Wikipedia:Teahouse

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

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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231

Using institutional or project GIT repositories as references

Dear ALL, I am interested if using institutional/project GIT repositories (be it GitHub, GitLab or other) as references is OK for English Wikipedia? Thank you (please tag me in response) -- Zblace (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zblace. These are websites where users can largely add whatever they want. Although I am certain that much of the content is valid and useful to actual developers, much of it is also malicious nonsense, or does not work properly. Caveat emptor is applicable. Websites consisting largely of User contributed content without editorial control are not accepted as reliable sources on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 I can imagine that being the case in general, but for institutions running the project this is not the case as they both have internal editorial control and operate in different way when it comes to releasing open code, text, media...where GIT is just the format on the platform. Zblace (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, I beg to slightly differ...

If an article mention a project kept on a git-server, a link to it WOULD be appropriate. Sources are usually best considered in light of WHAT they are expected to confirm. A historical example could be of the Pravda frontpage confirming Stalin's demise; the publication was as "honest" as Hitler's propagandist Goebbels, but in an article about the Soviet Union, such a reference would be perfectly valid as evidence of when and how his passing had been made public to the survivors of his policies. Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is editorial control on everything though, especially on a repository maintained by an institution. It will only become part when reviewed and merged by a collaborator/owner, meaning they should be accepted as reliable sources, the only concern I can think of would be the content possibly changing over time Zootcats (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Malene Heerup English

My submission has not been accepted. This is the reason that was given: "he content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you."

Could someone have a look at the draft and be more specific? Which inline citations do not Wikipedia's minimum standard and why?

Thank you Milaefema (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Milaefema and welcome to the Teahouse. See links given in the reason for more info. CanonNi (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what?

Keep4getn1 2001:5B0:2467:4DD8:DDEA:46F:EAA6:F881 (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Milaefema: for privacy etc. reasons we have strict referencing requirements for articles on living people (WP:BLP), with inline citations to reliable published sources being required to support anything potentially contentious (which basically means any substantive statement which anyone might want to dispute or even wonder where it's come from) as well as all personal details such as DOB. You also need to ensure that the source you're citing actually supports the information against which it is cited: for example, you're stating that Malene's mother is Liselotte Taarup, but you're supporting that statement with a source (ref #6) that doesn't seem to even mention Malene. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Milaefema: In addition, the Education section has no inline citations and there are many exhibitions listed without inline citations. GoingBatty (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing

Overwhelmed with source coding and wandering through the labrynth for answers. But, now feel my article is completed (in Sandbox) and ready to publish. Haven't a clue how to do that; see no button or menu item to proceed. Please provide easy-to-understand guidance. Thank you. Artleytoons (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Artleytoons and welcome to the Teahouse. You probably won't want to hear this but the draft feels unready for publishing, mostly because it is an autobiography and isn't very neutral. CanonNi (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artleytoons Put the "code" {{subst:submit}} on top of it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for the reply. I'll take it down. Artleytoons (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artleytoons: Although we generally deprecate the writing of autobiographies, you as a subject clearly meet our requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia, and what you wrote was not overly promotional. I encourage you to restore and improve it (with the emphasis on ensuring that every statement is cited to an independent source), and submit it for review. When an article about you is published, you might consider openly-licensing on of your cartoons, as an example of your work. See also WP:FAQAS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for notification and advice. I will give it another try. I liked your suggestion of posting one of my cartoons. 73.216.154.203 (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Per your suggestion, my attempt to upload one of my own cartoons netted a reponse that I did not have permission; that such an action required a level of which I have not yet risen:

<<The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Autoconfirmed users, Administrators, Confirmed users>>

Puzzlling, as I was able to upload the photo without the admonition. Then again, my novice status may have caused me to neglect some measure in the protocols. Artleytoons (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artleytoons: Please upload it on Wikimedia Commons, not here. I should also have mentioned that you will need to follow the process at c:COM:VRT, to verify that you are really Steven Artley. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes. Eventually, I discovered the Wikimedia Commons upload to be the procedure. Article was modified as suggested, noticed it was moved to DRAFT status; meaning it is not in the submissions queue for review? Understandable, for perhaps my ambitious overreach. Considering a hefty reedit, honing down to more basic -- focus entirely on Editorial Cartooning and (related) satirical political podcasting Good thing I didn't add in the brain surgery while tap-dancing bit. Artleytoons (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newcomer Writing His First Wiki Page

Hi,

This is my first time in the Teahouse. I've been thinking to write/correct some articles. I have this hesitation to not write anything. How did you overcome this problem in your early wikipedia days? Knowledgeelephant (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you really do get over that hesitation as you're always learning new stuff on Wikipedia, but there are things that will at least make you feel more confident. We don't often recommend making your first article as your 7th edit after all.

What we do recommend however is that you head over to the task hub, where you can find such things as citation hunting. Citation hunting will teach you how to do quite possibly the most important thing on Wikipedia, how to cite things and what to use as citations. WP:RS, WP:RSP and WP:CITE will come in handy for this.

Another thing that'll help you for when you're feeling ready to start an article is WP:BACKWARDS. This is why I suggest that you do citation hunting early into your career, so you know that working backwards is an absolutely terrible idea and will only result in hours of work getting canned. This is a very common trap for new editors.

As for thinking about correcting articles, first, citation hunting. Good stuff. Second, be bold. The worst that could happen is that your edits get reverted or you get trouted, so what? Most editors experience either of these things at least once, it's almost like a rite of passage.

Another thing you can do as the step between making corrections to articles and making your own articles is to find a WikiProject that you like the look of, then find their start or stub class articles. These are the lowest rungs on Wikipedia's ratings ladder, and are in need of a lovely editor such as yourself to fix them. Find yourself a start or a stub to adopt, then get to work improving it.

Just as an aside, Wikipedia also has a Discord server, so if you're looking for some quick help you can always head there. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 19:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are encouraging words. Thank you! Knowledgeelephant (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgeelephant You may be interested in reading the "interviews" with experienced editors about their early experiences, now collected at User:Clovermoss/Editor reflections. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I read. I have my own story related to this wiki journey. Thanks! Knowledgeelephant (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Wiki Editors

Please help me. American Wiki Editors took my large sum of money and disappeared after promising me to put a wiki page. Nothing happened even after passing one year. American Wiki Editors do not exist anymore. Please help me what shall do? Are there any genuine wiki editors who could potentially put my profile back on Wikipage. Daichoo (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daichoo, unfortunately it sounds as if you have been scammed. People do not 'have profiles' on Wikipedia – encyclopedia articles are written by volunteers when someone meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, which generally require that multiple people unconnected to the subject have written significant amounts about the person, without having been fed information by that person. If you do not meet those criteria, then unfortunately there is no way to have a Wikipedia article written about you. All offers to get a Wikipedia article about you written and published for a fee are at best misguided, and more often scams. Tollens (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, Wikipedia has articles, not profiles. The distinction is that articles about people call for indepedent, published references that verify the facts which make a person Wikipedia-notable. If you truly believe that you are so famous/notable that people with no connection to you have written about you, then you could try using WP:YFA to create a draft about yourself, even though Wikipedia strongly advises against attempts at autobiography (see WP:AUTO). David notMD (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could possibly report them to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org with a copy of the email. We won't be able to recover the money but other people could be protected from the same thing happening to them. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stories like this one make me think that scammers should be treated like traitors were in England in times of old; on the other hand, I do also wonder at the gullibility of (some) victims... Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Wiki Editors (2)

Dear Colleagues: I have $800 taken by American Wiki Editors for creating wikipage of mine and notability articles, and they disappeared from website + emails + phone services + Whatsapp. Please help me, if there is any reliable person with whom i can work. There are a lot of websites for creating webpages, but I am now skeptical with all of them. I would prefer to donate $800 to charity for a good cause. Thank you so much. Regards IRF Daichoo (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the replies to your query above, Daichoo? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the responses you received when you posted this yesterday, at Wikipedia:Teahouse#American Wiki Editors. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading Front Cover of Book

There used to be an "Upload" button but it has disappeared.

