditted to him and just blaming him for things on a reputable organization like wikipedia, is not justifiable and I came here to ask for help because the article is a major article and I believe it should be handled with great care and some more experienced editor should look into the matter.
Regards
Yamantakks (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yamantakks: Narendra Modi is a hugely controversial person; you can rest assured that many editors are focussed on his article. You might wish to raise your specific concern on the talk page of the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Dear Tagishsimon,

I want to raise concerns about it but I fear that I don't know much of the wikipedia policies regarding this and as many editors have their attention over the article, I fear raising my concerns as I would not be able to raise my concerns and they will be useless without any backing of any wikipedia policy(s). I wanted to ask for help regarding the wikipeida's policy regarding articles on famous figures so I can understand and see for any improvement.

With Regards,

Yamantakks (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yamantakks The main policy is the one on the biographies of living people. As already advised, the best place to make comments is at Talk:Narendra Modi. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yamantakks In addition to what is seen at Talk:Narendra Modi the Talk page notes near the top that there are archives of older Talk page content. IT is possible that anything you have in mind has already been disccused. While standard Wikipedia guideline is edit the article, and go to Talk only if reverted by another editor, this article is so 'hot' that your best path is to propose new content (or deleting existing content) on the Talk page and abide by what other reply. David notMD (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Userpage Help

(User:Keagen J. Cole)

I was wanting to know: how do I make a subpage on my userpage without using the userbox maker? A lot of the articles I found on making a subpage manually either doesn't make sense or it doesn't give me a straight answer.  :-\ ​-Keagen J. Cole ​🐾 (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Dear Keagen J. Cole,

I think you can type [[user:username/intented_title_of_the_subpage]] and when you publish the changes, the wikilink apears red and click it and clicking "create article". I hope it helps, if any furthre confusion, kindly reply or go through Wikipedia:Subpages.

Regards

Yamantakks (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. :D It actually worked! ​-Keagen J. Cole ​🐾 (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Questionable Notability?

Hey! So how do you guys handle BLP's with somewhat questionable notability? Everyone would like to have a Wikipedia page, but many of them I've seen are fleshed out with WP:RSSELF, WP:UGC, WP:SELFSOURCE. How is significant coverage determined? I've found the below as guidance, and it makes sense, but as I'm going through and questioning sources, I'm getting some push back.

Thoughts?

General notability guidelines

• WP:GNG

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

• "Presumed" means if there is actual and real coverage in a number of independent reliable sources, then we presume the topic is notable. However, a subject that is presumed to be notable may still not be suitable for being included. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.
• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. No original research is needed to find the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
• "Reliable" means sources need to be written truthfully and honestly to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may include published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
• "Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the best evidence of notability. The number and type of reliable sources needed depends on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those linked with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

A topic for which this guideline has been met by agreement, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the guidelines for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article. Slacker13 (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Slacker13 and welcome to the Teahouse, I've made your second seciton heading, "General notability guidelines", a lower heading so it stays within the same top level section. I'd say in general most people should not want a Wikipedia biography. There's no actual advantage of having outside of some very small niches were it may help "promote" yourself. There are many potential downsides to having a Wikipedia article about oneself. I haven't had time to research your question more but it may be helpful for myself if I have time or other editors to provide a bit more context to your question. Thanks! Skynxnex (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thx! Slacker13 (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

What are you asking? Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talking Head's) (Goo Goo Dolls) 16:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You cut a huge amount of content from Joslyn Rose Lyons. Much of it was not referenced, and full of name-dropping. However, User:Materialscientist reverted your cuts, likely because so large and not well described in an Edit summary. A next step could be to open a discussion on the Talk page, or else make a modest cut with a better Edit summary and see if that remains. Or, try to add refs? David notMD (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

? Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talking Head's) (Goo Goo Dolls) 16:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I add that much of the weak content was added by User:Managementartist who was asked if doing undeclared paid work on the article, did not reply, but stopped. David notMD (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Slacker13 (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Slacker13 (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. That's the second time someone has mentioned not doing such a huge edit. Will make sure to make smaller edits with better documentation moving forward. Slacker13 (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I note the problem here is not notability, but rather the addition of uncited & rather spammy content; and then its removal without the courtesy of an edit summary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

thank you! Slacker13 (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Grae Cleugh

Hi

Theres been a bit of buzz about this today and an article request was posted here. I wrote a quick article that meets notability guidelines, not known for a single event, secondary sources, numerous red links requiring clarity.

