Wikipedia:Teahouse

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

How to get a mentor?

Hello all. I see that some new editors are assigned a mentor to be there as a guide, support, etc. Such a cool idea. How are folks assigned to a mentor, do you have to sign up? Do you just reach out to an editor and ask? Thanks :) Taevchoi (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Taevchoi We only have enough mentors for about 50% of new accounts to get them at present. However, if you were in the half that didn't, then you can activate the Newcomer Homepage at Special:preferences (at the bottom there is a check-box). Once you have saved that change in your preferences, the homepage tab will be visible when you navigate to your userpage and that tab has the name of your assigned mentor. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Taevchoi (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull, are you saying a new editor can "force" themselves a mentor this way? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Yes. I am a mentor and wanted to check out how the newcomer homepage tab worked and what it looked like: in activating it on my account I was assigned a mentor (whom I have never contacted). Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Come to think of, I did that too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull, I'm in the 50% of editors who got a mentor. But now, two years after the Wiki start gate opened for me, I feel that so many senior editors have been like mentors in the Teahouse and other areas where we can ask questions that I'd be willing to "free up" my assigned mentor. Perhaps other editors would, too. Augnablik (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik Yes, I made exactly that point to the Growth Team at WP:Growth Team features/Mentor list#Suggestion to "retire" mentees on 15 April. That team has taken up the suggestion but it is not yet implemented (see that thread). Incidentally, I find that most of the newcomers who are assigned to me as a mentor never make contact and of those who do, most do so only once. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It can also happen that assigned mentors don’t really connect with their mentees. Augnablik (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't actively check who is being assigned to me. I await their contact, which happens on my Talk Page. I currently have 625 mentees, with new ones being added at 2 to 4 per day. If I added a welcome message to all of them I would have little time to do anything else! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

You have 625 mentees? Dear God!

Is that the typical ratio per senior editor? Augnablik (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my mentor dashboard is set so I get the "average" number. This perhaps explains why only 50% of new users on enWiki get the newcomer homepage. Note that, as I've already said, few of my assigned mentees ever contact me: about 30 have done so this year (see my Talk Page: they are the ones with timestamps in the section title, which is how this newcomer feature works). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The idea of assigned mentors is a nice “warm fuzzy,” and appreciated as we start out on our Wiki editing journey making our way through the fog.

But if (1) there aren’t enough mentors to go around; and (2) mentor-mentee interaction isn’t as strong as anticipated when the program was initiated; and (3) mentees find good support from non-assigned senior editors simply through discussion like here in the Teahouse, perhaps assigned mentors aren’t really needed.

But something is. For awhile, at least. What about occasional Internet forums via threaded message boards. These could be available for all new editors to take part in, within some sort of time frame like 6 months or a year after they come to Wikipedia.

Since newbies would interact with several senior editors rather than just one — and in addition, with fellow newbies — this could actually expand their sense of connection with Wikipedia beyond what they have in the current assigned mentor arrangement. Augnablik (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

​ If you'd like to make suggestions or otherwise ask questions about the current mentor feature, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features. The feature was created by the Wikimedia Foundation's Growth Team. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, @Marchjuly — can you say a little more about that team, though? Because GROWTH would seem to be a much larger focus than just mentorship. Augnablik (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a member of the Growth Team, but there is more information about it on the link I included in my earlier post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Or the other way round :). Lectonar (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems that some accounts don't have mentorship, even with the homepage. (Homepage seems to be rolled out to all accounts.) All accounts technically do have an assigned mentor, but the panel is not visible to the other half of the new accounts. However, based on my past testing, "claiming" a mentee (from a mentor's dashboard) makes the panel visible, as I did on my own account. ~~2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 15:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not see that option when I go to my user page. I would really like a mentor to show me how to appropriately edit various pages on Wikipedia and work on citations. So far, I've only been participating in discussion on a few talk pages, but that's the extent of my participation on Wikipedia thus far.

Butterscotch5 (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The use of euphemisms and weasel words?

I have a question about Wikipedia style policies on the use of euphemism and weasel words, in particular as used in article titles.  Eg. is it inappropriate to use the "unrest" as a euphemism for "riots". Do such style policies exist?  Can someone point me to them?

Is Wikipedia:Teahouse to ask this sort of question? RealLRLee (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

See MOS:WEASEL. As for whether 'unrest' rather than 'riot' is appropriate in a title, it would depend on the context, and on how appropriate sources described the event in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking at WP:EUPHEMISM, if the event meets the definition of riot then "riot" is preferred over "unrest". Do I have that right? RealLRLee (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

No. The common name is generally preferred over others. Also the definition of something is often not so important to us directly anyway. We generally go by what reliable secondary sources say rather than editor interpretations of whether something meets some definition. Reliable secondary sources will normally rely on definitions but it's not something we're independently deciding. Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Would you please reference the applicable Wikipedia policy that supports your claim that WP:EUPHEMISM is to be ignored is selecting multiple possible common names? RealLRLee (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME. Note that WP:COMMONNAME is policy whereas WP:EUPHEMISM is a guideline. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@RealLRLee: COMMONNAME is a policy about article titles, not article prose. And just because something is a guideline doesn't mean we give it less value. I consider policies as our governing rules, and guidelines as our best practices. Ignoring either one isn't a great idea. If reliable sources use a euphemism to describe something, that doesn't mean we should. It also doesn't mean we should ignore what reliable sources call something. Particularly if the naming might be controversial, we should see what most reliable sources use. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

EvergreenFir -- Would you please QUOTE the specific guideline or policy text that suggests that MOS:EUPHEMISM [1] does not apply in the current case? RealLRLee (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Nil Einne: Again, as I asked above --"Would you please reference the applicable Wikipedia policy that supports your claim that WP:EUPHEMISM is to be ignored is selecting multiple possible common names?"

RealLRLee (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Unable to resubmit

I am getting an error @Theroadislongwhen trhying to resubmit this with the requested changes. Any tips?

I am getting this error message: No stashed content found for (followed by a nonsensical arrangement of letters and dashes and numbers) Saraalutz (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Previous people who helped with this error said that it might be caused by having the edit page open for a very long time before publishing the changes, that you might need to copy your changes (if they aren't lost), click edit again, paste your changes and then try again. – 2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I can only suggest you try again, your draft Draft:Debbie Matthews is VERY poorly sourced and will not be acceptable without better referencing. Theroadislong (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

in what way is the draft poorly sourced? can you be more specific please Saraalutz (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Most of the draft cites no sources at all. Where did you get all that infomation from? Only the list of "Media Appearances:" cites sources. Maproom (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Saraalutz The first 30+ paragraphs are totally unsourced. Theroadislong (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Saraalutz I believe you may have an undeclared 'conflict of interest' in writing about Debbie Matthews. Please follow the instructions and declare any connection you have with her on your userpage. See WP:COI for how to do this. If you are being paid in any way, you are obliged to declare who is paying you. Again, please read and follow WP:PAID to ensure you remain within our policy requirements whilst editing.

I am concerned that the large number of images you have uploaded to Commons suggests you have direct personal access to photographs collated by Debbie Matthews, and that you do not understand the way Wikimedia Commons works. I would point out that even if Debbie Matthews holds those photos, she will not own the copyright to many of them - especially those taken whilst she was racing on her bike and not holding the camera! Unless you were the photographer, yourself, you will not have the legal right to release another person's photos under a Creative Commons licence for anyone else to use. Equally, whilst we encourage you to cite news stories from newspapers in which she is mentioned, you may not upload photos of newspaper pages to Commons as they remain copyright of the newspaper publisher. You do not have the rights to release them, either. Do not be surprised if many of these photos are marked for future deletion. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Saraalutz, there is no way under the sun that such a poorly referenced draft can be accepted into the encyclopedia. You have provided no way for readers to verify that many, many claims in your draft are true. Please be aware that Verifiability is a core content policy, as is No original research which is also applicable. Cullen328 (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I declared my COI in my userpage. Where else do I need to declare it? Saraalutz (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Saraalutz I strongly recommend that you read Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you review it again and tell me what *specifically* the draft: Debbie Matthews still needs? @Grabup Saraalutz (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Saraalutz: Replied to my talk page. GrabUp - Talk 07:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You have some neck charging for your poor editing! You are being paid by the subject to write this, do your client a favour and learn how Wikipedia actually works before submitting this again. Theroadislong (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It costs nothing to be kind. Try it sometime. @Theroadislong Saraalutz (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Saraalutz are you being paid for this or not? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Saraalutz has declared on their user page that they are being paid, my kindness extends to editing for up to 8 hours a day to help the encyclopaedia for free. I hate seeing people being taken advantage of by poor quality paid editing. Theroadislong (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Saraalutz Your inline citations are messed up (Superscript? Why? Just use the ref tags.) Also, your sources are very questionable. Interviews on YouTube and primary sources… 48JCL ^(talk) 02:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

General question about WP:Tea

So, I was looking at the “Other Areas of Wikipedia”, and the description for The Teahouse and the Help Desk seem very similar. Would it be a good idea for a noob/old rusty editor to assume that WP:Tea and WP:HD are roughly similar, with Tea being more reserved for basic questions? The Phase Master 18:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Tea in action

@The Phase Master Welcome to the Teahouse! Yes - they're both very similar, but we do aim to welcome and support new users in particular, and in as friendly a way as possible. We have a less formal design layout here, too. And we do serve Tea to any editor, new or old. Here's one just for you! Of course, questions from anyone are always welcome. (The Help Desk does tend to take attract more technical questions, though.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@The Phase Master Nope! They are absolutely nothing alike. Unlike the Help Desk, the Teahouse serves tea, therefore making us far superior and incomparable to them. Panini! • 🥪 23:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Same but different

I need a list that is the same as this one but that has no logos instead of including logos. I would like to work on adding company logos/emblems to any article for a company that is currently lacking them, but I don't know a good way to create that list and then sort through it. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

"the same as this one": the same as which one? And are you looking for a list format (to which you'll add items), or for a ready-made list of items? -- Hoary (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Ready made list. Here is the link that I forgot to include with my question: Category:Pages using infobox company with a logo from wikidata Iljhgtn (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Pages using infobox company with a logo from wikidata Iljhgtn (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: We don't appear to have a specific category for company articles lacking logos, but many such articles should be in Category:Wikipedia requested logos, if you want to trawl through that extremely large category. Deor (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I will review that category. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

That category is all based on talk page logo requests? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Changing image in infobox for Tiangong Space Station article

