after many years I need advice about the editing of user: Zacwill, who has decided that a quote referenced by many is not a quote and should be removed for the third time. The article in question Sir Charles Trevelyan, 1st Baronet. I have removed a quote from houses of parliament via the independent newspaper which the editor described as a blog and have produced 3 extra references and a wikilink but the quote was once again removed with the summary of (see previous edit summary). Advice on the suitability of the world renowned quote, the references and further steps to take. Once I know how to take this matter further I will obviously notify the editor. With thanks. Edmund Patrick – confer19:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Edmund Patrick, and welcome to the Teahouse.
The very first step in any content dispute (which is what you have) is to discuss the matter on the article's talk page, according to WP:BRD - as far as I can see that has not happened yet.
If the various editors involved are unable to come to a consensus, dispute resolution tells you what further steps to take.
I'm unclear on the editor bar for scientific articles with numerous peer-reviewed sources cited.
Hello...my original draft was declined by an editor. It appears the key points to improve were: formal tone, including independent sources (which I had, all my sources are peer-reviewed for claims and statements), and removal of 'peacocking' terms. I've scrubbed and re-worked the article, but I'm not sure if it clears the bar for the three points above. Can someone please let me know if this article now still falls foul of the guidelines? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Differential_Hall_Effect_Metrology_(DHEM)Semiconengineering (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Semiconengineering: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see you have resubmitted your draft, so now the yellow box at the top of your draft states "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order." Eventually, someone will review the draft and let you know if the draft is now ready to become an article. You may continue improving the draft while you are waiting, or use your skills to improve other articles. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I guess what I'm trying to convey is that is the 'bar' or 'standard' written down someplace for me to compare and ensure, or is it 'tribal' knowledge? Semiconengineering (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several relevant standards are WP:TONE, WP:RS, and WP:PEACOCK. I don't know much of anything about this article's topic so I can't comment on the sourcing specifically, but a common mistake among WP editors is thinking that being a peer-reviewed journal article is the qualification for being a reliable source. DMacks (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the question of independent sources: in order to meet the bar of notability, any subject must have been written about by people unconnected with the subject. When the subject is an academic theory or approach, this means that people unconnected with those who originated or publicised the subject need to have written about it. (I haven't looked at the particular article to see how far that is the case; but it is an additional criterian that DMacks did not mention). ColinFine (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft as written presumes a readership with degrees in electical engineering. Large wads of text - up to entire paragraphs - are without references. As a small example " Development of next-generation semiconductor technologies comes with escalated costs due to ever increasing technical challenges and extended development cycles needed to meet such challenges." - is that your thinking or a referenced source? David notMD (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. This is common knowledge within industry that certainly needs to be supported by an independent peer-reviewed reference. The articles on other measurement techniques e.g.: SIMS (Secondary ion mass spectrometry) and Scanning probe microscopy, contain many such industry knowledge statements - I guess when those were published the bar was different. I have made the updates to the draft. Semiconengineering (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article clears the notability bar, references are from a wide variety of authors. The references are from high-quality peer-reviewed sources so it would also clear the reliable scholarship bar. Thanks again for the pointers and suggestions. Thanks for making this article better. Semiconengineering (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COI templates and edits
Hello, I am new here, but plan to propose edits to the Talk page of an article to which I have a COI. Can you please confirm that the allowances for directly correcting minor hard fact errors like an incorrect date, spelling or grammar mistakes, or updating the organization’s existing link is still acceptable? (I would include an edit summary to any such changes.) Thank you! Oshentree (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshentree The FAQ page is correct: there are some things that you can change directly rather than by edit request via the Talk Page. However, note that (at the top) it says you still need to disclose your COI. You can do this in the edit summary or on your own userpage. One of Wikipedia's core principles is to assume good faith but we want editors to be open about any COI. The guidance at WP:COI points out that having a COI is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith.Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Yes I posted COI disclosure on my userpage shortly after creating an account and prior to the teahouse query. I fully intend to follow all guidelines and protocols to become a trustworthy, successful contributor. I appreciate the clarification and advice regarding the FAQ as I continue to read through guidance documentation. Regards, Oshentree (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do I avoid taking issues to ANI unless absolutely necessary
I want to be sure I have exhausted all available avenues before going to ANI. In all my years of editing I don't think I've ever had to use it. I have been trying to resolve an AGF issue I'm having with another editor for months (since Aug). The few times we interact it seems like they always end up accusing me of things on article talk pages. I have tried to convince them that we need to use personal talk pages to make personal remarks/warnings and they seem to just ignore me and change the subject, or continue to focus on getting the answer they want while refusing to acknowledge there might be an issue. I've told them that I'm willing to take responsibility as well in order to show I am not trying to put all the blame on them, but they seem to continue ignoring the issue. I tried telling them it's getting to the point where I don't want to participate when they get involved in discussions. I pointed out that instead of criticizing my arguments they tend to criticize me. I have been to their talk page multiple times but nothing I say seems to get through to them. I told them I don't want to take it to ANI because I don't want to waste admins time on something as basic as AGF. What else should I do? DN (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't think I should take it to ANI, and there's nothing else to do but let them keep accusing me of being disruptive? DN (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean that in a cynical manner, I'm just trying to get some more clarification and detail. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this person seems to be impossible to avoid and nearly always gets involved in discussions you're involved in, playing devil's advocate each and every time, making assertions and remarks about you all the while, it's harassment of a user, and constitutes ANI. If this person is avoidable, drop the stick. — Mugtheboss (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am facing problem in publishing an article on wikipedia.
I have tried many times to publish the article by making changes regarding the instructions given in the wikipedia, even though the article is not published . Can you please help me with this issues why am i facing and suggest me what can i do. Sakshi gilada (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are employed or retained in any way with the company you must make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor.