Clearly there is more to add but the bare bones looks good to me. Can anyone make any minor tweaks and resubmit. 86.167.216.44 (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It needs much more than minor tweaks. Please see the advice you have been given at Draft:Grae Cleugh.Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

your right about the bare bones part. Try adding more content, expanding, and adding things like more ref's, or categories. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talking Head's) (Goo Goo Dolls) 17:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The main issue is the lack of reliable sources - WP:RS - not the need for more content, expanding, nor categories, none of which are reasons for the article not being promoted. Please don't give new users very poor advice; it's unhelpful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Please don't give out misleading advice. This draft was declined for lack of evident notability, and more content won't resolve that, at least not directly. And categories should not be added to a draft, not that they would have any bearing on notablity, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Please don't ask the same question at several places. This has also been answered at the AfC HD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no advice.

The article meets minimum requirements, please publish. 86.167.216.44 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

There is advice: that it lacks reliable sources. It will not be published until that is addressed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The article meets minimum requirements, please publish[.], yeah, no. just because some page meets the minimum of something doesn't mean it'll be good. I could fill out every required test answers, doesn't mean i'll pass. On Wikipedia, same thing, the minimum of what you put in, is going to be met with minimum response, in your case, rejecting your article. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talking Head's) (Goo Goo Dolls) 17:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Babysharkboss2, please STOP giving bad, and in this case completely incoherent advice. It is disruptive and unhelpful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Babysharkboss2, please STOP giving bad, aight. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talking Head's) (Goo Goo Dolls) 18:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Its the same reference as this page 2002 Laurence Olivier Awards, are you suggesting that page should be deleted. 86.167.216.44 (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

a short article clears up the red link issue. 86.167.216.44 (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You can either take the advice given, 86.167.216.44, or watch the article languish as a draft. Your choice. Bar-room lawyering is not going to move the dial. What may be a reasonable cite for a set of awards may be insufficient for a BLP. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no particular need to "clear up the red link issue". And even a short article will need to demonstrate notability before it will be published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes there is. Red links are routinely deleted. 86.167.216.44 (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The article 2002 Laurence Olivier Awards demonstrates one notable event with 2 references on that page, the publishers page provides a brief and reliable biography backed up by a secondary biography at doolee.com. A review demonstrates it is not a passing mention.

I disagree with your assertion and you have been unable to coonvince me otherwis as you do not provide concise reasoning just extrapolated arguments which are without merit. 86.167.216.44 (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. Still doesn't get the article promoted, though, does it? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I doesnt need promoted, it needs published. would adding a coupl of reviews of his work in national press help promote it. 86.167.216.44 (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Promotion, in this context, is the same as published. Yes, adding reviews in would help. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, I don't need to convince you of anything. You need to convince an AfC reviewer (and I'm more than happy to recuse myself) that this draft warrants publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I added the less reliable doolee reference as it verifies the facts on his publisher Bloomsbury's website.

I disagree that his publishers website is not a valid source.

I added a couple of national press reviews for context, and added the references from 2002 Laurence Olivier Awards. 86.167.216.44 (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

And resubmitted. Declining reviewer User:NoobThreePointOh suggested other editors can help. 86.167.216.44 (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Further context: Talk:Royal Conservatoire of Scotland#Grae Cleugh (Protected Edit Request), User talk:Primefac#Grae Cleugh —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 18:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The Lawrence Olivier Award for Most Promising Playright is not a sigificant award (awarded only in 2002 and 2003 and then discontinued). David notMD (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft deleted with statement that it was created by a blocked User, using an IP address. David notMD (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Monthly Donation

Hi, I began monthly donations over a year ago so that I could give more as I really believe in Wikipedia and its mission, thank you for what you do! But I need to stop the pop ups to donate, I feel horrible ignoring them. And also get a tad annoyed. I just created my online account, at least I don’t recall having created one in the past.. I read once recently that there was a way to do this, but can’t find it? Can anyone share this process please. Sw8689 (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sw8689: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you don't want to see the fundraising banners, you can uncheck Preferences → Banners → Fundraising in your preferences. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Is "Album of the Year" a valid source?

I've seen this site numerous times when looking for more independent sources for more information on an article I'm working on.