Hello. I noticed that the article for the Tiangong space station currently has a simulated image as the main image in the infobox. Since lead images should be representative (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MOS:LEADIMAGE&redirect=no) it seems that it would be better for an actual image to be there instead. There are complete images of the space station from the China Manned Space agency (https://en.cmse.gov.cn/dmt/tj/shenzhou16/) and the disclaimer for media on the CMSA website says that fair use is allowed. I was trying to upload one of the images to replace the current lead image but couldn't figure out how since I'm new to editing Wikipedia and was confused by only text appearing when trying to edit the infobox. I would greatly appreciate help. GoldenOrbWeaver (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, GoldenOrbWeaver. Allowing for "fair use" is not enough. What is required is a robust, legally binding license that explicitly allows for unlimited use by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose at all including commercial uses, with the only restriction being proper attribution. The Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license is the most common license that qualifies, but there are others. Cullen328 (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't this fall under WP:NFCCP? All detailed images of the Tiangong (including the ones I previously linked) were released by the CMSA so there's no free equivalent, there's no market role being replaced, it seems like it's minimal usage if just one image is used, the photos have been published in various newspapers, it meets Wikipedia guidelines, it would be used in an article, and having an actual photo of the space station seems important to readers' understanding. I apologize if I'm misunderstanding this policy. There seem to be other images published by the CMSA in the article already also. GoldenOrbWeaver (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

There is definitely the possibility of a free alternative, GoldenOrbWeaver. It could be photographed from Earth with a telescope. It could be photographed from a US spacecraft and works by employees of the US federal government are in the public domain. Appearing in newpapers certainly does not qualify an image to be added to Wikipedia. Far from it. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is an article about how amateur astronomers take photos of the International Space Station. Certainly, the same techniques can be used to take photos of the Tiangong Space Station. Cullen328 (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It probably couldn't be photographed from a US spacecraft because of the Wolf amendment. I've seen photographs of the Tiangong space station from the ground and even taken some myself, and because of the distance, they aren't very clear and don't show many details. Therefore, they don't seem to be a viable alternative. If the photos released by the CMSA allow free use, and fall under the criteria for using free use photos on Wikipedia, I don't see why they can't be used. Again, many of the photos already in the article were released by the CMSA, so I don't see why adding a complete photo would be any different. GoldenOrbWeaver (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

GoldenOrbWeaver, you are assuming that the other CMSA photos are being used properly. Where has that been established? Cullen328 (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Asking for feedback

Hello, I am seeking feedback for my article that I want to publish on wikipedia. It got declined twice and I have put every effort to integrate the provided feedback by the fellow wikipedians. I want to re-submit the artice and I want to make sure this time it won't be declined. Kindly give it a read and provide me with feedback for improvement.

User:Akbarirazia/sandbox Akbarirazia (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

As background, the page that was submitted was Draft:Amu Television so the versions that were rejected are in the history of that page. TSventon (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable, and looks promotional in nature. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 14:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I changed the content, could you please review it and be specific on which points look like promotional content.

Draft:Amu Television

Thank you! Akbarirazia (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I have posted this before as well. This is my article Draft:Amu Television, our fellows say it looks promotional. I have changed its content, I am requesting for a review and a specific feedback like which parts I should keep or remove.

I will really appreciate it 🙏 Akbarirazia (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Akbarirazia The most important problem is notability The draft is about an organisation, so it needs to show that the subject meets the guidance for inclusion of an organisation in Wikipedia, which requires multiple published sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary and independent of the subject. There is background about what that means at WP:ORGCRIT. I found three sources in the 25 May version which could contribute to notability, but even they are based on interviews with Amu TV people. I would therefore recommend looking for better sources. Sources do not have to be in English. If you had better sources, then a summary of the sources would sound less promotional.

My thoughts on the sources on 25 May
Toronto Star possibly contributes to notability The Dispatch possibly contributes to notability Journalism Festival interview so not independent Nieman Reports possibly contributes to notability National Endowment for Democracy not in depth, about a NED award so not independent CBC Radio interview so not independent

TSventon (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

"I'm not a robot" check fail

Hello! I hope you're doing well. Recently, I've encountered two issues while translating on my mobile phone: 1. I'm unable to publish my translations because the "I'm not a robot" test continually prompts me to type the displayed word, even after correctly entering it. 2. I'm unable to continue translations started on my mobile phone when using the desktop website on my PC. The "continue translation" button does not appear; only the "start translation" button is visible, which does not function correctly. Could you please assist me with resolving these issues or recommend someone who could help? Vasconcelos-Giovanni (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you might be better off posting this to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), which is specifically for technical issues. Someone else here at the Teahouse might be able to help you with this, but the village pump is your best bet for resolving problems like this. Adam Black ^{t • c} 17:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for your recommendation, I'll post my issue there. Vasconcelos-Giovanni (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Vasconcelos-Giovanni, and welcome to the Teahouse.

From your language, and the error you are getting, I am guessing that you are trying to use the Content translation tool. That tool is not available to new editors: I believe that this is because new editors are not likely to understand the difficulties often involved in translating articles from other versions of Wikipedia.

Please study Help:Translation carefully.

Many articles in other versions of Wikipedia (and, indeed, many older articles in English Wikipedia) do not cite adequate reliable sources to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Where this is the case, a direct translation will not be accepted into English Wikipedia.

This means that, unless you first check that the original article does cite adequate sources, a straight translation (whether by machine or human) is not going to be acceptable, and you're better off treating this as creating a new article in En-wiki - see WP:YFA for how to go about doing that. ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for your time! I'm trying to translate from English to Portuguese and the Content Translation Tool is available to me, even though I'm new here. Also, the article about the tool states: "this utility is currently suspended for newer editors on the English Wikipedia. This restriction does not impact translating pages from English". The problem is that I was able follow the procedure of translation, but I'm not being able to post the translation. Vasconcelos-Giovanni (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Moving a draft

Hi,

I would like to move the draft of an article (Draft:Kerstin Becker) from the namespace to my userspace (in order to continue working on it later on). How can this be done?

Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Takeru Watanabe. You could move it to your user space (eg User:Takeru Watanabe/Kerstin Becker) but I don't know why you would want to. Draft space is generally a better place for articles being developed; and while anybody could edit it in Draft space (or indeed in your user space) it is unlikely that anybody will do so without discussing it with you first.

The only possible problem with leaving it in Draft space is that if you do absolutely nothing to it for more than six months, it might get deleted; but if you make even one edit in that time, it will not. ColinFine (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, ColinFine. Thank you for your kind answer. Indeed, I wanted to rule out that the draft would be deleted if didn't edit it for a longer period of time. So, I'm now glad about your advice concerning the sixth month time frame.

May I ask yet another question? If I'm not quite sure about the notability of a person (in my case women writers and poets), might there be anybody willing to help me in that matter and discuss it before I submit the draft for review? Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Takeru Watanabe. As you are interested in women's biographies, you could ask at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red talk page. I see that you have mentioned the project on your user page. TSventon (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, TSventon, thank you, that's a very good idea. I'm going to do that. Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Article Up for Speedy Deletion

I've completed my first Wikipedia Article, and I just received a message about my article getting deleted due to the subject not being deemed significant or showing any importance of the subject. How do I correct this and contest it? Wikieditormneal (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Wikieditormneal, and welcome to the Teahouse,

As it says in the notice in Lorraine Whittlesea, If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted.

Note that neither discogs nor Apple Music is regarded as a reliable source (and so should rarely or never be cited), so your claim of notability rests solely on the two Baltimore Sun citations. I cannot read these, as they are not available in my area: does each of them meet the triple criterion of reliablility, independence, and substantial coverage of Whittlesea? (see WP:42). ColinFine (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

 Note: page name is Lorraine Whittlesey, currently tagged for WP:A7. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your response. Yes, the articles meet the triple criterion of reliability, independence and substantial coverage of Whittlesey. Wikieditormneal (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

This article has been deleted more that once, and was just moved back to draft. Stop recreating it. Work on the problems in the draft version. Meters (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Now at Draft:Lorraine Whittlesey David notMD (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

This User is a paid one

The above mentioned user is a paid editor as he disclose himself but he hasn't done any significant edit so far, how can he be paid for contributing to wiki.
--KEmel49 (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi KEmel49. Whoever this person may be, they aren't being paid by Wikipedia and aren't employed by Wikipedia. They're only required to declare their paid status in accordance with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and they've done this. Wikipedia policy and guidelines doesn't require them to make significant edits or justify why or how much they're being paid. You would need to ask them directly if you're interested in such things, but Wikipedia policy doesn't require that they respond to you if you do. So, unless you feel they're doing something that's not in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you might want to focus on something else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Ideally, an editor declares their paid status on their User page before making edits on a topic they have identified as paid. Which is what User:Seo.cypherms has done. In this instance an article or a draft about Arcade Business College does not yet exist, so the editor appears to be planning to create and then submit a draft. David notMD (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Not essays

A reviewer moved my article back to draft, because, " Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because Wikipedia articles are not academic essays.". Does that mean it needs to be "dumbed down"? Any elaboration appreciated, if known. Fixingthingsguy (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixingthingsguy, I guess this is about Draft:How the PET bottle became ubiquitous. No, dumbing-down is not the issue. But there's a lot of things wrong with that draft, which would prevent it trom being accepted as a Wikipedia article:

• It's not an article about a subject, it's an essay about how (in your view) something happened. I assume that's what the reviewer meant.
• It uses capitalisation and italics in seemingly random ways: "Polyethylene Terephthalate", "glass", "2-Liter".
• It says "50 years ago" rather than giving a date. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and hopes to exist for at least another 50 years, it's not a newspaper. "Today", likewise.
• The punctuation is chaotic. Some periods are mid-sentence, some sentences have no period. Punctuation should always followprecede references, not precedefollow them.

The last three items will be fairly easy to correct. But while what you've written is not about a notable topic, it has little chance of being accepted. Maproom (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. Fixingthingsguy (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixingthingsguy: a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable sources have said about a subject, nothing more. It should not present any argumentation or conclusions at all, except possibly summaries of arguments or conclusions presented in one single source. It could summarise (separately) arguments or conclusions from two or more different sources, but should make no attempt to compare or reconcile them. ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks . I'm getting a better picture of what I need to do. My grandson is likely never to ask, how did the plastic-like beverage bottle get ubiquitous! But if he was super observant, he might ask, how come all these beverage bottles in the grocery have a weird shape in the bottom. That might be a subject of interest. In which case I would tell him about these super smart people who tossed around various ideas and came up with a petal like base, that ensured the Coke bottle or Pepsi bottle would stand a lot of jostling around from manufacture to the dining table and stand upright at all times. How did they do that, grandad, and I would say, they made a preform that looks like a syringe with the small end closed, and shoved a burst of hot air that made it into a form that ends looking like a beverage bottle. And they received patents for that from the US Patent office. And, oh, by the way, they made trillions of these and now are struggling to find a way to recycle them without becoming a hazard for future generations.