Look for several published sources which are wholly unconnected with your company, and which talk in some depth about you company. Nothing written, published, or commissioned, or based on interviews or press releases from your company or any of its staff or associates. Evaluate any sources you find against all three of the criteria in golden rule
If you cannot find at least three, give up and devote your time to something more valuable. There cannot be an article.
If you can find at least three sources, then forget everything you know about the company, and write a draft based entirely on what those indpendent sources say.
Hello and welcome. If you are referring to Draft:BBG (Building Blocks Group), it was deleted as blatant promotion. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about the existence of a company and what it does- an article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The draft mentioned niche industry awards- these do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award).
Then you are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to disclose that. You should attempt to do this with one of your next edits. Instructions are provided on your user talk page, you may also see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On your Talk page you have been repeatedly warned that your account may be indefinitely blocked unless you address your PAID or COI connection to BBG. You must do that before any attempt to again create a draft, either as a draft or in your Sandbox. If there are not valid references then there is no reason to try again. Also, please stop using "we". Each account must be from one person. David notMD (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have NO memory of editing an article about a contentious topic and the recently deceased.
I have NO memory of editing an article about a contentious topic of the recently deceased. How recent is recent?
I also have no knowledge of how to bring material facts to the attention of a chief editor. in fact i feel that such facts are being dismissed outright. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MisteOsoTruth The note on your talk page actually says living or recently deceased people - I'd imagine it's refering to your edits to on the talk page for Sweet Baby Inc. regarding the inviduals that work for that studio. It's also just a general notice and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. There is no "cheif editor", but you can continue to discuss the article on the article's talk page. ---- D'n'B-t -- 11:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MisteOsoTruth, and welcome to the Teahouse. The large blue notice on your talk page is because you have edited Talk:Sweet Baby Inc., which says at the top that the associated article is a contentious topic. It's not saying that you have done anything wrong, just warning you to take care.
I deleted the addition of text, image and ref. Please first make a case for it on the Talk page, as to me it feels too minor compared to the other artists' inclusions. And wouldn't his art still be copyright protected? David notMD (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absurdity of a page
The first sentence of Wikipedia:Edit lock is blatantly false. Page protection is a software tool which locks an article from editing. I don't know how such obviously false information is allowed to stand, especially in a Wikipedia namespace page that will be viewed by novice editors. Kk.urban (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And in the very next sentence it says "Page protection is never to be used for closing down an article's normal development and community editing." That is the main point. Page protection prevents users below a certain edit count and amount of days on the platform, it doesn't create an outright edit lock for all users.
This is not an insurmountable problem in the majority of cases either, where semi-protection will be used; preventing accounts that are younger than 4 days old with less than 10 edits and IP users. An example of this would be on controversial pages or those with high levels of traffic/editing - see Crocus City Hall attack, which has been under semi-protection for the majority of its short life. These page protections aren't even outright bars to people editing the pages under protection, you can make edit requests if you don't have the necessary user permissions level.
You seem to be assuming some particular meaning of "edit lock". This is not clear. Page protection creates "an outright edit lock" for some users, not all users. For a typical user, it doesn't matter if page protection was used "for closing down an article's normal development and community editing", or for some other purpose - whatever the case, they can't edit the article. Many of the most visible pages are either semi-protected, or extended-protected. The first sentence needs to be changed. Kk.urban (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the confusion is because that page is all about what editors can do if they want to indicate the article is WP:INUSE (which is its shortcut). Viz This page is about templates used while an article is undergoing a major edit. Page protection is something else. You could edit the WP:INUSE page to make this clearer. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble just searching community discussions. I seem to get in a loop of further pages or tutorials. I was interested in something along the lines of a 100 year legacy project within Wikipedia where pages are carried on? I don't see anything on deceased Wikipedians Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines - Wikipedia. I know there are pages on thanatosensitivity (word corrected) and digital creations living on, but specifically within Wikipedia. I'm a retired librarian, so I'm frustrated I can't navigate or search community discussions better. FelixaCulpa (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind explaining some more about what you're looking for specifically? Are you looking for a discussion on a specific topic or are you looking for an easier way to search for discussions in general? CommissarDoggoTalk?16:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to both. 1) where is the direct link to community discussions in general? It seems I search & get results that are more tutorial pages on editing/creation/guidelines. 2) Yes, I'm interested in the specific topic, and have been told that there was a 100 year legacy project within wikipedia that had something to do with the idea of content living on. I haven't found anything that sounds like that specifically. Thanks for quick response! FelixaCulpa (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, FelixaCulpa. It's not clear to me whether you are looking for something that you believe already exists called a 100 year legacy project, or whether you are saying you expect there to be one.
If you are looking for one, you could use the advanced search facility to search for that string in the Wikipedia: namespace. If you think there should be one, then WP:VPP might be a place to bring it up. ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the idea of 100 year legacy project for Wikipedia (which has been discussed somewhere or I wouldn't have been asked about it.) It reminds me of LOCKSS, which in the library world preserves data on servers at multiple locations in case of disaster. It's referred to as "dark archive" which isn't really "dark," but just an ingestion & preservation of information. Maybe a 100 year legacy project for Wikipedia would be something like that, a preservation system for keeping entries alive well into the future? I'm not sure I'm asking the right questions, but it was very specific idea supposedly within Wikipedia using words "100 year legacy" FelixaCulpa (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FelixaCulpa My suggested search (above) can be modified to look for 100+year+legacy and although there are hits, I don't think that any are what you seek. There's nothing on Meta-wiki either, which is the other obvious place to look. Incidentally, Wikipedia welcomes people who want to download the whole database and you could do so with the intention of storing this somewhere for a 100 years! See WP:DOWNLOAD. I don't think that there is any doubt that versions will be available in 2124. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Daquq town not actually being called daquq town
Daquq is apparently a town in kirkuk,but in most sources its called Tavuk Kasabasi(its real name daquq is just the district name) and they mentioned that its majority Shia turkmen with kaka'i kurd minorities (page says kurd and turkmen majority) and its included in the kurds and kurdistan category which is wrong due to the demographics of the town. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kirkukturk3, and welcome to the Teahouse. If there is a change you think should be made to a Wikipedia article, please open a discussion on that article's talk page, arguing for the change you want to see, and citing reliable sources for any information you want to add (or to remove, if the information to be removed appears to be supported by citations). ColinFine (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I already know that but there is a problem, there is an editor which is very known for their vandalism(altered many city and town pages demographics which is not acceptable) guards it.Who can I ask to check their edit? Thanks. I aslp just now checked that it's not allowed to start a discussion in the talk page for some reason?