The site seems to be a journal that writes on albums and singles releasing, but it may be user-generated content, with some content appearing to be automatically generated

While on the topic, I'd also like to know what sites are valid and invalid as a source for an album/song releasing, (Spotify, Apple Music, Genius, Amazon Music, etc), I've looked through some of the guidelines on what sources would be allowed or not, but I can't tell if these sources would be independent or not (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The reliable sources noticeboard is usually the place for this. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 19:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Vanillyn: The consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316#Album of the Year is that it is not considered a reliable source. More information can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. GoingBatty (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Companies with missing infobox logo

i would like to help add images for companies that have a missing logo image in their infobox if anyone could help me build a list to do that. i had someone once help me build a list for searching for books without covers, so something like this would be great. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=incategory%3A%22Books+with+missing+cover%22+insource%3A%2Fpublished+%2A%3D+%2A20%2F&ns0=1&fulltext=Search Iljhgtn (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the best you'll find is Category:Pages using infobox company with a logo from wikidata - UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

k i will look at that link. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh wait... Those *have* a logo. No, {{infobox company}} doesn't have a "no logo" tracking category. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

was just about to respond saying that... Iljhgtn (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

i looked at AirWatch randomly, and they had a logo, so my first "spot check" demonstrated the list was not complete at least.. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I've put in a request for Category:Pages using infobox company missing logo to be added as a tracking category. Let's see what that request brings... - UtherSRG (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@UtherSRG @Iljhgtn might be worth asking at WP:VPT if there is a way to do a SPARQL query or something else for searching articles that transclude the template with an empty logo parameter. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

i have never asked anything of the village pump. i can try Iljhgtn (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

the category would be easiest. i asked about it at the village pump, but i am not sure if i asked correctly. thank you both. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding the understanding of Orphan pages.

Greetings everyone, hopefully you all are doing well. I want to understand the application of orphaning and de-orphaning the Wikipedia pages. Some of the pages I have seen having orphan tags, have a lot of links to them, yet the tag is there, and in one case it was introduced after links were introduced to the page by another editor.

It has become very confusing, any help is highly appreciated. Thank you. Ms.Aloisia (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Orphan#Criteria: "It is now recommended to only place the {{Orphan}} tag if the article has zero incoming links from other articles." It gets misapplied a lot, which is a shame. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Also this has contributed in confusion as well. Thanks a lot. Ms.Aloisia (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ms.Aloisia: You removed an orphan tag from Megan Aubale Epstein claiming "per Wikipedia:Orphan#Criteria".[4] But the article has zero incoming links from other articles so it clearly satisfies the criteria. I have restored the tag. Please be more careful. If you think that article has incoming links from other articles then you have misunderstood something. We can clear up what if you say why you think it does. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, yes, but also per Wikipedia:Orphan "Editors may also remove the tag from any article if they believe that de-orphaning is unlikely to be successful" and in this case we're dealing with a completely non-notable subject, a real-estate agent who is vanishingly unlikely to be linked to from any other article because of her thorough non-notability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It was her 20th edit. I don't really think she is qualified to judge "de-orphaning is unlikely to be successful". And considering her posts here, I guess she did think there was at least one article link. If the subject is non-notable then the article can be deleted. If the subject is notable then it might be added to e.g. List of people from Sacramento, California#Business. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ms.Aloisia: - To clarify orphan vs. not orphan, check out Database reports/Orphans with incoming links report. Most articles listed may have already been de-orphaned by other editors as that daily-bot only updates the report every 4-days or so. Important – the only sure way to verify if an article is an orphan is "What links here" (alt-shift-j). Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Need help with citations

So I was going through random pages and found this page (Daltmar) with no citations but a link to a government website so (after some trial and error) I made that into a citation but then this happened:

CS1 error on Daltmar[edit source]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Daltmar, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help) Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

So umm what did i do wrong? 50tr5 (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@50tr5: You've used the cite web template, but you have not included a title= parameter within it, and so the bots are now on your case. Maybe want title=Cercador, Daltmar ... I've added that just now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Nathaniel Lande

Wondering how to address problems with this BLP. There are some odd references, such as <ref name="aboutexec">The only senior executive to have had a piano in his office</ref>. Is it better to remove refs like this and have completely unsourced information? Or to remove content not properly sourced? I think there is only one complete ref to an independent source with full details of date and author, the Santa Barbara News Press one. I can't see any RS online that would verify the details of his life, just two reviews on Publishers Weekly, but sme of his career may pre-date online sources. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

That was really bad. Another editor - Caeciliusinhorto - beat me to the removal of all of the crap. I think I need to go and wash my eyes with bleach or something now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

A little more help on my first article.

This may be the last question I ask for a while, sorry for the bombardment of questions! I'm asking more as a general question, as I don't feel it's fit to make an AfC help desk request. This is about the draft Draft:Inabakumori, which was originally created by Neeerrrd, but seemingly abandoned.

1. The article was partly translated from the same article on a different language, what would I do to clarify that?
2. While I'm the person mainly working on editing the article, I also got some slight help from people related to the subject, would I need to clarify that/who?
3. While this question may fit more on another page, I'd like to know whether something like Spotify or Booth would be helpful for sourcing the release date of certain songs.

