Wikipedia:Teahouse

Melecie, 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

Can I edit in English Wikipedia?

Hello, my name is Hanoifun. I was a member in Vietnamese Wikipedia before I got banned from a Vietnamese Wikipedia administrator who accused me of sockpuppetry few days ago (even though I am not a sockpuppetry, I was like a noob when I edited Wikipedia page about 2 and 3 years ago) (reason I got banned written in Vietnamese). I think maybe he had some confusions and thought I was a professional sockpuppetry and tried to hide identity before socking. I want to edit in English Wikipedia, in Vietnam topic, add some information and make people know more about Vietnam country and Vietnamese culture. And I also want to prove to Vietnamese Wikipedia that I am not sockpuppetry and at that time, I was a beginner, not good in edit Wikipedia and maybe too childish (like I did spam in some page to buff my contribution, used Google to translate some pages at that time). Can I edit in English wikipedia? Thank you! Hanoifun (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hanoifun: Bans and blocks (in most cases) only apply to individual projects, and we have no policies which prevent you editing here just because you're blocked elsewhere. Your edits may receive increased scrutiny, and your edits on other wikis can be examined for recent misbehaviour - if for example there are indications that any problematic behaviour is likely to occur here. At this time I see nothing to say you should be blocked and can't edit here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz Well, I'm so happy that I can edit there! Thanks! Hanoifun (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hanoifun Just be aware that the rules on English Wikipedia are not necessarily the same as on other projects, and that we hear our rules and policies are generally much more strict and stringent too. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Oh, thank you! I know that English Wikipedia is more strict than some other Wikipedia, so I have to learn more and more. Can you tell me some important rules, policies and some faults the beginner can easily have (Though I'm old in Vietnamese Wikipedia)? Regards! Hanoifun (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hanoifun I've added a set of links on your Talk Page that you should find useful. The best way to learn how things work here is to edit in areas you are familiar with and keep an eye on the Teahouse to see what other new users are asking. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hanoifun I suspect en.wiki is fussier on Notability, and our demand for Reliable Sources. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Well, okay, thank you! I often use sources from reputable newspapers to edit (like The Guardian, The New York Times in English and Lao Dong news, Vnexpress News in Vietnamese). But do I have to add sources for all edits? Like when I translate some information in Vietnamese Wikipedia to English or just update the population of a town like some other Wikipedia. Hanoifun (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hanoifun You don’t need to cite a source if the statement you’re making is unlikely to be challenged (e.g. “the sky is blue”, but if you’re updating a population of a town then, yes, you should show the source of your information. If you’re translating, either consider leaving out UNVERIFIABLE content, or add a {{cn}} template at the end. We are a lot fussier these days than we used to be, because we want this encyclopaedia to be high quality, and based solely on reliable published sources. Nick Moyes (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Thank you very much! I will try my best to edit Wikipedia, but as a beginner, I may make some mistakes while editing. If you notice any errors, please point them out so that I can correct them. Thanks! Hanoifun (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Create reflist in different groups.

Hi, Is it possible to separate the refs related to the sfn format from other refs? For example, here all sources are placed in a reflist (normal references and sfn) and the sourcing was not done in a neat and clean way. How to put sfn at the beginning of the reflist and other references after it? Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   10:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Pereoptic: Welcome to the Teahouse! You could replace each instance of <ref> with <ref group="groupname"> and then add {{Reflist|group=groupname}} above {{Reflist}}. GoingBatty (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thanks for your help, isn't there another way? In the way you suggested, the volume of the article will be too large. Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   17:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Pereoptic: If you want the references in two groups, you need to specify which references are in the first group and which are in the other group. There may be other ways, but they'll be similar. GoingBatty (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit summary format of edits made by automated or semiautomated tools such as bots or scripts

Is there any specification of format of an edit summary format of edits made by automated or semiautomated tools such as bots or scripts?

When I filter edits, I can specify whether it was made by a human or a bot. However, I am curious how does Wikipedia know that?

Is there any specific text that the bots leave in the edit summary in order these bot edits are classified as such?

I wanted to be able to classify these edits myself. However, I didn't find any rule such as one similar to other rules (WP:BOTEDITSUMMARY might have been an example) or a specification.

However, I've noticed that automated or semi-automated tools add # character to the edit summary.

Where can I find more information on that requirement (if any) for edit summary format for bots? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Maxim Masiutin: Welcome to the Teahouse! I believe the watchlist marks an edit with (b) to indicate it was made by a bot if the user has a bot flag. There's nothing special about the edit summary that does this. GoingBatty (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

My question is that when a bot makes an edit summary, this edit summary is a string. I was interested in the format of this string, in particular whether the # character has any meaning. By displaying as "(b)" that you mentioned Wikipedia somehow already parsed this edit summary to figure out that it was bot. So I was interested to read about the format and the requirements, if you are aware. Thank you for your quick reply! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Maxim Masiutin: There is nothing in the edit summary string that causes the (b) to be displayed in the watchlist. Bot owners should follow Help:Edit summary just as everyone should for manual edits. GoingBatty (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

How does the Wikipedia then distingushes between the bot edits and human edits if there are no differences in the edit summaries left by the bots and left by the humans? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I read that page before writing at the teahouse, but there was no information that I searched. I also checked the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_summary_legend but also didn't find anything there :-((( Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Maxim Masiutin: As I wrote above, I believe the watchlist marks an edit with (b) to indicate it was made by a bot if the user has a bot flag. GoingBatty (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, thank you, that makes sense! Thank you for your explanation! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Maxim Masiutin: Yes, a bold b and bot filters on edit lists are entirely determined by whether the account has been assigned a bot flag by a bureaucrat. Unauthorized bots without the flag are sometimes discovered and blocked. If you want to make your own bot then see Wikipedia:Bot policy. Some bots make an edit summary containing "#" before the name or shortened name of the bot like in [1]. Such edit summaries were coded by the bot operators and I don't know any features which use the "#". Edit summaries are automatically shown in parentheses and my example says "(Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5)". That gives a misleading impression that "#IABot (v2.0.9.5)" is added after the edit summary. The bot operator was a little tricky and the edit summary without the surrounding parentheses is actually "Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5".[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Great explanation, thank you! Very helpful! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• @Maxim Masiutin: are you thinking about special:tags? —usernamekiran (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you, I saw that page. Have no idea how to make use of that. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Snow White cast

Please, add Emilia Faucher as young Snow White and Alan Tudyk as the Magic Mirror in the cast of the Snow White (2025 film) article. Sources: [3]https://snowwhitemuseum.com/about-the-film/sequels/snow-white-2025-disney-remake/ [4]https://youtube.com/watch?v=jcze6-WBDUE?si=9um51gld2Y60zAzm [5]https://thedisinsider.com/2024/01/17/emilia-faucher-to-play-young-snow-white-in-the-rachel-zegler-led-remake/ 152.230.125.226 (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! If you can't edit the article directly, then the best place to make the request is the article's talk page: Talk:Snow White (2025 film). You could also use the Wikipedia:Edit request wizard if you like. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I already added the request in the talk page, now I hope that someone adds the information in the cast section 170.247.206.227 (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Help in verification

Hi, this was my first time dealing with a clarify word issue/template on Wikipedia. Here is my edit: [6]. Please look into it and let me know if I did right or wrong. Thank you in advance 456legendtalk 03:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

can someone please help me with this. 456legendtalk 02:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Heyo, 456legend! I'm not familiar with the topic area nor have I reviewed sources, so I can't give you an assessment on your diff's accuracy, but I'd say it certainly clarifies things. If you are wondering whether or not you can remove the maintenance template, I'd say go ahead. So long as you lack a conflict of interest in the topic area and you are reasonably certain the article no longer has the cited issue, you can remove any such template. See WP:WTRMT for further details. At worst someone will disagree with you and revert (which given this article's activity I somewhat doubt), in which case you can either discuss on the talk page or let the revert stand. —Sirdog (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sirdog, I get that. Thank you very much for the reply. 456legendtalk 12:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Question about Copyright

I visited the Creative Commons website and received an Licence Text Code and HTML. Do i have to copy these? And. How exactly use CC licence?

I saved the License Text Code in a PDF file, i don't really know how to use CC Licence

I have asked another question earlier about Copyright Akhinesh777 (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Akhinesh777: You do not need to copy the license text code into a PDF. Simply go to commons:Special:UploadWizard and follow the prompts, and then choose the appropriate license when prompted to do so. GoingBatty (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @GoingBattyit looks like you're American, hey i really don't know how to use CC licence. I know how to upload to the Wikimedia Commons

I'm fear of getting blocked here that's why I'm talking about CC licence. it's my own work but if Wikipedia remove this work from Wikimedia Commons for ( Copyright Infringement ) then i will be blocked for sure.

Thanks for the response, I have talked with my mentor on Wikipedia and he said that he don't know anything related to Copyright that's why I'm asking this multiple times

Akhinesh777 (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Akhinesh777, do you want to upload a photograph or a drawing or similar? If so, then it's normally best to do so as a JPEG or PNG file. (See Allowable file types for a fuller list.) If you want to copyleft something and then to upload it as a PDF file, then is this "something" within the scope of Commons? -- Hoary (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

hello @Hoary Ok i will upload my work to the Wikimedia Commons. I would save the License Text Code in an PDF file if it's important Akhinesh777 (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It is not important. What is important that you know the name of the license. It will say so usually, e.g Creative Commons Share-Alike, Public-Domain, CC 2.0 SA-ND etc.. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It has to be your own work, not someone else's. And you may only choose a license from the available options, you may not devise a license having your own terms. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

unless someone else's work is licensed under the license you find... Kys5g ^talk! 08:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Revamped a article

Hi there. I wanted to ask that after fully revamping a article should i uncheck the Automatic MILHIST checklist assessment, done by the military history project bot. I have done best on my side to meet the criteria. So to get it reviewed again do i have to nominate, uncheck the Automatic MILHIST checklist assessment, or do something else to get it reviewed.

page revamped :-Hunza–Nagar Campaign Rahim231 (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rahim231: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can request reassessment at WP:MHA#REQ (and also Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan/Assessment). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I added the page name on the page requested article for assessment: Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan/Assessment. Do I need to add them on both pages, and for an estimate, how much time would it take for it to be assessed, and do I need to make changes or edit the article in the meantime? Rahim231 (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Main namespace sandbox

Hello, I have noticed that some templates don't work on the main namespace. Can there be a "fake" main namespace page dedicated specifically to sandboxes? 2003 LN6 14:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@2003 LN6: the current tech is not suited for this. ltbdl (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@2003 LN6: Welcome to the Teahouse! What's an example of a template that wouldn't work at Wikipedia:Sandbox? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@User:GoingBatty I've heard that userboxes and other templates like CSDs don't work in the main namespace. 2003 LN6 16:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@2003 LN6: A userbox would work in your user sandbox (e.g. User:2003 LN6/sandbox). Maybe a better question is: What do you want to test in a sandbox that isn't working for you, and where did you perform your test? GoingBatty (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@User:GoingBatty: I wanted to test out CSDs and some of them like G1 and G2 did not work in the Wikipedia or User namespaces. 2003 LN6 22:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@2003 LN6: CSD templates absolutely work in the Wikipedia namespace. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

on EXTERMINATION

i'm planning on proposing the deletion of a lot of pokémon-related redirects in a while (read: once i looked around enough articles). some are implausible typos, some might be vandalism, and some are vandalism

is there a way to propose them en masse, as opposed to tagging each one and potentially clogging the page, or manually editing the page to add them? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Cogsan! I'm not immediately seeing an easy way to do that at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. I'd ask at the talk page of that project, where editors are more likely to be able to help.

Also, mass nominations in general aren't something to do when you're just wading into an area — have you familiarized yourself with RfD's guiding principles and participated in some other discussions there? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

to be fair, i'm about to wade into the rfd scene

i'm already... more than a little familiar with pokémon articles

for now, i asked about it there

thanks cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 22:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Notability for a doctor

Hello, I am new here and want to create a page for this doctor/researcher who really helped me. I was diagnosed HIV positive and she was the first doctor I met and really changed my life. So as a thank you I want to create a page for her. I don't know her personally and I don't think she would recall me at all, and it doesn't matter either. I have edited wikipedia before and added more information for some pages I was interested so I know how it works but never created a page. This article talks about her work https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2019-11-29/kind-clinic-leader-recognized-for-her-hiv-work/ and this is her google scholar https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=Cynthia+Brinson&btnG=&oq=Cynthia. Can someone help me understand if she would be notable? If yes, I will try to create draft and submit. Thank you Newhere134 (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Newhere134. One of the journal articles she co-authored has been cited over 1000 times and several others have been cited hundreds of times. The Austin Chronicle coverage looks solid to me. Try to find more like that. The shortcut to the relevant notability guideline is WP:ACADEMIC. I suggest you begin a draft. Cullen328 (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Newhere134, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm glad for you that Dr Brinson was able to do so much for you I see that Cullen has looked at the sources and concoudes that she's probably notable in Wikipedia's sense, so it's probably worth going forward.

But I would like to caution you about your purpose. You say you want to create a page for her as a thank you. That is understandable; but it is not always a good idea. The problem is that once you have created it, neither you nor she will have control over its contents. If, for example, at some time she became involved in a public controversy and uncomplimentary things got published about her, that may get added to the article. Please have a look at an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing before you go any further, ColinFine (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

adding a redirect

I've read the help files about adding redirects but still had some questions. Apparently every redirect needs a new page. I read the new page help article but it seems to discuss when to make a new page (& when not to) but I couldn't see where it talks about how to actually create the new page.

Once I create the page with the name of the redirect (e.g., Bunny), I know it should contain one line, e.g., #REDIRECT [[Rabbit]]. This is an example that has already been created. I will not be creating it.

In this example, I see the Bunny page also has other info, e.g., "Redirect category shell ...". Do I need to add that also? Looks like if I also want to add the plural, I need to create another new page, right?

I also saw this: (2 curly braces) redirect | Cottontail (2 curly braces). Can that be used instead? I said (2 curly braces) so it would not convert so it will show what I typed. This is used in the Rabbit article using "Bunny" as the redirect.

Finally, do I have permission to do this? Thanks. Sunandshade (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sunandshade: Welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, you may create appropriate redirects, and Help:Redirects details how to do so. {{redirect}} is a template placed on the target page, not the redirect page, and Template:Redirect has more information. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm understanding redirects a bit more. I created "soft feces" to redirect to "cecotropes". Here's what I used after the REDIRECT line. Double curly braces removed so you can see what I typed. Is that correct?

Redirect category shell|

R from alternative name

R from printworthy

Also, I wanted to add "cecal" as a redirect to this article, but it's already redirected to the "cecum" article as an adjective. But I want to use it as a redirect as a noun. How can I do that? Thanks. Sunandshade (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Why are some of my edits being removed?

So I'm editing, and a day later, they're removed. Why is this happening? 3.14 (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@3.14159265459AAAs: Welcome to the Teahouse! The edit summary for each reversion should let you know why this is happening. For example, go to Jason Voorhees and click "View history", and you'll see your edit was reverted by Bignole because you added "in-universe minutia that doesn't consistently appear, except the hockey mask which is mentioned". However, when looking at the history for Chucky (Child's Play), I see NJZombie did not provide an edit summary as they should have. As part of the normal Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, feel free to start a discussion on the article's talk page to discuss why you think your edits are beneficial, and invite the person who reverted your edits to discuss their rationale. Hopefully the two of you and others will come to a consensus, and the article will be better for it. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

For one, 3.14159265459AAAs makes significant edits and then marks them as minor, as one of the edit summaries I did leave explains. NJZombie (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I think my edits are only minor, but I only just started 2 weeks ago. I would appreciate it if you helped me understand. 3.14 (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

3.14159265459AAAs, please read Help:Minor edit. Cullen328 (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. 3.14 (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussing: Chucky

Can the person/people who reverted my edit give a explaination, and some ways I can improve?

Chucky (Child's Play) 3.14 (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

No need to ask the person who reverted it, 3.14159265459AAAs. The reason's obvious: you provided no reliable source (indeed, no source whatever) for your addition. (Also, a minor point: it had typos -- "alternationg", "regualr" -- suggesting that you were uninterested in getting the addition right.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be merely a repetition of your previous question, 3.14159265459AAAs. -- Hoary (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

... Oh. 3.14 (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Non-free images in userboxes

Can i use non-free images in a userbox? (E.G Album covers) Powder9157 (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Powder9157: Welcome to the Teahouse! No, you may not use non-free images in a userbox - see WP:UBCR for details. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

No, you can't, I've asked the same question and use of it depends on non-free content policy and created {{TGGC member}} and {{TGGC officer}}, using a non-free emblem on w:File:Emblem of the Turkish Gendarmerie.png and a bot removed the image. Kys5g ^talk! 11:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

How can I retrieve a deleted help message?

I just deleted by mistake someone's message in response to a request for help on a certain topic, and I really want it back. It happened because I didn't realize clicking on a blue circle would delete the message. I wish that had been shown near the blue circle.

I think the person who wrote me some important information was named something like RedRudolph, but I don't know how to see a list of the names of all editors so I could try to contact him or her directly.

The information that editor gave me was in answer to my question as to whether requests for completely replacing an existing article might ever be considered. I remember that editor sent me a link to a help article on this subject with something like "blowing up an article" in its title.?

Augnablik (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik: I'm happy to help you, but I need a bit more information. (FYI, the editor you refer to is almost certainly RudolfRed).

• Where did this take place? Like, what page?
• What is the blue button?
• When did this happen? Today, yesterday, earlier? Whatever you did, it will show up in your contributions.

🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik: Is Wikipedia:Help desk#Full replacements what you're talking about? RudolfRed is one of the commenters there. Deor (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Cremastra and Deor, thank you for replying. My original message was apparently at the Help Desk on the 8th. The blue button seems to have been on an Alert message ... over at the top right of the message. Happy to hear that there is a RudolfRed among the editors, as that should be a very helpful piece of information in tracking him or her down. Augnablik (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik: Are you referring to notifications that you can access by clicking at the top of the page? Clicking on the blue dot only marks it as read. You'll still be able to read it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

All I know is that it disappeared when I clicked on the blue button. Augnablik (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

That happened to me once, but it was for a cross-wiki notification. Have you tried clicking on the "> All notifications" button at the bottom that shows up when you click the bell icon? HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Will try. Augnablik (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Declined Wikipedia Page

My page was declined, can I have some help SparkleOtter (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SparkleOtter! The references you added to the draft article do not appear to be to reliable sources. Please review the reliable sources guideline and the general notability guideline to get a sense of what we're looking for. If such sources do not exist, then there is unfortunately no way to create the article at present. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Black now, not dark blue

I have no idea where to take this question so I thought I'd try here. Visited links I now see as black and not dark blue (versus light blue for unvisited links). Wow, I don't like that. Anyone know if there's a setting so I can change it back? (I also don't like the orange and blue for diffs but that's not nearly as bad) Masterhatch (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Masterhatch: According to the discussion at WP:VPT there was a recent change that caused this on mobile. A ticket is open for the developers to look into it. RudolfRed (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, so it's not just me. Extremely irritating! Please don't fix, if it's not broken... Maresa63 ^Talk 03:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to WP:VPT. Masterhatch (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• @GOLDIEM J: there are quite a few editors with similar problem. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Cheers, hopefully it gets sorted🤞 GOLDIEM J (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

i need your help

i am creating an article on a notable producer who has produced songs for musicians who have a wikipedia page some of this musicians he has produced for are very notable in nigeria what can i do to get this page approved i am been told to site his notability but he is so notable for producing for this music artistes and their songs are on various websites and streaming platforms please help me "Icon240$%" (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Promotional account, already blocked at Wikinews [7]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Now blocked here as a sockpuppet. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Archive link behaving weirdly

I was going through the refideas at Talk:She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, and when I attempted to add an archive link for this citation, it didn't seem to work. The archived content appeared normally, then it redirected to this link. This does not seem ideal for readability. This happened with both the previous most recent archiving and my own attempt to archive it. (Also when I attempted to archive it, the banner at the top is green in the archive, as opposed to yellow in the actual article? No idea why.)

This isn't happening with the two oldest archivings ([8] [9]), so in the end it should be fine, but I'd still like to know why this is happening. Is it something about Syfy.com as a domain? If anyone knows, please tell me.

Thanks. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Article Rama

Re Article Rama 2402:1980:8464:422:0:0:0:1 (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If you have a question, then what is the question? -- Hoary (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article about Rama. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

How to use Literal books not online as citation for Wikipedia

I have noticed that when given articles to contribute to, I can barely find any online citation, or most instances the only source is the Wikipedia page itself, were I to find an actual book on the subject matter, would that suffice as a relevant citation or is Wikipedia specific to just internet literature? I would love advice on this. Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Anoghena Okoyomoh: You can absolutely use sources not online. For example, you can use {{Cite book}} and provide the relevant info (title, author, etc) of the book. Since it is not online, you would omit the URL info. RudolfRed (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

ah, so treat it like how I would normally cite an authority in any literary work? Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Correct! RudolfRed (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Anoghena Okoyomoh:, I agree with what RudolfRed said above, plus it is often helpful to the reader and to other editors who are trying to verify, for you to include the exact page number(s), and if possible an exact quote (in the Quote field in the hidden/extra fields). [If you want to get really fancy, you can include the chapter title, especially if the chapter has a different author than the overall book -- in which case you would use the chapter author in the author field, and the editor's name in the editor field.] Softlavender (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Anoghena Okoyomoh In addition to the above, I would recommend searching the Internet Archive's Texts to Borrow to see if a digital copy could be linked (alongside |"url-access=registration" in the citation) for ease of WP:VERIFIABILITY.

If there is no digital copy availible, it would still be advisable to link either to the book's page on its publisher's website, or page on Google Books, so that someone looking to verify the information has a place to start. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this, it's very helpful and I'll learn how to do the link on Google books. In the risk of sounding ungrateful

b

wouldn't linking it to the Publisher's websitcoesidered n be not a neutral POV, for instance, I want to contribute to the Seychelles National Movement and the publisher is same as the only authority, one could connote that this makes the information provided bias? No? Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo on my last comment, I meant *Publisher's website be considered to be not from a Neutral POV* Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Anoghena Okoyomoh No need to worry. Asking a good faith question about the content of advice you've been given is not ungratefulness; it is curiosity and critical thinking.

What you're describing seems to be less an issue of what you link to in a citation, and more of a citation itself being a WP:PRIMARY source, which, while still acceptable in many cases, should not be the main source of an article's content.

Seeing that the article you mentioned above (incidentally, it's good practice to WP:WIKILINK such things in these kinds of discussions) is a stub with great room for expansion, please ensure the majority of the content you add is sourced to WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT sources. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for the advice, truly, and also thank you for the Texts to Borrow link, I intend to use for my Wikipedia contributions as well as my everyday reading. 🖤 Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Anoghena Okoyomoh Happy to help. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If you don't mind, are there any other Wikipedia forums that I can join, where I might ask questions and learn the ropes and culture of Wikipedia? I'm drowning here and some admins aren't patient with us newbies, I just got a topic I raised on here deleted or archived, and I'm trying not to give up but it's becoming more and more hard. I just need guidance and freedom to ask questions or ask for help. Thank you. 🥺🖤 Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Anoghena Okoyomoh I think you have raised a very valid point. The Teahouse is generally designed to resolve questions, and this applies equally as well to the Wikipedia:Village pump. There are many types of issues for which this is not the case. One thing to remember is that essentially everything you do or say on WP is visible to every other WP user. So notwithstanding the fact that I definitely don't have all the answers (even with a fair amount of experience), I'll invite you to ask me at User talk:Fabrickator, with the disclaimer that nothing I say has any official significance. (Hopefully it is not breaking a rule for me to make this invitation.) Fabrickator (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Links invisible

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T356928

Is it just me or are some hyperlinks in articles like this example, suddenly invisible in black with the rest of the normal text instead of the obvious blue? Bzik2324 (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It may be just you. Or you may have your user preferences to use that color for visited links. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist so how do I fix it? It was never like that before. Bzik2324 (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bzik2324: Actually it turns out it isn't just you. See the section above: #Black now, not dark blue. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

See Phabricator:T356928 ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Some doubts related to my newly created drafts

Hello!! I have some drafts that I recently created and submitted for review. However, they are taking a longer time than expected to be reviewed. Is there a way to expedite the review process? Also, how can I check for any grammatical mistakes in my articles? Kemilliogolgi (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Kemilliogolgi. You can expedite the review process by only submitting well-written and well-referenced drafts about clearly notable topics. A look at all the messages on your talk page indicates that you are submitting drafts with lots of problems. Read all the links on those messages. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Kemilliogolgi Reviews are conducted in no particular order by volunteers, doing what they can when they can. There isn't a specific way to ensure a speedy review other than doing as Culllen328 advises. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Important Message

i think i did a mistake, i created an new article about the Redmi Note 13 and received an Warning message stating that page will be redirect to List of Redmi products article. Please do not redirect the page i created. It's about a Smartphone and it should be an article rather than being redirected to another article Akhinesh777 (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

That warning is for the reviewer. If your article is accepted, they will need to get that redirect deleted before moving it to article namespace. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

However, while waiting for the draft to be reviewed, Ahkinesh777, I suggest you find some independent sources about it. At present, as far as I can see, it hasn't got a single one. {{UD/WINI}}

My guess is that it is WP:TOOSOON for an article about this phone, and you should leave it for several months to see if anybody writes a substantial review in a reliable source. Otherwise you are wasting your time. ColinFine (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

So, i let the article abandoned. I would create another article instead of this Akhinesh777 (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Non-free image for userboxes

Hi all, I want to know can non-free files used on templates, especially userboxes. I've created {{TGGC member}} and used w:File:Emblem of the Turkish Gendarmerie.png, a non-free emblem in an... userbox and I think it's applicable for illustrate the emblem, after reading its rationale. Is it legal? Kys5g ^talk! 08:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Kys5g, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is, No.

WP:NFCC item 9 says: Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in the article namespace, subject to exemptions. (The exemptions are not relevant to your question) ColinFine (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Kys5g ^talk! 11:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hyperlinks

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T356928

Just noticed that hyperlinks will turn black after being clicked once instead of the usual purple. I don't know if this is to do with Wikipedia or MediaWiki, but I wanted to raise the concern as I feel this could be a counterproductive feature, as it effectively makes hyperlinks invisible after being clicked. GOLDIEM J (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@GOLDIEM J: Hi. Everything looks normal to me. What skin/theme are you using? Maybe the settings of your browser changed? Or maybe there's a black hole in the proximity? —usernamekiran (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I access Wikipedia using Google Chrome on iOS. I don't know much about settings beyond that, but I certainly haven't changed anything manually. GOLDIEM J (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a known bug on mobile right now and is being worked on. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Newspapers.com

Can it be used as a source? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@GabrielPenn4223 It's a little like asking if YouTube can be used as a source, but many of the newspapers on it will in general be WP:RS for a lot of stuff. Context matters. Newspapers.com is not the source per se, it's just where you found the sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:PAYWALL may be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@GabrielPenn4223 And there's Wikipedia:Newspapers.com for both more specific information about getting free paid access via Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library (once an editor reaches the requirements: 500+ edits, 6+ months editing, 10+ edits in the last month, no active blocks) and how to cite it. One thing of note about Newspapers.com is that, in general I believe, you can use their clippings [10] feature to share content that you may be able to see that otherwise is behind a paywall (like this example: Potatoes) but be aware that requires a newspapers.com account and it leaks your newspapers.com account name; even with that limitation, it's moderately well used on Wikipedia in terms of the number of links in articles. Skynxnex (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, what is the point of this:[11]? Are you trying to get blocked again? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

No this is not vandalism, it's an actual metric-related phrase often used in schools GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

While King Henry actually didn't die from drinking chocolate milk; It's a metric-related phrase often used in education. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If you say so. Never heard of it, and the article doesn't mention it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've learnt something today:[12] I apologize for my comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@GabrielPenn4223, I hope you don't mind:[13]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

An message for everyone, i did a mistake

Soory, i did a mistake. It's not Vandalism and do not block me i apologize for everything that i did wrongly

I accidentally removed the links in the Redmi Note 12 Article. I thought that article is about Redmi Note 13 Akhinesh777 (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Akhinesh777, the nice thing about page history being public is that it's extremely easy to undo mistakes. So no worries, and carry on! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki-tan related questions

Hello, teahouse. Today my questions are as follows: 1. Is Wiki-tan public domain? 2. If I were to, per se, draw an image of Wiki-tan cosplaying as Abraham Lincoln and place that image on the Wikipedia page of Abraham Lincoln under the "in popular culture" section, would this be allowed? Should I BEBOLD and do it? Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @UnexpectedSmoreInquisition - please don't actually do that. Pop culture sections attract enough cruft as it is; fan illustrations, unless they're notable in themselves in some way (i.e. they've been covered by reliable sources), would aggravate the problem. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sungodtemple and ip: Thank you both for your takes. I wasn't really planning on going through with the Abraham Lincoln thing (until, perhaps, April Fools day....) Cheers! UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@UnexpectedSmoreInquisition My personal view is that this is a serious encyclopaedia which ought, after 21 years, to have fully come of age and to be seen as acting responsibly for all those who use it. I don't feel any joking or mischief within mainspace is at all appropriate, and should be kept wholly within userpages and behind the scenes admin-type pages (if it has to be anywhere).

But then I'm an old grump! Nick Moyes (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

We do have guidelines more or less to that effect. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I'll try to stay on track and keep the DOFing to a minimum. And I'll try really, really hard to remain serious on April Fools day. No vandalism* (*this kind of stuff) in mainspace. However, I will probably still participate. Have a good day, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

UnexpectedSmoreInquisition WP:WIKITAN is likely CC-BY-SA 3.0, since most of Kasuga's drawings of Wikipe-tan are uploaded under that license.

For #2, I would advise against it (per the comment above). There isn't a popular culture section in the first place. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Why was I rejected for a biographical submission of a person?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Haden_Christian_Yonce&action=edit Yoncehc (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Because your draft is nonsense. I have tagged it for speedy deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It's wasn't nonsense, but I have nevertheless deleted it as not being appropriate for Wikipedia. We are not a free webhosting service. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Help get article approved

Draft: Mohit Joshi, was declined after 3rd edit, please guide me through on how I can get it approved. Tanmay.s.15 (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Tanmay.s.15, at the top, you can see "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)." Perhaps part of this is (or parts of it are) difficult to understand. If so, which part(s)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoary (talk • contribs) 05:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Help me get approval for a biographical article

Draft:Mohit Joshi , This is the 3rd time my article was declined, please guide me through to get it published. Tanmay.s.15 (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tanmay.s.15 Welcome to Teahouse. On 17th of October and again on 18th of October, reviewers declined the article (with opportunity to improve it) and explained to you that you are not using WP:RELIABLE sources. I see you have made genuine effort to include sources since then. So please submit it again. But remember, WP:TEAHOUSE is not the place to request a fast-track approval. Be bold and submit it for review. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a talk page which has become very hostile towards editors of specific opinion(s)

The page is Talk:Dean Schneider. I've already removed several personal attacks using WP:RPA, but there are multiple editors who are creating a hostile environment for other editors through repeated personal attacks and other threats. I was thinking about mentioning this page on WP:COI/N but I am not sure if that is the right place for this.

The editors who are hostile all seem to be "fans" of "Dean Schneider" and intimidate any editor who talks "unfavourably" about him, and additionally create an environment in which people who read the page are discouraged from even posting anything "unfavourable" by creating examples "of what happens to such a person", such as ridicule and other forms of verbal abuse. Ybllaw (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ybllaw You did right to remove the personal attack remarks. But I see no evidence in the 'View History' record of any ongoing hostile environment there. Most comment seem to have been made two or three years ago. Please just continue watching the page and reverting any future inappropriate remarks, reporting any editors as appropriate. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I left a warning on the profile page of both involved editors. It is indeed quite old.

The page is still a bit off a mess currently though. Some of the topics on the talk page contain text with all caps and contain very emotional language that are quite certainly original research and riddled with logical fallacies. Is there any other measure possible to clean it up in case there of future editors? Ybllaw (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I archived the old discussions. Nick Moyes, I did not see the point in removing those comments: they're pretty incoherent anyway. I wish Ybllaw had not placed those warnings: there's really no purpose in warning for edits from four years ago, and if anything it might alert those disruptive editors to come back and do more of it. Also, I do not believe you came to that page completely impartially. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that they were innocent. I think they clearly violated the policy on personal attacks, nothing "innocent" about them. I thought I saw that one of those I warned had edited more recently again in 2022 and hence thinking it was still an active user, which apparently is not the case. Ybllaw (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

No one used the term "innocent". --ARoseWolf 18:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems I misread incoherent for "innocent" there. Ybllaw (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies

I don't agree with "tolerating it out of fear that they would come back". I think if they would do it again it would mean they have already been warned. As for questioning my lack of impartiality, perhaps you mean my use of scare quotes. I think it did not effect the content of what I wrote. As for not being "completely impartial", the page WP:NPOV says "as far as possible, without editorial bias". Ybllaw (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Even though they hadn't for four years? I think that's a stretch. I'm inclined to agree with Drmies and their concern about how you have come to that page. I believe leaving warnings on editors pages for events that happened four years ago may be equally as disruptive as the event was in the first place. --ARoseWolf 18:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. I suggest to agree to disagree. Ybllaw (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ybllaw Well, you would be wrong! It is not necessary or, indeed, appropriate to leave warnings for poor edits made by someone many years ago, though you do right to undo them if they still remain. There are administrators and numerous experienced editors here who made silly mistakes - a few even vandalised- when they made their first edits, and we would not expect you to be going back and warning them of their early errors years ago. So, no matter what you may think, please avoid doing that, even though it was obviously done in all good faith.

In other words, please listen to the advice more experienced editors such as ARoseWolf may offer you as to the best way to operate here, and you'll fit in fine. If you choose to go against consensus or the accepted way we do things just because you 'choose to disagree', then it does tend to make things more problematic. Obviously a new editor won't necessarily know what that consensus may be - hence why listening to the advice of experienced editors and hosts at the Teahouse is often very worthwhile. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Ybllaw, to that point I made numerous errors when I first came to Wikipedia. Some were corrected by others at the time and I was properly chastised and learned from them, some I went back and corrected myself, yet others have been corrected over time. Not once was I warned about edits that took place three years ago. Some of those articles are still on my watchlist. I have thanked those who corrected it. We are human, and humans make mistakes. That is why it is a good idea to be civil at all times, even with vandals. Warning people about edits made years ago will either enrage them or tempt them to return, or you may be warning a very collaborative editor who has learned and become more experienced. In that case your warning has become the first impression they have of you as a not so civil member of this community. I don't want that for you or them.

In the end I agree with Nick, 100% fix the mistakes, but then move on. When I am patrolling new changes I try to understand why someone is making the edit. If it is not blatant vandalism I do not warn. If I think the editor is trying to improve but has missed the mark I may offer some advice but that is not a time to correct with harsh words or predetermined templates. Just take these things into consideration. --ARoseWolf 12:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Closing moves

I want to close the rename request of Talk:Jupiter_(god)#Requested_move_7_February_2024 since they want to close it ASAP but WP:RMCLOSE tells me not to if I ever opened a request (which I made a few RM). So it means that people that have participated in /opened an RM are precluded from closing it? JuniperChill (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @JuniperChill and welcome to the tea house. A couple of points: deciding to close a move request before the 7 day period should normally be done by an editor with existing experience closing RMs. So, I'd leave weighing the participants in the RM to someone else (assuming the participants are the "they" in your question). Secondly, I think you may be misreading WP:RMCLOSE slightly. The bullet points you mention, You have ever opened a request to move the page and You have ever supported or opposed a request to move the page, are about the page in question for the RM and not just any requested move anywhere. I don't see any place you've edited anything related to Jupiter (god) so I think by the criteria, you'd be uninvolved and "allowed" to close the RM. So, you're able to close it but I'd advice leaving it to another editor (but please pay attention to how it's close to help you learn so in the future you'd feel comfortable closing such requests if you're interested.) Skynxnex (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I chose to withdraw my plan to close the Jupiter move article move before @Skynxnex's comment. Yeah, I misread it thinking that it says "You have ever opened a request to move a page", not "the page" Because I started an RM to move some railway companies to their local name Talk:Swedish Rail Administration to Banverket.

But yes, it seems unusual for someone with 200 edits to close an RM, let alone one that is not 7 days old. JuniperChill (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It may be a bit early for you to start closing discussions, @JuniperChill. I would suggest you participate in some of them first, then do a few closes in your mind and see whether they match the actual closes that experienced editors do. Only after you are certain you will get your closes right almost all the time should you start actually performing them.