Am I allowed to upload image of such a front cover? ----MountVic127 (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MountVic127.

You can usually use an image of a book cover in an article about that book (but not usually elsewhere). Please read WP:NFCC carefully, and work out precisely what is the justification for using that non-free image (I'm assuming that the cover is non-free: they usually are).

Then you can upload it to Wikipedia (not to Commons) using the WP:Upload wizard, picking "upload a non-free file" and giving the justification as you go through the process. ColinFine (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Editing vs Source Editing

Dear Wikipedians,

I have a fair amount of edits, and almost all of them are in the Visual Editor. What is the difference between the Visual Editor and the Source Editor? Is one more powerful/superior than the other? Is there a reason to use one over the other?

Sincerely,

MekuMeku216 MekuMeku216 (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever one you prefer. I use both equally. Cremastra (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Friend Hello,

So basically the visual editor tool works like front-end tool,where you don't always needs to put code and very simple for non-programmer or somebody who is not aware of coding.

However the source editor tool required to put back-end infos like coding languages and signs like "{{<<" and that's what makes all the difference.

Have a nice day.KEmel49 (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MekuMeku216. Both editors do the same job, but they approach it in different ways. The Visual Editor is much newer, and people who are used to WYSIWYG interfaces tend to prefer it, whereas people (like me) who have been editing Wikipedia for many years often prefer the source editor.

There are some rather specialised operations which the Visual Editor cannot do, or cannot do properly, so occasionally you need to go into the Source Editor; but for most editing, either is equally good. ColinFine (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MekuMeku216: Welcome to the Teahouse! I find the VisualEditor makes it easier for some things such as updating tables as easily as in Excel and moving images via drag and drop. Some of its limitations are listed at Wikipedia:VisualEditor. GoingBatty (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MekuMeku216, here is my opinion: The source editor is fully functional, highly flexible and not at all difficult to learn. Just spend 15 minutes reading WP:CHEATSHEET. The WYSIWYG Visual editor is available for those who want to make a quick, basic edit but there are many things it cannot do. Personally, I do not like software tools that are not fully functional, so I use the source editor despite not being a professional programmer. My reason is that it works very well. Cullen328 (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can i get suggestion on the article

Draft:Yusuph Kileo GMako6 (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GMako6 and welcome to the Teahouse. We prefer to use Wikilinks when possible, rather than URLs, and certainly more than shortened URLs.

Your draft used to have some references and now it has none.

Please see WP:your first article advice. Find suitable sources, write based only on what they say. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that your text must be written from a WP:Neutral point of view (which will be easier if you are basing the whole of the content on what independent sources say about the subject). Not a single word of your "Conclusion" section belongs in a Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a wikipedia for an Actor

Hello, I'd like to create a new Wikipedia page for the Actor Ras-Samuel who's currently starring in the new Planet of the Apes franchise. I notice he's the only one who doesn't have one yet.

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes

How do i do it? Teamluffy (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OP already blocked for advertising. -- Hoary (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know if information on Wikipedia is true?

Like LITERALLY? Fives Collariums (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fives Collariums and welcome to the Teahouse. All information on Wikipedia is sourced with reliable references and unsourced content may be removed at any point. CanonNi (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's not true that all information on Wikipedia is sourced. Lots of our articles contain unsourced material, some of which is likely incorrect. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent description of Wikipedia is that it's the world's best source of sources. All content is supposed to be supported by reliable sources, which you can click on to read yourself. That way you can make your own judgment on the credibility of content. But most of it is pretty darned accurate. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful information, I fully appreciate that, should I take down this question now that I've recieved an answer? Fives Collariums (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Fives Collariums, please leave it up. -- Hoary (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answered questions will be automatically archived after 2-3 days. Please don't remove it manually. CanonNi (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While randomly browsing through Teahouse questions, I came across this one and realized that it would be quite easily misinterpreted to imply that any source found in a Wikipedia article is necessarily considered to be a reliable source. This is actually a very reasonable inference, it's just not true, and there are multiple reasons this might be the case. For instance, it might have been from a source that was considered RS at the time the source was cited, but which was subsequently determined to no longer be RS. It could be that the source is RS for some types of content but not for other types of content. And last but hardly least, the source may have been added even though it wasn't considered RS at the time it was added. So you can't just go look and see that other articles use a source and therefore assume that it's okay for you to use that source. Fabrickator (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fives Collariums Please see WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia doesn't necessarily claim that the information presented is "true", only that it can be verified. Only you can decide what is "true" for you. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, humans don't know the Absolute Truth. Ideally, Wikipedia renders the truth according to WP:CHOPSY. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I was making a quite distinct point, which is not whether or not the information in Wikipedia is actually accurate, but that the fact that a particular source is cited in an article doesn't mean that the cited source actually qualifies as an RS. Fabrickator (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it doesn't mean the source is still classed as reliable by today's standards, this can be seen on older and more niche articles. That being said, when you find sources that aren't reliable you can replace them with those that are. That is the power of being bold. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 15:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to get a consensus for a possibly controversial change of a template?

So a month ago I started a discussion on what to do with Template:Late night television in the United States in its talk page, which included what shows counted in the section, etc. I notified the relevant Wikiprojects as well. Unfortunately, only one person responded, and that's not enough to form a consensus. What else can I do to get people to join the discussion, since the new option discussed included moving the template, and that could be controversial? (Sorry if this is canvassing.) Spinixster (trout me!) 04:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seymour Matthews

You say you cannot add my article to WIKIPEDIA until it is edited. Edited in what way? 31.185.201.102 (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Seymour Matthews has no sources, which is not permitted. Please read Your first article. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. If you created a Wikipedia account, it would be much easier to communicate with you. I assume that you are talking about Draft:Seymour Matthews. That draft is entirely unreferenced and cannot possibly be accepted into Wikipedia unless it is brought into compliance with Wikipedia's core content policies like Verifiability and No original research. Read and study Your first article, and comply with all of its recommendations. Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section titles created, but all content needs references. David notMD (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Like most editors who attempt to create an article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works, you have written your draft BACKWARDS. Writing an article begins with finding reliable, independent, sources: any time spent on anything at all before finding references is often totally wasted. ColinFine (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i want to create two profiles of deceased people

Brigadier Rajendra Singh and his books ais visual artnd Bulbul singh and his visual arts Spockbuddha (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:YFA for a beginner's guide on creating an article. If the persons are recently deceased, also see WP:BDP for policies on biographical articles. CanonNi (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We don't have "profiles" here, we have articles. Creatig a new article is one of the most challenging tasks to perform on Wikipedia, and as such it is highly recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial will help you as well. Once you get some experience under your belt, you will be much more likely to succeed in creating a new article, when you know about things like proper sourcing, notability, tone, and style.