I don't know why I don't see the add topic button anywhere,I've refreshed many times it's still not appearing, is it an issue with my device? Kirkukturk3 (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirkukturk3 Possibly but you don't say which device you are using. The alternative way to start a new topic is to "Edit source" and begin with a header (i.e. a title between two = signs either side), like you would do in an article, followed by your comment on the lines below. Then "Show preview" to check all is OK before you "Publish changes". Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How to tell if an IP address is blocked
Hi! I have recently reverted an edit from an IP address that appeared to be an opinion. I went to their talk page to warn them about it. I found the anon block template at the top. However, it seems to have been up for a long time and the edit I reverted was very recent. How can I check to see if the IP editor is actually blocked? QwertyForest (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check their contributions page, it'll normally show it right at the top. I'm making a rather small assumption that this is who you're on about, so here's their contributions page. Normally it'll show up at the top with a red box for a full block or yellow for a partial block. If it's a partial block, it'll show what pages/areas they're blocked from. That IP user has neither. CommissarDoggoTalk?18:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's awesome. Some things to keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a advertisement site. If the game is popular enough, an article could be created. Hope this is helpful. Cwater1 (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the general notability guidelines, there's a good chance that a newly created card game will unfortunately not meet them. You'll need to wait until enough reliable, secondary sources report on the game to make the page.
You're kind of in a conflict of interest, you know? Writting about your own game? If the game is relevant enough, there'll be sources from reliable third parties about it. It'll be a test of its relevance : other people creating pages about it with multiple sources about it without your influence is a show of a popular game. 142.170.60.247 (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Myrealnamm I salute you for your attention to this. Recently, I personally moved literally hundreds of stub articles off the pages for beetle stubs and for insect stubs into subcategories. It was a weeks' long project. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm wondering if someone can tell me why text doesn't wrap more closely to images. For example, go to this page and scroll down until you see a black-and-white photo of George Lucas from 1986. There is a chunk of white space below the image, which is clearly enough room for another line of text, but the text doesn't wrap that closely, making the end result visually unappealing. Why does this happen, and is there anything I can do about it? I tried moving the image around in the section, but in every position the same thing happened. Wafflewombat (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question about Citation reference from an Interview
Hello! Can anyone tell me if we can / we should not use a source content that majorly involves an interview? For example, for a movie article I found the producing director's interview about the movie production. Can I use that for the production section of the movie? Especially for a certain information that only the production team will only know (like the casting process, how many camera were used for the production, etc.)
Please guide me for this. Thank you in advance! Shenaall (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ShenaallWP:ABOUTSELF is your guidance here. In general, the director is good for basic facts about the movie (we started filming in 2022 yes, it's the best film ever no), but keep the amount of it reasonable, and such a source probably doesn't add to WP:N. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Shenaall. Assuming for the sake of discussion that the notabilty of the film has already been established, then limited use of non-independent sources like an interview with a producer or a director may have some value. But your examples concern me. Every film goes through a casting process which results in the cast list in the article. If the casting process was so unusual as to deserve extra mention in the article, then it will have been discussed by reliable, independent sources. Similarly with regards to the number of cameras. Most films are made with single camera setups although it is not uncommon for three or four cameras to be used especially when filming prolonged conversations among multiple actors. So, when should an encyclopedia comment on such a common element of filmmaking? When a reliable source entirely independent of the producer/director discuss it. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Gråbergs Gråa Sång and @Cullen328, the details regarding my question is in Draft:My Sibling's Romance#Production. The draft is still very rough and only contains direct translation from the article for now because I just started it not long ago, so pardon me if it's confusing to read.. The subject is not a movie to be exact, it is a reality TV program where the casting process was not an audition but rather the production team dm-ed 1500 people and they used 100 cameras behind one-way mirrors when filming which can be included in the production section, or am I wrong? But, my concerns was the said information can only be found in this citation article in Korean where the content is full QnA interview of the producing director about the production process and the idea of the show. For the other section like popularity or overview already has a reliable secondary source. The subject, in my opinion, is notable enough for an article. What do you think? Shall I include the information from that interview contents or just not include it at all? Shenaall (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should I include a photograph of my person when drafting an article in my sandbox? How do I determine if a photo is royalty-free and meets requirements for common licensing? TrevorGlynLocke (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TrevorGlynLocke, a photograph is very unlikely to be royalty free unless the photographer themself says so. If you took the photo yourself then it's up to you if you want to release it to commons. I would not worry too much about including a photograph on a draft article - check WP:FIRST for guidance on getting your article off the ground. ---- D'n'B-t -- 10:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, TrevorGlynLocke: in addition to what the other replies have said, note that the presence or absence of a photo will not affect whether the draft is accepted.
Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. The page has been nominated for speedy deletion under G11. If an admin finds the article to meet the criteria for deletion and nobody contests, it will be deleted. CanonNi (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving episode synopsis to below lead section per MOS causes issues
I would like to upload some images for the article Draft:Villa Fabbricotti on which I'm working. I did the photographs with a mobile phone. There are no people visible in the images. Can I upload them or is it illegal? Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 15:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@14 novembre I'm not sure why you think that uploading your own photos to Commons would be illegal! That's what our sister Project is for. Use the Wizard at Commons:Special:UploadWizard and give the information requested. note that the presence or absence of photos in drafts will not alter the chance of the draft being accepted: they don't help with wikinotability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull Well, the image I am seeking to upload does not represent any architectural or artistic relevant subject, but only some plants in the park of the villa. Does that still apply?
I'd assumed that an article on the building would have its picture and hence that was what you were asking about. Pictures of the park/plants will be fine but might not be relevant to the topic. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull Thanks for your answer. The image I wanted to upload was an image of the park quite different from all the existing ones on commons. Anyway, my question is, does an image of the park/plants still go under the legal concerns you previously expressed. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 15:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to Wikipedia and have just started to learn how things work around here.
My motivation for starting to write on Wikipedia was a Wikipedia page called "Keramikou 28" which disappeared out of the blue. I thought of recreating the page as I assumed that the previous creator(s) had deleted it.
However, I recently found out that the page wasn't deleted by the creator(s) but rather via AFD (Articles for Deletion).
I have already created the page with some corrections to the previous one and am now waiting for it to be reviewed.
Is it possible to bring back an AFD page?
Hello,
I recently created my first page and tried publishing but it was deleted due to copyright issues. Is there a way to recover the deleted page so I can update the text? It took me a long time to create the page and now it seems to be gone? Freshkicksfreshkicks (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Freshkicksfreshkicks Administrators can in theory recover deleted pages, but of it was deleted for copyright violations, it cannot be retained. You should restart the article writing it with your own words and citing the sources you used to find the information. By the way, what was the title of the article? Ok I suppose it was Draft:Vedette Lim. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 15:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was Draft: Vedette Lim. The issue is that the "copyrighted" material was copyrighted by me, I copy and pasted it from a website that I published myself so this is all my original writing. How do I recover the deleted page so I can update the text so it differs from my original text? Freshkicksfreshkicks (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Freshkicksfreshkicks, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please note that copying text from an external website, even if the copyright allows it, is almost never an effective way of creating a Wikipedia article. There is no reason why an external website should conform to Wikipedia's core policies such as verifiability, reliable sources or neutral point of view, and indeed https://entertainment.ie/person/vedette-lim/ has no sources cited, seems unlikely to be from sources independent of Lim, and uses peacock terms.
In fact, if you start with the text you have, you will be writing the article BACKWARDS, as so many inexperienced editors do, and give yourself a lot of frustration and disappointment.
You could try and ask the administrator who deleted the draft to offer a partial refund, but generally revisions containing copyrighted content are removed entirely. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to request someone to create a page for us so that it is unbiased? I was attempting to create a page for the Excelsior Citizen an online news publication for Excelsior Springs, MO but I'm too closely involved and the entry I created was too promotional. Sjasoncole (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a means for doing so, Requested Articles, but it is backlogged in the extreme. Wikipedia articles are not for merely telling about something, an article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. If your publication is truly notable, and covered by appropriate sources, someone will eventually write about it. Trying to force the issue doesn't usually work. Just go on about the business of your publication as if Wikipedia didn't exist. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on the talk page for discrimination, I feel that the Types section aligns with many progressive PoVs, but has some contention in the conservative PoVs. As a result, it seems that progressive understand discrimination as a "bad" thing, and anything else that is could fit under the definition of discrimination is not real discrimination. It is my viewpoint that either discrimination is labeled as a progressive aligned term, or we need examples of discrimination that are not progressive.
Hello, Subanark, and welcome to the Teahouse. I see you have begin a discussion at Talk:Discrimination, which is the right place for it. Nobody has yet replied to you, so that might mean that nobody disagrees, or that people haven't yet had time to see and consider your post there. What you could do is to look through the history of the article, and see which editors have contributed to it (especially those who have made contributions that you do or don't agree with) and ping them on the talk page.
Hi @Brudelman, welcome to the Teahouse. These don't sound like WikiProjects as the term is generally defined here; they would be other projects under the overall Wikimedia umbrella (like, for instance, Old English Wikipedia, or Wikisource). Proposals for such things are made over on Meta - here are the instructions for new language projects, for instance. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat of a new editor that doesn't have much experience making large improvements to articles, but I'd like to improve Redfearn v United Kingdom. Are there any Good Articles about case law that I can use as inspiration? Any other help and advice would be much appreciated. Thank you! MajesticRZ (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw an article that had no sources and was not notable. However, I just found out that the page was protected (restricted), so I can't tag it for deletion.
GenericUser24, for reference the article is The Odyssey (Smith), the italic marks don't work in links. Songs are not one of the things eligible for A7 deletion. A9 can apply to songs, but in this case since the composer has an article that would not be applicable either. So once you become autoconfirmed (not tough to do; wait a few days since you've already made the required number of edits), if at that time you still think deletion is warranted you could utilize the proposed deletion or articles for deletion processes, but it's not eligible under any speedy deletion criteria so far as I can tell. You also could make an edit request for someone to make the edit on your behalf, but really it's simpler to just wait a few days until you can do it yourself. You could use that time to see if you could find any suitable reference material that could be used to improve the article; deletion is only indicated when such material cannot be found to exist, not just because the article is currently in a poor state. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the Wikipedia policy on abbreviations in citing journal titles? For example, is Am J Public Health an acceptable title, or should it be written out? The obvious help articles don't seem to deal with this, but I'm probably missing something. Johsebb (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johsebb, Wikipedia does not have the space limitations that restrict printed journals, and unlike journals, is published for a general audience. Always use the full title. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I need assistance emailing the person responsible for posting a photo to Wikipedia. I am using a wikipedia commons photo in a book and need information about its source. AP Photos wants to charge me $310 to use the same photo. I need assurance that it is not copyrighted.