As for your specific question, you are not supposed to close discussions that you maybe biased as to the outcome or if you are likely to be seen as having bias by others. You can not close the RMs that you open or the ones you participate in, but you can close RMs that others have opened and discussed in. If you have never edited that article substantially, nor others articles about Jupiter, nor expressed opinions in previous discussions anywhere about whether articles like it should use "god" or "mythology" or something else in the title, then you are allowed to close that discussion. Hope that's clear. You should read WP:RMCLOSE multiple times and carefully, before you start closing RMs. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Linking translates pages?

Hello!

An article I wrote, Hans Geissel was just published. I also wrote the translated version in the German Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Geissel.

Should the two articles be linked via the language-menu? How can I do that?

The "add language" section seems to be mostly for creating a new translation rather than linking an existing one. Dediggefedde (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dediggefedde, where is the "add language" section? I was just looking around and I accidentally linked the German and Polish articles to English. So, that's been done. Do you see on the left side bar of the article, under "tools", the link for "wikidata item"? Wikidata is what links all the languages. So, you should edit the Wikidata item to add all the articles in various languages that there are. Also, on the left side bar of the article, at the bottom, under "languages" was the button that lets you search for other articles to link to. It also does the same thing, ie. edit the wikidata item. Feel free to ask again if you don't find those options. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool Thank you a lot for linking the pages! And thanks for explaining about wikidata.

My page layout seems to be a bit different. The "tools"-Menu is on the right side. There is also no "languages" on the left sidebar. Instead, the left side has only "Main Menu" and "Contents". At the top on the right side there is a link "2 Languages", which opens a menu telling me "Missing in Français, Boarisch and more" and which has a link to "+ Add languages" where I have a live editor to add a new translation. Dediggefedde (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh. I guess you're using the new skin from 2022, which is probably the default. And I guess I never bothered. Anyway, I just switched to 2022, and I can see on the right side, under "Tools", under "General", "wikidata item" and "edit interlanguage links". Do you see those? Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Ping @Dediggefedde. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked User

Hey there, I was blocked on the basis of suspecsion but I was not a sock. I tried to contest my block but administrators once blocked me did not show interest in unblocking me. I was so disappointed as all my articles probably 100+ I created were deleted. Now that I want to create new articles, I'm afraid they'll waste. What am I supposed to do? AsiaTV45 (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

You're not supposed to create yet another account. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

You are supposed to figure out a way to get unblocked. This account will be blocked soon too. Go back to your original account and find a way to get unblocked. Then, the community will listen to what you have to say about your articles. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

ARchive and auto-archive on my talk page

I was not planning to archive anything on my talk page, but I think it might be a good idea now. It can take a long time to scroll down and read everything now. Can one of you instruct me on how to set up an archive that instantly archives all of what is currently there and then will archive all going forward monthly after that? Iljhgtn (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Iljhgtn - the simplest way is explained at Help:Archiving (plain and simple), or if you want to customise it, please see Help:Archiving a talk page - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Technical question on Wikipedia

I cannot put a screenshot of what I see for copyright reasons. Thank you so much 14 novembre (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

What are you trying to add? Iljhgtn (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I add a lot of book covers and movie/film posters. I could probably help with other things too, if you let me know what it is that you are trying to add and on which page. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Colpo grosso a Berlino 14 novembre (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you have the official page from which the movie comes from? I can help upload this for you. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Not the page on wikipedia, but like if it has its own movie page or otherwise. Saves me some time if you can link to that for me. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.raisport.rai.it/dl/raiSport/media/Colpo-Grosso-a-Berlino-bdb186f1-fbdc-417b-a68c-3047934706a9.html 14 novembre (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah so I found that link too, but that does not have the official movie poster listed, it seems to just show the film itself. Do you know where the official movie poster might be linked out to? I made a film page for example for this movie called "No Control", and you can see the movie poster and lots of official info linked here, just as an example. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If anything like that exists, and you can help me find it, then I can help upload the image of a non-free file (which is what we do when the image is protected by copyright law). Iljhgtn (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

https://programma.sorrisi.com/rai-sport-colpo-grosso-a-berlino-250156/ 14 novembre (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I am still not seeing any official movie poster there that could be used in the infobox of this article. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

but also, if i search the title on Google and i search images, I can see a black image with the title of the film which is the opening picture. Anyway thanks Very much 14 novembre (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Colpo grosso a Berlino is not a movie, but a TV documentary, hence the lack of a "poster". You might be able to take a screen-shot of the title card, but that does not contain much information. - Arjayay (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Arjayay Yes that is what I wanted 14 novembre (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

i only add official movie posters, so i will not be able to help with that since i am not sure what the rules are governing copyright around that then. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn OK. Thanks all the same. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Pages that have multiple wikiprojects on their talk page not in a banner shell

I think when there are multiple "wikiprojects" on a talk page, it is customary to wrap them up in a "banner shell" for ease of viewing etc.? Is there a way to pull a list of any/all pages that have such wikiprojects listed that are not already wrapped in a wpbs? Iljhgtn (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn There are two bots going around doing this. They will likely be done by the end of the year. I would suggest leaving it up to them. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

oh i did not know that. interesting. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn I, on the other hand, am close to breaking point waiting for my watchlist to finally clear. It's as though I am being deliberately targeted. There are seven million articles on Wikipedia and somehow these bots seem to find 100+ from my watchlist every day. Anyway, check out cewbot and qwerfjkl (bot). I think the first one is adding banner shells and the second one is consolidating article ratings. I wanted to complain somewhere but people were already having a fistfight over at WT:BRFA, so I am sucking it up. Hehe, Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry UTBC. Have you tried excluding the tag 'talk banner shell conversion'? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I saw various workarounds suggested at BRFA. I haven't tried any of those. I am just waiting. Maybe I will. At this point, I am more curious just how long the bots manage to keep finding articles on my watchlist. I've only got about 12K pages watched. But, thanks FFF. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

hi! what's tips you have for new editors?

D

RSTWolf (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@RSTWolf There's a welcome message on your talk page to get you started. For my tips, click on my signature >> Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Question

Do you have something like it:WP:Lavoro sporco/calcio this here on en wiki? Thank you so much 14 novembre (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Something like what @14 novembre? 57.140.16.1 (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This 14 novembre (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@14 novembre we have Category:Association football and Category:WikiProject Football. Frietjes (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Frietjes Thank you so much. Is there something where there are requested articles on this topic? 14 novembre (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@14 novembre you could try Wikipedia:Requested articles/Sports/Association football (soccer) or start a thread at WT:WikiProject Football. Frietjes (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Frietjes Thank you so much, that is waht I was looking for. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Gujarat model Hindu fascism and xenophobia is infiltrating Wiki

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1179632059

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1179632059

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1179632306

curious man123 has been repeatedly editing wikipedia with xenophobic motives for the creolised Indo-Portuguese Damanese people; who are a small minority after Gujarati population has largely displaced them in their home territory: Damaon town and Dio island.

Hindu fascism or Hindu Nazism against minorities is popular particularly in Gujarat because of the 2002_Gujarat_riots and also in Maharashtra because of Hindu Maharashtri supremacists of Shiv Sena. Damaon is a small territory engulfed and surrounded by these two large states and the ideologies of their administrations.

Curious man123 claims that mentioning Indo-Portuguese era names Damaon and Dio is a crime against common usage wiki rules? Is that so? Are minority usages supposed to be suppressed and censored by the "common" or majority usages on wiki? What wiki rules apply to the user and the edits linked above? 2409:4071:6EB0:F388:E0B1:261E:1B88:E18B (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

No idea. 14 novembre (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@14 novembre please don't reply to the posts to say you don't know the answer. Not making the reply at all is much better. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool ok 14 novembre (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you basing your complaint entirely on the reverts they made and the edit summaries they used. They are not being unreasonable, they are just disagreeing with you. You should not jump to conclusions that they are fascist just because they disagree with you. You should contact them on their talk page or start a discussion on the articles' talk page and try to persuade them to your point of view. See WP:BRD for how it works. Just for your information, you may get broader input at WT:INDIA. If it helps, editors by and large on Wikipedia, are not xenophobic or fascist. Anyone who outs themself as such get promptly removed. So, it's best to start with an assumption of good faith. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

IP editor, Teahouse hosts cannot help you with deep seated ethno-nationalist and religious disputes, but I would caution you against using highly charged and accusatory language. Discuss the issues first in a calm and dispassionate way on the talk pages of the relevant articles. If that does not work, there are several forms of dispute resolution available to you. Cullen328 (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Citing sources

While citing sources, will that be an issue if I didn't put citations on each and every line? I mean, if a single source covers the entire context for paragraph, a single citation be enough? Imperial^[AFCND] 17:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

No 14 novembre (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@ImperialAficionado it is not an issue. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Imperial^[AFCND] 17:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@ImperialAficionado I am not sure what you got from the exchange above, so I am answering again: All claims you make in an article need to be supported by sources but you don't need inline citations for every sentence. It is perfectly fine to put one citation at the end of the paragraph if it covers everything in the paragraph. When you are making extraordinary claims about living people, it is advisable to put your citations as close to the claim as possible. So, in those cases, it may be necessary to cite the same source multiple times in the same paragraph. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! Imperial^[AFCND] 18:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

why was my edit removed

my edit was removed Smartfd (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It was vandalism (and, by extension, so is this mock-innocent question). One more, and you'll be blocked from editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

oh ok i get it thank you Smartfd (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Smartfd Your first edit appeared to me to be a good faith addition of factual information, but your second was blatant vandalism. The first was reverted for lack of a reference. David notMD (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

What kind of citations are appropriate for articles about video games?

Hi! I have some interest in trying to create a draft for a video game I enjoy, but I'm not sure what kind of sources I could use. The original page is in japanese- the game itself does have a translation and a blurb of info with it, but it's on an unofficial translation page, so I don't know if it would be OK. Other posts seem to be on either fandom wikis or tv tropes. Would it even be possible to get enough citations to create an article? Chordcode (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

As with everything, @Chordcode, some video games are notable, some aren't. Very high quality articles of substantial sizes have been written about popular video games. So, the question is just how big the game you want to write about is. You can use Japanese sources. But you are right. The kind of sources you have mentioned are not usable. You need to find game reviews from reputable sources, news and magazine articles and such. If it's an old but not very popular game, you need to look for books and technical or sociological papers and such and see whether the game is historically important, whether its themes have been analysed, whether it impacted or influenced other games or gaming culture, whether it had any impact in the society that was discussed. Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Seeing the type of references I should be using, I don't think the game is notable enough for an article. But it's nice to know what I can use in the future :) Chordcode (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

First attempt at a citation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sniper_(poem) << I've recently tried to add a source for this article since I found the poem online elsewhere. Can someone double-check and look over to make sure I'm doing it right? Also that the source is actually reliable. Thanks! Sock-the-guy (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sock-the-guy, well, the formatting is correct. You need to next add the references section. See WP:REFB. As to what a citation is and is supposed to do, there's work to be done. So, the source appears to be reliable, but I'm mainly going by the domain name. As to the purpose, here's what we can learn from the source: The Sniper was a poem by WD Cocker. It's found in Poems Scots and English (Brown, Son & Ferguson, 1932). So, the citation does one thing: verify that the poem was written by someone called WD Cocker. Our article makes more claims in that paragraph that remain unsourced, so we need more sources that verify those claims. And, the source you cited has information not yet in the article. So, you could add to the article that the poem is in Poems Scots and English (Brown, Son & Ferguson, 1932) using that source. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

COPYRIGHT ISSUE?? The Sniper (poem), article created in 2006, claims the poem was written in 1917, but the recently added reference is to publication in 1932. Is this a copyright issue? David notMD (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah! I don't know haha. Does it? That'd be an awkward first attempt at a citation wouldn't it... Sock-the-guy (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This says it's from a book called "From the Line" but I need to dig a bit more to find that. https://asls.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/WW1_Poetry_Teaching_Notes.pdf EDIT: Found here? https://asls.org.uk/publications/books/volumes/from_the_line/ Sock-the-guy (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Citing that link is not a violation because it says at the bottom that it was published with permission from the publisher. Given it's library.org.uk, I think we can trust that. As for reproducing the whole poem, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to do that anyway. Free documents belong at wikisource not wikipedia. Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi can someone please review this page draft:mynampallyrohit

Hi I have made all the necessary changes after the rejection, can someone please verify and publish the page. I've requested many times and its been 3 weeks already. Nishikanthprabhu (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

You have not submitted it for review? Theroadislong (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Mynampally Rohit was indeed resubmitted for review, on 20 January.

Please see the message at the top: This may take 6 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,654 pending submissions waiting for review. ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It was Declined, not Rejected (which is more final). Teahouse Hosts are here to Advise, but most are not Reviewers. Asking for a Review here will not speed up the process. David notMD (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

How to get started?

Good afternoon,

I am a new editor and I am a bit overwhelmed with the enormous amount of policies on Wikipedia. Is there a one-page summary of them around? I don't want to keep getting warnings on my talk page when I'm here to try to make helpful edits.

Thanks and I look forward to a response so that I can make useful edits here. WizardGamer775 (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@WizardGamer775 welcome to the Teahouse. I might suggest you read through Help:Getting started.

It can be overwhelming here at first, so take things slowly and listen to any advice or revert rationales you might be given. I see another admin has left some helpful supportive advice for you on your user page. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Sksiwiwiwiwoww

Their userpage says that they're an admin, AfC patroller, autopatrolled, New Page Reviewer, rollback, and page mover, but Special:ListUsers doesn't??? 32.220.205.180 (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Tollens reported Sksiwiwiwiwoww to AIV. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello IP user! They've been blocked by Bbb23 for disruptive editing. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 01:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Account trouble

I created an account and í was logged out and my password whouldn’t Work. I tried doing password reset but the email whouldn’t work. 136.33.235.64 (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The password reset requires that you previously enabled this feature. It's not on by default. If you can't remember your password and you didn't set it up, your only option is to select a new username. Fabrickator (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I know my password it just whouldn’t work while trying to sign in 136.33.235.64 (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Make sure your caps lock is not on when typing your password. That's a common error. If your password is not working, and the reset feature was not enabled or did not work, we unfortunately can't help you with that, and you will need to create a new account. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Creating a theme

This doesn't seem like an easy thing to do, but I'm going to ask it anyways.

I run Linux with a custom tiling window manager setup with the Catppuccin Mocha theme. The colors list is available at https://catppuccin.ryanccn.dev/palette; Mocha is the last one, so you'll have to scroll to the very bottom.

Anyways, I've been theming the websites I use the most, and for most of them I have to install an extension. Wikipedia is nice and has theming functionality built in. However, it's also very not nice in that writing CSS for it is confusing because the classes are a big mess.

Ideally, my theme should work with both Vector 2010 and 2022.

Any guidance? —charmquark ^she/_they talk contribs 01:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC) edit: fix signature - looks like I forgot to change my custom signature after I changed by username

​@Charmquark try your luck at WP:VPT maybe? Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

on more naming shenanigans

how does renaming or proposing the renaming of images work?

and for the specific case this is about, which is gardevoir (yes, it's exactly what it looks like), is pixiv a good enough source for an image if proper artist permission is gotten and credit is given? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 02:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cogsan: For renaming files, see WP:FFR. There is a list of nine reasons liked there. If your proposed rename is for one of those reasons, follow the instruction there on how to request a rename.

For adding a new image, it will need to meet all of the criteria at WP:NFCC, unless it is licensed in a way that allows for reuse for any purpose. I did not see anything in the Pixiv article that mentions how the images are licensed. RudolfRed (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

If people on Pixiv submit their own derivative versions of copyrighted works, then no, permission on Pixiv isn't sufficient, it's still non-free content subject to our rules about non-free content. I could draw Mickey Mouse as he appears in modern times but I would not be able to grant permission to others to publish it because I don't own the copyright to any images of the character. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Bug with IP blocking?

I accidentally left my VPN on and went to make a change to an article. But I was logged in so I shouldn't have been blocked But I got a message my IP was blocked, even though I was logged in, but when I turned off the VPN it worked. I know you cant edit with a VPN if your not logged into an account, but I was logged into my account so I shouldn't have been blocked. I'm confused. Is this a bug? Where do I report this bug? AKFkrewfamKF1 (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@AKFkrewfamKF1: You need the user right "IP block exemption" to edit from a blocked IP address, even if you are logged in. This isn't a bug, it's deliberate. When I block an IP address, I have a choice whether to disallow logged-in users from editing from that IP address. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Not a bug. These types of blocks apply whether you are logged in or not. RudolfRed (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@AKFkrewfamKF1: I'll add that you can request IP block exemption, but you would need to demonstrate a need, either by being a trusted high-volume contributor, or be living under a government regime that would harm you for writing things the government deems objectionable. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@RudolfRed and Anachronist: you guys missed a fine opportunity for "it's not a bug, it's a feature" joke. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Account trouble

I have an IP account, and have been consittently blocked. I have created an account, but í got logged out and my password whouldn’t work. When trying to reset, my email won’t work. 136.33.235.64 (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

What does "consittently" mean? Based on the misspellings made in this request, it seems likely that the password or email was misspelled when the account was created. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

You stated this same problem a few hours earlier (see earlier entry) and it was answered there. David notMD (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Please help me improve my article

I got the article Paul Haase which I created from draft to article space but it still does not meet standards it seems because it is covered with tags (which you can't hide). How do I improve it? I don't think there are more sources, I couldn't even find a picture of its subject. Prolete (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

A picture of Haase would be nice, but is not considered essential. (Perhaps one could eventually be found in newspaper archives.)

The two Tag boxes specify in what general aspects the article is deficient, with three listed in the first box (the second box repeats an aspect from the first). Each one of those has a link to a specific Project page: follow each of the three links, read the material in those pages, consider how in their light the article could be improved, and then attempt to make improvements. You could also look for collaborators through appropriate Wikiprojects, etc.

There is no deadline, as every article in Wikipedia is an ongoing project, but when you consider significant improvements have been made, you can ask another editor, such as FULBERT who I think added the tags, to review the improvements and consider removing some or all of them. Hope this helps {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.107.217 (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I have searched for a picture but can't find one. Only two adverts that he had written for his school. Thanks for your honest opinions. Prolete (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I see this article has now been nicely improved. FULBERT (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Page Restore

One Page named Joy e-bike got deleted from Wikipedia couple of days ago. I need to store it. Please help.