However, if you wish to attempt to create an article now, you may use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft for review. You will first want to gather reliable sources to summarize(instead of writing the text first and then looking for sources) and review the definition of a notable artist. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I remove 'This article needs improvement'?

Hello, I am a newish editor that has just substantially improved the content on the entry on Benjamin Waugh including citations to the main sources. But how do I now remove 'This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources' ? Parc Hembise 10:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC) ParcHembise (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Maintenance template removal. CanonNi (talk) 10:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ParcHembise. The article Benjamin Waugh has major problems. Consider this sentence from the lead: He was an outstandingly brilliant, energetic and highly competent charismatic journalist, public speaker and organiser who was to change how the British public understood and valued childhood and was instrumental in securing Britain’s first legislation on children’s rights. That is over the top hagiography, which violates the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. Then, I noticed that a widely used reference was a book written by Waugh's own daughter, Rosa Waugh Hobhouse, which is not an independent source and certainly should not be cited for any lavish praise. George K. Behlmer is a more contemporary expert who wrote the listing for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and I would neutrally summarize what he says, as opposed to what the loving daughter wrote back in 1913, a few years after her father's death. The references are a mess and should be cleaned up as well. Only then should you consider removing the maintenance tag. Cullen328 (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You just need to familiarize yourself with wikitext so you’ll be able to identify the template within the code. Gickskizz (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How should we deal with a lack of secondary sources?

Hello! I've read through Wikipedia articles for so long, and I appreciate the hard work all the editors do to make it all work. That's a reason why I'm dipping my toes into the editor side of WP.

The first thing I did on here is check through my university's WP article, and I noticed that several issues were present. On May 2022, the article was flagged for relying "excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject." I checked the edit article history, looked for what happened that May, and saw chunks of text deleted because they had no independent citations.

From my understanding of the rules, WP obviously prefers independent, third-person accounts of the facts. WP similarly does not appreciate "independent research" nor "advertisements", insofar as these are prone to bias and subjectivity. I might be wrong, but it seems as if the preferred way to write articles is to cite secondary references that are unassociated with the thing discussed.

I wholeheartedly agree with these rules, but I fear that a century-old institution would be left as a history stub. If editors cannot cite the institution's self-published historical account, what secondary references can we use? I'm willing to talk to local historians, but they either are a) teachers in the university that are not independent authors; b) sponsored authors of that self-published history; or, c) priests who are either dead or just made blogposts and not research.

This is a problem not unique to this one university, but to almost all universities in the Philippines. After all, no one really wants to write a history on a school that has its own history. Thank you so much for reading this far! RyanTahamid (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RyanTahamid, has the university not been the subject of articles in newspapers or magazines, of book chapters, etc? This material doesn't have to be available on the web. (Indeed, it's probably not on the web.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary, thank you for responding! Yes, the university has been the topic of articles in newspapers, but these may cover more contemporary issues, like current projects or events. I have reached out to a professor and they did say they wrote a historical review, but would that be considered independent if they come from the same university being discussed? RyanTahamid (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RyanTahamid: you can cite primary sources, including ones close to the subject, to support purely factual information. For example, if the university's website says that they were founded in 1823 and their current rector/president/vice-chancellor/whatever is Prof. Jane Doe, we can take those as read. Whereas if their website says they are the best university in the world, we obviously cannot accept their word for that.

What primary sources (esp. non-independent ones) cannot be used for is to establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RyanTahamid More detail at the policy for WP:PRIMARY sources, and what is mentioned on that page for secondary ones. Facts stated in primary sources are usually fine but their meaning must not be interpreted by Wikipedia editors. It is that interpretation which is the role of secondary sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing, @Michael D. Turnbull, thank you so much for responding! I will take this into consideration when drafting possible edit's to the university's article. Thank you! RyanTahamid (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RyanTahamid Have you considered digging here?:[1][2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thank you so much for this! This seems very promising and I will be sure to review them all for any references I may use. Thank you so much! RyanTahamid (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link to something only mentioned in another article

Hi, I wanted to add the disambiguation ODAC = Old Diorama Arts Centre as it is an acronym the arts centre commonly uses.

However there is no article with this title, but Old Diorama Arts Centre is mentioned in two existing Wikipedia articles (Diorama Arts Cooperative and The Diorama, Regent's Park) as the successor charity to the Diorama Arts Cooperative.

What is the best way to handle this, should I blue link to the Diorama Arts Cooperative page, or create a red link for Old Diorama Arts Centre on the two pages it is mentioned on, and link to that on the disambiguation page? Or something else?

I guess the obvious answer is to create a page for Old Diorama Arts Centre but that's a bigger endeavour for me being a relative beginner editor.

Thanks. Jennymulholland1 (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jenny. Provided the abbreviation or acronym occurs in the target page, WP:DABACRONYM says that you may add it to the DAB page. I suggest adding the acronym in parenthesis after the full name in Diorama Arts Cooperative, and then adding the entry to the DAB page ODAC, in a form like:

Old Diorama Arts Centre, former home of the Diorama Arts Cooperative

or whatever description would be most apt). ColinFine (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3yo Merge and Split proposals on talk page still open

I went to fix a ref name issue and ended up spending a chunk of time in this article. I went to the talk page to check its rating to see if it needed a re-evaluation on rating, and found two old open merge and split proposals.

Merge proposal, last post in December 2020; based on the fact there's a split request 3 months later, I'd say the result was "Merge".

Split proposal, last post in April 2021.

How do I close these? OIM20 (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CLOSE. CanonNi (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. As I understand that, there is no need. Much appreciated. OIM20 (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CSD stats?

Is there some place where one can see user statistics related to pages listed for spledy deletion, for instance the number of pages tagged, and then effectively deleted? Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 13:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@14 novembre Yes, you can find it by typing the following in the search bar: User:[your username]/CSD Log Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cocobb8 Thanks for your answer, but I don't find anything like that. Can you help? Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 14:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@14 novembre, the subpage Cocobb8 linked to is created by Twinkle's CSD module - it won't exist on your account unless you're using that feature of Twinkle. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cocobb8 How can I attivate it? 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 15:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Cocobb8, but apparently all you need to do, @14 novembre, is enable Twinkle in the gadgets section of your main preferences page, then turn on the log in Twinkle's own preferences panel (Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences). 57.140.16.57 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cocobb8 @57.140.16.57 I did it, but I can't find the page? What's the problem? 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 17:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@14 novembre It'll start recording your CSD from now on, but you won't be able to have your old ones unfortunately. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need help

Courtesy link: Draft:Nar, Azad Kashmir

Can you guys help me with any sources for Nar Azad Kashmir? Bally125 (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archive.org has quite a few references to "Azad Kashmir" - you'll have to look through to see if they have what you want.