How does that sound. Thanks in advance for any feedback

Regards Fixingthingsguy (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a great blog post, but like it wouldn't quite fit on Wikipedia. However, that doesn't mean the information you've collected wouldn't be useful, or couldn't be incorporated into Wikipedia!

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A good way to think of it is that the title of a Wikipedia article should be a noun: Wikipedia articles should describe a single thing, rather than try to answer a question (like "how did X happen").

Once we've chosen a thing, we find and summarize all the information there is related to that particular thing. For example, your article could probably be split up and included in our article on plastic bottles or polyethylene terephthalate! –Sincerely, A Lime 01:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll note your suggestions as I rework the draft. Fixingthingsguy (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Maproom: On punctuation and reference indices: Really? 126.33.112.247 (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Maproom is mistaken here. Punctuation should always precede references, except in limited circumstances. See MOS:CITEPUNCT. Adam Black ^{t • c} 00:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

You're right. Now corrected. Maproom (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

In anser to your question, not good. Articles consist of facts and references, not "telling". And are you aware that Polyethylene terephthalate has a section on bottles? Perhaps you have referenced content that can be added there versus a separate article. David notMD (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

How to revert redirecting mistake

I made a draft article Draft:Kepler-1972 but failed to find any publications on the astronomical object beyond its discovery paper and a few catalogs (thus failing notability criteria), so I tried to move it to my userspace. However, I mistakenly moved the draft to User:Kepler-1972. I reverted the edit so now the draft is restored, but I cannot figure out how to restore the (previously nonexistent) user page to its original state. This might cause some trouble if a new user tries to name themselves Kepler-1972. How can I (or anyone with the required permissions) fix this? I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and I greatly appreciate your help. AluminiumWithAnI (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@AluminiumWithAnI I believe you can tag the page with {{db-u2}} if the user does not exist yet. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! Tagged as {{db-u2}}. AluminiumWithAnI (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I have now successfully moved the contents of the draft to my userspace, and a redirect is left at the original draft page. Which tag should I use to delete the redirect (for when the page needs to be used for another draft of the same topic in the future)? AluminiumWithAnI (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I think {{db-g7}} will work. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again! Tagged it as such. AluminiumWithAnI (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Leesburg Stockade

We need our true story about only what we seventeen girls of the Lee County Stockade lived, endured and survived because we are the only people who lived, endured and survived this saga in 1963. Please assist me with this much needed endeavor. You may contact me at [redacted]. Please assist me with telling only our true story that no one else lived in 1963. Thank you very much. This true story needs to be told truthfully. 99.110.81.53 (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If there are published reliable sources that are secondary and talk about what happened, by all means, contribute to Leesburg Stockade citing them. Wikipedia can't unfortunately take you at your word. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The article Shirley Green-Reese cites some relevant sources. Maproom (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Leesburg Stockade lists 14 by name, but states that there were more than that, possibly as many as 30 or 33. Your name (and others) can be added to that list if there is a reference to add that has more names. David notMD (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Americus movement lists 35 by name, but does not include a reference to confirm that list. David notMD (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The content you added to Leesburg Stockade was reverted because the reference you provided was your self-published book (listed at Amazon). Can you find a better source, perhaps a newpaper or magazine published at the time? You also described why there is/was confusion as to how many girls, as there appears to have been the original set - held for a long time - and another set of girls who boycotted the beginning of the school year on behalf of their held classmates, and were detained and added to the group at Leesburg for a few days before all were released. David notMD (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

COI question

Where would this person fall under the current guidelines of need to declare a COI:

Someone who, although never having met the subject of an existing or planned Wiki article, is beginning to feel very close and connected to that person, but not yet 100% so? Examples: on the secular level: an increasingly self-declared Swiftie; on the spiritual level, an increasingly self-declared devotee of a guru or saint?

I assume someone 100% self-declared would have an “official” COI, right?

Augnablik (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Augnablik. Great question! Being a fan does not - at least under the guidelines here - mean that you are regarded as a having a conflict of interest. It will make it difficult for you to be neutral, but we do not expect that editors are neutral - just that the articles we produce are. However, if the editor is activly involved with the subject off-wiki, such as actively opposing them or actively supporting them (president of a fan club, writing articles about them for media sources, etc) then it will enter COI territory. - Bilby (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

This particular question I raised is a more internal than external COI issue, @Bilby. The hypothetical editor in the case I described isn't actually doing anything externally but coming to feel ever closer internally to a person who's the subject of an article ... to the point that the subject of the article seems more and more like an old friend or a kindred spirit, perhaps even moving to the point that the editor might feel drawn to defend the subject if it seemed warranted.

I realize this question might sound "overly molecular" — and obviously hard to use a yardstick to measure — but I'm asking for a reason. Augnablik (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

If an editor who feels "close" to a subject cannot be neutral about it, then it's best for that editor to act as if a COI exists.

I've seen this happen before: an editor adds all sorts of promotional puffery to an article, and when questioned about a conflict of interest or paid editing, the editor responds "I have no association, I'm just a fan."

When you're a "fan" who is intent on elevating a subject and removing negative information, you have a COI as far as I'm concerned. To me, this seems to be a big hole in our WP:COI guidelines. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Anachronist — you’ve confirmed something I’ve been wondering about recently: that there doesn’t seem to be much, if anything, about a strong internal connection to the actual or potential subject of a Wiki article being a COI.

I can think of many people who I feel deep kinship with but have never met or done anything on behalf of — except perhaps call them to others’ attention — with whom I feel a much closer connection than many people I have met and done something on behalf of.

If someday I ever decided to throw my journalistic and academic training — not to mention support of “Wiki transparency” — to the wind as I worked on production of an article, I really think it would be for one of the people on my my unmet but deeply resonated-with list.

I’ll leave aside the haunting question of “can we ever be 100% unbiased anyway” and hope that you and other senior editors will pick up on my original question. To me, it seems a very practical one that many other still-newish editors like me might also have. Augnablik (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

My 18 years on Wikipedia have honed my skills at dispassionate neutral editing. One way to do this is to work on topics that interest you but you have no strong feelings about. The only "feeling" that may come into play might be fond memories of a movie that has no Wikipedia article, but there's no personal investment, so you can remain detached. Honing this skill also helps me better identify non-neutral or unreliable reporting outside of Wikipedia.

Being interested but detached is how I approached each article I created, listed on my user page. I took an interest in the topic, started investigating, and eventually had enough information to write an article about it. Note that this is the opposite approach to that taken by new editors, who typically try to write an article first (based on what they know or feel) and then look for sources. That is the WP:BACKWARD way to write. Me, I learned to look for sources first, and if I can't find anything sufficient even for a stub article (and I've written several stubs), then I simply don't write about the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Your story, @Anachronist, is valuable because it’s a combination of personal, relevant, and interesting.

If we newbies had more such stories, I think we’d get much further faster through the thickets of WP:DO’s and WP:DONT’s. Thanks. Augnablik (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

What you're describing doesn't sound like a conflict of interest, but if the person is injecting their own personal bias into articles, it violates WP:Advocacy instead. A conflict-of-interest is when you would gain in some way (like fame, money, etc.) from a Wikipedia article being written a certain way.

For example, if Taylor Swift wrote an article about herself, that wouldn't be allowed, because she stands to gain from hiding negative information about herself and promoting positive information.

On the other hand, if a Taylor Swift fan is writing articles that say only good things about Taylor Swift, and is deleting any information that makes her look bad, that would be considered WP:POV pushing and WP:Advocacy. The fan doesn't actually gain anything from doing this, but they're allowing their own personal opinions to control what they write, which is not allowed. –Sincerely, A Lime 01:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @A Lime, this is very helpful. I've never heard of Advocacy as a Wiki category, though occasionally a bit about POV. What I appreciate is that you've related all three categories (COI, POV, and Advocacy). Connecting related categories is just the sort of thing I wish we had more of in Wiki editing. It would avoid a lot of surprise discoveries long after the need to know about connections like this has passed for an editor trying to fully understand something.

As @Anachronist said earlier in this thread, "When you're a 'fan' who is intent on elevating a subject and removing negative information, you have a COI as far as I'm concerned. To me, this seems to be a big hole in our WP:COI guidelines." Your mention of POV and Advocacy, @A Lime, seems the missing link that should be directly included in those guidelines.

Or perhaps even more basically ... maybe we need something on how to put all three categories together as to a "total package" of what to steer clear of because the emphasis is so much on COI that we may be underestimating POV and Advocacy. Augnablik (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Worried about copyright and image use

On the Bubble canopy article, I would like to add a box for the XB-42 and would like to use a image on the XB-42's article page, that is public domain, but Im not sure if im able to use other peoples uploaded images, I have checked the rules, but im still not sure. A-37Dragonfly (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

You can freely use any uploaded images. Pinchedloaf (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you A-37Dragonfly (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@A-37Dragonfly: Unfortunately, Pinchedloaf gave an incorrect response. There are some images that are not free of copyright and have restrictions on where and how they can be used: see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

If a picture has been labeled public domain, and is a government made photo, is it fine to use even if it wasnt uploaded by you (5th image on XB-42 article), im new to wikipedia and I still dont fully understand the copyright stuff A-37Dragonfly (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if an image is public domain you can use it for any purpose. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

(Im using visual editor) How do I add images? I went to the article, clicked on the box for the gallery, and when I went to add the image, it said "your recent uploads", which i do not have any A-37Dragonfly (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@A-37Dragonfly There is a full tutorial for adding images using the visual editor at this link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you :D A-37Dragonfly (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The UI is a bit confusing, but you have to search with the file name in the "Search multimedia" bar where it says "your recent uploads".

For additional info, check out WP:Adding images. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you :D A-37Dragonfly (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Yi Sun (academic)

I have following 4 issues and would like fix them, but do not know how.

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for academics. (April 2024)

This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. (April 2024)

Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (April 2024)

This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (April 2024)

Suny8616 (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Suny8616 Welcome to the Teahouse. To ask questions here, please click the blue box at the top of this page. I have started a new section for you. The blue text in those message are links. Rather than have us repeat information here, please click on those links for help with those specific issues. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed the academic notability tag, as his holding an endowed chair professorship and AAAS membership qualifies. David notMD (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Help finding a template

Resolved

Hi!

There's a template I want to use but I forgot how it's called.

Basically if a page doesn't exist on this wiki (enwiki), there's a template that do direct you to a different version of Wikipedia.

Something along the lines of:

The significance of the event led to the creation of 269 life [fr], an animal liberation movement founded in October 2012.