OnkarPawar7596 (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

OnkarPawar7596, Joy e-bike was deleted as the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joy e-bike. If you have good reasons why the decision was or is invalid, then read WP:DELREV very carefully. If on the other hand you want to reuse some of the material that was in it, then read WP:RFU very carefully. -- Hoary (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

CAD (USD) converts

Is it possible to convert from CAD to USD while keeping both figures, for example, 10 kg (22 lb) in the measurement converter? 20 upper (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @20 upper: yes, but the template is different from the unit converter one; use instead {{To USD}}. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

New

oh hi, guys thanks Sopresa (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Sopresa hello! Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia CSS - background

Is there any way to change the overall white background colour in Wikipedia/mediawiki to a custom image/colour? (^∙w∙^)/ Gale + talk 11:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, EastBlowingGale. This is not something I've ever tried, but a few moments on Google came up with a possible answer for you to investigate for yourself: https://www.hostknox.com/knowledgebase/681/How-to-change-background-colors-in-MediaWiki.html

Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!! I've mostly struggled with finding the element names for mediawiki and that site has most of them ^^ (^∙w∙^)/ Gale + talk 12:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

References

I am currently in the process of making a new page about a chinese cultivation game. I would like to ask if you are allowed to use references where the reference is written in full chinese, so non english ones.

And if so how to determine what reference is best, considering chinese censorship sometimes and also considering the lack of info about wich chinese sites are better from a journalistic point of view? Drakkar68 (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Drakkar68 non-English references are completely okay per WP:NOENG.

When considering the reliability of any source, you may want to post on the reliable sources noticeboard. Make sure to also search the archives for past discussions about the source, and check perennial sources. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

That answered all my questions.

Thank you for the fast response Drakkar68 (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Accused of blanking by system, was not blanking

was trying to create romanian article for pink pantheress, article did not exist, yet i was accused of blanking.do keep in mind im new to this.thanks Icykenny36 (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Icykenny36, if this is about the Romanian Wikipedia, then you will have to ask there. Different language Wikipedias are completely separate projects. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sungodtemple The edit filter log shows some insight into what happened, not a Romanian Wikipedia issue. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, it appears that you were trying to translate an article in English into Romanian. However, this is the English Wikipedia, so you were replacing English text into Romanian text, so an WP:edit filter prevented your edit. (your edit filter log) You should go to Romanian Wikipedia instead, and translate the text there. Please see the help page WP:Translation for more info, and feel free to come back if you are still confused.

Pinging @Alexf, who warned you. Cheers, Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Radon

I made a discovery about radon. I’ve published A lot of papers about it. I also have a patent on a process for applying this discovery. What should I do to submit a brief summary that can be added to Radon Tosichinni (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Tosichinni. Wikipedia does not allow original research or primary sources so you will need to wait until this discovery has been reported in independent WP:Reliable sources. Please read WP:42 for the basics of what will be required. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Shantavira: While Wikipedia doesn't allow for original research, primary sources are allowed, but their use is restricted compared to secondary or tertiary. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

As to citing your own published work: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming." I recommend not citing your own work, or at most a reference ot two, and definitely not any patent. David notMD (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply.

The discovery is real and very significant, but it was purely discovered by me (with support from major energy companies).

I feel shut out because I didn’t do this within the university or government environment, where everyone supports everyone else.

I guess I’m just way ahead of my time.

is there a wiki site that has a dialogue on the wiki process? Tosichinni (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

BTW, why doesn’t Wikipedia like patents? Tosichinni (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tosichinni: Wikipedia doesn't dislike patents. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, that's all. A patent is a primary source. A journal article you authored is a primary source. If you or your inventions are written about, then those would be secondary sources we could cite, and those secondary sources confer notability on a topic. Notability is required for a topic to have an article here. Hundreds of patents are granted every day. Not all of those inventions are notable by Wikipedia's definition of notability. As another editor already recommended to you, read WP:42 to get an understanding of what is required. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much.Thank you very much Tosichinni (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you were saying that I was cited.I may be misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you were saying that I was cited Tosichinni (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I have documented subsurface gammaray changes by a factor of 100 or more.

This is a major discovery, and probably an important health issue. It can happen at the surface. Tosichinni (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I presented a poster at Harvard years ago, I visited UC Santa Barbara to describe what I observed.

no interest because it “wasn’t invented here. “ Tosichinni (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a 'trailing indicator' of content. Unpublished content such as your research documents cannot be a reference. The publication of your poster in a conference proceedings would be a primary source. A description of your observation in a reputable source such as the New York Times would be a secondary source worth using as a reference to establish notability. David notMD (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tosichinni You say that you have published a lot of papers about your discovery, presumably in peer-reviewed academic journals. If so, it is likely that other scientists have cited these papers in subsequent work. Google Scholar will list these citations if you search for your own paper(s) or patent. It is these citations which are the secondary sources that Wikipedia prefers but in adding them to the radon article you may also cite your primary work: the idea is that the secondary, independent, mention of a publication is support that it has been accepted by the scientific community as part of mainstream science and not some sort of fringe claim which would be undue to form part of the radon article here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Watchlist problem

I want to exclude bot edits from showing on my watchlist and I have added 'Hide bot edits from the watchlist' to my preferences with the kind help of Scottyoak2. However, it is not activated automatically when I open my watchlist. Instead there is a 'Saved filters' box on the right and if I click on it I get a 'Delete bot edits' option. Is there a way I can get 'Delete bot edits' to be active automatically when I open my watchlist instead of having to activate it manually each time? I have a screen print in Word showing how the watchlist displays when I open it, but I do not know how to temporarily upload a document to display a problem, Dudley Miles (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Dudley Miles, I had the same issue, and I was too lazy to figure out how to get it to work, so what I've done instead is mute the bots individually. In my case only a few bots were responsible for the vast majority of bot edit notifications, so it was relatively easily done. I think it worked, but not 100% sure yet. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles, the procedure that I described on your talkpage works flawlessly for me, possibly because I use the non-javascript watchlist. Since you mentioned the 'Saved filters' box, I realize now that you might be using the javascript version of the watchlist. If you want to try the non-javascript interface, do this:

• Click here: Special:Preferences
• Go to the / Watchlist \ tab
• Scroll down to the heading called Advanced options
• Check the box beside Use non-JavaScript interface
• Scroll to the bottom and click the <Save> button.

Let us know if that works. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Scottyoak2 it did not work, but I have found - with some difficulty - how to mute bots as suggested by DoubleGrazing and that has solved the problem. Thanks to both of you. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Pictures

I keep trying to upload a picture to an article that I own the rights to, but it keeps being blocked. Please let me know how to move forward. Thanks. 207.229.144.46 (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

You haven't told us how you're uploading it or what error message you are seeing, but you will need to relinquish your rights in order to do so. I suggest you start by reading Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

You need to be logged into an account to upload images. What is your username? How are you uploading? What response are you getting? ColinFine (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Bibliography

I'm working on an article about an author who has written many books and other articles. Because I thought Wikipedia used MLA style, I set up a bibliography in the traditional way in that format — although I also broke it down further for ease of readers to "digest" according to publication genre (books vs. articles, etc.) and type of audience (children vs. adults).

In looking at a number of other Wiki articles on authors, however, I see that almost all bibliographies are in the form of a "List of References" organized according to publishing date. Is this, then, Wikipedia's preferred format? If so, would an article with a bibliography formatted in the traditional way be rejected until modified? Augnablik (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Augnablik, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia accepts several different citation styles, including MLA: see WP:Citing sources. Citation within an article should be in consistent style, as far as possible.

However, from Wikipedia's point of view, the important thing about citing sources is to provide verifiability for each claim about the subject, and (for the great bulk of these) to a cite a source wholly independent of the subject.

If you are writing an article about an author, then a selected bibliography is certainly a good idea; but citations of those works themselves are almost irrelevant. If you have citations for critical (or other) discussions of those works, by people unconnected with the author, they are far more to the point. ColinFine (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, ColinFine, for the good news in your first paragraph.

I'm not sure I understand your second one, though. You mention "a selected bibliography"; is that because bibliographies HAVE to be selected rather than complete for an author? I assumed complete, and I would hope that's all right for Wikipedia. Why wouldn't Wiki readers want a complete bibliography for an author? Augnablik (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

A Map For Rhodesia

A Globe Map For Rhodesia with the borders of the countries of that time would be pretty nice. ZombieGamerTakenUsernaam (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Zombie etc., and welcome to the Teahouse. No doubt it would, but it is unlikely that a volunteer here at the Teahouse will do anything about it. Whenever you ask for something to be created (even if you do ask for it, rather than just make an oblique statement about what might be nice), you are essentially asking for some volunteer to take up your request - you might be lucky, and you might not.

Probably better places to ask would be WP:WikiProject Maps and WP:WikiProject Zimbabwe - whether you'll have any success in either place, I can't tell. ColinFine (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

movie/book plots

I saw that on pages for movies and books, there is a section named "plot." These sections do not cite any sources, probably because the media requires payment to access. How does someone verify if the plot is accurate? AaronNinetyTwo (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, AaronNinetyTwo. The book or movie itself is the source for a plot section. To verify the accuracy, read the book or watch the movie. Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@AaronNinetyTwo, plots don't need to be cited— usually— per MOS:PLOT. ‍ Relativity 21:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

thank you, i understand AaronNinetyTwo (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Why were my Talk Topic & Replies Deleted?

Last night, I created a new Talk Topic that included FDA & CDC links. I included the same in replies to existing Talk threads. Today my Talk Topic & replies were deleted. Why? My sources are reputable. 2600:6C58:61F0:4CB0:3D38:EAA:C7B9:D69A (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The editor who deleted it used the edit summary Not a suggestion for how to improve the article. Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Talk Pages are for specific, actionable proposals to improve the article. They are not for general discussion of the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Avatar317 removed your post on Talk:Children's Health Defense, with the edit summary Not a suggestion for how to improve the article. Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Please look at that link, and if you disagree, discuss the matter on Avatar317's user talk page. ColinFine (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

In effect, it appears that you were creating new content for the article, with references, but only at Talk. More proper to edit the article, and if then reverted, defend the content you added, on the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

"Uncultured" word, yes or no?

An IP editor added a small change to a sentence of mine, here. I'm not a native english speaker, so I'm not quite sure whether IP editor is right or not. Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Z80Spectrum: I've reworded the sentence to avoid it making any judgment on the 'culture' of the term. Tollens (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I think your verions is much better than mine. Z80Spectrum (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Kmart redirects

I created numerous redirects, each representing the first Kmart's address in that state or territory, from this video https://youtube.com/NfyuOn6Fqpk Could it make sense or I'll have to list at RFD? We do have 3100 W. Big Beaver Road but no 3333 Beverly Road. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The links here are the headquarters GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

So . . . having made a great number of redirects, GabrielPenn4223, you now, just two minutes after making the last of them, ask whether their creation makes sense? My first reaction is that most if not all are most unlikely to be looked for; so no, they have little or no utility, and you have (again) unnecessarily created work for other people. Something about this doesn't make sense. (Suggestion: how about working on the improvement of existing articles?) -- Hoary (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Has listed unnecessary redirects for RFD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_11#14701_Rinaldi_Street GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

GabrielPenn4223, that YouTube link doesn't work. Hey, I was curious! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Moving a new page from sandbox to Wikipedia

My account is a few years old, and I haven’t published anything in a while. I created a new page in my sandbox, but can’t figure out how to move it to Wikipedia proper. I do not see a tools pull-down menu, or a “more” menu. Please advise. Thanks. Jnorman34 (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You are currently at 9 edits, not quite enough to be autoconfimed. Just make a copyedit somewhere to get over the line. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 01:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jnorman34: If you move User:Jnorman34/sandbox to mainspace it will likely get deleted. It has zero references. See WP:REFB for help on that. The sandbox draft also does not show how this person is notable. WP:NBIO RudolfRed (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I have added more info and a reference, and I have over 10 edits now, but I still do not see any tools or more menus that offer me the option to move the page to the main site. What do I do next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnorman34 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Please see the reviewer's comments at Draft:Henry Duffy and address them before resubmitting it. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Unless you have experience in having drafts accepted, it is highly recommended that you use the submission process instead of directly creating articles yourself. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The draft now has a submit button. It is not clear to me that having been president of the Air Line Pilots Association, International makes a person Wikipedia-notable. Some of the people listed as having been presidents are subjects of existing articles, but in looking at those, some are in my opinion marginal in being valid articles. Maybe the better (?) ones can serves as models for your effort. David notMD (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

By the definition

Is Acela an high speed rail?

2601:204:EA7F:220:E159:45BB:B700:8EB5 (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The article on Acela says it qualifies as high speed rail. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Also asked and answered on the Help desk. OP, please do not ask questions on more than one forum: it wastes our volunteer respondents' time and can lead to confusion. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.107.217 (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Nicole123211

Help their userpage is a db-u5. 32.220.205.180 (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• The edit summary should be revdelled. too. Softlavender (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  But if the page is deleted, only admins can see it... 32.220.205.180 (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  As an administrator, I can see the deleted page. It was an advertisement for a business. Advertising is not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

User:SOYLENTNOW

Disruptive userpage but I can't edit it. I don't know where else to put this 32.220.205.180 (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I blocked the user. Thank you for reporting it. Next time please use WP:ANI. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

In cases of obvious vandalism, WP:AIV will get faster responses. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Inserting references

Hello, I have uploaded an additional section to an already existing article. In my entry there are two references. Please tell me how to insert the authors of the refs and how to place the two refs in the references section of the article.

I dont know what Visual editor is so reply to Pipertune via the article on Howard S. Becker Pipertune (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Pipertune: Welcome to the Teahouse. You added some factual information with this edit]. Unfortunately it was reverted because it was not supported by any reference at all. This is common practice, so feel free to reinsert it once you understand how to add an inline citation at the end of a paragraph (see below).

Be aware that your original edit did use superlatives which are not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. It is ok to quote (and cite) music critic, Joe Bloggs, as saying that "Becker was an exceptionally proficient and forward thinking pianist and arranger." But if that's just your personal opinion, there's no place for that here. So just state that he was a pianist and an arranger if you can cite a source that proves he did both.

Now, you can learn how to add references by reading this page of guidance for users of our powerful 'Source Editor'. We have two optional editing tools. The other is known as Visiual Editor, and it has a slightly different set of editing buttons and interface. You can easily switch back and form between the two (using the dark slanted pencil icon on the right of the editing toolbar) For adding citations with Visual Editor, you'd need to follow this page of guidance. I hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Why can't we move just subpages to their base name on US places?

I know that Austin, Texas, cannot be moved to Austin as no primary topic for Austin exists; the same is true for Charlotte, North Carolina, so why can't Albuquerque, New Mexico, be renamed to just Albuquerque and Sacramento, CA, to just Sacramento? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi GabrielPenn4223 - Please see previous discussions in the relevant talk pages e.g. Talk:Albuquerque,_New_Mexico/Archive_1#Requested_move and Talk:Albuquerque,_New_Mexico/Archive_2#Move_proposal both of which rejected the move you are suggesting - Arjayay (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:USPLACE#Major cities is the guideline for US city articles on Wikipedia. It parallels the Associated Press Stylebook, where there are a very few specific cities whose name can stand alone without a state. DMacks (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead image for Saddam Hussein

I want to change the lead picture of the article Saddam Hussein by this file File:Saddam Hussein 1979.jpg. Pls let me edit it. Thank You Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Why do you want to do that? I would have said that the existing picture is of slightly better quality than the one you want to change it to. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.107.217 (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

How that photo is better, look at U.S leaders' page. How face to face taken pictures are their. Regarding pic quality. Saddam was not in that much high tech era, where filters used to make photos clear. During those times, these types of pictures look better. Check other U.S leaders' articles like John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. There lead image looks like a painting, not a photograph taken by camera. In case of Saddam, that picture looks very unique. Think it, if you have any problem then I will find any other photo. Thank You Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted. I agree the 1979 pic is poor quality, but the place to propose this, together with your rationale, is Talk:Saddam Hussein and gain consensus. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

science

what is a herring 190.93.39.61 (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

See wikt:herring. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Also see Herring. David notMD (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

How to Avoid messing up an article.

So, I had when I first joined started editing the page for "Yinka Ash" I had assumed that Wikipedia was straight forward, as I could easily find sources on the biographical subject-matter, I kept editing without knowledge of the parameters for UPE, though, I remain NOT UPE, I think I messed up so badly, now other accounts are rightfully suspicious of my edits. I wanna ask, is there like a guideline that I can study or learn better from, Fred Zepelin began to make edits on the Yinka Ash article, and seeing the previous and current I can see how my tone and his is different (his being better), I don't want to keep editing the article so as not to mess up more, but if anyone could properly guide me or make edits on same article so I can learn I would be most appreciative; I'd like to begin editing articles like "Seychelles National Movement" and even have articles in my sandbox on topics I'm interested in. Please, I really don't wanna mess up again, I would take any assistance and advice, reading materials or Wikipedia Forum I can join to get better. Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Anoghena Okoyomoh Welcome to the Teahouse. The fact that you can tell that someone else's edit was better than your own shows that you have the ability to discern what is and isn't a good edit. So that's a great start! But it's an extremely thing difficult to teach. Because this is an encyclopaedia that, in essence, simply collates and draws together stuff that other RELIABLE SOURCES have already published, what makes a good edit is a well-cited statement written in clear English and in a NEUTRAL tone of voice that imporves the encyclopaedic quality of any article. No peacock words or superlatives; no embellishing; just stuff written in your own words that others can understand and VERIFY for themselves.

To avoid any accusations of UPE, my advice would be to simply steer clear of any commercial or biographical topics, and find an area that interests you. All our articles have a quality assessment allocated to them. The shortest articles are called 'Stubs' and these can benefit most easily from improvement. Perhaps you could find some of these to work on?

Now, you mentioned Seychelles National Movement, so, for the sake of this demonstration, I'm going to imagine that topics on Seychelles interests you. Every article falls under one or more 'WikiProjects' that group topic-related articles together. You can see which ones they fall into by going to the article's talk page. In this case, it would be WP:WikiProject Seychelles. Take a look there at their table of 'recognised content' (=quality assessment table) (LINK).

There are currently 454 'short 'stub' articles, of which 5 are deemed of 'Top Importance' and 7 of 'High Importance'. By clicking the relevant number in the intersection of the Quality rows and Importance columns, you'll get a list of articles (like this one).

Maybe you could work through and see if you can improve one or more of them? One word of warning: the quality assessments can sometimes be rather out of date! So, though marked as a short 'Stub' they may well have been improved but without anyone changing the Assessment template.