Semantic Scholar returned a lot as well. Again, you'll have to comb through it all to determine relevance. The scholarly papers not about the location itself may give you information on flora and fauna, as well as climate, depending on what there is. OIM20 (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bally125 one of my favourite research tools is the wikipedia custom google search engine, and has a source mentioning the US embassy. hope this helps >:3 astral ▪️ he/him ▪️ >:3 15:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

citing personal info

→ Machine Girl (band)

ok context here, the lead singer of this band uses any pronouns and i want to add a efn to make a consistant pronoun, however I cannot find this citation anywhere but a reddit mentioned discord qna. are there any rules against this?? astral ▪️ he/him ▪️ >:3 15:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, Discord would be disallowed as a source just because of the sheer difficulty of using it as such. As for Reddit though, if you look at WP:SOCIALMEDIA it does show that Reddit is allowed as a primary source. I would personally take this as if they did a Q&A in the regular format, where one posts an image of their face and them holding up a sheet of paper with their Reddit username there, it would probably be allowed. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 15:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, but it's just other users stating it, so i don't think it's viable. i thought it wouldn't be allowed since it wasn't them actually doing a qna and stating it. their instagram might say something but i don't have access to look at those things bcz school pc astral ▪️ he/him ▪️ >:3 16:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stany Van Wymeersch

Recently, since Stany VW publishes mostly in English too, I thought of translating his page from Dutch into English. Searched some help pages on Wikipedia. Found something simple, but it didn't really work.

The English Wikipedia formatting pages are less user-friendly as the Dutch. So I created a draft page in English on the Dutch page.

I noticed that pretty soon there were problems with the manual entries for newspapers and magazines. So I left those out and kept the online pages with references to Stany Van Wymeersch. By editing the source text, I was able to get rid of some error messages and after some time thought it was pretty ok. Just a translation with reasonable references anyway. The links to well-known places and people also appeared quickly. Yet, via an Estonian Wikipedia Writer, a notification of: "orphan" ', links, and listed sources not reliable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stany_Van_Wymeersch

I checked everything again, corrected some text in English and thought it was ok now. Mistakenly, I manually deleted the error message.

A short time later, of course, it reappeared. I sorted the references to Websites again and added a few.

But I wouldn't know what else to do. The references have all been checked by me and Stany Van Wymeersch does get mentioned on the websites. Sometimes you have to scroll, but still. The information I posted has been verified in Dutch and the links in English and Estonian are also ok.

Doesn't this Est know Stany Van Wymeersch. As an 'orphan', I understood that there must be other articles with his name in them, but that is not always the case for other people on wikipedia either.

Can you give me some more explanation or some help, as you may understand that this can be very frustrating.

Kind regards,

Bart Tettelin

Translated with DeepL.com (free version) Tettelin Bart (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any instances of Stany Van Wymeersch mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia outside of the article made on him. The page is an orphan and that probably won't be fixed, which is fine. It isn't a death knell, nor is the lack of ability to verify the reliability of some sources. I'll have a quick look at the sources to make sure they're actually fine. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 15:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've had a quick look and to be honest I found a lot of the citations to be lacking. I'm going to be looking to replace them where possible. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 15:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for verifying the sources. Tettelin Bart (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to monitor and get notified whenever a specific user/IP edits?

So there are a few scenarios where I find a vandal and they haven't gotten to the point where they should be blocked, but I can't just leave them as they could do some more vandalism which may not be caught. Right now I just let their edit history stay in the background and I reload after a while to see if they are vandalising anything else, but is there any way for me to get notifications for those specific users? Tube·of·Light 15:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You needn't be so particular about specific individuals most of the time. It's not your job to prevent every bit of vandalism before it happens. If you're really concerned, just bookmark their contributions history. Remsense诉 16:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A question about references

Hello Wikipedians, I googled my question and found this page via University of Texas at Arlington (https://libguides.uta.edu/wikipedia/advanced-skills).

Is this the right place to ask some basic questions about Wikipedia editing? Benevolent Bureocrat (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, User:Benevolent Bureocrat, kind of depends on the question but it's a good place to start. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting editors asking for money

Hey everyone,

How do you report wiki editors that are soliciting money to do edits on pages? StainlessSteelRodentia (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about @Discospinster and @Badadms? If so, do you have any proof of this at all? I can see you've left messages on their talk pages saying "This person is involved in soliciting fees to edit and publish wikipedia pages against wikipedia's guidelines" CommissarDoggo^Talk? 18:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was approached in linkedin by someone presenting themselves as James Nicoloas, claiming they are a wikipedia editor and for a fee would get the draft page Lee Povey published

Then that person got my phone number and messaged me saying the page was published and they would revert it back to a draft page if I didn't pay them (which has happened)

The people editting the page while this was happening were @Discospinster and @Badadms and @Theroadislong StainlessSteelRodentia (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

StainlessSteelRodentia, please read WP:SCAM. It is commonplace for scammers to impersonate experienced editors. Cullen328 (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take greater care with your accusations I have never edited that draft and have NEVER requested money from anyone to edit Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the page revision history

"The draft has been approved by Theroadislong moved to namespace" StainlessSteelRodentia (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was exactly at the time I was being messaged saying the draft would be approved StainlessSteelRodentia (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Badadms has previously been informed about their improper page moves, see here. They previously stated that @Wikishovel had been approving these moves. Now it seems as if they're saying Theroadislong has been doing this. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 19:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the fourth time my name's been taken in vain by a sockfarmer. Nothing to do with me, but thanks for the ping. Wikishovel (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to draft because there was some discussion on the talk page that suggested it was not ready to be published (due to notability issues). ... discospinster _talk 19:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

StainlessSteelRodentia, as for Discospinster, that editor has 20 years of experience and has made over 400,000 edits. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was done at the EXACT time I was being asked for money to keep the page published and told it would be taken off if I didn't pay. Seems incredibly suspicious as you had neevr edited the page before StainlessSteelRodentia (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I categorically did NOT accept this draft as a quick look at the history will confirm I have however just declined it. Theroadislong (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

curprev 22:34, 4 April 2024‎ Badadms talk contribs‎ m 10,339 bytes 0‎ Badadms moved page Draft:Lee Povey to Lee Povey: The draft has been approved by Theroadislong moved to namespace undothank

this is the history note further down the page

It would seem Badadms is using your name in vain then? StainlessSteelRodentia (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely. They've previously moved pages, stating that various different users such as WikiShovel (as stated above), Theroadislong, @Mikeblas and a user by the name of Peter Walker - can't find them so I assume they don't exist.

To anyone that has actually used the process in the past, would this warrant taking to WP:ANI? CommissarDoggo^Talk? 19:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. I'll open a thread there momentarily. MrOllie (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. The fact they've done this with multiple different high profile users, have previously been informed that they shouldn't be doing this, failed to respond to that and continue to do this is, understandably, quite worrying given the topic of this conversation. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 19:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report opened at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Badadms_and_moves_out_of_draft MrOllie (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've unfortunately been drawn into this issue again. What must I do to clear my name in response to the ANI that you've opened? -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, there's nothing you need to do at all. I was simply tagging you to inform you that your name had come up, which seemed pertinent. I'd already done the same for other users who had their name come up.

The user has already been blocked under an SPI. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 20:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It came up when I was reviewing recent edits so I looked into it since it was in the wrong place (as Wikipedia:Lee Povey instead of the article space), not suspicious at all. ... discospinster _talk 19:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification.