The photo I would like to reuse is posted here:
Welcome to the Teahouse, WikiPhotoFinder68. To contact the editor by e-mail, you'll need to write your message in the text box at Special:EmailUser/Anthony. There's no way to reveal the user's address because that's protected by Wikipedia. If WikiPhotoFinder68 decides to reply to you, it will come from their address and you'll then have it, but that's the only way to find it out. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. I do not see a text box on Anthony's talk page. There is a text box displaying the last message he received, but I cannot write to it.
Under the link that says Special: emailuser/Anthony it says: This page is a soft redirect. When I get to the link these is no text box. What am I missing here?
Note that the uploader, Anthony, said that the image was "in the public domain because it was ineligible for copyright". If this correct, then you don't need permission. However, @Pigsonthewing has just challenged this, and nominated the picture for speedy deletion. See C:File:Butterfly Ballot, Florida 2000 (large).jpg. ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I can see the deleted material, I can certainly tell you. is a distinguished former Indian badminton player ("distinguished" is puffery and editorializing), was marked with various achievements (like?), he participated in prestigious tournaments ("prestigious" is puffery), Notably, Vidyadhar represented (do not tell the reader what is "notable"; let them decide that), Some of his remarkable performances ("remarkable", more editorializing and puffery), On the international stage he was highlighted by his gold medal triumphs (skip the flowery language; just state that he won X number of gold medals in that tournament), and then the rest is essentially a CV which is inherently promotional. So, I agree that the entire article was essentially talking about how great this person is, and was correctly deleted as such. Articles should stick to only specific facts from reliable and independent sources, and should be entirely neutral in tone, without any editorializing, needless adjectives, or "talking up". SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article alerts + recognized content not working?
So I want to generate a recognized content list and article alerts for WikiProject Apps. I've inserted the code and transcluded the pages. However, it seems no content is being generated. I've already tagged some pages with the project's tag. Why is this not working? Thanks, TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 21:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TrademarkedTWOrantula I've not checked whether you've actually followed the process correctly, but I do note you added that section yesterday, and that the template states that the bot updates weekly on a Saturday. Are you therefore not being a little premature with your question? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Racism?
Hi! I came upon an article during my vandalism training, that isn't really vandalism, but IS super uncomfortable. It's shrouded racism, couched in historical sources that were only online for like one day (seems fishy). Namely the first one for the Smithsonian online tracked for one day on wayback. Not sure how to handle this one. She wasn't really notable and wasn't really a sculptor or a scientist, not provable anyway. Thoughts? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_KollerSlacker13 (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The Wayback Machine only has an archive of this page on one day" does not mean "the page was only online for one day". They don't archive every page on every site every day (some pages just never get archived, which is very frustrating). If you don't think the Koller article meets notability, you're welcome to nominate it for deletion. DS (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This book is the publication of the thesis of my PhD by Prior Publication, titled “Satanic Abuse, False Memories, Weird Beliefs and Moral Panics: Anatomy of a 24-year Investigation.”
Which source would be better, or does it matter? The thesis can be accessed open source, so it is easily verifiable, but the book (I believe) matches technically more closely what Wikipedia actually wants for its sources. ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧22:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you mean. The term "PhD by Prior Publication" refers to a specific type of doctoral degree, which is not a reference to a publishing company named "Prior Publication." Instead, it indicates a route to earning a PhD based on previously published work. In this context, the capitalized "P's" in "Prior Publication" are used to emphasize the specific route of achieving a PhD, not to denote a company or organization. It's odd phrasing, and it could have been clearer, but that is what it means. Candidates for this type of PhD must demonstrate that their already published works collectively constitute a significant and original contribution to knowledge in their field, meeting the standard expected of a conventional PhD thesis. ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧00:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. It seems the author had previously published their thesis in 2014, and then published the book last year containing their thesis. They earned their PhD via prior publication, which means they used their years of investigative journalism to prove a unique contribution to the field for the PhD. Then they published that thesis as a book last year. I don't believe self citation applies since this isn't my work, but appreciate the template for cite thesis. ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧01:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a new editor and wanted to know if there is any kind of policy/guidelines regarding the use of Pronouns for the 72 genders? As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and sometimes it gets confusing, in the context.
In articles. I was editing Darwin Del Fabro, a non-binary actor and singer, the article is written in he/they and at a few instances, they and their of Darwin and they and their of a production company was getting mixed. Although, it has been fixed for now, however, it got me thinking, the impact of it on readability of the article, and what about in the future, such confusions become unavoidable?
Thank you for your question, it was indeed a necessary clarity. Thank you :)
I would say: use the pronoun that you think most obviously applies to someone unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. "This person has expressed a preference for X pronoun" counts as a compelling reason, as does "this person is trans" and "you've made a mistake there". DS (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment @DragonflySixtyseven, I am concerned about the articles. I do respect the people's choice for themselves, and would always use their preferred pronouns.
the current image is of VERY low resolution and I went to the PSAP's website to get a higher resolution logo.
There is one on the website, but it isn't uploaded to Wikipedia yet and I was going to upload it, but I'm unsure if that falls under fair use or not.