Thanks to anybody who can help me remember this template's name. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 08:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka: You're looking for {{interlanguage link}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Infoboxes

Howdy! How do you add the map images to infoboxes? Also, the "part of the..." stuff. I want to add them to my articles. Thanks TheBrowniess (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi TheBrowniess,

Depending on the infobox in question, putting the subject's coordiantes, using {{coord|display=inline}} in the coordinates= field causes a map to appear. And there are other fields to tweak exactly what map image gets used. "part of the..." is probably a specific template, could you give an example of what you're thinking of here? -- D'n'B-t -- 09:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@TheBrowniess: There are numerous different infobox templates with different parameters which should be documented on the template page. Template:Infobox military conflict has a partof parameter. There are others but most infobox templates have no such parameter. If they do then it may not always be called partof. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

What I meant by all of that is this: 2002 Ivorian coup attempt TheBrowniess (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I assume you mean the "part of" sidebars you can see at for example Reiki. You can hit "Edit source" in an article where you see one you want to use elsewhere and copypaste the relevant code. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I did just that. TheBrowniess (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Question: who has Rocky the sock ape?

By Mandi Ahonen Mandi Ahonen (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mandi Ahonen Welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? That's what we are here for. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Improving representation from the Global South is tricky

Every minor English indie band has copious notes online but unfortunately that's not the case for profound writers from the Global South. I'd hoped to add more about South Africa literature but I don't think that's going to happen - too many sources aren't up to Global North standards. I understand why Wikipedia has to be strict about references but I wish there was more understanding of the conditions others are working under. Atinyfrog (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Atinyfrog We have quite a lot of people in the Category:South African writers and you could check out some of these for the type of sources used. They don't have to be in English, provided they are reliable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

(That said, if you know a language like Xhosa or Afrikaans as well as English, including a brief translation of any quotes is really helpful. You're allowed to use software like Google translate to do it, as long as you check the translation is correct afterwards.) –Sincerely, A Lime 01:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Citing magazine scans

Hello! I'm a new editor, currently going through the list of articles with bare URL sources to try and fix them. A few times I've come across PDFs or JPGs, etc that are scans of magazines that include reviews of games, such as ST Format's review on this game. Is it appropriate to use these even when they are not "officially" online from the original publisher? --Beanut H Butter (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Beanut H Butter, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Thank you for taking on this valuable but often overlooked task.

The important part of a citation is the bibliographic information which will allow a reader to find the source (even if they have to order it from a major library!) - things like title, author, publication, page, date. If the source is available online, then it is helpful to readers and reviewers to include a URL; but for most sources this is not a requirement.

To answer your question directly: you may include a URL to a non-official online copy (eg a scan) only if you are satisfied that the copy you are linking to is not a copyright violation. So if it's a scan of an article or book that is 100 years old, any copyright has almost certainly expired, and you're fine. But if it's only fifty years old, it may or may not still be in copyright (and this depends on what country it was published in as well) so you'll have to do some research before you can tell whether you are allowed to link to it. And if it's recent, you would need to show that the text had been licensed in a way that allowed anybody to copy it (such as CC-BY-SA, or that whoever posted it had explicit permission from the copyright owner to do so. But as I said above, in most cases a URL is not actually required. ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

This makes sense, thank you for the response! I'll do some more research on these matters to make sure there's no copyright problems. I really appreciate the help. Beanut H Butter (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Provide a free photo

Hello, I have a photo I took under Charles Bridge showing (not very clearly but unmistakenly) a Freemason compass. I looked online and someone was selling a similar photo (wth). Can I give it to wikipedia for free? 107.143.76.152 (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I created an account ^ this is me. Eotf537 (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Eotf537. You can absolutely can, thank you. You may upload it to Wikimedia Commons (you should be able to log in to Commons using the same account as on Wikipedia) using their Upload Wizard which will ask you a bunch of questions guiding you to select an appropriate free licence. If you were taking a photo of a public artwork then Freedom of Panorama laws might apply but I shouldn't think they would with a logo on a bridge. (by the way, are we talking about the Charles Bridge in Prague or a different one?) -- D'n'B-t -- 14:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Charles Bridge in Prague!

Thank you I will do this today. Eotf537 (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Just uploaded. Thanks, let me know if I can change in any way. Eotf537 (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki version

Does anyone know the version of MediaWiki that is powering Wikipedia right now? Is it the latest version or what? Just wondering because I read somewhere that Fandom uses an older version. Bzik2324 (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Bzik2324! The special page Special:Version will tell you the answer to this, along with a lot of other information about the software behind Wikipedia. As of this writing, it tells me Wikipedia's running MediaWiki 1.43.0-wmf.6. --bjh21 (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Providing translations

Hello! I’m new to Wikipedia and glad to finally be here. I specifically decided to join to provide translations to Portuguese, and now am wondering how to do that. Thanks in advance. Mvacarn (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mvacarn Is Wikipedia:Translate us what you're after? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

See pt: Ajuda:Guia de edição/Guia de tradução, and bemvindo! Mathglot (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Reping: Mvacarn. Mathglot (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Citing a newspaper article accessed through a university database

Hi! I attempted to check some sources on an article that failed verification and have successfully located one of them. However, I accessed the newspaper article through a paid database provided by my university (I am a student). I am aware of Template:Cite news, specifically the template for article clips accessed through an aggregation service, but navigating to the link to said newspaper article in an incognito window prompts me to log into my university account to proceed further, which is what I presume most people would see. How do I go about citing this source? If it helps, the aggregation service is Gale. 50shadesofweird (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@50shadesofweird Include the link you have, but it's important you add as much other info you can (you probably have to do it "by hand"), publisher, author, date etc. You can add a |url-access=subscription parameter to your cite. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thank you! 50shadesofweird (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

question about a vs an

should a or an be used before the word "uruguayan". I'm finding some people say its pronounced with a "ur" sound at the beggining but others say its "yur" Gaismagorm (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Gaismagorm. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Uruguay/Archive 3#A vs. an says "a". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

alright, well I'll get to work on fixing the pages that mage the mistake of using "an", is that okay? Gaismagorm (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gaismagorm: It was a small discussion in 2017 and not added to any guideline. It seems good enough for adding new content but if you want to make mass changes like the currently 765 search results on "an Uruguayan" (versus 3554 on "a Uruguayan") then I suggest a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Uruguay with a proposal to add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Uruguay#Conventions. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Gaismagorm: You can look at Commonly misspelled English words and with fairly minimal effort find ample misspelled words. Or you can just make up misspellings (e.g. transposing letters). I tried this with "cantaloupe", and doing a search for "canataloupe", I got a hit on Dominic Frasca for "canataloupe music". There was of course the possibility that it was intentionally spelled this way, but I was able to quickly confirm that it actually was a typo. Consider this suggestion of something to fix as my gift to you. Fabrickator (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

thanks, I've actually done this a lot before (I went through a lot of country demonyms and the proper a/an for them). thanks for the advice. Gaismagorm (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see this as something to be corrected. Both usages and pronounciations are frequent and understanding is not impacted. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Gaismagorm: Google ngrams prefers "a". Maproom (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk page archives

Hello! I'm wondering how to change the formatting of the archive box on a talk page. I would like to change the formatting on this page to look like the formatting on this page. How do I do that? Wafflewombat (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Wafflewombat I believe what you're looking for is {{talk header}}. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Yep! Thank you. Wafflewombat (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

User Templates

Is there a way to create User Templates? If only administrators can, who and where do I ask? CreatorMH (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It's actually easier than you think. For Userboxes, (a simple example) you can just make a subpage, and paste the code used from other userboxes and modify it. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@AlphaBetaGamma. Thank you very much. CreatorMH (talk) 04:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Note that you can transclude (the mechanism normally used for templates) a page from any space using the curly brackets {{ ... }}: it just defaults to Template:. So if you created a template in your user space called User:CreatorMH/MyTemplate, you could use it in a page by {{User:CreatorMH/MyTemplate}}. ColinFine (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

i want to make some name badges

please ThisIsMyUsernameToday (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@ThisIsMyUsernameToday what name badges are you referring to? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

the usertags ThisIsMyUsernameToday (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to the user tags on Fandom? If so, this is the wrong place to ask. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

no i mean like the user tags on my user profile ThisIsMyUsernameToday (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Huh? Could you describe them with more detail? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@ThisIsMyUsernameToday, maybe you mean userboxes? StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

yes thats what i meant ThisIsMyUsernameToday (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

You can learn more about creating userboxes at Template:Userbox. If you wish to create userboxes, you can create them in the Template namespace or in your Userspace by doing “User:ThisIsMyUsernameToday/Foobar” in the search bar and creating the user subpage. Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 19:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

ThisIsMyUsernameToday, as I look at your list of contributions, I wonder whether you're here (A) in order to improve the encyclopedia, or (B) in order to have fun. Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

im here to improve the encyclopedia ThisIsMyUsernameToday (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Article's language

If you look at the recent revision history for the article Lara Fabian, in the early life section, someone changed the spelling of the word Recognized to it's British spelling, Recognised, I have reverted that person's edit, mentioning that the article's language shouldn't be changed until further discussion. My question is, should the article be written in British English or American English? 70.50.199.125 (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The closest style guidelines can be found at MOS:RETAIN, where generally the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety is used. That being said, I find that many European articles tend to use British orthography, probably because that's what most editors interested in those subjects are usually exposed to. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

We also have this. Lectonar (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Arguably the article should be written in Canadian English, which uses recognized, per MOS:TIES. TSventon (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

IP editor. We have templates that can be used to confirm which variety of English is preferred for an article. In view of this discussion, I've added the {{Use Canadian English}} one for future reference. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Should the article be written in British English or American English - that depends: are Canadians British or are they American? Seriously though, it looks to me like Canadian English tends to prefer ize.