As you might understand it seems so odd to have people approving and disapproving at the same time a scammer is messaging me trying to extort money from me

I apologize if I have incorrectly accused you and @Theroadislongas being involved with them StainlessSteelRodentia (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oops @Theroadislong StainlessSteelRodentia (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the apology. ... discospinster _talk 19:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only edit Theroadislong has made to Draft:Lee Povey was their draft decline, after they'd commented above. You can verify this here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I can see now they were named but didn't actually do the approval. StainlessSteelRodentia (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So from what I can see this is what the draft's move history looks like:

The page was created in mainspace by ZedArtify on 15 January.
The page was moved into draftspace by Rosguill on 21 March.
The page was moved into mainspace by Badadms on 4 April, stating that The draft has been approved by Theroadislong moved to namespace.
The page was moved into projectspace by Badadms about 15 minutes later.
The page was moved back into draftspace by Discospinster about 7 minutes later.

Badadms, would you care to comment on your moves falsely claiming that other users have approved of drafts? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You all may be interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ASHkins20. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still adding content to that report? I'll quite happily add the information from this conversation to there in the comments if not. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 19:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did add a link back to this discussion. I've done I think all I can do for now, but feel free to add more info if you have it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, if it links back here then that's all I'd really want to add, as it includes everything about their past with suspicious page moves and using respected editors as a way to add more validity.

All I can hope is that @StainlessSteelRodentia didn't actually pay anyone anything, that'd be a win in my book. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 20:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Badadms has now been blocked, thanks to Ivanvector. Thanks for bringing this our attention, StainlessSteelRodentia. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, and sadly my naivety did have me pay them $150, then they kept requesting more.... Lesson learnt! StainlessSteelRodentia (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new template

Hi! I am considering creating some new single-issue user warning templates. I know that for articles there is the Article for Creation process to help with checking that articles are useful. Is there an equivilent process for creating pages in the template namespace? QwertyForest (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi QwertyForest, I'm not aware of any. I'd recommend posting at Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace, where issues about user warnings are discussed, to solicit feedback on your ideas. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Calliopejen1. I'll try that at some point. QwertyForest (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to post translated article to English Wikipedia

Hello! I translated the article about American actress Carmen Moore from French into English, and also added additional information/citations. However, I cannot make it public for some reason. Here is a link to the draft.

If there is something wrong with it, or something I can do to get it published, please let me know! Thanks! Greerble ^{ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ} 19:40, 05 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Greerble. I have added a header to your draft so that you can submit it for review. Note that Twitter is not normally acceptable as a source - see WP:TWITTER. ColinFine (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Colin!

Reviewing WP:TWITTER, it seems I've used it correctly as a source in this instance. I used a tweet from the subject of the article's Twitter account to verify her date of birth, which seems like it falls under the acceptable use cases. Should I change it? I'm not sure where would be a more reliable place to find this information. Greerble ^{ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ} 20:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greerble How does that tweet confirm she was born 1986? WP:ABOUTSELF is fine for WP:DOB, but if used, needs to be crystal clear. Also, DOB is nice to have but not necessary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: It seems the tweet confirms her birthday but not birth year. Her age and month/year of death are listed in the first reference, so we can calculate her year of birth. GoingBatty (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been great, except your translation isn’t accurate and has poor grammar. .rekcufyssup (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! If you had used the eyes that God gave you to read my above post, you would have noticed where I said "and also added additional information/citations." I was not interested in creating a perfect 1:1 recreation of an underwhelming French article :) Greerble ^{ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ} 23:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greerble: If this draft becomes an article, you might want to consider making a copy of the image and cropping the other two people out of the photo, so the infobox shows a larger photo of Moore's face. GoingBatty (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - this is genuinely very helpful! Would I need to upload the cropped image to the

Wikimedia Commons before using it? Greerble ^{ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ} 23:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greerble The file is on Commons and there is a very good crop tool there that can be used. It has the advantage of getting the templates for the licensing of the derivative image correct. See c:Commons:CropTool Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.... incidentally, IMDb is not considered a reliable source as it is user-generated: see WP:IMDb. It would help if you could find alternative sources for anything where you've used it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I replaced the sources and added her IMDb page as an external link + will crop the image when I have time to get Crop Tool sorted out. Thanks for your help! Greerble ^{ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ} 22:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Set state for Campainbox template for Lexington Alarm

Hello, I hope this is an easy one. I tried a couple of scenarios to set the state for the {{Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: Boston|state=expanded}} in the Lexington Alarm article, with and without the <noinclude></noinclude> parameters... and I tested it in my sandbox in this version. It stays expanded in my sandbox, but not in the article.

Following the instructions in Template:Navbox (there weren't any for the campaign box), I also tried {{Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: Boston|state={{state|expanded}}}}

No luck. Do you have any ideas?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: Welcome to the Teahouse! There are some instructions in Template:Campaignbox, but it doesn't explain what values are valid for the |state= parameter. In the Lexington Alarm article, I changed {{Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: Boston|state={{state|expanded}}}} to {{Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: Boston|state={{state|expanded}} but that didn't work. Then, I edited Template:Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: Boston to include | state = {{{state|}}} and now the template is expanded in the Lexington Alarm article. I then checked the Battle of Bunker Hill article, and confirmed that the box is not expanded. Hope this is what you were looking for. GoingBatty (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, aren't you something! That's perfect, GoingBatty Thanks so much.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making tabs

Excuse me, I just made an account to help edit, but I don't know how to add tabs to an existing article. Can you please help me? 2601:48:C601:5550:74C7:D0FE:DEBA:13AF (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. You are currently not logged in to any account, as your edits are coming from your IP address. Page tabs aren't used in articles, as stated in the documentation for {{page tabs}}; what do you want to use them for? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was looking in the article The Legend of Zelda Tears of the Kingdom, and I noticed it didn't mention the characters or any stats about them. I was just wondering if there was a way to add them in. 2601:48:C601:5550:74C7:D0FE:DEBA:13AF (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I found a list of Legend of Zelda characters, but is there a way to separate them into two categories? Breath of the Wild characters and Tears of the Kingdom characters? I'm just trying to make it the least amount confusing as possible, and to me it was very confusing. Thank you for your time! :) 2601:48:C601:5550:74C7:D0FE:DEBA:13AF (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally Wikipedia just uses sections. I would exercise discretion with the amount of detail though, as it could be considered fancruft that may run afoul of WP:NOTDATABASE. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

newspapers citations from newspapers.com?

My submission was rejected for lack of verifiable citations, yet all my citations are verifiable on newspapers.com and pgnewspapers.pgpl.ca. What more do you want? Gadavison95 (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Inga Andersen

@Gadavison95: I see that each citation has an error because you didn't define the |title= parameter with the title of each article, which would be helpful for verification. Could you please fix the citations? Pinging reviewer Brachy0008 for their comments. GoingBatty (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also - edit conflict

I assume you are talking about Draft:Inga Andersen. I don't see that this has been resubmitted. Am I missing something?

I see that there aren't any titles for the newspaper articles. If you make clips of the article and put the article title in the clip's title box, you can get the fields populated using WP:Proveit. That's all I use anymore to create citations.