I'm not sure what to do here, the PSAP is a subsidiary of the Genesee and Wyoming, and other subsidiaries have their logos in full high resolution, so do I upload it, ask permission for it, or something else? HaloSpartanCats (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Company logos may appear in articles on those companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria. Logos uploaded to Wikipedia must be low-resolution and no larger than necessary.
Why "we", Mentalhealthwriter -- are there more than one of you? And I see that you have removed the template from the article American Mental Health Foundation. ¶ Sample: Recently, the foundation has aspired to and initiated higher levels of female leadership (unreferenced). We're not normally concerned with the mere aspirations of subjects of articles. Rather, what have they verifiablyachieved? -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do I find pages with specific maintenance tags?
For example pages tagged with "Needs more sources," or "needs copy editing," "NPOV" etc? Looking to find pages that need editing by tag searching etc, to help with cleanup.
Any tools or pages that help direct towards articles on WP that are tagged for cleanup/improvement would be great. Thank you very much. Comintell (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I put information about myself and someone is criticizing it
I added myself as the first female mayor of Miami Shores and someone has questioned whether I should be there since it is called the Village of Miami Shores. However, it is a part of the numerous municipalities in Miami Dade County. When I was mayor I represented Miami Shores in the Miami Dade County League of Cities. This person bookworm, ce thinks I am not eligible. How do I remedy this? I added my name as I am considering asking to be considered a notable graduate of my high school alumni class and why I wanted to make sure my name showed up there. The person who questioned whether I should be on there even cited the Miami Herald article from when I was elected. Please advise. KKirbyMiami (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would I get the information updated if I did not add it? Also I was not trying to do anything wrong I did not know I had to add a source but am happy to do so. I was the first woman mayor elected there in 1985. There were very few female mayors at that time and also I was only 35 years old. Tell me how to remedy this please? I heard my high school is adding people to their list of graduates who contributed through work or political office and I want them to be able to see that in fact I was the first woman mayor of my city. I was not trying to mislead anyone. KKirbyMiami (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to have yourself added to the list, you must provide a credible source proving that you were, in fact, the first female mayor of a municipality. Any unsourced content will be removed per WP:PROVEIT. CanonNi (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
What are the municipalities in Miami-Dade County?
Miami-Dade County is comprised of 34 municipalities: Aventura, Bal Harbour, Bay Harbor Islands, Biscayne Park, Coral Gables, Cutler Bay, Doral, El Portal, Florida City, Golden Beach, Hialeah, Hialeah Gardens, Homestead, Indian Creek, Key Biscayne, Medley, Miami, Miami Beach, Miami Gardens, Miami Lakes, Miami Shores, ...https://www.miamidade.gov/information/library/at-a-glance.pdfKKirbyMiami (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Miami-Dade County is comprised of 34 municipalities: Aventura, Bal Harbour, Bay Harbor Islands, Biscayne Park, Coral Gables, Cutler Bay, Doral, El Portal, Florida City, Golden Beach, Hialeah, Hialeah Gardens, Homestead, Indian Creek, Key Biscayne, Medley, Miami, Miami Beach, Miami Gardens, Miami Lakes, Miami Shores, ...https://dpanther.fiu.edu/sobek/FI18052712/00001/marcKKirbyMiami (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Karen Kirby First Female Mayor of Miami Shores at Halloween Howl 1991 ( en )
Funding:
This project has been funded under the provisions of the Library Cooperative Grant program, administered by the Florida Department of State’s Division of Library and Information Services.
Karen Kirby First Female Mayor of Miami Shores at Halloween Howl 1991 ( en )
Funding:
This project has been funded under the provisions of the Library Cooperative Grant program, administered by the Florida Department of State’s Division of Library and Information Services.
The women named in that list either have Wikipedia articles about them (names appear blue) or there is a confirming reference. That is why your self-addition to 1985 was reverted. The second hyperlink you provided https://dpanther.fiu.edu/sobek/FI18052712/00001/marc states that you were mayor in 1991, not that you were elected in 1985. Do you have a newspaper clipping from 1985? David notMD (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I showed them a link and they are still disputing. Why would I want to lie about something like this? I am 74 years old and was 35 when I was elected. I just want to e added as I was submitted as an outstanding graduate of my high school in Tampa, Florida due to my political history. This is ridiculous. KKirbyMiami (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is disputing that you were first mayor. For that information to be included in 1985 - I am presuming the year you were elected - needs a ref confirming that fact. It does not have to be available online as long as you can name the paper, date and page number. David notMD (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for clarifying this for me. It is much appreciated and done in a very respectful way. I feel like I was undergoing trial. KKirbyMiami (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors tend to be extra cautious when it comes to verifiability because of Wikipedia's notoriety of being seen by the general public as a very unreliable source of information. If it makes you feel any better, you've done nothing wrong, it's just how things are done around here. — Mugtheboss (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking your time to make me feel understood. I meant no harm claiming to be a first woman elected mayor which I was never expected to be so controversial. KKirbyMiami (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly recommend that you spend quite a time editing and improving pages before you think about creating a Wikipedia page.Bduke (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Usersnipedname and welcome to the Teahouse. You might be looking for {{Talkback}}, which you can place on a user's talk page to notify them about messages. To show you an example, I've sent you one on your talk page notifying that I've answered your Teahouse question. CanonNi (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Usersnipedname: What do you consider a non-intrusive and quiet alert? Leaving messages on their talk page or pinging them directly will create an item in the dropdown menu (the former will also make a yellow dialog box appear on the recipient's screen). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Taz Panter Foundation
Hi there,
Is there any way I can give information about the foundation (Draft:Taz Panter Foundation) without it being labelled as advertising.
