Wikipedia:Teahouse

A lad insane, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help Wikipedia

How 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)

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)

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)

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.

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 10 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)

Hello, @Snehajanfy. Generally speaking, a Wikipedia article about a temple needs to focus more on facts like "It is the country's biggest and most ancient Vishnumaya temple, with a tradition of nearly 400 years" and less on the birth of divine beings. Can you find independent sources (e.g., a newspaper article, a tourist guide book, a scholarly work?) that describe the physical building and its construction? Is there anything unusual about its appearance, or are there any activities (e.g., an annual festival) that have attracted attention from people unrelated to it?

Also, searching for "Vishnumaya Kuttichathan Swami", I found Kuttichathan (disambiguation) and Kanadikavu Shree Vishnumaya Kuttichathan Swamy temple. It's possible that the birth story would be better off as a separate article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If I made claims of it being the biggest and the oldest, it deviated from being neutral and sounded like puffery. Hence avoided it. I will definitely try and find some material about the structure of the temple and it's architectural significance. Snehajanfy (talk) 18:47, 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)

At first glance, the paper cited is a paper about some Empress Ashina, however the paper does not contain the words slab grave or anything relating to the slab grave Anthropological culture at all. Fact Check Mongol (talk) 21:45, 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)

Hi @20 upper! Many maps of the sort that we would want to use on Wikipedia are ineligible for copyright, so the licensing should not be a concern unless it includes satellite imagery or some other copyrightable component. I second the suggestion to ask the maps project. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 21:16, 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: [1]. 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 [2] 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)

Thanks for the ping. This version of an exclusively positive-POV lead was created on 10 November 2023: Special:Diff/1184040086/1184386766 by Fostera12. Content was moved from the "Recognition" section (read: the praise section) to the lead, in clear contravention of the policy that content must be written from a neutral point of view. In a sense, Chinnusaikrish reverted this, except that he lumped that content together with the awards, where it doesn't belong (to be clear, the former "Recognition" section wasn't good either). So it's not a good edit, but any edit which would revert that and restore the ridiculously non-policy-compliant lead would only be a worse edit. It takes a good edit to fix a non-good edit, not an even worse edit.

So do not revert.

The way forward is to separate out the content in the awards section that isn't about any particular award, and see what should be done about this content (the best thing would be to integrate it with the main chronological account of his political career). Then the lead can be worked on to properly summarize the body per MOS:LEAD. The lead needs to be neutral. The current lead that sums up the individual's political career in what's barely three sentences and puts so much weight on a "major polictical set back" and "worst ever defeat", and him being arrested is not neutral either. But the body should be worked on first to enable us to write a good lead, because a good lead can't be written if the body isn't good. —Alalch E. 20:23, 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)

Hi @Atlantis77177! Would Help:Sortable tables § Specifying a sort key for a cell have the information you're looking for? Sdkb ^talk 21:11, 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)

Hello, Ddccc, and welcome to the Teahouse. I only see that you once added a section. If you look at the article's history, you will see that Jochen Burghardt reverted your edit, but their edit summary says that they moved it up to another paragraph.

You have started discussing the matter on Talk:Unification (computer science), but you didn't WP:ping that editor, so they may not have seen your post there; however, I have pinged them here, so they should see this discussion and hopefully will go to the talk page to explain to you why they made the change.

Nobody will be contacting you by email: that's not how we work. ColinFine (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi! How do I create a meetup editathon page? Do I just create one in my sandbox and then link it somehow? Bumusiclibrary (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bumusiclibrary All the information and instructions are to be found at WP:MEET. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The page instructions say create a page, but don't explain how to create a page. Bumusiclibraryblackcomposereditor (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You create a page by typing its full name (which in this case will start with either Wikipedia: or User:Bumusiclibraryblackcomposereditor/) into the search bar, and when it says it can't find it, it will offer you the option of creating it. ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

ok perfect! Thank you so much! Bumusiclibraryblackcomposereditor (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The instructions suggest you should use the tools at Programs and Events Dashboard Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

list of draft deletion proposals that make no sense today

i remembered that somewhere there was a page in the wp namespace about article drafts that got deleted for reasons that would be silly today (like iPhone)

can anyone help me find this page Natelabs (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Natelabs: Perhaps Wikipedia:Before they were notable? DanCherek (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

yes, this is the exact page i was looking for. thank you! Natelabs (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The draft I created in Sandbox yesterday is no longer there

Hello, I was working on my page Susana Tubert/sandbox last night and wanted to finish it today but I had to log in again and now I don't see the page there anymore. Was it deleted? Do I need to start all over again? How do I save my work to make sure it does not happen again.

Thanks for your help!

Susana. SusanaTubert (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SusanaTubert, welcome to the Teahouse. The above appears to be the only edit you've made with this account, and your account has no subpages. Did you click Publish page or Publish changes at any point while working on your draft? That is the only way to 'save' anything to Wikipedia. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh shoot. No, I thought that by clicking on "Publish" it would be reviewed by the team that reviews new pages and I had not finished my draft so I did not click on it. Fortunately I saved a copy - so would I be able to copy/paste it again? And should I click Publish every time I want to save a work in progress draft? SusanaTubert (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, @SusanaTubert, you'll need to click the Publish button in order to save any changes you make. It simply makes your page active on Wikipedia - it doesn't put the page into a reviewing queue. Once you make the page, if you ask for help here someone will be able to add the submission template, which will have the button for putting the draft up for review. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

does anyone know where to hire for article writing?

does anyone know where to hire for article writing? Looking to hire for something that is plenty detailed in references and links and cross references. TIA Tetelestaidudes (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Tetelestaidudes, welcome to the Teahouse. There are no 'official' writing services, and the vast majority of the unofficial ones are scams. Beware anyone who contacts you offering to get an article published in exchange for payment. You might want to read WP:SCAM. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I doubt you will get much advice on where to hire someone; though allowed if disclosed, paid editing is generally not looked upon too favorably. If you choose to do that, don't hand over any money until you see the finished product. They cannot promise you anything(such as writing an article that will not be deleted). See WP:SCAM as well. For what reason do you want to hire someone? 331dot (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)