Does this help?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source on the Draft that shows the kind of referencing that allows other editors to verify the references. BBQboffin^{grill me} 23:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PGC and The Guardian are reliable (per WP:RSP) (something i canonically missed out on), found nothing about Montreal Gazette, LDM is a tabloid newspaper so it is unreliable, more comments later Brachy08 _(Talk) 00:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the London Daily Mirror is a tabloid, and Britain's tabloids aren't at all reliable. But what they are now doesn't determine what they were over half a century ago. (What were they then? I sense that they had more respect for accuracy, but I don't claim to know.) 126.158.131.21 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The kind of tabloid around the time of Andersen are called jazz journalism, or scandal sheets, which was sensationalist. Thus, tabloids around the time of her are generally unreliable in Wikipedia standards. Brachy08 _(Talk) 02:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Province is a tabloid (unreliable), no mention of Newcastle Sunday in WP:RSP, Daily Telegraph is reliable, Evening Standard and NYDY are also tabloids (unreliable). According to WP:Notability (people), Andersen should have a significant roles or made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. The only major role cited by a reliable source is the Jack and Jill thing. So yeah, you need to cite more major roles and it should pass. Brachy08 _(Talk) 02:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t worry @Gadavison95, I know you can do this! (Failed drafts are normal, I experienced that before) Brachy08 _(Talk) 02:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if you are thinking of nominating it for good article status, remove the tabloid sources. Brachy08 _(Talk) 03:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a break from what I was working on to find the articles and add the titles, but in searching newspapers.com, I am not finding articles with dates in the citations in the article.

And, it's getting confusing to sort out big blocks of content where there are a number of no-title citations. It would be much easier at this point to remove the incomplete citations and then add references where they apply.

How about if I focus on the first section to get a good start?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can slowly blow it all up to improve the article. Brachy08 _(Talk) 09:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's good to know. I focused primarily on the first section about early life and education. I found more sources - besides newspapers.com - that have some interesting information, particularly what she did during World War II. I added the links under "External links" that can be used to expand the article.

I would like to start a separate section for WWII - and use the link to the International Women's Day article. Also, the link to the Prince George newspapers produces a lot more articles than newspaper.com, including a couple more from the year of her death.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadavison95. In addition to what's been posted above, the image you uploaded of Andersen to Commons to use in the infobox of the draft is most certainly not your own work and you shouldn't be claiming it as such; so, I've tagged it for speedy deletion. It's possible that image could be in the WP:PUBLICDOMAIN because of its date of first publication, but you should ask about it at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright to see if that's the case; otherwise, it will need to be deleted from Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are some better pictures in newspaper articles. If there's no free image, this could be loaded onto Wikipedia (not commons) under Non-free use rationale since it would be depicting a deceased person.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found any free images. I found this image at the top left of the page and saved it. I can upload it in Wikipedia as a non-free use image (historical significance of a deceased person, just for the infobox) if you like. I am not sure, but I think I cannot do that until it's an article, not as a draft.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I mention a source again?

so like I was making a draft and then I wanted to reuse a source but I can’t find out how. It marks it as a whole new source. 48JcL48 (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JcL48: Welcome to the Teahouse. You will want to read more on named references. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using the Visual editor, you can simply copy and paste references to get the same result. Ca ^{talk to me!} 03:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Word problem - changing "====" to "============================" etc.

If you put a "====" or "----" at the beginning of a line, Word expands this to fill the whole width of the page. So far so good. The problem is that you cannot always delete the "----------------------------------------------------------------".

Help needed. ----MountVic127 (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does the problem have to do with editing Wikipedia? CanonNi (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes edit some text in MS Word, before copy-pasting it to Wikipedia.

Also some "Contact Us" procedures do not send a copy of this text back to the writer, so you loose all of it if you knock the wrong key. So better to edit the text in Word first. I have been caught by this bug too many times.

The Word file may also contain the long ruled line which separates sub-sections.

----MountVic127 (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try switching to your sandbox for test edits. CanonNi (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was in the source viewer where it multiplies the "==" because there was a bug or glitch some sort. You can try switching to visual editing ‍ Shonyx 04:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you like to write material on your hard drive and then copy and paste it in, don't use a word processor such as Word, use a text editor. 126.158.157.73 (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MountVic127 On Microsoft computers, try WordPad. I use it all the time specifically because it doesn't do any of the "helpful" autocorrects that Word is prone to. Word's worst habit, IMO, is to convert two single quote characters ' and ' into double-quotes, whether straight or curly. In Wikipedia, two quotes are used to indicate italics. WordPad text can be saved in .rtf format, so it can still incorporate advanced formatting like hyperlinks. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I use Notepad++, which is free and open-source, and has better features, including syntax highlighting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sfn question

On this page I have placed two volumes of a three-volume book series in the Works Cited section. I'd like to be able to create Sfn notes referencing both of them, but can't figure out how to do it, because both volumes have the same authors and publication year. Any thoughts? Wafflewombat (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the parameter |ref= to change what you have {{sfn}} point to, so you can have Author 20XXa, 20XXb, etc. as destinations for shortcites. See details at {{sfnref}}. If you need more help, let me know! Remsense诉 04:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Wafflewombat: I added {{sfnref}} to each volume in the Works Cited section. You can edit the footnotes accordingly to distinguish which are from Vol I vs Vol III. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wafflewombat and welcome to the Teahouse. When there are multiple works by the same set of authors in the same year, add letters to the end of the year. The first volume would be 2000a, if 2000 is the year. The second would be 2000b, etc. See Template:Sfn#More than one work in a year for how to do this. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! I think I got it figured out. Wafflewombat (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parentheses in page names for tribes/communities/ethnic groups

Suppose you are creating a page for a community (tribe, ethnic group, caste, etc.). Is it better to name the page with parentheses around the community type or not? For example, is X (tribe) or X tribe preferable as the name of the main article (with the other presumably being a redirect)? Is there a specific policy governing this, and if so, could someone link it?

Secondarily, whichever is preferred, what redirect category should the redirect page from the other one be filed under? Is {{R from alternative punctuation}} correct, or is there a better one?

Thank you. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general WP:NATURAL applies here: as a rule of thumb, parentheses are often a last resort in an article title. So X people would be preferred in every case as far as I can imagine to X (people). Remsense诉 06:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brusquedandelion The guidance for this is at WP:NCET. You need to think about whether the community is better called a people or a tribe, or just their name. There are other considerations, as the linked page details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to make my userpage into a redirect?

Hi, Usersnipedname here. I made this account to redirect people to their own user page, but when I type #REDIRECT [[Special:MyPage]] into my user page (--> MyUserPage (talk)), all it gives me is this:

REDIRECT Special:MyPage

Is there something in the MediaWiki software that prevents this from happening, or did I just format it wrong? I suppose that the mw: software prevents redirects from happening on user pages, as I did it exactly as I remember and I even followed the instructions on Help:Redirects.

MyUserPage (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi me Usersnipedname (nag me/stalk me) 10:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is your alternative account, please disclose so and see WP:GOODSOCK for more information. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 10:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try using a soft redirect, as you cannot directly redirect to a page within the Special namespace. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 10:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this needed? 331dot (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. I've deleted it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and blocked them as a sock. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best place to report promotional content, including copyvio?

Most important bit - recent re-addition of promotional content on Amitabh Kant links to an external website sharing the pdf of a published book. Where would I best report this?