This is a translation of de:Taz Panter Stiftung, so first of all we would need correct attribution: more info can be found at Help:Translation; be aware that the existence of an article in another Wikipedia does not automatically mean it will be accepted here. English-language Wikipedia has a rather high threshold regarding sourcing. Going through the sources I see many directly taken from the Tageszeitung (which isn't really "neutral" in regard to the foundation), and those independent are rahter passing mentions of the foundation. All this doesn't establish WP:Notability for the foundation itself. I would suggest to incorporate the info at Die Tageszeitung. Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest, though. Lectonar (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Categories
I have stumbled across a Wikimedia Category page, with a long list of sub-categories, at least one of which screams that it needs a review of some sort. Obviously there are taskforces and working groups that look at this sort of thing full-time, but as I started to read the long & very detailed advice in WP:CFD I rapidly began to lose the will to live. Is this a minefield I am better staying well clear of?
Now, if you want the specifics; it's an aviation thing.
Aircraft are typically identified by registrations (civilian aircraft) or serials (military), or both if they are historic such as an airworthy Spitfire which flies using a registration such as 'G-SPIT', whilst the paintwork on the aircraft itself is RAF serial 'MV293'. However the exact distinction between registrations versus serials is somewhat blurred, particularly in these cases. (FWIW either is ok by me.)
When it comes to Hawker Hurricanes, Wikimedia offers 19 sub-categories, including these two;-
One has got 37 entries (a mixture of both 'civil' and 'military'), whilst the other category displays just one entry, which is a clear duplicate. I would simply put all 38 into one box, and I see that the category is already tagged https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Categories_requiring_permanent_diffusion_to_zero, but it is still there so what do I do? I admit I am somewhat put-off by the process. Is there a simple way?
@WendlingCrusader: As GoingBatty mentions, those categories are on Wikimedia Commons, so English Wikipedia's categorisation rules don't apply. Categorisation on Commons certainly can be a bit of a minefield, but because it's a major part of how Commons works it's generally acceptable to be bold and just fix the category tree if necessary. In this case, my approach would be to look around other types of ex-RAF aircraft and see how their categories are structured. I picked a couple of names I could remember, and neither c:Category:De Havilland DH.98 Mosquito nor c:Category:Supermarine Spitfire has a "by serial" sub-category. So my first impression is that c:Hawker_Hurricane_by_serial. But searching for c:Special:Search/Category: intitle:"by serial" -intitle:number finds me 50-odd similar categories so this isn't just a one-off situation. And then I notice that many of these categories were created by the same user. And at least in the case of c:Category:Tiger Moth by serial the same user created c:Category:Tiger Moth by registration, which suggests that the dichotomy is deliberate and not just the result of different editors' having different ideas. At this point, I'd wander over to c:User talk:Joshbaumgartner and ask them how they intended these categories to interact. The opinion of the creator isn't definitive, of course, but I'd want to take it into account before changing anything. --bjh21 (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Number of edits
I would like to ask what is approximately the minimum number of edits to be eligible, if all other requirements are met, for adminship. PS: for now, I am not seeking to become an admin. I ask just for information. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 13:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wording such as, "You'll be perfectly fine. I know a lot of people question the legality of a hacked 3ds, but I assure you that nothing will go wrong." is written from a personal perspective and is not appropriate for an article.
The awards imply an editing rate which is far lower than the average of most active editors. I suggest, to make it simple, double all the numbers of edits. 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 14:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've been directed here by admins from deletion review, I hope you might be able to halp me.
A short backstory.
I am a student of Master Shi Xing Mi and work in media, so several years ago I created a Wikipedia entry about him, which I subsequently edited and eventually added over 20 sources following the notice of deletion due to a lack of independent sources. Nonetheless, the page was deleted, in my opinion completely incorrectly.
Master Shi Xing Mi has hundreds of international sources, from prestigious publications such as Forbes and NYP, to government institutions in several countries and large international corporations. He is the most quoted and published Shaolin Master globally, with 4 books published by the likes of Random House and Mondadori, as well as the Co-Founder of two international wellness and fitness companies with hundreds of employees.
Despite providing over 20 such sources in the Wikipedia article, as well as hundreds more being available to anyone with just a single Google search, somehow a Wikipedia moderator deleted it citing "no independent sources". Without being sarcastic, clearly Master Shi Xing Mi doesn't own dozens of top international magazines and newspapers, global book editors, government institution and many other such sources. They are clearly impeccable independent sources.
The deletion seems thus completely unfounded and arbitrary, to me; furthermore, there are dozens of Wikipedia pages about living people who comparatively have a miniscule number of sources, yet are considered compliant. Oddly, Shi Xing Mi's own Master, Shi De Yang, has 1 (one) source which is his own website, yet it's considered acceptable. Shi Xing Mi, who by the way is mentioned in Shi De Yang's Wikipedia page, has hundreds of sources but is not acceptable.
I would be happy to understand how to create an appropriate page for my Master, or how to correctly edit and source the deleted one, if anyone would be so kind as to help me. Previously, I just added 20 sources, ranging from Forbes to Shaolin Temple, but somehow that was deemed insufficient. Would gladly do better if someone could help me understand what better should look like.
Actually, Shi De Yang's page is unacceptable and I will soon be creating a proposed deletion for the page. It has three sources, one of which is his own page (which cannot be reached) and two sources that aren't really independent of the subject.
Shi Xing Mi is referenced on the page, but not really. He's pictured with Shi De Yang, and thus has to be mentioned.