Reading through these, and perhaps looking for 'citation needed' templates. or asking yourself "what's missing here" could be a very good way to both learn by doing simple tasks, whilst also making a big difference to really short articles.

I'm sure someone will make other suggestions, but I hope you find this helpful. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh My God, Thank you! I think that is the major lapse in my writing, I felt it was imperative to use the words I found on the cited sources, because, as a lawyer I was trained to use the exact words when dealing with acts and cases of authority. But with the corrected edit, I noticed that his words were more, matter-of-fact, or simply stating as it is, newspaper articles are somewhat more advertising, especially when its coverage of arts or entertainment topic, I get that now, I'll be more cognisant moving forward. Again, Thank you.

Kind regards, Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Anoghena Okoyomoh. In fact, you should specifically not use the exact words of the source in most cases, because that may be an infringement of copyright. If the exact words are important, they can be explicitly quoted (and attributed, of course), but normally the account in Wikipedia is a summary in the writer's own words. ColinFine (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you I will note that as well, I will be more specific to sounding factual and neutral in my future contributions. thank you and Kind regards, Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

On behalf of...

Hi I am new to Wiki! Just joined today! :)

Quick question... from reading through lots of the information it appears that we must write articles on behalf of someone else, is it correct to say that we are not allowed to write articles on our own behalf? Seaside2012 (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Seaside2012 Yes, that's correct. It would be a huge CONFLICT OF INTEREST, and not always a good idea, either. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Whoever we write about must meet our Notabilty Criteria, or there cannot be an article about them. The same goes for any other topic in this encyclopaedia. But most editors - especially brand new ones - steer well clear of creating articles from scratch. Editing and improving existing ones is the simpler and far better way to learn the intricacies of becoming a good Wikipedian. Welcome to the club!

I'll send a welcome message to your talk page with some helpful links to get you started. Oh, and welcome to the Teahouse! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the warm welcome...and the clarification,

of course. :) Seaside2012 (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Seaside2012: To further clarify, you cannot write in behalf of someone else either. You should not have any association with the person you are writing about, otherwise you also have a conflict of interest. If you are completely independent of some other person, then you are not writing "in behalf" of them. So avoid writing about yourself, your family, your friends, your coworkers, your associates, etc. If you do, then WP:AFC is the only venue Wikipedia offers to editors with a conflict of interest to write articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the idea of editing Wikipedia "on behalf of" anybody or anything is itself problematic. A Wikipedia article is not in any way for the benefit (or detriment) of its subject, except incidentally. ColinFine (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Anachronist overstated the guideline a bit. A conflict of interest does not mean you cannot create a draft, only that it must be via AfC and as long as you describe the COI on your User page. David notMD (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Isn't that what I said? If you have a conflict of interest, you need to use AFC. Perhaps my first sentence "cannot" should have been "shouldn't". ~Anachronist (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. David notMD (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Creating templates

Hi! I have a question about creating templates. Whenever I attempt to create a new page and try to add a template, there will be a little page that says something like "Template search: Find the template you want to insert by searching for an identifying keyword. Templates that have descriptions are more likely to work well with the visual editor" and then a search bar underneath. But the template I want to create does not yet exist. How do I create a new template?

Thank you, CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, CallieCrewmanAuthor, and welcome to the Teahouse. I may be wrong, but judging from your post at User talk:Shellwood#Question from CallieCrewmanAuthor (22:34, 9 February 2024), I'm suspecting that "creating a template" is not what you mean.

I suspect that you are trying to use an existing template, and transclude it into a new article, but you just don't know the name of the template. I'm further guessing that the kind of template you are trying to add is an infobox - perhaps {{infobox person}}, or more specifically {{infobox actor}}.

If you actually mean creating a new template, please explain what would be the purpose of the template you want to create. ColinFine (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ColinFine, I meant creating a new template. I wanted to create a new one on Rosemary Carpenter Fitzgerald (I just created the page a few days ago) and I was also trying to create a page for Mark Twain's son who died in infancy, but like I said before, it would only let me reuse a template already in existence. I want to create a new template that would give general information about the person in the article (name, date of birth, date of death, family, etc.). CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Why would you not use {{infobox person}} with parameters appropriate to the individual, like every other article on a person (unless they use a more specific infobox)? What is the value in creating a template (a thing whose purpose is being inserted into many pages) for an individual's dates etc? ColinFine (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

In case there is some confusion, you do not have to fill in all the parameters, just the relevant ones. {{infobox person}} includes "name, date of birth, date of death, family, etc.", that you are wanting, unless your "etc." is very unusual, in which case we probably do not want it in an infobox. - Arjayay (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

CallieCrewmanAuthor, you should first attempt to show how Rosemary Carpenter Fitzgerald is notable (as understood by and for Wikipedia). An article can't cite Facebook. (I haven't looked at the other sources that this article cites.) I may be a very unimaginative person; perhaps it's for this reason that I can't imagine how this son who died aged 19 months could be notable. -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

who is chopin

i am wondering who is the person called frederic chopin 2A02:A450:5959:0:D9A0:4A10:7A3E:6569 (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello – you may be looking for the article Frédéric Chopin. Tollens (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Famous classical pianist. Coulomb1 (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiVet part of WikiMedia? Can't access

Is WikiVet part of WikiMedia/MediaWiki? Under the Wikipedia for WikiVet, I click on the URL (https://en.wikivet.net/) but it says, "504 Gateway Time-out". Is it just my computer, or can no one access the website? Tried on PC & cell for several days with same error. How can I access WikiVet? Or, should I be asking this question someplace else? Thanks. Sunandshade (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sunandshade: While it does use MediaWiki, the same technology Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects use, it is not in any way affiliated with Wikimedia. I also can't access their website, but it's unlikely anyone here will be able to help, unfortunately. Tollens (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I accessed it a week ago so was surprised it was down now. I'm using it for a citation so guess I'll have to find another citation to use. Sunandshade (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sunandshade: I am not familiar with WikiVet, but sites with user provided content such as Wikis are not reliable sources. You should look for another source to use. See WP:RS for more info on that RudolfRed (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering about that. The people submitting articles are vets & it says it's peer reviewed. From Wikipedia, "articles are authored by students or veterinarians, and subsequently peer reviewed by subject specialists." Is it still considered not reliable? Sunandshade (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sunandshade I don't see it mentioned in the archives of WP:RSPS but my personal opinion is that it won't be acceptable since proper veterinary sourcing would be better to aim for the high standards for medicine (see WP:MEDRS). Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

accolade colour change

not sure how to word this without sounding dumb lol. can someone guide me on how to change an award accolade to green or red? I tried to work it out but simply finding it a little difficult? thank you HungryReptile (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Nom and Template:Won are meant to be used instead of the words "Nominated" or "Won" in tables, and they automatically add color. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Image

How do I put an image in? Smallcat101 (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Here's a guide to inserting pictures into an article. However, you're best off using source editor if you follow that guide. I recommend trying this out at either your sandbox (click on that red text to create it), or the Wikipedia sandbox. Best, Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 04:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

How to avoid 'G11' when writing an article on someone?

Hi

I sent an draft article for submission but it got marked as G11. Could I pls get some insight on why, so for the next draft I'll be submitting the same mistakes can be avoided. Thanks Nameernkhan (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Nameer Khan Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Nameernkhan, and welcome to the Teahouse. You avoid a WP:G11 by making sure that what you write is a neutral summary of what independent sources have said about a subject. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

This is one of several reasons why we very very strongly discourage trying to write about yourself. ColinFine (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Article protection advice, for false release date (and minor) changes, most likely by the filmmakers themselves

I've almost finished updating a feature film on IMDB, which I've known about it for at least 10 years, and was apparently released 8 years ago (although there's no proof of that).

It was definitely released 6 years ago however, as it had multiple film premieres, was released on practically every online service, plus they released DVD's and Blu-rays too, all within the same week.

Yet for some reason, in the last year the filmmakers have started re-releasing promotion for the already released film, with 2023 trailers, and 2024 "behind the scenes" images, among other things, as though it was a new film, which it isn't...

That's partly why I decided to update the film and check the credits, with the other reason listed below.

The only things left to add/correct are external links for news articles and reviews, delete a few false credits, add some missing uncredited extras, plus the big thing I've noticed...

...The release date/dates from 2018 on IMDB have been replaced with a 2021 release date somehow...

...And now I've just noticed that in January 2024 on Wikipedia, 2 people (one of which is most likely one of the directors based on his name, which is named after 1 of the 5+ company names that they use, only 2 of which are listed on-screen), changed some minor things, along with the 2018 release date which has also been replaced with a 2021 release date.

When I've finished on IMDB, I will correct some on the information on the article here.

What Wikipedia:Protection policy would you suggest to stop the release dates being changed again, and how could I suggest the protection? Danstarr69 (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not sure what you mean by "what protection policy"; there is only a single policy. If there is a current, intractable dispute or edit war with information in the article you speak of, you may request page protection at WP:RFPP, which should encourage users to discuss the matter on the talk page to arrive at a consensus. Pages are not protected preemptively, or due to past disruption, there must be a current, demonstratable problem. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

If you believe that the filmmakers themselves are editing the article and have not disclosed this fact(per WP:COI and/or WP:PAID), that is a matter for the conflict of interest noticeboard where you can give your evidence(but be mindful of WP:OUTING). 331dot (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Another tip, if you really want people here to help, tell them the name of the film. - X201 (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

redirect vs disambiguation

Two items. There is a redirect for cecal to go to cecum. In this case, cecal is used as an adjective, e.g., cecal carcinoid tumor. It's also used as ileocecal. But the user should really be given the choice to also choose Cecotrope. How do I add that in?

Caecal also redirects to cecum, although that word is not used in that article. It's an alternative spelling to cecal but since it's not in the article, would it be ok for me to change the redirect to Cecotrope? Or, should the user be given the 2 options? Sunandshade (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Spelling variations do not need to be included in the redirect target. You'll want to create a WP:disambiguation page and redirect both spellings to that. Alternatively, you can put a WP:hatnote on the cecum page. Don't make a new redirect to a different page from caecal. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

After reading the help articles, it looks like I should use a hatnote since cecal would go to only 2 articles. Now it redirects to cecum. In the disambiguation help file, it says to choose a Primary Topic. For the cecum article, the cecal term is used as a adjective. For the cecotrope article, it's a noun & cecal is another name for cecotrope so I was wondering if I should make the cecotrope article the Primary Topic. I'm a little confused about this so would appreciate input from others. Thanks. Sunandshade (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Plum Jam

Dark sugar is nice but i quite like granulated. but would powder sugar work for my plum jam recipe? 195.195.234.240 (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello! This page is for asking questions about using or editing Wikipedia, and is not intended as a general Q&A board – in the future please use a search engine or another website intended for general Q&A. That being said, powdered sugar typically contains cornstarch or another similar additive, and would probably not work as expected in jams. Tollens (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

University Metropolitan Tirana

Hello,

We submited the wikipedia page for University Metropolitan Tirana - Draft:University Metropolitan Tirana and we need a confirmation to publish the page.

Please can someone with the rights to confirm give us the confirmation for the page?

Thank you. Juada.J (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Juada.J Your draft has been declined today for the reasons stated by the reviewer, which are now to be found at the top of the draft. Note that the draft has not been rejected (which means it would be pointless to continue work on it) but may be improved and re-submitted. Please ensure that you have addressed the comments of the reviewer beofre doing so. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Juada, and welcome to the Teahuse. Like most people who come here and immediately try to create an article about something they are connected with, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not for people or organisations to tell the world about themselves: that is called promotion, and is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia.

Your very first task in writing an article is to clarify whether you are associated with the university, and (if you are) to make a formal declaration of your conflict of interest, and if you are in any way employed by the university, your status as a paid editor.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

So your next task, which should preferably be done before writing so much as one word of an article, is to find such sources - nothing written, published, or commissioned, by the university or its staff or associates is relevant.

After that, you will need to forget every single thing you know about the university, and write a neutral summary of what those independent sources say about it. ColinFine (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

We already have a Metropolitan University of Tirana article, where you have also been editing. The content you wrote is unacceptable regardless of whether you write it in the live article or try to create a new article from scratch as a draft. DMacks (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

...and now blocked for sock-puppetry (though the obvious promotional intent of the accounts didn't exactly help their case either). DMacks (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Are such Userpages allowed?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does User:Praxidicae's userpage violate Userpage Guidlines like "...you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia...."? (Note: I don't have any problem with User:Praxidicae and/or Black Lives Matter, but simply confused as User:Praxidicae seems experienced user. Also I am not asking this on their talk page as it may lead to bias.) ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 13:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

ExclusiveEditor, this encyclopedia covers the incidents involving the people listed there. In addition, Praxidicae has not edited in six weeks. Cullen328 (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

What about my userpage is objectionable to the point it doesn’t warrant a discussion? I am an experienced user, you are correct. And as such, you should probably approach users when you have issues as long as they aren’t egregious (ie. harassment). GRINCHIDICAE🎄 17:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: There are numerous examples of such user pages on Wikipedia, I took yours just as an example, and treated this question from a general perspective. Although I already mentioned why I tried not to discuss this on your talk page. Regards, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor, I think the answer is towards the end of that section:

"The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia."

Providing some personal information (e.g., you are busy in real life, you are interested in STEM, you are using Google Chrome) might not be obviously "on topic", but they can be helpful to the community. For example: Don't be surprised if the busy person doesn't reply immediately. You are interested in science, and Praxidicae is interested in Black Lives Matters, so take the science question to you and the BLM question to Praxidicae. You are using Google Chrome, so if you ever report a software problem at the Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), then we won't have to ask you for web browser information. This is ultimately helpful to the community in a way that, say, a fanfic story or an advertisement would not be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Don't understand my sandbox page...

I am a Wiki novice! I went to use my sandbox page, and it looked like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ruthhenrietta/sandbox&redirect=no ... how do I get it to be a page I can start editing a completely different article on? Ruthhenrietta (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ruthhenrietta, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can simply edit that page, and remove what's there - in particular the "#REDIRECT" statement. ColinFine (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

semi protected pages

I would like to edit semi protected pages who do i do that. Popscurling (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Popscurling,

Your account is autoconfirmed, so you should be able to edit most semiprotected pages. The general way to request specific edits on pages you cannot edit directly is by placing an edit request on the associated talkpage. DMacks (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

how to make a page to put information

like presing which button on wiki to write things and information Dmdim (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dmdim You were left a 'welcome message' on your talk page with lots of useful links, but you decided to delete it 8 minutes later.

I have left you another - shorter this time. I suggest you leave it there and follow the big blue 'Learn more about editing' link and read the guidance pages. We expect new users to take the time to read the basic guide to editing for themselves. We can't tell you which buttons to press - you must learn that for yourself. If, after that, you have particular questions about how to edit, then do pop back and ask for clarification and guidance on any point. You may also wish to visit Help:Getting started. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

and further edits like this [14]] will very quickly lead to a block. Theroadislong (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Dmdim, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. To add to what Nick said: you ask about "how to make a page". If you mean that you have an idea of creating a new article, then please, please, please, do not rush into doing this. Spend a few months making improvements to some of our existing articles, and learning about Wikipedia's policies and procedures before you even try this. People who try the challenging task of creating a new article before they have learnt the basic craft of editing, often have a really miserable and frustrating time. ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Not free image?

Can I use this image on my user page?
File:TST-baph-statue.jpg Teras malum (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Teras malum, the answer is "no". Non-free images can only be used in the specific encyclopedia article specified in the non-free use rationale. They cannot be used on user pages. Cullen328 (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The relevant policy language about use of non-free images can be found at the shortcut WP:NFCI. Cullen328 (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Teras malum: What you can do is link to those images without displaying them. See my own user page. Below the image gallery is a section listing the non-free images I have uploaded. You link them by putting a colon in front of the File designation, as in [[:File:my_non-free_image.jpg]]. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Photo, copyright

Hi all! Is it okay to use a photo of a person from a newspaper scan available on Google Books to illustrate an article about them? The person died in 2009. The year of the American newspaper is 1980. And if so, what is the correct license to specify? Thanks in advance. ColinSchm (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, ColinSchm. A photo in a newspaper article published in 1980 is still covered by copyright. However, a photo of a person who has died is one of the allowed uses of non-free images as described at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images #10, if no free images are realistically available. Follow the policy language closely, and upload the image here to English Wikipedia. Be aware that Wikimedia Commons does not allow non-free files. Cullen328 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse restrictions ?

The Teahouse in action - one lump, or two?

If the Teahouse is mainly for new editors, is there a limit on how long after new editors begin doing things on Wikipedia can they use the Teahouse rather than other ways of getting help? Augnablik (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik Nope, you’re always welcome and free to use the Teahouse for as long as you wish. Obviously, were you to ask a really technical question, we might refer you to another forum. But we’re dead friendly here, so it’s the best place to come for help. (We’re even known to serve tea, too) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick. I'll assume that if the Teahouse is "dead friendly," the lumps referred to in the the photo are sweet rather than otherwise ... Augnablik (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik, one Wiki trick you might like to know as a new(ish) editor is that a lot of the time if you type WP: and then a word that describes what you want into the search bar, you'll be taken to a page that covers that thing. Or if you didn't get the word quite right, there's often links to point you in the right direction! Here's some, for example: WP:CITE; WP:RELIABLE; WP:NOTABLE; and of course the extremely useful WP:TEA!

(I know you've been here for a while, but I only learned the WP: thing recently and it's so useful I wanted to share) StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, StartGrammarTime. I hadn't heard of that trick. This is the sort of thing that could be helpful if placed in a "Did you know?" box somewhere.