Details - I've been tracking Amitabh Kant for the last couple of years and the article gets promotional content added to it every now and then. The subject is a prominent bureaucrat in India so that's to be expected. I rolled back the article to Special:Permalink/1215463709 last week of March (after starting a talk page discussion) and invited the editor to add back content with citations. They've brought back almost all of the same content - including a factually incorrect claim I had pointed out on the Talk page. The image used for the article has been taken from the subject's website and the image description says that it has been "provided directly by him for use" - suggesting again that the content is promotional material. Most of the content is of course still missing citations.

I'm at a loss. Where do I take this? Dispute resolution? Admin noticeboard? Request for protection? Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also to add - 4 images that were added to the page previously by the same editor (not uploaded by them I think though) were deleted for copyvio.

And the page was basically attacked by sock/meatpuppets previously in a campaign to add promotional content with bad-faith behaviour. I had reported that to the sockpuppet investigation and they got removed. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ujwal.Xankill3r: WP:COIN, if there is good reason to believe the editor is acting on behalf of the subject. Note the requirement for a prior attempt to resolve the issue; and that you must notify the editor concerned as soon as you make a report there. If there is long-term abuse, consider asking for page protection, at WP:RPP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image now deleted for Copyvio. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the recommendation and the image deletion. I'll follow your advice and attempt a resolution first before reporting to WP:COIN. Another editor has joined in to clean up the page so thanks to them it will be much easier. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio % similarity: the acceptable limit?

What level of similarity in the percentage(%) of plagiarism is considered acceptable when using copyvio tool? Charlie (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on the content. If the majority of the copyvio is quotations taken from a single website then the percentage is likely to be pretty high. You should try and reduce the quotes as best as possible, condensing them into shorter bits.

If the majority of the copyvio is text from the website then the acceptable percentage, at least in my eyes, is far lower. Anything above 30% when you've used one page as a source throughout an article should have you concerned while anything above 50% should have you trying to reword as much close paraphrasing as possible. It's very rare that you should get above 50% if you're following best practice. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular page that has you concerned? CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CommissarDoggo Thank you for the thorough response. Yes, my concerns are about La Plaine St. André, the page I made recently. Charlie (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks alright to me if 18% is your highest, but you can always reword things if you aren't happy with it. As for the article itself, try to avoid sandwiching like with the image of the paintings on the wall. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a Kickstarter Page

Several years ago I created the page For the King, which is a video game that proved fairly hard to research and find sources for due to it being and indie title. The page I found to be by far the most useful was the video game's original Kickstarter page, which contained more information about the video game's creators, development, and influences than every other source combined. Unfortunately, I could not reference the page in my article, as it was flagged for solicitation, which is understandable considering it is a Kickstarter page. However, it is not an active project, individuals can no longer pledge money to it and have not been able to since I believe 2016. Is there anyway to source the page without having the reference flagged? I only ask because about half the information in my Development section comes from the page, and it is really the only section that lacks any references as I could not find any other sources with the same information.

Thanks in advance! MrGoldenfold007 (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrGoldenfold007 It sounds as though you want to use that page in an WP:ABOUTSELF way: see that link for what is acceptable. Was the Kickstarter page archived at the Wayback Machine for example? If so, that may not trigger the edit filter (although I've never done that to check). Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tested it. It triggers the alarm. Even for <ref>https://web.archive.org/web/bannedwebsitexyz</ref>. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ABOUTSELF? Definitely not haha, I have no personal connection to the game other than it is the first Wikipedia page I made and so I am sentimentally attached to it in that respect I guess. Like I said too the page has a ton of info about the game so that's the only reason I attempted to add it as a reference. MrGoldenfold007 (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrGoldenfold007: If you feel the link is needed, you can:.... Request that just the specific page be allowed, without unblocking the whole website, by asking on the spam whitelist talk page. This is written in the warning you receive that your edit could not be published due to banned source site. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok will do. Thank you for the help! MrGoldenfold007 (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use link to highlight for source

For a long web page source of which very small part (say a sentence) is to be used as a source, can you use the #:~:text= to highlight the text? I am aware that it might be troublesome for 'reusing the source', still more information on this would help. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ExclusiveEditor The template {{Cite web}}, and many other citation templates, can take the parameter |quote=. Would that help? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: That looks interesting and helpful as we could search that term on web page. Maybe we could change the parameter to also highlight the quote by the #:~:text=(quote). If anyone here doesn't see any quick fail for the idea, I may propose it for discussion. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Unquestionably: #:~:text= is a feature introduced by Google Chrome. It's called "scroll to text fragment". Many other browsers will ignore it. The link still works but just goes to the top of the page with no highlighting. I haven't found a Wikipedia guideline about it but I wouldn't use it. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Yes it apparently works on chrome and edge but not on firefox, safari, and IE per [3]. Thank you. Also, I think you tagged User:Unquestionably by mistake if I am not wrong. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:State media, and resulting questions on how categories work.

There seems to have been some longstanding error defining the Category:State media... which (I think?) I corrected now in this diff. The problem I have now is that I don't quite know how categories work and how broadcasters like ARD, ZDF, and Al Jazeera ended up categorised there, in spite of there being no defining link in their mark-up. -- Oh, and if someone knows of a way to wikilink categories, let me know that too pretty please... JackTheSecond (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JackTheSecond The last part is easy; just Wikilink with a colon at the front, so Category:State media. Same works for links to Commons and files etc. I don't know about your main question. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JackTheSecond: You may discuss at Category talk:State media for particular replacement of content you did there. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JackTheSecond. For ARD, the category link to Category:State media is not in ARD (broadcaster) directly, but in Category:ARD (broadcaster). I'm guessing it's the same for the other ones you've mentioned. ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better discussions on wikipedia

Is there any tooling (or efforts to develop tooling) for improved discussion support on wikipedia? I've only been editing for a few months, and have already been involved in several discussions which quickly become unwieldy and remain unresolved. The issues I see:

depth of threads makes it difficult to read (even with the reindent template (or what ever it's called))
difficulty of keeping track of open disagreements and disputes
diffulty of keeping track of and referencing historical discussions and their relevance to current discussions
there's no support for viewing a comparison of a proposed edit (and the various proposed versions) and the current text on the page. So people have to keep reminding everyone what their proposed version is and how it differs.
keeping track of the substantive points people have brought up, the supporting sources and the amount of support for each point.
lack of a decision making process, which leads to frequent "stalemates".