References

IKEA Foundation request help

Hi editors, I'm Altaf with the IKEA Foundation. I made a request to add a History section to the IKEA Foundation article on April 16 but so far it has not received a response. I have posted to several WikiProjects and to individual editors to see if there was any interest but so far have heard nothing. I realize there is no deadline on Wikipedia, but I was wondering if there is anything else I could do to drum up interest? Thanks in advance for your insight. AMfromIKEA (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@AMfromIKEA Perhaps because they saw this discussion, an editor has suggested you go ahead with the change you proposed. There is a specific template {{edit coi}} you can use for such requests which are more likely to be followed up quickly since there are some editors who specialise in working on them. That helps when there are few people with the article on their watchlist. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@AMfromIKEA, sorry that I forgot to notify you about that. From my view, I didn't find much unwanted content on the draft you made, so I suggested you can go ahead and make that edit. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 12:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull and AlphaBetaGamma: thank you both for the quick response. I will keep that in mind about the edit COI template. Cheers AMfromIKEA (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit summary

A sentence like: "They also wrote a play, Underwood's Finest Hour, about an obstetrician distracted during a birth by the radio broadcast of a Test match, which played at the Lyric Theatre, Hammersmith, in 1981." can be improved by untangling its component ideas. Is there a term I can use for such a sentence ? Doug butler (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Doug butler, not a native speaker of the language, so I'm not sure, but I've seen "run-on sentence" used as a catch-all on Wikipedia for sentences that could be broken up. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Doug butler, do you mean to describe it, or in the edit summary after you detangle it? Perhaps WP:CLARIFY covers it? There's some tags and info on that page that might be what you're looking for. StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Doug butler: For the act of doing the untangling, I'd recognise recast, or rephrase. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Bazza 7, "recast" is perfect for the edit, but is there a grammatical term for a sentence where proximity of a verb to the wrong object results in confusion if not ambiguity? Doug butler (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Doug butler: Try Syntactic ambiguity. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, thanks Bazza 7. Nice link with lots of glorious examples, but my quote (from Terry Jones) was not quite ambiguous. I think I just opted for "recast sentence" with no elaboration. Doug butler (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

You could re-order the garden-path sentence as

They also wrote a play, Underwood's Finest Hour, which played at Hammersmith's Lyric Theatre in 1981, about an obstetrician distracted during a birth by the radio broadcast of a Test match.

Maybe not ideal, but an improvement. Maproom (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Haha! Pretty much how I rewrote it. Thanks Maproom. Doug butler (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Referencing same source

If I want to reference the same source twice on an Wikipedia article, how do I do that?

For example, I want to reference this article twice on the Unomattina estate article. https://www.ilmattino.it/spettacoli/televisione/unomattina_estate_serena_autieri_tiberio_timperi_gigi_marzullo-7470381.html. Soafy234 (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Soafy234 see WP:NAMEDREFS. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Soafy234! I haven't had much experience doing this with the visual editor. But what you normally do in code is give the first ref a name, like <ref name="ThisIsMyReference">...</ref> and then you can refer to it later just by using that name, as in <ref name="ThisIsMyReference" />. But if you are using the visual editor I can check for you. Do you use it when editing? - Bilby (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I used the source editing to do it as I am more familiar with it than the visual editor. Soafy234 (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are using WP:Visual editor, you can simply copy and paste the reference numbers, and it will automatically format it in code for you. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I could not figure out how to do this but I used the source editing to use the same source twice when referencing. Soafy234 (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Outdent other's comments

Can you {{Outdent}} others comments if they are really very narrow? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 12:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor Normally the template goes immediately before your own comment so it remains clear who replied to whom. See Help:Talk pages#Indentation for the guidance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone review this page?

Hello! I made a Wikipedia page about another school in Kuala Lumpur. But later the page was moved to draft with a set of instructions, I followed the instructions and moved it back to mainspace. But since it was already an old page it wasn't reviewed. Can anyone review the page or tell me how to resubmit it so that it would be rereviewed? N niyaz (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's one way to tell the story, @N niyaz. Here's another: after I declined this draft at AfC for lack of evidence of notability, you resubmitted it without any improvement, made a couple of minor edits, and a few minutes later moved it yourself into the main article space, where it has now been tagged for not meeting our notability criteria.

Just so we're clear, are you now asking for that AfC review which you submitted it for, or do you want new page patrol to review it? And would you like me to do either, or do you prefer to wait for someone else to review it instead? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Just so you know, there are like atleast 100 more articles about schools in Malaysia the same as that wikipedia page. I do not understand what is the problem. N niyaz (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

And yes please I want a new page patrol to review it. N niyaz (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

See other poor quality articles exist for that argument. Theroadislong (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I have new page patrolled and sent it to WP:AFD it doesn't appear to pass the notability criteria for schools. Theroadislong (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

N niyaz please don't move it back to draft, you bypassed the WP:AFC process as a consequence new page patrolling has sent it to WP:AFD. You can continue to edit and improve it still. Theroadislong (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Literature by Disabled Authors

In 2007, I wrote a book about my adventures backpacking alone across all 6 habitable continents. The book is titled "Travels in a Blue Chair, Alaska to Zambia - Ushuaia".

I am trying to determine if Wikipedia has a section on Disability Literature and related Authors? I have not found such a section yet.

How does one go about creating one? Thanks in advance.

Walt 2607:FEA8:1380:276:7588:11CB:506:D4F7 (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Walt and welcome to the Teahouse. The nearest I can find is Category:Writers with disabilities but that may not be comprehensive as the word "disability" is not precise. Please do not set about authoring an article about your book unless you can show that it meets our definition of being notable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

What's the longest article title on Wikipedia?

We have this, which is a whopping 250 characters. Is there a single article with a longer title that exists (or has existed)? 47.153.138.166 (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

hi ip user! not sure which articles specifically count, however there is a title length limit of 255 bytes, with each byte I believe being one character, so that would be the maximum character limit. happy reading! 💜  melecie  talk - 16:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Full details at WP:Wikipedia records#Title_length. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Unusual articles#Unusual names that is indeed the longest name of any article. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Can an IP review good articles?

I don't know... it seems kind of illegal to me. I still want to help out, though. 47.153.138.166 (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

No. 78.208.34.48 (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:GAN/I#R2, no, you need to be registered. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 19:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Sadly not, but you can make an account very easily :) –Sincerely, A Lime 01:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You can still leave feedback for the article creator in the article's talk page, though. :D Ca ^{talk to me!} 03:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit problem entries within a category

I add book covers to pages which do not have one on a regular basis. Occasionally I see an article listed in the category that I work from Category:Books with missing cover which has an entry that is clearly not correct. One example is Michael Hussey from the "H" section of the aforementioned category. Is there a way for me to remove something like this, where it is obviously just a BLP and not a evidently a book article with a missing image in its infobox? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Iljhgtn. Thank you for doing this maintenance task.

The reason Michael Hussey appears in that category is that the section Michael Hussey#Underneath the Southern Cross has an {{infobox book}} in it, without a cover. It almost certainly cannot have cover art in the article, because the cover is probably copyright, and the WP:NFCC will not allow a non-free image to be used in that context.

The good news is that if you edit that {{infobox book}} to add the parameter exclude_cover = yes, it should be removed from the category. ColinFine (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Where/how can I add that in the infobox? Please do it, and then I will refer to this one as an example for the future for my own didactic purposes. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: The order of named parameters doesn't matter so it can be added anywhere in the list of parameters. I added it at the end.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Applying a maintenance template vs removing text

I believe it would be appropriate to apply Template:Third-party to RelayFM, but wanted to make sure that sounded correct to someone with a bit more editing experience. I'm wondering if instead some parts of the article should just be removed due to a lack of sourcing or relying on that company's own site. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Odininthenorth.

There is no universal answer to that question. You are entitled to remove any unsourced or inadequately sourced information from an article; but that is not necessarily the most helpful thing to do.

The best approach is certainly to look for better sources, and if you can't find them, to remove the information; but that can be a lot of work, so many of us do not often do that.

So, unless you are prepared to put in the effort to do it properly, the answer is that if you think there probably are better sources, tag it; but if you think there probably aren't, then remove the information. Either way, an editor who disagrees with you can just revert your change, and then (if you wish) you can open a discussion with them, according to WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

References in Lloyd's Open Form

The references of that article currently [2] include:

• A link to the form the article is about
• Remarks, such as "See double-hulled tanker".
• Two references to court decisions, without any page numbers or anything.

And so on.

I'll have a go at converting some of the "references" to footnotes, but I think the article needs to be eyeballed by editors more skilled than me. 2A0D:6FC2:6A90:4D00:0:0:0:5F9 (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

IP editor. Thanks for wanting to improve that article. Please note that, in this case, footnotes and references refer to two different things. The references, which are numbered in the main text, comprise the list of sources that were used. Readers can verify that what has been said in the article is backed up by the sources. The footnotes (linked by lower-case letters) are much less important. They are really just comments introduced to help give readers context. See the template {{efn}} for the general use of these "explanatory footnotes". In many articles where there is a section like that, it is just called "Notes". Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

.... Apologies, I see that you must have known all that, since your recent changes have been using the efn template! Keep up the good work. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Making a section extend to the end of an infobox

In 3Blue1Brown#Manim, the infobox doesn't fit within the height of the section on many screens and causes the following, long References section to have reduced width. Is there a way to have that section extend to the end of the infobox, or should it just be left as is? Sophon96 (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

What you want is Template:Clear Meters (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Meters, thanks for the info! I saw your edit, and I'm not sure if you intentionally added the template to the article infobox. I was referring to the one in the Manim section, and I had intentionally moved it to the top of that section as infoboxes at the top of the section seem to be the most common (plus, it looks more logical to me). I assumed it wasn't intentional (as I haven't seen many article infoboxes use clear), so I've moved the clear down to the Manim section. Sophon96 (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup, I just misread the diff... didn't notice that there was more than one infobox. Meters (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Separate admins for CSD and AIV?

This is a common scenario when patrolling new pages: a user with a promotional username creates an article that promotes what their username refers to in their userpage, sandbox or a draft. In such cases, I tag the article with U5 or G11 and report the user to AIV or UAA. I've noticed a small set of admins responsible for most speedy deletions, and another set responsible for most AIV reports. But often, the admin who deletes doesn't block even when the account is clearly promotional and a UP violation, and admins who block don't always delete the promotional userpage. Why is this? Air on White (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

There aren't really separate admins for the two queues. The phenomenon you describe happens mainly due to tunnel-vision. It's like how ypu notice a page has tonnes of issues when you revert vandalism, but still go back to Recent Changes rather than fix the page. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 01:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

As an admin, I just deal with the issues as I see them. Sometimes I deal with UAA because it showed up on my watchlist, and sometimes with AIV because it showed up on my watchlist. If I see a promotional page or a promotional username, I typically do everything needed to clean up the mess, which is typically blocking the user and deleting the promotional page, and maybe even opening a WP:SPI case. An administrator who takes any administrative action should always look into related actions that might be needed.