Also thank you for the designation of newish editor, as that sort of fits someone like me who's been connected with Wiki for two years but off and on with activity. Somehow, new editor didn't seem to fit any more, but neither did anything else — certainly not senior editor. Augnablik (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik Did You Know... that you can add {{Totd3}} to your userpage and discover all sorts of hints and tips? One per day, in fact! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

That would be great if I could do it, Nick. Now as a newish editor I have to ask HOW. Augnablik (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik That one's easy! Edit your userpage the same way you would an article, and just put the code Nick has given you somewhere - maybe up the top to make it easy to find. I'm going to do the same, actually, so thank you @Nick. StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik Looks like you've sorted it - well done! Nick Moyes (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hello. WikiProject Inca Empire was created in 2020, and marked as inactive since that date becuse of a lack of editors. An organized approach to editing would be fruitful for articles concerning the subject, however. These subjects often go ignored, and only a handful of editors have a full knowledge of them. Therefore a group of connected editors is the best approach, in my opinion, to dealing with errors or expanding articles, without giving one version of history too much credibility (Since in this specific subject there are several, and a discussion between editors would be preferable, before one gets chosen over the other). However I have no idea how to find volunteer editors interested in that subject and currently active. If anyone would be interested please say so, and if anyone could give me a way to search that isnt nerve wrecking that would be great too. Thanks. Encyclopédisme (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Encyclopédisme Your best bet is to post to the talk pages of related wikiprojects and hope enough people answer your call. I am thinking WP:PERU (and neighbouring countries?), and maybe WP:HISTORY or WP:ARCHAEOLOGY? And any other you can think of. Check whether they have a wikiproject and contact them if they do. Wikiprojects have a list of participants where you can look for active editors you might want to reach out. You can also check the editing history of main articles of interest and see if there are any currently active editors who've recently made significant edits to any of the articles. That more or less covers it. Some wikiprojects are just not meant to be, this being a volunteer project. In that case, you'll just have to wait for more people who think alike to join Wikipedia. You don't need a wikiproject, it's just nice to have. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Qs about bibliography & article section set-up

I could have sworn I already asked the question about what I'll be asking here somewhere else, like a Wiki Help place, a few days ago. But I can't find either my question or an answer, so I'll raise the same set of questions in the Teahouse.

1. I'm working on an article about an author with many publications, all of which I want to include as a bibliography. Since I read somewhere that articles should be in MLA style, I set up a bibliography in that format. Later I noticed that many articles about authors seem to have something called a List of References, similar to a traditional bibliography but organized by date rather than alphabetically. I hope this is okay ...?
2. Because of the sheer number, audiences, and variety of this author's publications and audiences, I broke the bibliography down somewhat for ease of readership — for instance, by type (e.g., books and articles) and subdivided again into audience (e.g., children and adults). Again, I hope this is okay ...?
3. Similar to breaking down the bibliography as I've described above, I also broke down sections of the article into correspondingly numbered sections. But I don't see numbering on most or all other articles I've looked it. I hope this is okay ...?

Augnablik (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik: It may help to put your article in draft space for others to view and offer advice. It's hard to visualize your concerns without actually seeing what's causing them. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, Anachronist, maybe I should. I'd been a little hesitant to do that because I didn't feel quite ready to make the article semi-public, for several reasons.

Just curious about a few related things:

1. Are all senior editors notified when a new draft is posted?
2. If so, is there a time limit in which one of them is supposed to take on a review of the new draft so the editor who posted it isn't left dangling for a long time?
3. Is there a way for the editor who posted the draft to try to attract editors with special background or expertise in working with certain issues?

Augnablik (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello again, Augnablik. Your question is above, at #Bibliography, and I answered at least part of it there. ColinFine (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing me there, ColinFine. And I replied to you there. Augnablik (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

How do I add a non-free photo?

Hi Teahouse,

I'd like to upload a non-free photo. It is about a deceased person in the article about that person. The subject died in 1988, so it's not likely that I can get their photo in public domain. How should I upload it? I definitely can't use Wikimedia Commons ... Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Uploaded. NVM. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Help creating book article

Hello,

I was researching a book that I discovered to help me understand where it sits in the reading and publishing order.

The book is called "Night Angel Nemesis".

I had recently finished the first three books (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Angel_trilogy), and found no mention of the book there. When looking at the author's page, I found the book listed under the author's "Works" section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Weeks#Works). It turns out that it's a new series starring the same protagonist.

A page for the book doesn't exist on Wikipedia, yet. It's a red link on the author's page, so I thought that I could help out by starting the page for the missing link:

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

I've followed the article structure for the previous books' Wikipedia pages (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Way_of_Shadows), omitting "Setting", "Plot summary", and other sections that I am not prepared to provide.

My drafts have been rejected, though, and one of the reasons, I believe, is that I'm not making a compelling enough case for this book to merit its own Wikipedia page.

I'm hoping to help answer the questions that I had when I first began researching the topic. I'd like to try to help others who might be on a similar path. I found reliable answers to my questions, but it took research on platforms -- platforms whose main objective is to pitch and sell, not to convey data and information. I wanted a Wikipedia article, but it doesn't exist yet.

I see three ways forward:

1. This book simply doesn't merit its own article right now.
2. The book does qualify, but my current draft of the article needs a few more specific pieces.
3. Maybe I'm putting the information in the wrong place. Maybe this sort of information would be better summarized under an article for the new series itself, rather than the first book of that series. On the other hand, the path into this query began with the book for me. I didn't know that the series existed.

If this is (1), that's fine. I'll drop it for now, and keep an ear out for any awards that it might win.

If this is (2) or (3), let me know what you think?

Also, I've done a bit of research on how to upload an image of the book cover. I'll leave this topic as a follow-up, in case it's (1) above, but if we do move forward with this, I could use guidance on how to go about requesting and submitting the image and licensing.

Thanks for any help,

--Reeddunkle (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Reeddunkle. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (books). The most common way that a book becomes notable is by being independently reviewed by several reliable sources. The general principle which applies to almost all topics, not just books, is that the topic must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic. Your draft is missing that. Cullen328 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

As for Night Angel trilogy, that article is a complete piece of junk, entirely unreferenced, and with major problems of several types. Cullen328 (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Now on to The Way of Shadows, Reeddunkle. That too is a terrible article with major problems. If you want to use an existing article as an example for a new article, please select a Good article or a Featured article. We have too many bad articles needing to be cleaned up, and do not need more bad articles. Cullen328 (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the reply. Reeddunkle (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Advise for Cleanup - References and sections per MOS

Hello all, I am new to Wikipedia and grateful that my first article has been apprvoed.

Meanwhile, I was suggested that "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: References and sections per MOS."

So I had made the correct update for "Selected Exhibition and Performance" as per the guideline.

Can anyone help to let me know if there's any further edit and improvement needed?

This is the page: Link

Thank you so much! Perhaps20andyetitall (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying to edit the Great Wall of China document...

This is a protected document, so editing is not possible. I looked at the document The map was posted as an incorrect map. Is there any way to fix it? Coperacchio (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Coperacchio Great Wall of China is semi-protected, so you cannot edit the article directly. You must instead submit an edit request or wait until you have 10 edits and have had an account for 4 days.

By an 'incorrect map', do you mean the file on the right here? If so, you can bring this up at Wikimedia Commons. English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are separate projects, so I am not familiar with their correction process. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The map shown there reflects Goguryeo's Pakjakseong Fortress, not the Great Wall of China. It actually only extends to Hebei Province. Coperacchio (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Can I take a break

Can I take a break from editing! Poppodoms (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

'course you can. ltbdl (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. If you want to let others know you are on a break, you can add a template from WP:WIKIBREAK to your userpage, but that is not required. RudolfRed (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) Poppodoms (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Christian persecution complex page and edits anti-Christian

Take it to the articles' talkpage please, or don't. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How many Christian church and school shootings will it take to remove or edit the page: Christian persecution complex - Wikipedia? It should instead be edited to something similar to: Holocaust denial - Wikipedia article. 2601:1C2:4C00:F7E0:E15D:36F:2FE9:E905 (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC) I love Wikipedia, ascribing to and perpetuating the "Christian persecution complex" belief is a clear situation of gaslighting. 2601:1C2:4C00:F7E0:E15D:36F:2FE9:E905 (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC) however I love Wikipedia; however, ascribing to and perpetuating the "Christian persecution complex" belief is a clear situation of gaslighting. 2601:1C2:4C00:F7E0:E15D:36F:2FE9:E905 (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC) This sounds very similar to a recent disruptive account... EvergreenFir (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC) It's not, I'm not affiliated with any group or previous posts. I'm just someone genuinely concerned about this page, I've never felt compelled to edit a Wikipage before, but this page is promoting a wrong view of Western Christians. I tried to edit and was told it wasn't "constructive." 2601:1C2:4C00:F7E0:E15D:36F:2FE9:E905 (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Another page to consider formatting after: Napoleon complex - Wikipedia which characterizes the complex as a "purported condition" and "derogatory social stereotype," which I believe the "Christian persecution complex" is. If people in Christian schools and churches are being shot in the West, it's not "just in their heads," saying it is, is cruel, untrue, negligent and dismissive, a.k.a. "gaslighting." 2601:1C2:4C00:F7E0:E15D:36F:2FE9:E905 (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Something may be "a clear situation" to you, but not to other people. To demonstrate that it's a clear situation to most, perhaps all people, you need to produce one or more reliable sources that say so. When you caused the article Christian persecution complex to start by saying that the complex "is an anti-Christian gaslighting belief about Christians", you failed to provide a reliable source (or indeed any source) for the assertion. -- Hoary (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Links: Christian persecution complex, Napoleon complex.   Maproom (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC) I'm new to editing Wikipedia. I'm curious if the editors/authors of the Napolean Complex asked for a source to denounce the idea that short statured people have a certain temperament. The post is anti-Christian, if there are people who have a Napolean Complex and there are people who a Christian Persecution Complex, great, but these pages shouldn't be written in a way that says all Christians or short people are "this way" and in fact these ideas about short people and Christians are derogatory. The Napolean Complex page is generous and fair to make the distinction, I ask the Christian Persecution Complex page does too. I'm sorry I didn't edit it to the Wikipedia standards, but please have someone edit it. Here are a few documented examples of Christian gun violence in America, to quell the disbelief in Anti-Christian violence: Recent Sunday, February 11, 2024 Lakewood Church in Texas was targeted with gun violence. March 27, 2023 a Christian school was targeted with gun violence, it's documented in the 2023 Nashville school shooting - Wikipedia page 1980-2018 HOUSE OF WORSHIP SHOOTING VICTIMS, source: VOA Special Report | History of mass shooters | House of Worship shootings (voanews.com) ◾ JUNE 22, 1980 Gene Gandy (50 years old) • Mary Regina “Gina” Linam (7) • James Y. “Red” McDaniel (53) • Thelma Richardson (78) • Kenneth Truitt (49) ◾ MARCH 10, 1999 Vaniaro Jackson (19) • Carla Miller (25) • Shon Miller Jr. (2) • Mildred Vessel (53) ◾ SEPT. 15, 1999 Kristi Kathleen Beckel (14) • Shawn Brown (23) • Sydney Rochelle Browning (36) • Joseph Daniel “Joey” Ennis (14) • Cassandra Fawn Griffin (14) • Susan Kimberly “Kim” Jones (23) • Justin Michael Stegner Ray (17) ◾ MARCH 12, 2005 Gloria Sue Critari (55) • Harold Diekmeier (74) • James Isaac Gregory (16) • Randy Lynn Gregory (51) • Gerald Anthony Miller (44) • Bart J. Oliver (15) • Richard Reeves (58) ◾ AUG. 28, 2005 James Wayne Armstrong (42) • Ernest Wesley Brown (61) • Holly Ann Love Brown (50) • Ceri Litterio (46) ◾ MAY 21, 2006 Erica Bell (24) • Gloria Howard (72) • Leonard Howard (78) • Doloris McGrew (67) • Darlene Mills Selvage (47) ◾ DEC. 9, 2007 Philip Crouse (22) • Tiffany Johnson (25) • Rachel Elizabeth Works (16) • Stephanie Pauline Works (18) ◾ AUG. 5, 2012 Satwant Singh Kaleka (65) • Paramjit Kaur (41) • Prakash Singh (39) • Ranjit Singh (49) • Sita Singh (41) • Suveg Singh (84) ◾ JUNE 17, 2015 Sharonda Coleman-Singleton (45) • Depayne Middleton-Doctor (49) • Cynthia Hurd (54) • Susie Jackson (87) • Ethel Lance (70) • Clementa Carlos Pinckney (41) • Tywanza Sanders (26) • Daniel Lee Simmons Sr. (74) • Myra Thompson (59) ◾ NOV. 5, 2017 Keith Allen Braden (62) • Robert Corrigan (51) • Shani Corrigan (51) • Bryan Holcombe (60) • Crystal Marie Holcombe (36) • Emily Rose Hill (11) • Gregory Lynn Hill (13) • Karla Plain Holcombe (58) • Marc Daniel “Danny” Holcombe (36) • Megan Gail Hill (9) • Noah Grace Holcombe (1) • Dennis Johnson (77) • Sara Johnson (68) • Annabelle Renae Pomeroy (14) • Haley Krueger (16) • Karen Sue Marshall (56) • Robert Scott Marshall (56) • Tara E. McNulty (33) • Ricardo Cardona Rodriguez (64) • Therese Sagan Rodriguez (66) • Joann Lookingbill Ward (30) • Brooke Ward (5) • Emily Garcia (7) • Peggy Lynn Warden (56) • Lula Woicinski White (71) ◾ OCT. 27, 2018 Joyce Fienberg (75) • Richard Gottfired (65) • Rose Mallinger (97) • Jerry Rabinowitz (66) • Cecil Rosenthal (59) • David Rosenthal (54) • Bernice Simon (84) • Sylvan Simon (86) • Daniel Stein (71) • Melvin Wax (88) • Irving Younger (69) 2601:1C2:4C00:F7E0:E15D:36F:2FE9:E905 (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Additionally, it's probably more accurate to edit the page "2023 Nashville school shooting" to "2023 Nashville Christian school shooting." Not including "Christian" is misleading and makes it sound like it was a state/county/city district school with government funding and erodes the identity of those who perished and the reality of the Anti-Christian violent crime. 2601:1C2:4C00:F7E0:E15D:36F:2FE9:E905 (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC) I would edit it, but it says: This page is currently semi-protected so that only established, registered users can edit it. I'm not a registered user. 2601:1C2:4C00:F7E0:E15D:36F:2FE9:E905 (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Soory

soory, again i accidentally removed reference from an article. I don't know how to edit it Akhinesh777 (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Article name Oppo F1 Akhinesh777 (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done, I reverted the article back to before your edits, so anything removed by accident is back in article. Cmr08 (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Akhinesh777 (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Twitter or X?

Should I address the app as Twitter or X? Abigbagel (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@abigbagel: twitter. most people still call it that. ltbdl (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Abigbagel Musk's Twitter is just a bot on the landscape. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

you can address it in a few ways, the least controversial one is "X (formerly Twitter)" Natelabs (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein

Is this file Ok for this article @File:Saddam Hussein Iraqi.jpg

@Skitash Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure you took the picture and own copyright to it? It is marked as your "own work" in the file description page. Otherwise, it's a copyright violation and should be deleted.

It appears that @Skitash disagrees with the changes to the portrait of Hussein, and has reverted your image changes. This is a completely normal part of collaboratively working in Wikipedia. Try reading though the help page WP:dispute resolution. I see you have already discussed the matter with Skitash, but did not come to an agreement.

So, you should now try to gain WP:consensus for your image edit: that is how editors deal with disagreements. The help page WP:dispute resolution lists some ways on how to find consensus. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

My friend gave it me, whom i met in Iraq last year. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

If your friend gave the picture to you, how can it be your "own work"? And unless your friend 1) was the owner of the copyright, and 2) formally transferred that legal ownership to you, then you do not have the legal power to licence it. I have nominated it for deletion at Commons, as a copyright violation. ColinFine (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't the copyright procedures and all. Do I have to mention my friend's name. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't wan't semi-protected

Hello I'm Oliverangé p, I want may a edit without semi-protected, can guys help? Oliverangé (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the good news is that you will be able to edit semi-protected articles in just two days. Your accounts needs to have at least 15 edits, which you already have, and be 4 days old to be auto-confirmed.

If you want to edit an semi-protected article now, you can use the Wikipedia:Edit requests process. (click the link for more info)

If you want to create new articles, you can use the WP:AFC process. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much Oliverangé ! I really appreciate that :D

Regards,

Poppodoms Poppodoms (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

How to detect Wikipedia spammers?

How to identify Wikipedia spammers? Hanoifun (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the WikiProject WP:WPSPAM has some information on identifying spammers. In general, if an editor is linking the same questionable website over and over across a variety of articles, its a clear cut spamming. Help:Linksearch is a helpful tool on locating other spam links if you already know the URL of the spammed links. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

inserted page numbers

I posted the following at Talk:Emancipation Proclamation but received no reply. I expect that I will receive one if I post it here:

In the first paragraph under "Political impact," which begins "The Proclamation was immediately denounced," I corrected the quotation (the original does have "an utopian"). The two "page needed"s in that paragraph, after the two "note 107"s, is page 64 (it's at Google Books), but I don't know how to enter it. If someone will do that, then I'll know how and I will be able to enter the page numbers of subsequent footnotes. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus This case, where you want to quote different pages from a given book in various places in the article text is an ideal case for the use of the template {{rp}} (see template page for the details). I'll leave it to you to do the updates. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

i work for the marketing team of a temple

Why is it a conflict or interest if I edit the wiki page with the history of the temple. where do i have to update this detail?

Snehajanfy (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Snehajanfy It is difficult for employees of an institution to make updates based on already-published sources (not personal knowledge) as is required by Wikipedia policy WP:NOR. Also, you may not write neutrally. So, please read WP:PAID and make the mandatory declaration of your status as a paid editor. Then make suggestions for addition to the article on its Talk Page, not directly. If you use the edit request wizard, your suggestions should be implemented by uninvolved editors quite quickly, or they will explain why the new content is not appropriate. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that it is acceptable for paid editors to create draft articles using the WP:AfC process. Hence you may continue to edit Draft:Peringottukara Devasthanam directly but still need to make the paid editor declaration. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

How exactly do i do this?

But where to add this on the article page?