Looking at the second deletion discussion, I'm unfortunately with those who voted to delete the page. If I were to try and create the page now, I'd really struggle with the sources available. CommissarDoggoTalk?15:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An dependent source is not necessarily a source owned by the subject. It is any source that exclusively contains info directly from the subject (link to our policy on that here).Also, calling New York Post a "prestigious publication" is rather ironic considering its status as a tabloid. Industrial Insect(talk)15:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Watchlist History
Hi,
I recently edited my watchlist and may have inadvertently deleted some links. Is there a way to view the history of your watchlist to check whether you messed up. I am a long term editor and never thought about this before but couldn't see a way to do it. I presume this being a wiki the history is kept somewhere. WCMemail15:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to add an interesting note about this movie as my father was a Plebe and appeared in this movie in 1937, he graduated with the class of 1941. They were used as extras, in uniform of course, and delighted when instructed to shout for Lionel Barrymore playing Skinny Dawes, in actually chanting Skivvy Drawers. Of course they thought this was quite amusing. However I have not edited html in a long time. Tamylock (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have this documented somewhere in a publicly available reliable source? If it is just a personal recollection, it unfortunately would not be suitable article content; all content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tamylock, it's worth noting that Wikipedia uses wikitext, a special markup language unique to wikis, instead of HTML for the most part. However, you can use the visual editor to simplify it a bit. However, as 331dot said, you would need a reliable source to back up the claim prior to adding the info. If you provide a source, I'd be happy to make the change for you if need be. Sincerely, Dilettante17:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Help with article passing requirements
Hello,
Can someone help flag specific instances in this article that keep getting it deleted or possibly help me rewrite? I am trying to get this posted soon, but this is my second time trying. With Black history under attack, I am trying to get articles posted about living legends and give them their flowers. Here is my draft:
Hello, Birminghamhistoryfinder. Your draft has several major problems. Obvious from the beginning is that it is written like a hagiography rather than a biography in an encyclopedia. Writing like His journey from humble beginnings in Montgomery, Alabama to the helm of a successful business empire is emblematic of resilience, determination, and a commitment to uplifting his community. is not appropriate in Wikipedia's voice. The relevant core content policy is the Neutral point of view, which is mandatory. Another problem is that your references are clumped at the end. Please read Wikipedia:Inline citation and Referencing for beginners to learn how to correct this. Every substantive assertion needs a reference to a reliable source, according to Verifiability, which is another core content policy. Also, Your first article will give you an overview of what is required. Cullen328 (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Policies, guidelines etc
I often feel overwhelmed by the numerous policies that Wikipedia operates under. How do experienced editors know when and what to cite? Do they remember the policies better over time as they become more seasoned, or do they go on a "policy search" every time a situation calls for it? Thank you!
Hello, Fenharrow. I do not think that any editor can remember every policy and guideline, but some come into play more often than others. The three core content policies are Verifiability and the Neutral point of view and No original research. Once you understand these three interrelated concepts, you will have a good basis for writing new content. What Wikipedia is not is also useful for understanding what types of content do not belong on Wikipedia. The General notability guideline is an important tool for determining whether or not a topic is eligible for a freestanding article. Yes, editors develop a better memory for and understand of policies and guidelines over time. But the basics are not difficult to understand for those who are serious about editing. Cullen328 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If, in the Languages section, I go on the link for Italian, the sistem redirects me to , which, except for a possibile phonetic similarity, has nothing to do with the Dutch former footballer. Hiwever, if I try to edit the Wikidata item, the itwiki link appears to be correct, at . Can anyone help?
Thank you very much and kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 19:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created a draft it got deleted and the reason the editor provided was incorrect. I restored it. Can you have a look and give feedback? Constructive feedback, for example where more information and sources is needed.
There are many more resources of the person online, for example you can search the name in Google book and Google scholar. Also you can search in major social media, FB.com Twitter.com weibo.com etc. You can add or edit the draft based on your research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jenia_MengIntodefinitecubic (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, you didn't research. IMDB, Google book and Google scholar of Jenia Meng are all reliable sources. It is an issue of systemic bias of Wikipedia, and for an article of a person, often it is important to cite from her own website: the person have more knowledge of himself than any other sources. Intodefinitecubic (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is not a reliable source for anything, please see WP:IMDB, and we are not interested in what the subject of the article has to say about themself, because they have a clear Conflict of interest. Social media, such as Facebook, Twitter and Weibo are, similarly, not acceptable. We are only interested in what Independent, reliable sources have said, without being fed information by agents or press releases. - Arjayay (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking for constructive feedback but then you're arguing against the reasons given to you. Are you actually here in the Teahouse for constructive feedback, or are you here to convince others that the consensus achieved in the AfD is wrong? If so, the Teahouse is not the proper place for that, Deletion Review (DRV) is. However, I would urge you to read the instructions and rules of DRV before posting there. For example, it would not be acceptable for you to make accusations of bias at DRV as you've done here.
If, instead, you are not planning on contesting the AfD and you genuinely want to better understand the arguments given there, you may continue to ask questions here. But only if you're willing to hear what people are trying to tell you. Mokadoshi (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the current state of policy on all the <Insert year> <Insert football team> season articles?
I keep running into a lot of articles like the 2016 Richmond Spiders football team, which have mostly database and run-of-the-mill coverage of sports wins, which I think are mostly not notable, given there is rarely continuing coverage for arbitrary football teams, especially not for every season. Currently, the Richmond Spiders football team has for almost every year from 2020 to 1881, a total of 136 or so articles. I think most of these are not notable, but I can't open an AfD for all of them, and I'm not sure what the consensus is on doing stuff like that (prior discussion about mass deletions appear to have attracted a lot of attention on the discussion page, and I don't want to get into a massive site-wide argument). Is there anything I can do? Mrfoogles (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see a huge load of whitespace on my laptop screen on this page, but couldn't figure out how to fix it. Maybe someone else can have a look. Regards. Govvy (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strike out usernames that have been blocked and enable that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:Vedette Lim
dropdown menu (the former will also make a yellow dialog box appear on the recipient's screen). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}