There are no separate admin assignments for different areas, although some admins have their preferences. I know I do. UAA is often easier to deal with. There are admins who prefer to focus on the blacklist and whitelist queues, or on WP:RFPP, or on WP:REFUND, or on Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, or Category:Requests for unblock. Some seem to enjoy swimming in the WP:CESSPIT, which I tend to avoid. There are a few who have expertise in WP:OPP (I don't) and focus their efforts there. Administrators are going to self-select into areas of interest. There is no end of mopping up to do around here. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I check on all contributions of a particular account if it comes through UAA and follow up accordingly if deletions are warranted for most cases. However I have encountered admins making comments on wanting another admin to action on the subsequent work so as to minimize the appearance of them abusing the toolset even if it is unwarranted. Partly I can empathise with this rationale, especially if all the warning messages and the subsequent block message on that editor's talk page are from the same admin. – robertsky (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Having different people with different backgrounds have a look at things actually really doesn't hurt; more eyes on anything in Wikipedia are a good thing, be it content, deletions, usernames etc. I specialize in protection, and only ever stray into blocking or deleting in the most egregious cases. Lectonar (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Grammar Checker

Are grammar checkers allowed when editing Wikipedia articles or doing the easy check spelling, grammar, and tone tasks? I use QuillBot. 8bit12man (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@8bit12man: Welcome to the Teahouse. While not expressively forbidden, they must be used with care, as they sometimes mess with regional orthography (such as an article that uses British English being gutted by something like Grammarly). Wikipedia:Spellchecking has more details. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Got it I don’t correct regional spelling errors that the bot says so I think I’m fine 8bit12man (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Henry II of England

In addition to William Longspee and Geoffrey Archbishop of York, Henry II of England was known to have two additional illegitimate children named Morgan Bishop of Durham and Matilda, Abess of Barking, yet there is no mention of either of them in article (the article on Henry II) at all. Can someone fix this? 70.50.199.125 (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You can add those names if you can preovide references. David notMD (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

That's the thing, I don't know how to do citation with superscript numbers (which is the citation style that wikipedia uses) on a mobile phone. 70.50.199.125 (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how (or why) one would edit Wikipedia from a phone. But WP:CITE provides instructions on how to cite sources so they show up as superscripts linked to footnotes at the bottom. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi 70.50.199.125. Per WP:CITESTYLE, Wikipedia doesn't have a particular "house style" when it comes to formatting citations; however, editors are, in principle, asked to be consistent when it comes to the citation style being used in an article and also to defer the citation style adopted by the article's creator or first major contributor as explained in WP:CITEVAR. If you're able to format the citations correctly per CITEVAR because of the device you're using, you could try a different device, post something about the matter on the article's talk page, or simply be WP:BOLD on the hope that someone else will cleanup the formatting later. Often, copying-and-pasting a citation from the same article, and just changing the particulars works when trying to maintain citation format consistency. Have you tried to do that? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Anachronist may not know how (or why) one would edit Wikipedia from a phone, but I know both. I have done 99% of my editing from smartphones for many years. I have written many articles including Good articles on my phone. I have expanded hundreds of articles on my phone. I became an adminstrator six years old on my phone and am highly active. As for how, I explain that in my essay User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing which I wrote over eight years ago. As for why, part of the reason is that some people claim that phone editing is impractical and unrealistic, and I live to prove them wrong. Another reason is that it is convenient. My phone is always at my side or in my pocket. I can edit Wikipedia for a minute or ten minutes or an hour, anytime I want, without trudging to a big computer. Whenever I have a few minutes of spare time, wherever I am, I can edit. My phone is a fully functional miniature computer, and Wikipedia's so called "desktop site" is fully functional on most 2024 phones. To me, the real question is why not edit Wikipedia on the world's most popular internet access device, by far? Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Good for you. I'd say you're an outlier. I'll stick with my PC with sufficient screen real estate, multiple tabs, and multiple displays, an actual keyboard that fits both my hands, and a pointing device that shows me context-sensitive information. That's the environment I prefer. There is nothing so important happening on Wikipedia that I absolutely must use my phone for editing. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

What Anachronist said! Also the trudging is for only a few metres and is (only very slightly, I must concede) good for my sedentary self. Even processes as simple (with a keyboard and rat) as copying/cutting and pasting are tedious with my phone. Security and other updates to the OS and software of the computer come plentifully and quickly. The probability that the computer would fall into the hands of others is infinitesimal, whereas the disappearance of my chums' phones isn't a rare occurrence (though I've been lucky so far). -- Hoary (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Article Deletion

I wanna know why is my article being deleted from wikepedia even my article is necessary to be on wikepedia as I am uploading the biography of a well known person of our province DrMaqsoodAhmed.psp (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

First, are you the person you are writing about? That is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. Second, you edited your user page, which is not article space, but a place for the operator of the account to tell about themselves as a Wikipedia editor or user. New accounts cannot directly create articles and must use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft.

Even if you submitted your draft, it would not be accepted, as it is essentially a resume. An article should not merely list the professional qualifications and activities of a person- it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. I'm not certain that this government official(a police inspector) would draw the necessary coverage. 331dot (talk) 07:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Your draft was deleted because it was unambiguously promotional. Promotion is prohibited here. Wikipedia is never, ever, to be used as a publicity platform. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The account of the editor who posted the query is now renamed User:SarimMumtaz, who states on User page as paid to attempt to create an article about Maqsood Ahmed. You are welcome to try again, but use WP:YFA to create and submit a draft. As advised above, unless you have quality references about Ahmed, you will not succeed. David notMD (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Article addition: Conquest of Mount Everest by first Kurd & Iraqi

Article addition: Conquest of Mount Everest by ,,Dadvan Yousuf", who became the first person worldwide to achieve this feat on May 20, 2024, as reported by reputable media sources.

Cointelegraph

The Crypto Times

Blocmates

He took also the Bitcoin Flag as first to Mount Everest. 185.206.81.126 (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Go to WP:AFC and follow the instructions. You're advised to create an account first. If you don't want to write the article, see Wikipedia:Requested articles and add your request there. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Many hundreds of wealthy people spend many tens of thousands of dollars every year to be led up Mount Everest by professional guides. This is not a notable mountaineering accomplishment any more. A mountaineering accomplishment becomes worthy of mentioning on Wikipedia when it covered by reliable mountaineering publications, not by cryptocurrency publications, which have zero expertise about mountaineering matters and poor reputations for reliability in general. Cullen328 (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You are saying it's not noteworthy anymore to become the first of a country to summit Mount Everest? 185.84.71.127 (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Being "first X from country Y", "youngest Ä to do Ö", etc. may make someone 'noteworthy' in some sense of the word, but that's not what we're talking about; the issue at stake here is notability, and such factors were never (AFAIK) criteria for Wikipedia notability. They may generate publicity of sufficient quality and quantity to indirectly satisfy the WP:GNG notability standard, but even then, pulling off a blatant publicity stunt like being the first to plant the Bitcoin flag on the summit (!) will carry little or no weight. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I dont know how to do that. I have no idea about Wikipedia. Just wanted to bring this input in. 185.84.71.127 (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I dont know how to do that 185.84.71.127 (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

If you don't want to write an article yourself, you can make a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By nationality and Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession. By adding the person's name and sources to the appropriate section. But, like Cullen328 said above, the person is likely not notable. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 @Anachronist @CanonNi this is regarding the existing article Dadvan Yousuf which has a really bad history of random IPs trying to promote the person, apparently being told to do so by Dadvan himself. Qcne (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Wait that's a fact here? This guy summited Everest. What exactly is the reason not to put this in the Article? 185.54.166.1 (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It might be a good conversation starter for him, but not a good reason for the information to be included in his article. See WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought the OP was suggesting to create a new article. However, there's already an article on Dadvan Yousuf, apparently. There's no reason it can't have a mention in the article, but doesn't need to be in the lead section. There's already discussion about this on the article talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Can someone please take the lead here and add it in the article. 212.237.118.104 (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is what Wikipedia:WikiProject Climbing/Article recommendations says about this: Editors should be cautious of modern climbers of eight-thousanders (especially normal routes on Mount Everest, Cho Oyu, and Makalu), which are now achievable by ambitious tourists with $50,000, but little climbing skills. These ascents are no longer covered in climbing media per above, although they are often covered in blogs run by touring companies to promote their guiding business to eight-thousanders. There has been no coverage of this person's ascent of Mount Everest in any legitimate mountaineering publication because it is of no interest to people who are serious about mountaineering. The coverage of this climb in cryptocurrency publications is duplicative, promotional and repetitive, and is obviously generated by press releases and self-promotional public relations efforts by Yousuf himself. There is literally zero original reporting because cryptocurrency publications have zero interest in reporting on actual mountaineering accomplishments. Cullen328 (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Tony Caravan

Why is there no listing for Tony Caravan on Wikipedia. He's the author of 12 books and 50 songs and one of the pioneers of webcasting -- well before podcasting was a thing. He was the first to webcast live video and audio from places like Antarctica, The Himalayas, The North Pole and The Amazon. He has been active on the internet in one way, shape or form since the late 1980s. His resume also includes being a general manager of a radio station, creative director of an advertising agency, talent manager, producer, impresario among many others. He is considered by most to be a modern Renaissance man, yet no mention of him on Wikipedia. Why? His works can be found on Amazon, Apple, Spotify, etc. 137.103.6.239 (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If Caravan's as esteemed as you say, then there should be reliable sources that are secondary and independent of him that would support him being considered wikinotable. It also helps to think of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia than as a listing directory. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The answer to any question of the form "Why is X not on Wikipedia?" is almost always one or both of "Because nobody has written it" and "Because the subject is not notable (in Wikipedia's sense)".

Notice that "notable" as we use the word here is not directly connected with what a person is or has done: it is mostly about "Has there been enough independent material about them published in reliable sources to base an article on?" (Nothing written, published, commissioned, or based on the words of, the subject or their associates, will cound towards that).

So, if you can find the sources that are essential to establish that he meets the criteria for notability, you are welcome to read your first article, and creating a draft. Note, however, that creating an article is not easy, and people who try it before they have spent at least a few weeks learning about how Wikipedia works by making smaller edits, usually have a frustrating and disappointing time. ColinFine (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you change the title of you draft?

Hi, sorry to disturb you. Could you assist me in modifying the title of your draft? Despite numerous attempts, I have been unable to find a solution. Nameless (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Helloidonthaveaname Whose draft? The process of changing titles is done by moving the page to the new title. For drafts there is little need to do this and it can be confusing as it usually leaves a redirect at the old title. When the draft is accepted, the accepting editor can place the draft at the correct title: you can add a comment now to suggest what that should be. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

oh okay, thank you Nameless (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikilink, s and apostrophe

Seeing Project Gutenbergs' at Wikipedia:List of free online resources#Biographies and clicking edit source I found the s was outside the brackets and was followed by the apostrophe {see the Wikipedia:List of free online resources: Difference between revisions Wikipedia:List of free online resources#Biographies, scrolling to the section, and click edit source here to see how it appeared before my edit}. Why did the s appear as part of the wikilink? Mcljlm (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mcljlm See H:WIKILINK. The software is quite clever and is intended to make it easier to do links. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Turnbull Thanks. In this case it compounded the error. Mcljlm (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Article Declined

Why is my article declined Sarimqureshi 6 (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sarimqureshi 6 According to the messages on your Talk Page, the draft was "unambiguous promotion" and not backed up by reliable sources. As it has already been speedily deleted, I can't see what you wrote to comment further. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Sarimqureshi 6, it was deleted. The oddity of Draft:Dr. Maqsood Ahmed started with its title. Albert Einstein is somebody who, rather famously, earned a doctorate, yet the article about him is titled plain "Albert Einstein", not "Dr. Albert Einstein". "Dr", "Ms" and the like don't belong in draft/article titles.