{{paid|employer=name of employer|client=name of client}} Peringottukara Devasthanam Temple (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You will need to add that to your user page(User:Peringottukara Devasthanam Temple), you will also need to change your username so that it represents you personally, not your temple(your real name is not required, just something representing you). I have placed instructions to do this on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I have used my personal account to make edits, added the paid claim to my user page as well. what else can i do to get this approved? please help Snehajanfy (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Snehajanfy, please be aware that marketing behavior is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, as are all related behaviors such as advertising, promotion and public relations. This is a neutral encyclopedia. Conduct yourself accordingly. Cullen328 (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Ofcourse I understand this. I have in no way tried to claim or promote anything about my client. All we want is a valid Wikipedia page for the temple. It because of this specific reason why wiki page is so important for any institution to have. I'm sorry if I may have offended anyone by using the term marketing 2001:8F8:1F3F:33E:559B:E09D:5682:ED1 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no guarantee, after doing everything correctly, that the article will be approved for mainspace. The same guidelines and policies apply as it would with any other article with regard to notability and citing reliable sources. --ARoseWolf 20:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I have tried to use as many reliable sources as possible. I have over 30 pr links. I'm just not sure as tow here to use them to prove our credibility. Also how do we prove notability? 2001:8F8:1F3F:33E:559B:E09D:5682:ED1 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Simply put, you really shouldn't use those as they're not independent nor reliable to establish wikinotability, which would require quality sources that aren't affiliated with the temple. Please remember to sign in when making comments. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: As a courtesy I fixed the template on Snehajanfy's user page. --ARoseWolf 20:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  truly appreciate it. I'm still wondering how you fixed it. Kindly pardon my unawareness 2001:8F8:1F3F:33E:559B:E09D:5682:ED1 (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Please log in to edit. I have reviewed and declined the draft. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

HI, I am trying to resubmit my draft again. However I see AFC submission and missing template. Im unable to understad how to proceed. Kindly help Snehajanfy (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Been called out on incidents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:GabrielPenn4223 I have been discouraged by negative feedbacks, I did mistakes. Do you know any way to get me to improve and have less chance of being blocked? Maybe stop nominating for redirects and deletions? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

As straightforward as I can say it: WP:AGF. You start a lot of your more questionable messages with "Can you explain why you..." That is a fairly aggressive way to ask a question. Despite the fact that I doubt you intended this, it sounds accusatory and personal. Also doesn't help when you say that about an edit/nomination someone did six years ago.

Also, you do nominate things fairly erroneously. Your GA, move, AfD, etc. nominations have rarely been informed decisions. Take time to familiarize yourself with the subject, the topic, and (most importantly) what actually qualifies something for these nominations.

In all, it's clear under scrutiny that you aren't trying to be disruptive or aggressive. But, I'd recommend reading the rules regarding any kind of nomination before proposing it. i.e. GA nomination requirements or notability requirements.

Don't let this discourage you from contributing though! Learn through this experience and use it to make you the best Wikipedian you can be! Dionysius Miller^talk 13:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe stop making moves, AfDs, RfDs, etc. until I start to clearly understand what these are? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Or I can read the rules first before clearly nominating and post a topic on their related discussion page? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to be blocked again. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Given the high annoyance level of your more than 500 edits, yes, no more GA nominations (you already stopped), no AfDs, no RfDs, no more sprinkling "We Are Not Perfect" on other editors' Talk pages, and delete your self-serving 'essay'. And no more AfCs. Focus on improving existing articles. David notMD (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I will stop doing all of these until A. I have clearly understood and read all of these rules. I have already made a proper article or redirect. I have made constructive edits for atleast 90 days GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I have already added a source to the Toys R Us article of the opening of a specific store at an airport, it's a news source. Reliable? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Generally speaking, not doing a thing until you have a complete understanding of it and the rules around it is a good idea, on Wikipedia and just about everywhere else (other than paying taxes). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Also since users are supporting a CIR block, is it a good idea also to improve articles with constructive contributions and copyediting? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The GP4223 editing process: 1) do things 2) only then think about whether they were a good idea, 3) learn they were not, in fact, good ideas, 4) run away yelling "we are not perfect" and leave others to clean up 5) repeat in as many processes as possible ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

How I should actually be doing before learning a new thing:

1. Read the rules

2. Understand it

3. Clearly look into something

4. Not yell away "WE are not perfect!!!"

5. Clean up yourself

6. Once understood, do it! GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The OP has been blocked indefinitely. Maproom (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit request for page

Request to edit semi-protected page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bubonic_plague&action=edit&section=6 with https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/13/oregon-resident-caught-bubonic-plague-pet-cat in epidemiology Weavingowl (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Weavingowl: You should place your request on the talk page of that article, and add the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. RudolfRed (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

added the topic there though not sure i added the {{{ part correctly Talk:Bubonic plague#Request to edit page to add this Weavingowl (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Weavingowl: I fixed the request template, but you need to be more specific about what you are asking for. Go back to the talk page and format your request as "change X to Y" RudolfRed (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the edit request has been marked as not done and removed from talk, saying I should use Wikipedia request page instead. Weavingowl (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Why are some date-times in my contributions crossed out?

So I was looking through my contributions and I saw that a few date-times of some of my edits were gray and crossed out, and aren't links. Can someone explain what this means? (All of them were edits to my user page or subpages, but not all edits to those pages had crossed-out date-times, so I don't really know what's going on here.) TypoEater (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, TypoEater! That means those versions of the page were revision-deleted; that is, removed from the public archive and made so that only admins can see them. There are various reasons why a page revision might be revision-deleted, from exposing personally-identifiable information to copyright violations; you can read more here: WP:REVDEL. In your specific case, I'm guessing you're talking about your edits to User:TypoEater/Sandbox_highlights; as you can see in the deletion log for that page, the revisions were deleted for serious BLP violations. Please be sure not to make or copy similar edits, about any subject, again in the future. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Still pretty confused as that page is simply a place for me to put funny stuff people add to the Sandbox (It's only in my userspace since I proposed to add a page for that to Wikipedia:Department of Fun but they haven't replied yet) and nothing in those edits pertained to biographies of living persons in any way, as far as I know. TypoEater (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@TypoEater: You posted some disparaging text about a potentially real and identifiable (the school she attends was mentioned) girl named Sophia. It was reverted with the edit summary "please don't copy stuff like this", and the versions containing it were revdeled. Deor (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh OK, I will refrain from adding entries like that. I just assumed it was nonsense. TypoEater (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

How do I do visual editing in my sandbox?

Hi I'm working on something in my sandbox, and I can't see how to get visual editing... I've looked at the help page, but my sandbox page doesn't have the visual editing option - what am I doing wrong?! Also, I can't get the citations tab to work so I can populate a citation template... again, help please! My sandbox page is here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ruthhenrietta/sandbox&action=edit Ruthhenrietta (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

it's because that's the sandbox's talk page. you can't normally edit talk pages with the visual editor without some minor jank (changing the &action=edit to &veaction=edit, like so)

on that topic, why is the sandbox itself a redirect anyway? that only makes the editing process slightly harder cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

sorry, I don't really understand your reply.... I'm a real novice, so need things explaining in more detail and not in wiki language! Ruthhenrietta (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

basically

• sandbox: can be edited with the visual editor without changing the url. you seem to have accidentally made yours a redirect to the article you're working on
• sandbox's talk page: can't be edited with the visual editor normally and lacks a dedicated citation button, as it's normally meant to be used to discuss whatever is in the sandbox. you seem to have accidentally written there instead of in the sandbox

in any case, i transferred the contents of the talk page to the sandbox, so you can go there to edit now cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for transferring it... much appreciated... will crack on!! Ruthhenrietta (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cogsan It's a minor point I'd like to pick you up on, but you are incorrect in stating that there is no dedicated Cite button available whilst editing a talk page with Source Editor. It very definitely is there, and often comes in most handy when discussing sources to put into an article. To avoid all those references appearing at the bottom of a talk page (rather than at the bottom of the particular individual thread, you can use the {{reflist-talk}} template with it. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

i meant in talk pages. not the source editor

can understand the mistake though cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

oh, wait

my reading comprehensions skills took a nose dive while i was typing that last reply, wow

the cite and template buttons are unavailable when using the comment function (which is what i'll assume was happening, since ruth mentioned the lack of the citation function), not editing the talk page with either editor

my bad cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Requesting assistance

Can someone help me post a couple of additions to Valerie Carter? I don't believe I am supposed to as it might be considered a conflict of interest. OohChild (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@OohChild: Your best approach is what you did last year. Create a new edit request on Talk:Valerie Carter. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. OohChild (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I need Video.

I am new here. And a student. So many things are new to me. I need help and complete videos to understand Wikipedia. So that I can do well here.

Zeeshan Ali Zeeshan Adeeb (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Zeeshan Adeeb: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a video site. You have a welcome message on your user talk page, and it includes some prominent links to click on, to help you get started so you can do well here. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

a good place to start is WP:getting started.

its a good bit of reading, but im sure theres videos somewhere on there Natelabs (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear I submitted my first article in Wikipedia with carefully write but Wikipedia not except.

please tell me the write way to write and submit. Zeeshan Adeeb (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Zeeshan Adeeb: Regarding Draft:Azad Mehdi, if you don't want to follow the advice you have already been given, what do you expect?

You were given links to information that would help.

You were given these links in the welcome message on your talk page, and also further links in the message that declined your draft. I'll give you one more, simple and easy to read: Wikipedia:Golden rule. Your draft completely failed to abide by it.

Your usage of English, as demonstrated by the first sentence in your reply, needs work, and giving you English lessons is out of scope here. You need to learn that on your own. Writing drafts is good practice, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Zeeshan Adeeb. There are some instructional videos linked from WP:Instructional material. ColinFine (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

a good possibility is that your english is faulty.

enwiki doesnt really like bad grammar that much, and will remark on it if your grammar is particularly unusual.

you might have a better chance going to the wikipedia of your native language, as most people are better writers in their first language Natelabs (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Zeeshan Adeeb Some listed here: Wikipedia:Instructional material Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

For an article about a living person, ALL CONTENT requires references. See WP:42 to understand references. If Mehdi has not been written about then there is no potential for your draft to become an article. David notMD (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

What "counts" as a Wiki edit

— After editing awhile as a brand new editor, I began to realize that edits that I'd spent, say, 20 minutes doing counted the same as edits I'd spent only 3 minutes doing. It struck me that if I wanted to quickly amass a lot of edits, and thus be rewarded with accolades for reaching a certain level or edits like my 100th or 1,000th, the way to go for a point-greedy editor would be to make only a few edits, stop and post, rinse and repeat. Somehow, that seemed a little unfair. I was wondering if this discussion has ever come up in Wiki editordom.

— Are our Teahouse questions and replies counted as edits? Augnablik (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Augnablik! The answer is: it depends on the context. The software considers any change to any page on the project, article space, project space (like the Teahouse), or otherwise, as an edit, so from that purely technical perspective, yes, they all count.

But if you're talking social capital, then maybe not. There are no real awards for edit count per se, so the value of the award, and thus of each individual edit, is only whatever value you decide it has. For that very reason, there are also no designated minimum edit counts for things like running for adminship, because such requirements would be easy to game. So, from that perspective, no, they might not count, or at least not as much.

Finally, let me just say: I would try to avoid thinking of your edit count as your point total. Such point-scoring is a common attitude for people new to Wikipedia to have, but Wikipedia is not an MMORPG, and many people will look askance at a user who treats it as one. We are here to build an encyclopedia, no more and no less. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an MMORPG lied to me! 57.140.16.1 (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

There are service awards (see Wikipedia:Service awards) you can put on your User page for milestones of number of edits and how long have had an account. These are self-rewarded. In the intro there: "Please remember that neither the number of edits nor the length of time from when an account was created is a good indicator of the quality of an editor's contributions or diplomatic ability. Hence, service awards do not indicate any level of authority whatsoever; "master" editors are not bestowed with more authority through this award than "novice" editors." David notMD (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Sort of like Scout badges, then, although self-awarded.

I can just picture Wiki editors creating badge sashes to display these awards. ;) Augnablik (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, David notMD and Writ Keeper. And now, for the first time in the Teahouse, I find myself in the delightful position of being able to add something useful to a replier's valuable insights. I just came across a Wiki essay entitled Editcountitis Wikipedia:Editcountitis, a hilarious "medical description" of the affliction of obsessive interest in augmenting edit tallies. It was 100% serendipitous, this find.

The problem that I see for Wiki editors in reading Editcountitis, however, is that it could make those with weak immune systems collapse in laughter, thus bringing about another serious medical issue perhaps even requiring admission to the ICU. Augnablik (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Refs to reliable sources online - does it matter where hosted?

I'm looking at Andrew Malcolm (author), where a number of the references - 20+ - are to documents uploaded to a website belonging to the subject of the article. Most are images or text of articles that are from reliable, independent sources; this article from Private Eye, for instance. A few are to primary sources Malcolm has uploaded, such as this letter. What's the policy on this? I'm assuming any primary sources should come out, but is it ok to leave the links to akmedea for the remaining references? For Private Eye, which is still largely print I think, the alternative would be to give the date, title, author only, as with any print ref I guess. I have tagged the article with SPS, but technically these are self-hosted rather than self-published. Thanks, Tacyarg (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Tacyarg. The point of a citation is to allow a reader to determine the origin and likely reliability of a source, so it should always contain as many as possible of author, title, date, where it was published (what journal, magazine etc). If there is a legal copy online, then it is helpful to readers to link to it, but that is not a requirement.

When linking to an online copy, the preference is, of course to a copy posted by the original publisher. If that is not available, then there are two questions that must be considered. The first is copyright: did whoever posted the material online have permission to do so? If not, or if it is in doubt, do not link to it: as a matter of policy, Wikipedia articles do not link to copyright violations. (Note that copies posted on the subject's site may or may not have permission: unless it somewhere states that they have, I would suggest erring on the side of caution).

The second point is of reliability. Has the material been posted by a reliable source, or by some random person? Of course, if it is a screenshot of the original publication, it probably hasn't been altered (though may very well be a copyright infringement). But if it is the text of an article, say, how confident can you be that it is a faithful copy? ColinFine (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Crossed in the post with ColinFine: Yes, it does matter, depending on the situation. We should not link to sites that violate copyright, hosting material whose copyright they do not own (see WP:COPYVIOEL), so with something like a Private Eye article you'd need to be sure akmedea are all above board. No matter where hosted, letters and accounts of legal proceedings are primary, and don't really belong in an article like that unless some secondary source has commented on them. If he wrote a letter to OUP, for a WP article I want a newspaper telling me about it. And the least of all the problems, in the interests of neutrality, I think it's best to use reasonably neutral sources where possible. Elemimele (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, both, this is helpful. Tacyarg (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Drama

Hi. Is there any wikidrama to take part in? I promise I will be a legitimate party, and I also do useful contributions to Wp. But just pls give me some drama. Sockpuppet investigation? ANI? Edit war? Anything will do really. Thanks. Encyclopédisme (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopédisme I'd strongly advise against going looking for drama. It'll likely only serve to make you more disgruntled with the project, increase tensions, and possibly cause you to be blocked if your comments don't help enough. Unlike social media websites, Wikipedia is a collaborative project and drama is generally bad, not good. Sincerely, Novo Tape^{My Talk Page} 19:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I can reassure you tho, I am happy to contribute positively to content dispute resolution. I actually contribute to the mainspace as well. Its really just that I want to take part, neutrally, in various inside discussions. Im far from the only one often seen on dispute resolution (or actually Im not seen there, but Id like to be). Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

doesn't the act of going there specifically for the drama kind of ruin that? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopédisme, it would be a big mistake for an editor with barely six weeks of service and 177 edits to seek out drama. Those who do usually make things worse and often end up blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I edit under ip longer tho, and I principally work on fr.wiki. Encyclopédisme (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Though I get it, you wont give me current discussions. No worries, il be just as happy watching drama. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Encyclopédisme: I agree with Cullen. On your username, you have lines in Wikipedia, there is no property, there is only knowledge. The goal of Wikipedia is to sum up human knowledge, drama is in none of the goals of Wikipedia. Your comments similar from this thread can be seen as trolling, or return of some previously blocked editor. I strongly recommend you to concentrate on content building, and the related activities of there-of. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it. One who seeks drama will usually find themselves in it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes alright alright. My comments off of the Teahouse are all legitimate. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Encyclopédisme: If you really want to know, the drama page is WP:CESSPIT, more commonly known as WP:ANI. Another place with somewhat less drama is WP:AE. I advise against diving in there unless you really know what you're doing and are intimately familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Uploading files for citations

Do we have a guideline for best practices on uploading a file and then citing it as a source? In this instance there's a reliable website with demographics information, but the site is set up to just produce reports using javascript and then allow you to download them, so it's not possible to link to any individual report. I know for files used as the primary image for an article we have the Upload Wizard and Commons, but do we also use those for citations, or is there something better?  -- Fyrael (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Fyrael, and welcome to the Teahouse. To a considerable degree, my answer to #Refs to reliable sources online - does it matter where hosted? above will apply. On the whole, I would advise against doing this. ColinFine (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, ColinFine. Yeah, I saw that discussion and it bears a little resemblance, though in this case I would be the uploader and at least for my own part would obviously be confident that I didn't modify it. Sounds like the best option is to just cite the website of the org producing the report and just not include a link, as we frequently do with print sources. The link would've just been to save someone a few steps if they were trying to validate the information, but they'll have to make do. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you being confident that you didn't modify it wouldn't help, just as we don't accept personal recollections or knowledge: everything in an article should be verifiable from a reliable published source. I think there is a field in the Cite templates where you could give the reader instructions how to find the right information. ColinFine (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

link help

What is the difference between an external link vs a redirect link? Jude Marrero \=D (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe the difference is that an external link will lead you to a website outside of Wikipedia and a redirect link will take you to a different article within Wikipedia than the one you looked up/clicked on a link for. Tuna^VeniVidi_Vici 20:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

an external link is a link that will send you to a website outside of wikipedia (like a YT video), while a redirect link will send you to a wikipedia article that is different then the one you clicked on. Babysharkboss2!! ^{Killer Queen} 20:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thinking about reworking "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_self-driving_cars"

Yeah, that. Any thoughts or ideas? Right now it seems like a mess of unorganized information that's biased, and I want to shorten parts of it and make it much clearer that many of the proposed benefits are stated as facts.

I think most of this hasn't been touched since 2021. I'm definitely a bit skeptical of self-driving cars, but I think I could do something that is at least NPOV and clearer. homo momo (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

... amazingly, the first section about the automobile industry doesn't even talk about self-driving cars at all. Need somewhere to rant haha homo momo (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

the beginning paragraph is a sort of introduction. itd be weird to start a story without the exposition (unless you can do it correctly) Natelabs (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sawerchessread: The first thing to do is give it a WP:NPOV title, such as "Effect of self-driving cars", rather than the current pejorative "Impact...".

Incidentally, you must change your signature as it contravenes WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Bazza (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

How to update/edit an existing Wikipedia page

I recently got editing rights. However, have no clue how to begin. I want to add additional drag queen names to this page: Category:Swedish drag queens. However, unclear when clicking on Edit how to add additional information. Thanks,

Wallaby5312 (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You don't, you'd use a tool like HotCat to add a category to an existing page, such as RuPaul. All of the necessary instructions for HotCat will be on that page to help you with it. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Wallaby5312 the page you just linked is a category page. See Help:Category for guidance on how to add categories.