(talk) 22:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

1. You could add an edit summary to a null edit (e.g. add a space to the article) specifying the source of the text

2. You do not need to include a roll-call of helpers. You are responsible for your edits.

3. I don't think either of Spotify or Pixiv / Booth is a reliable source, so, no. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't publish my edits.

I tried to publish my edits, but there is a "report edit" button. This makes me feel unsatisfied. 2605:8D80:4A2:42F3:DA:D0C5:5DFD:F30 (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have tripped edit filters, and reported the issues at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports. I suggest you await the outcomes of those two reports. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Getting into translating

Hello, I made an account a few months ago and decided to try translating an article on the Spanish Wikipedia, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Txoria_txori, because I had been looking for information on this song and noticed that no corresponding article existed on the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately my translation was declined at AfC due to use of copyrighted material. I have been reading Wikipedia policies and now understand that I should not have uncritically translated material from another-language Wikipedia without ensuring that it also fit English Wikipedia criteria (I think the problem is that the Spanish page included the full text of the poem/song, but I am not sure; I also can't remember if I figured out how to actually note that I was translating and not writing. I definitely would have tried to note that, but I might not have noted it correctly.) Since then I've just been doing minor typo fixes and things as I run across them.

I don't have any specific obsession with "Txoria txori" (although I love the song) and am just as interested in translating any other page. I found Category:Articles needing translation from Spanish Wikipedia and would like to start translating some of those articles. However, from my experience I now know that I cannot trust that an article on another Wikipedia will be acceptable on English Wikipedia. I've looked at the guidance on Wikipedia:Translation but is there anything else I can/should do to make sure that my translations fit Wikipedia standards? For instance could I ask an experienced editor to look at my translations before I add them to an article?

Since my first major edit was ill-informed I am particularly keen to make sure that I follow all policies and don't keep blundering around breaking things.

Thank you for your help. Copyedit & Translate (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I hope you do get over the Txoria txori experience; translation is a good means of increasing coverage on EN wikipedia. Worthwhile you checking out Help:Translation. There is not a copyright issue in translating from e.g. Spanish wikipedia, although an edit summary should be used to note that that is what you have done. I can't speak for the Txoria txori experience; perhaps it was song lyrics in the article? But categorically basing an EN WP article on a translation of an ES WP is not a copyright violation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

hello, C&T, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you want to translate an article from another Wikipedia, your best approach is to check that everything in it is referenced, and that the sources are suitable for English Wikipedia (in terms of reliability and independence). Only articles (or sections) that meet those criteria are worth translating. Any other material you can only use if you can find suitable sources for - and you will then need to check whether they are a summary of the sources you have found, or need to be rewritten anyway. ColinFine (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

articles

looks like there is quite a backlog, so no rush, but i have a number of articles outstanding that have not yet been reviewed. Earthscraper and some others if anyone is able to help with this. if i should just keep waiting, that is fine too. i have written a number of articles previously that have all been reviewed just fine, it just seems like recently it is extra backed up. one day, i will need to apply for auto-patrol so that i do not need to contribute to the backlog, but i don't have 25 articles yet. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

moving draft to talk

I have a draft article that I want to move into talk but have not idea as to how to do this. Urbanformlab (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Why do you want to place a draft in talk? 331dot (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Urbanformlab, and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you mean Draft:Myer R Wolfe? I guess you mean "mainspace" rather than "talk"? You would do this by the MOVE function, but I think your account may not have made enough edits to have access to that yet.

However, even if you can, I urge you not too move the draft to mainspace: if you do it will at best be reverted to Draft. The problem is that there is as far as I can see not a single source cited that meets the triple criteria of being reliably published, wholly independent of Wolfe, and containing significant coverage of him (see Golden rule)

Without such sources, the draft does not meet wikipedia's criteria for notability, and furthermore there is almost nothing that can validity go in the text of the article. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

500 edits and 30 days tenure passed, what's next?

So I have made more than 500 edits and my account is more than 3 months old, but I still can't edit extended-protected articles, and Wikipedia hasn't notified me about how I have made 500 edits as a milestone. Is there another step that I have to go through in order to be allowed to edit extended-protected articles without the need of edit requests? Because I tried doing so for Foreign relations of Israel due to a grammatical error and Nicaragua being incorrect but User:Leoneix won't allow me and I'm mad. Underdwarf58 (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Underdwarf58: Your account appears to be extended confirmed, see here. You should be able to edit that page directly. Your edit request was closed because it didn't provide enough information for the reviewer to figure out what you wanted changed ­– when making an edit request, another user makes the change on your behalf. You do not need to make edit requests for extended-confirmed protected pages now, however, as your account is extended confirmed. I will leave some additional information on your talk page you should be aware of. Tollens (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Underdwarf58, If you can't edit, you can request an edit. See WP:ER for more information. I don't understand why you are 'accusing' me of not allowing you to edit.