Here's a humdrum example from the rightly deleted draft:

Performed extremely well in providing protection to important personalities whenever and wherever needed.

Three problems: (i) This grand claim comes with no evidence whatever. (ii) Bits of this are in bold for no obvious reason. (iii) It should be a sentence; but as a sentence it's clearly defective: it needs a subject.

Before attempting any new article, please improve existing articles in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, thereby familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia norms. -- Hoary (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Indexing

Hello! I am trying to find why my Article (Colt IAR 6940) cannot be indexed by Search Engines. While the article can be found in the Wikipedia website, it is currently not being indexed. I was able to confirm that sites like Google and Bing have not indexed it. I tried waiting for a couple of days to see if it's just needs time, yet it didn't work. I also see that the site can be indexed by robots in the information tab.

This is pretty strange as my first article, which I sent through AfC, was sent to the mainspace and indexed right away. I am highly suspecting I need someone to help me, but the Wikiprojects the article is in are pretty dead and nobody's responding. What can I do? Personally it would be a shame to put all that work and having nobody to see it... Mattrices (talk) 11:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Mattrices, indexing will happen once a more experienced editor reviews and approves it. It can take anywhere between 0 and 90 days. You will receive a notification and or talk page messages when is reviewed. See WP:NPP for more. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just for clarity, it can take longer for someone to review it. However if it's been 90 days, the parameter telling bots not to index it is removed regardless of whether it's reviewed/patrolled so search engines will generally start to index. See Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing. (We don't impose any measures to stop search engines indexing it so technically a search engine is free to index any article at any time. They're also free to not index them for any reason. But for Wikipedia articles the only general reason for major search engines is the noindex parameter and related limitations which don't apply to articles.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I see. Is there a way to hasten the process, like adding it to more Wikiprojects, linking other articles to it, or even just improving it in general? Or do I take a step back and just allow time to pass in anticipation for a reviewer to find it? Mattrices (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mattrices Although you started in the AfC process, you moved it to mainspace yourself, as you were entitled to do. That meant it has to await new pages patrol. If the draft had been accepted by an AfC reviewer it would have been marked as ready for indexing immediately. Only WP:Autopatrolled users can avoid this. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand, thank you very much for your help! Mattrices (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a nicely done article. I have marked it as patrolled. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

That is really kind of you, I really appreciate it! Mattrices (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I need serious help

A few minutes ago, I edited the Foreign relations of Ireland page because I read an official article regarding Ireland's recognition of Palestine that also says that the two governments have also agreed to establish diplomatic relations. Here is ther reference:

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/71936-ireland-recognises-the-state-of-palestine/#:~:text=The%20Government%20recognises%20Palestine%20as,Embassy%20of%20Ireland%20in%20Ramallah.

A few seconds later however, some user by the name of Semsûrî (I'm not going to @ him or else he'll know) reverted my edit (which he at least labeled as good faith) just because the article is written in future tense. Prior to that, I clearly wrote a quote that includes words like "agreed" which is literally past tense. Even if the rest of the article is in future tense, just that diplomatic relations sentence has past tense on it. Even if I convince him I don't think that he will earn my trust because he takes diplomatic relations stuff very seriously in here. How do I cope this next time I edit an article here? Underdwarf58 (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Underdwarf58 There are probably better WP:SECONDARY sources now, such as this one from the BBC. We prefer such sources over WP:PRIMARY ones for reasons explained at these links. There is no reason not to mention User:Semsûrî in your post here: Wikipedia is a collaborative Project and relies on us assuming good faith and collaborating to reach consensus as to what should be in articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, the reason why I decided to not mention him is because I had an emotional breakdown after seeing his revert. How do I deal with that too? Underdwarf58 (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no need to take reverts as anything other than part of our normal process of developing articles, as is explained at WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I suggest you pause for a cup of tea: you are in the right place for that! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, UNderdwarf58, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that we can't help you deal with your emotional breakdown. If you are prone to this sort of reaction to having your edits reverted, then perhaps editing Wikipedia is not for you (or if it is because of the subject matter, then perhaps you need to steer clear of that subject).

But, as Mike Turnbull says, Wikipedia works by discussion among editors, not any sort of appeal to authority: please see WP:BRD for how this is intended to work. ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

That's okay, I've figured that I need to control my emotions and practice empathy in order to cope with mental disorder and "taking things too literally". But thanks for your help nonetheless. Underdwarf58 (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Ignore All Rules

Hey editors, I hope you all are well. I want to know when one should use WP:IAR at AfD. It is obvious that the creator of this rule knew it could be misused to save articles. So, what are the limitations of this rule? When can't someone use this guideline? GrabUp - Talk 15:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Grabup It seems to me that AfD is a discussion intended to decide whether or not an article should be deleted. As such, rules shouldn't need to be relied upon (or ignored). Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Grabup: You could use it in your post at AfD but it isn't really meant for discussions and the closer may put little weight on your post. AfD is not a straight vote and IAR is a lousy argument by itself. Do NOT use it to bypass the AfD process, e.g. by hiding links to hte discussion, posting from multiple accounts, changing or removing posts by others, closing the discussion too early or against consensus, damaging the article in hope of getting more delete support, or canvassing. Personally I almost never use IAR and only when a rule wasn't written with the specific circumstances in mind, almost everybody would probably agree with my action, and it doesn't seem important enough to start a discussion. I never use it in discussions. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed information. Another thing I wanted to ask is why this rule was created. We have rules such as GNG, NPOL, NACTOR, and others, so why is there another rule that just skips them? GrabUp - Talk 17:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It essentially exists to say "it's OK to use common sense". Policies and guidelines shouldn't be interpreted as laws – they exist only to describe principles that the Wikipedia community thinks are generally good, and are intended to help Wikipedia, not harm it. Occasionally, some action that would be indicated by a policy might be so obviously bad for Wikipedia that nobody would reasonably agree with the policy in that scenario, so in those rare circumstances there's no good reason to follow the rule.

Think about it like how a police officer would obviously not expect a doctor to obey a law against jaywalking if someone was having a medical emergency on the other side of the road and there were no cars in sight – the rules don't need to carve out every possible exception, as long as everyone uses common sense. Tollens (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed answer. I was asking about it because I had a small discussion with a person who is likely to use this rule at normal AfDs at the recent RFA. His question was Q26. You can see the discussion if you search for Q26 or see this diff. GrabUp - Talk 18:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

In my 18 years on Wikipedia, the last dozen of which have been as an administrator, I have never had to invoke IAR. I consider it a cop-out. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say I'd use it personally, I just said I think it would be justifiable in that specific situation. To my knowledge, I've never invoked IAR at AfD. You can scrutinize my votes here, but I'm fairly sure I haven't. Cremastra (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Using an updated version of a web page as a source

Hello. I'm really confused when it comes to citing web pages.

Say I have a reliable website with a piece of info I want to use – so reliable in fact, that it's been already used as a reference in the article I'm working on. The issue is, I'm certain the piece of info I'm interested in was added only after the website was last "retrieved".

What is the best practice here? Do I need to update the "retrieved" date and go through all the places the reference was used to make sure it's still applicable and rewrite the parts of the article it no longer supports? Or can I just cite the new version of the page separately?

What if the old version contains a factual error that the new version has fixed, is that automatically the former case (replacing and verifying)?

And what if there's no archive available from the retrieval date, and I actually don't know if the page contained the info I'm interested in at that point in time? Is it best to update the reference/quote separately/whatever else it is you do, just in case? Or do I just re-use the old reference?

Finally, if I'm taking info from several different sections of a website (sections that take clicks to get to, with slightly different URLs), is it better to quote the website once as a whole, or separately for each case?

Sorry for the long question, and thank you very much for any answers. Vtipoman (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Vtipoman! It might depend on how exactly the website was cited before. Most of the time, the reference to a website is actually just one reference in the page source, so updating it in one place will automatically change it everywhere else. Assuming that the reference has substantially changed it might be reasonable to cite it twice with a different access date (though you can absolutely go through and check if you like), but if the only thing that has changed is that information has been added, the source will clearly still support anything it supported before, so just updating the date retrieved is fine. If the source has changed so much that it now contradicts what it said before, or if you are certain it had errors before, it would certainly be a good idea to go through and check the article as you described.

In terms of citing different sections of a website, it depends what you mean. If what you mean is different parts of the same page, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow#Scientific_history, then one citation is probably preferred. If instead, you mean two different pages on the same website, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderstorm, you should use one citation per page. Tollens (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I think that covers the major cases. Just to make sure though, what is the best thing to do if the updated version of the website removes some other piece of information used in the article without changing substantially? I ran into a situation like that before – the new version had what I wanted to use, but was missing something else – though I ended up resolving it by finding a new, separate source.

Also, in the case of a small website with maybe a dozen pages total, is it still better to cite each used page separately? The specific example I have is the official site of these caves.

Thanks again, and sorry for adding more questions. :) 🍵 Vtipoman (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Conference League 2023-2024 Final

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

---

What are your predictions? Editor 28 May 2024 (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Editor 28 May 2024 Spero vinca la Fiorentina perché è una squadra Italiana. In Champions si tifano le squadre italiane sempre! (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

This page is for help in editing Wikipedia. It is not for general knowledge questions, still less for speculating about the future. Please find another outlet (not anywhere in Wikipedia) for questions like that. ColinFine (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Outdated Info for “Consumer Cellular Inc”

The page shows an alert with concerns of a too-close major contributor. But more concerning is that the company has moved its HQ from Oregon to Scottsdale AZ, and from a user friend I've learned that it has moved its user base entirely to T-Mobile.

I'm not familiar enough with all the operations and other cases where Wikipedia's info is outdated. Does somebody else want to try? Woof! (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Woof!, and welcome to the Teahouse.

In order to make a change to the article Consumer Cellular, we'll require a reliable published source for any information to be added : "I've learned from a friend" doesn't cut it.

The best thing to do is to start a discussion on the talk page Talk:Consumer Cellular, where people who have an interest in the subject are more likely to see it. If you can find a source for the information, include it, and that makes it more likely that somebody will decide to edit the article. ColinFine (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Group Theme?