If you don't know where to contribute, you can always go to your newcomer homepage which can suggest edits to you. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Going about splitting a page for the first time

The page The Zircons came up in my newcomer feed, and i believe it should be split due to it being about 2 seemingly unrelated groups. Assuming either of these groups are notable enough, how would i go about trying to split for the first time? Powder9157 (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Powder9157 You'll have seen that I've left you a comment on the talk page, agreeing with the need to split the two articles. My approach would be to keep the article about The Zircons with just the relevant content about that one group, then copy over the text relating to The Zirkons to Draft:The Zirkons. (You should make that copy/paste edit by giving appropriate attribution to the authors who wrote it i.e. by simply pointing to the source article url in an Edit Summary)

I'd work to find more sources for both bands as, TBH, I really don't feel either of them look like they would meet our WP:NMUSIC notability criteria. Many very old articles were not so rigorously assessed as they are today for notability. Only when you do find the source for The Zirkons should you then move it into the main part of the criteria. Doing so too soon would render it liable to a deletion discussion.

Once both articles are in mainspace, you shopuld consider a WP:HATNOTE on each of them, pointing to the different group with different spelling. The relevant section within the Hatnote page can be found with this shortcut: WP:SIMILAR. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply but i've been looking for sources and i can't find a single one. The only sources in the article are discogs and apple music, and the other two are completely unrelated. Likely doesn't meet notability Powder9157 (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Manuelle Oudar

Hi, This person was appointed to the Senate of Canada today. Definitely should be included in wikipedia (even before Senate appointment) and trying to create the page. Lots of biographical info and details at these links but I might not have cited correctly? Not sure how to do that.

https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/backgrounders/2024/02/13/manuelle-oudar

https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2024/02/13/prime-minister-announces-appointment-senator

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-announces-new-senator-manuelle-oudar-1.7113795 Canadianpoliticaljunkie (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Name should also be added to the chart on this page, but I am afraid to mess up the formatting: List of current senators of Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 00:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Canadianpoliticaljunkie: Draft:Manuelle Oudar was declined because it lacks inline citations. See WP:CITE for guidance. Summarize what the sources say and cite the sentences you write. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this sufficient for Wikimedia Picture posting

I believe WP:TH also handles Wikimedia questions. The Ellis Island Foundation (https:/www.www.statueofliberty.org) is part of the Nat'l Park Service. The US Gov't usually does not copyright their materials. The Foundation has a photograph of a Russian Volunteer Force (RVF) vessel that I would like to add to the RVF article. I was able to receive the following statement from the Foundation: "Hello again, The images of the passenger lists are not subject to copyright as they are documents produced by the US government for the purposes of immigration. Best, Donor Relations" Needless to say when dealing with the Federal Government it is virtually impossible to get the exact name of the person who inquiries should be referred to. Is the enough sufficient to allow the photo to be posted on Wikimedia? Thanks. Oldsilenus (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Oldsilenus most likely yes, though you may want to check at the Wikimedia Commons help desk. (The Teahouse is for using or editing Wikipedia). Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry, I thought the last time that I asked them a question the response came from WP:TH. Another benefit of asking was that I found that a VPN I thought was removed was still present! Oldsilenus (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Why exactly does the visual editor not work on non-article pages?

Title Eightos (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Eightos, could you specify what pages you are referring to? CanonNi (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Eightos, the answer is that the developers who work for the Wikimedia Foundation have not yet successfully implemented that functionality, despite years of effort and countless dollars spent. Some might say wasted. I suggest that you consider using the fully functional source editor instead, which works perfectly everywhere on Wikipedia. Many people see it as "old fashioned" even though it works smoothly and has been instrumental in creating the #7 website in the world. I am no code monkey or computer geek, but still found it very easy to learn. Take a look at WP:CHEATSHEET. This is neither brain surgery nor rocket science. Any smart, focused person can learn the basics in half an hour or less. Cullen328 (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 Sorry, I wasn't trying to attack the WMF for not implementing it. Sorry if I sounded rude or anything. Eightos (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries, @Eightos. You didn't do anything wrong. Did the visual editor just disappear from articles? It's always available on all articles, but sometimes it gets 'hidden' behind a second button.

Looking at your contributions, I think you might have a preferences setting for "Remember my last editor". That means that if you start in the visual editor, it keeps going in that editing environment, until you switch to a wikitext editor (e.g., by Undoing an edit). Then it keeps going in that editing environment until you switch back.

Unfortunately, if you don't remember the one-time message about how to switch back, you might get "stuck" in the old wikitext editor. If it feels like the visual editor has disappeared from the articles, then please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-editor and look for a drop-down menu that says "Editing mode". I suspect that says "Remember my last". Set that to whatever you want. For example, I have it set to "Show me both editor tabs" (I get separate buttons for the visual editor and a wikitext editor), and a lot of newer editors prefer "Always give me the visual editor if possible". You should pick what you want.

If you don't want to change your preferences and just want to switch back, then here's how to do it:

1. Open the wikitext editor (in case you ever need to know, you're using one called the '2010 wikitext editor', which is also called 'WikiEditor'; you can see screenshots of many options at mw:Editor). You can do this on any article, even one you don't intend to edit.
2. Look all the way at the far end of the editor's toolbar, in the top corner, for a pencil icon. Click that, and choose "Visual editing".
3. It will switch you to the visual editor. Then you can close the tab. (You don't have to publish an edit for it to remember that you used the visual editor most recently.)

There's a matching button in the visual editor's toolbar to switch back to your wikitext editor. Sometimes people switch multiple times during a single edit. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

How to deal with Mobile edits from non-accounts just IP addresses

There are multiple edits made on topics referring to early Mongolian cultures, often times they refer to the same “Ashina” story, which I’ve recently learned is some Turkish nationalist rhetoric. I have done academic research of these anthropological culture that I am referring to and there is no connection at all between these cultures and the “Ashina”. Many times these edits are referring to a hypothetical language that cultures spoke, but there is zero evidence of their language in any capacity, but these IP addresses keep changing my edits. How to keep fake information off of the pages I am editing? Fact Check Mongol (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Fact Check Mongol the discussion process for IP addresses is the same as any other user. Calling it 'fake information' wouldn't be very constructive in such a discussion. In any case, you should read WP:BRD. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Fact Check Mongol, Wikipedia articles need to summarize what reliable published sources say. I have no expertise or even familiarity with the topic area, but I do see that the article Ashina tribe includes quite a few references to sources, that on first glance, appear to be reliable, academic sources. As a general principle, if content is added without being properly referenced to a reliable source, any editor has several choices: Find and add a reliable source verifying the content. Or, add a Template:citation needed tag if the content is plausible. Or, discuss the matter on the article talk page. Or, forget about it and move on. Or, if you are reasonably sure the content is incorrect, remove it with an accurate edit summary explaining why. You cannot edit based on your own academic research. You must summarize published, reliable sources.

We have no policies whatsoever restricting edits by IP addresses using mobile devices. They have just as much of a right to edit as anyone else, as long as they comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Placing comments on AfC submissions as a non-reviewer

Hi all, obviously I'm not allowed to review AfC submissions (decline/accept) but am I allowed to put comments? For example on Draft:Albert Aretz I wanted to mention that more non-primary sources are needed, and I often spend time at NewPagesFeed where a lot of not-very-good submissions come up. TLA (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@I'm tla like any other draft, you can leave comments on an AfC submission's talk page, or on the primary editor's user page directly (which might be more likely to reach them). I would avoid using the AfC comment template, but there isn't any rule against it in principle. Rusalkii (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Antoneta Alamat Kusijanovic

Hi, how can I get the linked draft approved to be published? Please let me know what is needed. Thank you for your help! See at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoneta_Alamat_Kusijanović

The subject I'm writing about, currently has a Wikipedia page for her film, MURINA, published. See at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murina_(film)

Thank you very much! 2AMUser (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@2AMUser, you can't ask for an AfC submission for review – that wouldn't be fair. The subject does seem notable with the right sourcing now, but there are some formatting issues. I'll help with that. TLA (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

First of all though, please rewrite the article. It's copied directly from https://arts.columbia.edu/directory/antoneta-alamat-kusijanovic. See WP:COPYRIGHT. TLA (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@2AMUser: For Draft:Antoneta_Alamat_Kusijanović you need to add sources that show the subject is notable. See WP:REFB and WP:N for guidance on that. After you have made those changes, click the Resubmit button to request a review of the draft. RudolfRed (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not 100% sure on the independence of the sources [as some look like interviews]. Also, inline citations, would make it much easier to verify claims. (Edited to remove ambiguity) ✶Quxyz✶ 02:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The Talk Page for Article is a Different Topic

Ubiquitous is that which is appears to be omnipresent, as in seen almost everywhere.

However, the Talk Page for the article is the talk page for Omnipresence.

How can this be fixed? Starlighsky (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think its really a problem that needs to be fixed. It is normal for a talk page of a redirect to be merged with the parent article's talk page. It helps to centralize discussions, since redirects do not get much attention. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It evolved because they were originally considered the same word.

However, there is no way to talk about the article ubiquitous at this point...as I understand this. Starlighsky (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Ubiquitous is a redirect to Omnipresence. (However, it doesn't seem to work at the moment because of the RfD notice.)

Talk:Ubiquitous is a redirect to Talk:Omnipresence. If you click on Talk:Ubiquitous, then look just under the top title of Talk:Omnipresence, you will see it says "(Redirected from Talk:Ubiquitous)". Clicking on that link will take you back to the actual Talk page for Ubiquitous. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 14:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Correction: Ubiquitous has at some point been a redirect to Omnipresence (hence the Talk page redirect), but it has been overwritten to redirect to Ubiquitous (adverb or adjective), which doesn't exist.

Yes, this is a mess. Feel free to discuss it at the RfD page. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 14:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Any office Action pages

I’ve only seen extra protct. Leninistpython (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Goodday @Leninistpython, could you clarify your question? If you are asking about the protection levels, please see WP:Protect ✶Quxyz✶ 02:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Leninistpython: You can learn more about that at Wikipedia:Office_actions and the links there. RudolfRed (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Can I have more sandbox

Hello, can I have more sandbox? I would like to test, edit and write some new articles. Thank you! Hanoifun (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hanoifun: You can create as many sandboxes as you like! Any page title beginning with User:Hanoifun/ is a potential sandbox – User:Hanoifun/sandbox 1 is an example. Tollens (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Como, New South Wales

This article has a substantial amount of unformatted text that has existed for at least four years. What should be done? 76.14.122.5 (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The preferred way is to be WP:BOLD and fix it. If you are not confortable with that, you can start a discussion on the article's talk page about it. RudolfRed (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

source code, how enter new line without space

When adding a citation in source code, I find it difficult to read, so I like to start the citation on a new line. However, that adds a space before the [n], which is not correct. E.g., ...info. [1]

Is there a code I can use that adds a new line without the space? Like <ampersand>nbsp (add space without newline), but opposite (want no space, with newline). Thanks.

Disclosure: I asked this question along with many others in another discussion but did not receive an answer so am asking it here on its own. Sunandshade (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Would it not be sufficient to format your citation like this:

...regular prose.<ref>

{{cite web|

...citation details...

}}

</ref>

It seems like a waste of space to me, but I don't see how you would get much clearer than that. -- Fyrael (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I could do that. Thanks for the info. As you say, the 1st "ref" is on the same line of the text. Then new line starting with "cite web". All the rest can be on that same line, which saves space. For me, ideal would be to have the 1st "ref" on a new line, but that adds a space so I can't do that, but close enough. Sunandshade (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia font

Hi. Does anyone know what font Wikipedia uses for its headers and body text? Thanks. CanonNi (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi According to WP:TYPE, Sans-serif. ‍ Relativity 04:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

At least in the body. The serif font looks pretty similar to headings and titles. ‍ Relativity 04:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Relativity Thanks you so much! CanonNi (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Quick route desired

I seem to be making up for months of Wiki inaction this week in the Teahouse. Hope not to wear out my welcome. This request for help getting where I want in the Teahouse will perhaps be helpful for other new editors.

If I get a notification of a reply to a question I've raised in the Teahouse, I'm hoping there's a way within the notification to quickly go right where the reply was posted. So far I just don't see one. Is there one? Augnablik (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik: At least the way it is set up for me, if I click the short preview of the reply it takes me directly there. Perhaps it will do the same for you? If not, what does happen when you click the notification itself? Tollens (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, Tollens, I just realized that it differs depending on whether I'm on my iPhone or my computer. Neither one, though, is exactly what I want. I'm really surprised that you get where you want in the Teahouse by merely clicking on the short preview of the reply but I cannot.

— On my iPhone, I click either the phone icon or "On web" and I'm taken to the top of the Teahouse. Once there, I find NO way to search the Teahouse with a search word, such as my replier's name or a unique word in my question.

— On my computer, although I'm again taken to the top of the Teahouse I can at least do a search of the Teahouse (Command-F on my Mac) and all instances of the search word will be highlighted for me to see. Eventually, I'll get to the place I want, but that's so cumbersome. Augnablik (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik On my PC, if I "subscribe" to a thread like this then I am alerted when someone else replies and these alerts provide clickable links straight to the correct section. I have alerted you by the WP:PING system, so there should be a similar link for you there. Alternatively, if you look in your contribution history and cast your eye onto the part where it shows your contribution to "Teahouse/Quick route desired" then clicking on the latter part should take you straight back here (unless the thread has been archived). Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You guys think this article is complete?

To everybody who reads this message, don't actually accept or decline, but if you have time, can you check to see if the Draft:U.S. Route 83 in South Dakota article is ready for the mainspace? I feel like it has enough sources, there's a detailed route description, and a history and future section is also put in there. Ping me to let me know how it looks. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

NoobThreePointOh or you could just wait until a review. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sungodtemple I guess. I've already submitted it for review and waiting. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

In my view it's about Start level right now. In Future and History you have a single short paragraph under a header, but that's not particularly preferred. MOS:PARA discourages that. I think if you combined them into a longer, broader section or found a way to reasonably expand those two sections it could be C Dionysius Miller^talk 13:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The weird thing is that trying to find information is extremely scarce since the route is extremely rural and lonely. I guess if it gets accepted, we could try to improve it a bit more. Not sure, but could use some brushing up. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@NoobThreePointOh, In case you haven't seen it, this may interest you:Why Wikipedia’s Highway Editors Took the Exit Ramp Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thanks. I will look at it later. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Maps

What software will allow me to generate a new map and release it under a free license? 20 upper (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If you don't receive an answer here I suggest you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:LEAKS

@Walkersam started Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#WP:LEAKS and @WhatamIdoing replied. I used the TALK and other pages to start WP:LEAKS essay. Draft is Draft:Leaks_are_questionable_sources Softlem (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

This does not seem to be phrased as a question. Were you looking for some feedback on your essay? From a cursory glance, everything in it seems solid. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Were you looking for some feedback on your essay? yes. sorry. i want feedback before i move it from draft Softlem (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I think there are a few little bits that would benefit from revision (e.g., a press release isn't a leak), but I think you should put it in the Wikipedia: space now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Softlemonades Your draft looks good to me but note that the shortcut WP:LEAKS already exists, linking to part of WP:RS, so you need to invent other shortcut(s). Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

... sorry, you probably already knew that! Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Error: No valid link was found at the end of line 6.

In the section on Emancipation Proclamation in Abraham Lincoln appears the statement "Error: No valid link was found at the end of line 6." That was not true, because, although the first link in footnote 225 did not work, the archived link did. But I edited the footnote to get rid of the first link. Now I'd like to get rid of "Error: No valid link was found at the end of line 6," but I don't see it when I go to "Edit source."

Also, I've never before seen "Error: No valid link was found at the end of line 6." I've often seen . Is there a reason to use "Error: No valid link was found at the end of line 6" rather than ? Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Maurice Magnus the error was not due to a reference, it was due to an WP:Image map. I have fixed the error and restored the previous citation. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Review help edit warring

Here is the edit where my revert was again reverted: [15]. I just noticed that this was the same person I had a conflict in the past on the same article and other articles thus, I am not going to revert back myself. But I am here to seek a opinion whether this person edits are justifiable or not. Thank you 456legendtalk 13:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I am also attaching the previous notice regarding the same user edit warring [16] since that went un noticed. (I don't know how to attach the archive, kindly excuse me for that) 456legendtalk 14:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@456legend, are you trying to keep sentences such as:

• "He was arrested by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) police of Andhra Pradesh in a multi-crore scam"
• "He suffered a major political set back in the 2019 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly Elections where he won only 23 seats out of the total 175 seats"
• "This was also Telugu Desam Party's worst ever defeat."

out of this Wikipedia article?

@Alalch E., I see you were in a discussion a year ago on the talk page. I wonder if you could help this editor with this concern. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

No Discussion, move?

If I initiated a move discussion, and advertised(notified) about it on the WikiProjects 1 2 and other things, but still the discussion seems inactive, should I be bold to move it? There is no response on Requested moves too. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to not be bold. Go for it! Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorting a list

List of UEFA Champions League hat-tricks is an article I've been working on. The sorting part of the clubs is slightly mistake. it sorts alphabetically on the club's nationality and not the club's name itself.

Can anyone help with an edit. it may be too long. So could anyone edit edit the source of at-least 1 player. I'll take the idea and edit the rest Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Issues with timelines, but no error messages?

I think there's an issue with EasyTimeline but for the life of me I can't figure it out, nor do I know where to report the issue....

If you try to change anything whatsoever on a timeline (a person's date, color of an instrument, anything at all), such as here or here, it will display as if there's no image. There's no error message or anything.

However, on timelines such as here or here, it's perfectly fine and displays as normal when something is changed. But the latter two were created in the same way as the former two.

I have absolutely no idea why this is affecting some timelines but not others. I cannot find any major differences between the first two and second two examples, and I've even tried copying the attributes (timeline size, colors, etc.) of a working timeline into a broken one, and it still doesn't work. It's random and I don't know the cause of it. Xanarki (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Xanarki, you might want to ask this question at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Xanarki (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_(computer_science)

Added twice a section and did a SAVE. The additions did not show up or disappeared the next day. What do I do wrong? Please reply to temp AT ontooo.com Thanks Ddccc (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ddccc, welcome to the Teahouse. You added content in this edit. Another editor, Jochen Burghardt, summarized your addition in a different place (see this edit) and then removed your original contribution (see this edit). This can all be seen in the page's history. If you want to contest their change, you can start a discussion on the talk page, Talk:Unification (computer science). 57.140.16.1 (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)