I had found a source from JSTOR which I had cited while changing the date related to Nicaragua. Later another user changed it to the previous source (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_relations_of_Israel&oldid=1189248848). I didn't edit further as I could not verify the previous source. Leoneix _(talk) 05:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry man, I take things seriously sometimes Underdwarf58 (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

It's okay Leoneix _(talk) 06:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Page Review!

Requesting for Page Draft:Dwaraka Creations Review! Mr.shaikmeer (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

You have submitted your draft for review already - please note that there are 425 articles awaiting review and so the review process may take some time. Please feel free to continue working on your draft in the meantime, as the better the draft, the more likely it is to be reviewed and published quickly. Tollens (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mr.shaikmeer. Are you somehow either personally or professionally connected to "Dwarka Creations"? If you are connected to the company, please carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure as soon as possible because they might be some important things about Wikipedia that you're not aware of. For reference, I'm asking you about this because you uploaded the company's logo to Wikimedia Commons and claimed it as being your "own work". Why did you do that? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I Represents the company! Mr.shaikmeer (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

You should take a look at our Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

On your User page, describe your connection to the company. This can be with the WP:PAID format or just a sentence or two. You removed the over-referencing, which is good. David notMD (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Its not paid ! Im doing out with my Interests. Mr.shaikmeer (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is My draft page always being declined?

Why is My draft page always being declined despite I edit it? All reviewers only comment with generic response. Can any one explain or give feedback? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Microscada Amteddy (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The submission currently has three sources. One is a university thesis. Another, not accessible to me, looks like a conference paper. As the decline notice says, this doesn't meet the criteria of "multiple published sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, strictly independent of the subject". Greenman (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

ARTICLE DECLINED

what's the issue of my article? Kitamhal (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kitamhal: You appear to have two on the go – is this a question about one specifically, or both? Tollens (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Now that I look more closely I assume this is related to Draft:Samantha Alexandra Panlilio. Tollens (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I presume you mean Draft:Charlotte Austin. Please read the guidelines. I can see that the entire personal life section is unsourced. These and other statements need to be sourced or removed. Tone is also promotional, for example "showcasing her versatility as an actress and contributing to the revival of this iconic production". Greenman (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

noter. I'll try to be more punctual.  Kitamhal (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kitamhal: The comment the reviewer left on Draft:Samantha Alexandra Panlilio (assuming it is this article as your edits to the other draft are fairly minor) indicates that it isn't supported adequately by reliable sources – looking through each source, refs 1 and 2 both appear to only contain a passing mention of the subject (typically a more detailed discussion in the source is required to demonstrate notability), and refs 3, 4, and 5 do not even mention the subject at all. Ref 5 also appears not to be independent – sources connected to the subject in some way may not be used to demonstrate notability. Reviewers look for sources which are reliable, independent, and contain significant coverage of the subject; if such sources aren't provided the article will likely not be accepted. Tollens (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Kitamhal, words and phrases like "beauty queen" and "tycoon" and "luxury property brand" and "opening soon in Siargao" are promotional and violate the Neutral point of view. Promotional language is simply not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

NOTED. Thank you so much Kitamhal (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

How do I publish my bio

hi, I opened my account but how do I publish my bio. I wrote it in edit and pressed publish but I think it was rejected. Jeymstuncer (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Jeymstuncer/sandbox fwiw. It was rejected. It has no citations and is self-written. See WP:COI and WP:BLP. It is probably not going to be promoted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

To add to what has been mentioned above: It's strongly recommended that you do not attempt to write an autobiography for several reasons; you should consider reading through Wikipedia:Autobiography for details. For any Wikipedia article to be published, it would need to be supported by multiple reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the topic, and in this case no sources at all have been provided. Wikipedia is not for the hosting of CVs or other similar documents. Tollens (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Jeymstuncer. Your draft User:Jeymstuncer/sandbox is an unreferenced biography of a living person, which is a policy violation. It cannot possibly be accepted in its current form. Read and study Your first article. If the draft is about you, please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged, especially when the writer has no good idea of how Wikipedia works. Cullen328 (talk) 09:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I created standard sections, but as noted above, all content needs independent references. If you have not been written about by people with no connection to you, there is no potential for this to succeed. If you agree, either abandon it or tag it for immediate deletion. I suggest you find other ways to contribute to Wikipedia, perhaps by improving existing articles about jazz musicians. David notMD (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)