I'm sure some of this can be improved with "best practices", but only if people cooperate with said practices. With some more creative and thoughtful UX design and tooling most of these could be solved. But I'm not aware of any such tools or efforts to build such tools. Please share links to such efforts if they exist. Thank you! EDIT: also, if you do have recommendations for addressing any of the above points, please let me know. DMH223344 (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of legibility, I personally use Convenient Discussions, which uses some visual elements to demarcate separate comments by signature. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

zzz

i would like to become an administrator Prettycurefan75 (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third time (one, two) you have done this in this discussion page. At some point it goes from "not now, but here's some productive advice" replies to the point where it is just considered disruptive. Please stop. Zaathras (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fore reference, the two threads are archived here and here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New article

What is the best way to avoid deletion for a new page/article? I’m trying to add bio/discography. Mercbeatz (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having reliable sources is your best bet! Are there articles from independent newspapers (ie, not paid/promotional) who talk about the subject of the article in depth? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your talk page, it appears as if you've been trying to create an article about yourself. If this is what you've been trying to do, you have a clear conflict of interest and should not be making that page. Please see WP:WEBHOST as well. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 20:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fridericus-Rex-Grenadiermarsch

I made a draft on the Fridericus-Rex-Grenadiermarsch, which I saw only had German and Ukrainian versions, and I wanted to help contribute and make an English version. It was declined by Crunchydillpickle but they left me some feedback and told me to ask for help here. I would like to know how I can fix this and if you guys have any tips. I am open to constructive criticism so I can help Wikipedia. Thank you for reading my plight. ChauConlangs (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, simply put, your references section is an external links section and you need to find more reliable, secondary citations. The amount of citations you have and what they are at the moment is unfortunately insufficient to prove notability. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 21:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, can I have help on finding reliable citations? Is there any Wikipedia pages that talk about how? ChauConlangs (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the link I put on reliable and WP:RSP should help, but really it's more of a gut feeling. If it looks like a tabloid, it's probably not reliable. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 21:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From where to start?

I am realizing wikipedia is too big. There are discussions, pool, internal fights... from where do I start if I want to improve pages related about Economics? Socdevz (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well first, I'd go to WikiProject Economics to see what they say needs to be done, you can see that in the open tasks section. You could also check out their start and stub class articles to see whether you want to improve any of them.

I can see you have a limited number of edits, so it might be worth learning some of the basics of Wikipedia, such as how to cite things and what's classified as a reliable source. You could also check out the task hub to see whether anything catches your eye. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing newspaper article only available on a subscription website

Is it acceptable to use a newspaper article as a source if it is ONLY available on a paid subscription website? According to Template:Cite news "Citations of online sources that require registration or a subscription are acceptable in Wikipedia". However, an edit that I made was reversed as "unreliable" because the link hits a paywall "create account" page. KaseyWallace (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KaseyWallace, and welcome to the teahouse! Yes, citations which are paywalled are acceptable for Wikipedia. However, I don't think the editor in question so much cares that it's paywalled but they instead are claiming the website is unreliable within of itself, which is a separate issue. I'd advise going to the article talk page and pinging them if you'd like further clarification on their position per standard bold, revert, discuss practice. It may also get other interested editors to provide input on the matter. —Sirdog (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KaseyWallace, it is not necessary to have any URL in the reference if the San Jose Mercury News does not host an online version. That newspaper is a reliable source, whether the article is printed on paper and/or available online. Just provide the most complete bibliographic information, such as the full accurate title, the author/reporter if known, the name of the paper, the date of publication, the page numbers, and so on. That's enough. Cullen328 (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Table column width

I created a table on this page and am wondering if I can edit the columns Title and Star Wars Year so that the contents have more room. I looked at WP table how-to pages and haven't found them helpful, partly because I'm a wikitext novice. Wafflewombat (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wafflewombat: Hi there! Per Help:Table/Width#CSS width on table header cell, I updated those columns of the table with different values of style=width: GoingBatty (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One question, though: Can fixed widths for columns create display issues for some users? I think one of the help pages mentioned that. Wafflewombat (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which source should take precedence?

I'm currently working on the article for the R.E.M. album Reveal. The current version of the article already has citations in the album infobox next to the release date for each single. This source is a PDF scan of an issue of ARIA listing singles that were to come out that week (in this example, "Imitation of Life", which it says came out on April 16, 2001). However, in one of the band's biographies, Perfect Circle by Tony Fletcher, lists the release date for this single as April 30. Which source should take precedence? I imagine the ARIA chart might since it was from the time that the single came out, and I guess that means it’s much less likely that someone misremembered the proper date. But maybe the biography is referring to the US release date? Thoughts? Elephantranges (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elephantranges: Welcome to the Teahouse! When you have a question about improving an article, I suggest that the first place you discuss it is the article's talk page, in this case Talk:Reveal (R.E.M. album). happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to access my main page?

This might sound dumb, but I have been active for this entire year so far, (2024) and I still have no idea how to access my main page. I previous was able to go there via a redirection when I was blocked to appeal my case, but I'm not getting a pop-up saying I can't edit a certain page. I would appreciate some help on that. 136.33.182.23 (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Could you clarify what you're referring to?

You don't have a user page because you're an IP user. If you're looking for your talk page, just click the (talk) link after your IP address. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 00:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help on page, Draft:Louise Breckon-Richards

link: Draft:Louise Breckon-Richards

Hello! I have had this article rejected a few times due to lack of coverage of the subject (an actress / filmmaker who has worked extensively in the arts for a few decades). She recently won awards on her latest movie however, leading to more mentions of her work. I have quite an extensive bibliography, but understand that some sources are probably better than others.

I would appreciate any help or advice people have on improving this article before I try resubmitting. If people find a great source on this person, I would of course much appreciate it too! Thank you. Artemis-red97 (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article does sound a little bit like an ad, and you chould be More specific with certain parts, e.g specifing the condotion she has that you mentioned. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding images

If the image does nót belong to you, how do you credit the owner? Blackmamba31248 (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons, see Commons:Licensing and commons:Special:UploadWizard and make sure that the image is under a free license. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I am trying to Make an edit but when í publish it it does nót show. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by "does not show"? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 02:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is nót Vísible Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but could you specify which article the problem appears on? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it’s working now, but it’s happened before. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Feel free to ask if you have any more questions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackmamba31248 For future reference, you can purge the page by going to Special:Purge, punch in the article you want to purge, and click "Yes". This will force the most recent version to appear. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 04:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do in this situation?

Recently saw this

How do I refute statements like that? What can I warn the user for, it's not exactly vandalism... 『π』BalaM314 〘talk〙 05:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI, maybe? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 05:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone undid the edit, I indef'ed the editor. I think that covers it? DMacks (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BalaM314, please read Wikipedia:Deny recognition. Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to create a new article

Hi! We've created a new article of our CEO here in Wikipedia. It seems to remain in the sandbox and we cannot publish it in any way. Also we're unable to upload his picture there.

Could someone assist us in doing so?

The page we're referring to is at User:Mobibank/sandbox

Thanks for any help anyone could provide! Mobibank (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OP already blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rouge admin protocol?

Hi. I'm just curious if there's any protocol for when an administrator goes rogue and vandalizes Wikipedia, and when it has been used, if such protocol exists. Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 09:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CanonNi: There is: see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Removal of permissions. I can't recall specific instances off the top of my head, but I know that it's been used before in cases of compromised accounts. m:Stewards can also remove permissions and lock accounts in emergencies, when nobody else is available. Tollens (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 10:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested in this list. Tollens (talk) 10:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

username

How to change the username? 101.78.114.73 (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're currently an IP account, which means you are not registered and therefore don't have a username. Go to Special:CreateAccount to get an account. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 10:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC submissions

AFC submissions are a very lengthy procedure, can you recommend some way quick for publishing of article Misbah Haider (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of AfC is to make sure new articles meet Wikipedia's quality standards, and since you're a relatively new editor, it's strongly recommended to go through the AfC process with article drafts first and gain experience on the article creation process. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 11:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since the article in question was re-draftified for issues. It's a long process in part because good work is a long process. Remsense诉 11:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean we should wait for 2 months to get our article published Misbah Haider (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]