Is it possible to creat a collaborative Wikipedia Group that focuses on specific themes? If yes, how can I creat a Group on Wikipedia? IlEssere (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello IlEssere, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "themes", but I suspect that what you are looking for it WikiProjects - there are many, some of which are very active, and some inactive. ColinFine (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Ref error

I need help fixing an error on here: Draft:Unomattina estate#Seasons I have tried playing around with source editing to fix the issue but couldn't find it. I preview the edited changes and the message of "Cite error: A (see the help page)". is still there after multiple attempts to fix it. Anyone know what the issue was? Soafy234 (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Soafy234. There were several errors. I haven't examined the content of the references but is [3] what you want with three references for Barbara Capponi? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes that is what I would like. I would like all three references for Barbara Capponi cited. Soafy234 (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Merging 2 articles of the same content

Hello! I would like to do this myself as a learning task so I've found 2 that are very low-importance and overlap. Would someone mind walking me through how you'd go about merging these 2 (in a general sense)? (please don't just do it for me) Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar_Grove_Plantation_(North_Carolina) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar_Grove_(Huntersville,_North_Carolina) Sock-the-guy (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Sock-the-guy, please peruse Wikipedia:Merging. -- Hoary (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Sock-the-guy. Good find. See Wikipedia:Merging#How to merge for detailed instructions. Rather than repeat a lot of that, I suggest you read it and either ask more specific questions you still need, or make the merge and ask if you did it right. The pages are not suited for history merge. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I tried to follow what the instructions said..mind checking to be sure that it's correct? Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems fine, I re-added the image of the building and the infobox thing with all the links at the bottom (whatever that is called). Traumnovelle (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Would you mind undoing it so I can have the practice? I imagine this will be much less intimidating in the future if I've actually done it before 68.2.230.114 (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

All I did was edit the old page that is now a redirect. If you wish to edit/view the history of a redirect you need to click on the page when it says '(Redirected from Article here))' If you are using source editor it is not that hard to find the content and copy it over. If you are using visual editor - I have no idea. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. However, please try to see my perspective that as a new editor I am trying to learn how to edit. It took me a while to even find an example like this that was a bigger edit involving some actual formatting rather than just copy-editing. Please allow me to ask for directions without losing the ability to try myself (as I mentioned twice in my original post). There is much more educational value in doing something rather than looking at someone else's edits. Sock-the-guy (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You can look at the history of my edits and see what I copied over and where I placed it in the new article. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to be civil but my god. Is it so bad to let an edit take slightly longer so that someone can learn? This is exhausting. I suppose what I've learned here is "don't ask for help" Sock-the-guy (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you do not WP:OWN anything. I've gone ahead and made a sandbox with the article before my edit here: User:Traumnovelle/sandbox, feel free to practice with this version. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem very nice to link WP:OWN as if they are violating it, they aren't - this is a collaborative project, trying to do everything yourself even when people explicitly request the opportunity to do it themselves is the opposite of collaborative. – 2804:F14:8085:6201:79B8:8DAD:273E:E996 (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The only request was 'please don't just do it for me', I didn't merge the page - I merely copied over an image and navigation template that were left behind. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Well they asked if it's correct, clearly there were things missing, which you did yourself instead of answering - on that topic, @Sock-the-guy, the talk pages still need to be merged or redirected. If there are more things, I don't have the experience to tell so I didn't look for them. – 2804:F1...3E:E996 (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Merged those. Sock-the-guy (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Can I close/carry out a merge I've proposed if there has been no opposition?

Per heading, if I have requested a merge and no one has opposed it and a reasonable time has passed e.g. a fortnight would it be appropriate to simply carry out the action? Closing moves and mergers requires someone uninvolved but I feel this is somewhat different given if I had just done the merge/move before I wouldn't need to worry about that. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what merge you are referring to specifically, but on the page on mergers, it mentions that other than obvious cases the other use for the request process is if it is beneficial to have discussion, or is difficult to carry it out. If there has been no discussion, and based on the proposals around the same time as it, you don't expect any more conversation, you may want to try and WP:Be Bold, as the link above suggests. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not just one specific request but in general, but I guess I shall just be bold. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

YouTube

Hi. Can a YouTube video ever be a source? 2600:1008:B147:373:F0E1:3CFF:FE27:7F5C (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

See WP:RSPYT Traumnovelle (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks 2600:1008:B147:373:F0E1:3CFF:FE27:7F5C (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Have I done it correct?

Hey guys, I was interested in knowing if I have done the clean up correctly of the page (South African Bureau of Standards).

I am new here, and this page was a bit challenging for me... please help. Liah78 (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

No big problems, but all you've done, Liah78, is to remove swathes of unreferenced material. You don't seem to have touched what you haven't removed. The material in the article of course ought either to be referenced or to be deleted. In your place I'd have added Template:Citation needed and Citation:Unreferenced section where appropriate, and returned a month later to delete what remained unreferenced. Your edit summary, "Clean up" is oddly uninformative: "Removing unreferenced material" would have been better. -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary Thank you so much. I will do that. Regarding the information I removed, it seemed to me that someone was attempting to add "SABS Commercial (Pty) Ltd" in the draft, which is why it was so confusing.

Thank you for the advice, I will keep it in mind. :) Liah78 (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Liah78. To enlarge a bit on what Hoary says: anybody is permitted to remove unreferenced material from an article, so in that sense you haven't done anything wrong. But this is not always the best thing to do.

In an ideal world, in a case like this you would look for the reliable sources for the information, and either add them, or remove it if you can't find any, preferably with an edit summary explaining why you've removed it. But that's a big job, so most of us don't always do this: cleanup tags such as Hoary suggested are usually a better approach. ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@ColinFine Thank you very much. I get it. :) Liah78 (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Appropriate to move a draft to namespace?

Hey everyone! I apologise if this is a silly question, but a draft I made recently was moved to namespace and I've been told I can now create articles without the AfC process (if I've interpreted that correctly).

I have another article (Draft:Still House Plants) that I made a couple of weeks back, before my approved article was made. This draft was declined, but in the time since, I'm pretty sure I've fixed the issues raised (information re: WP:NMUSICIAN which a reviewer directed to me at the AfC help desk). My question - is it appropriate for me to move the article myself, instead of waiting for the reviewers, now that I have the ability to do so?

Thanks so much for your help! LemurLiterature (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi LemurLiterature. In my oersonal opinion, it doesn't really matter in the long run whether you or an AFC reviewer moves the article to the mainaspace per se as long as the article truly belongs in the mainspace; however, since you've already submitted the draft for review, it might be best just to let the process run its course. There's really WP:NODEADLINE in effect here; so, if you've satisfactorily improved the draft and addressed the reasons why it was previously declined, it will likely be accepted this time around. Even if, by chance, it's declined yet again, you will at least have an better idea as to what was lacking and you could use the feedback to help you avoid similar problems when creating future articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Unsure in unencyclopedic

Is this section of the Anxiety Threshold article appropriate for Wikipedia? It seems odd and out of place, but I can't figure out it's actually against any specific policies. I had a look at WP:NOTGUIDE and it seems to fit, but I'm not confident enough that I feel comfortable removing/changing it and would like advice from a more experienced editor. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 07:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion: Bring up the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology. -- Hoary (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

As it is an encylopedia, and all the content is sourced to multiple third parties from the medical field (only one source is broken), and one source is even used within the "Statistics" section, i would say that: No, it does indeed belong. While I understand that it is sometimes expected for an encyclopedia to be clean and sterile and therefore a "home remedy section" seems out of the ordinary, that does not mean that they do not belong into the Wikipedia. Not only problems deserve to be catatalogued into an encyclopedia, solutions are also worthy of the same. And if I were to create new page on Home remedies against anxiety I'll betcha there would be a merge request in a week. Also, you are talking about a subsection within "Management", so the content definitely belongs.

HOWEVER, you are very correct regarding the language used. Since as you rightly linked, WP:NOTGUIDE clearly disadvises the "how to-style" of speech, which is the case here. Also, nor is WP:VOICE folowed here, as shown below. So, per example,

"Be physically active. Having a routine to follow can help stay active throughout the week. Staying active throughout the week can be a great way to relieve stress and improve mood. This exercise doesn't need to be strenuous. It can start out easy and slowly increase in intensity"

should definitely be rewritten as

"The Anxiety and Depression Association of America advises physical activity, as staying active throughout the week can be a great way to relieve stress and improve mood..." etc.

Therefore, your idea of changing it seems appropriate, simply deleting it seems like a loss to the encyclopedia, as phyical activity etc. do in fact help with anxiety and mood which people should be aware of, especially if anxious, and could be corroborated even harder with more than an ADAA link.

P.S.: Maybe the odd feeling comes from the fact that the section looks eerliy similar to a copy-paste answer a modern LLM-based ChatBot might give when prompted "Can you give me a sourced list of lifestyle changes to help with my anxiety/depression?"

"Why certainly! Lifestyle can make a big difference in how people feel and think. Here are a few things people have tried to decrease anxiety throughout their everyday life:

• Be physically..."

Also, I am a mere beginner, do not under any circumstances take my word as gospel. OnlyAQuestionOfTime (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

if a school student decides to vandalize and the whole school uses the same ip address does that just screw everyone over

i think it works like that 188.227.135.236 (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

If your IP address gets blocked due to vandalism, all you need to do is WP:create an account. It's free and has many advantages. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

can't update logo copyright?

I am trying to tag this image as a fair use logo (File:Schwarzman Scholars.jpg - Wikipedia) but it keeps on giving me an error. Can someone help me? SnoopyStudent (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SnoopyStudent: as I don't know what exactly you're trying to do and what error message you're getting, I can't comprehensively answer your question, but the first thing that jumps at me is that 2500 x 1400 is almost certainly too high-res to qualify under the fair-use provisions, per WP:IMAGERES. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

It should be 422 X 237, if I'm using this tool correctly. I'll scale it down. Cremastra (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done @SnoopyStudent: I've added {{non-free use rationale}} to the file, you should be able to fill out the required parameters (for starters, what is the source of the image?) Cremastra (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the correct handling of old sources

Hello! Thank you for your time.

As I am new to the fray, and want to learn and to do it right, I will make use of this here establishment by asking the following, all though I have a set viewpoint to a certain extent which will now doubt be evident:

When a website moves its content from "https://www.subsection.example.com" to merely "https://subsection.example.com", and, ten years ago, "https://www.subsection.example.com" contained information which allowed the corroboration of a certain factoid (lets say "It used to be XYZ, and now is only ABC") written in the body of the page, and a user had created a source to the effect of "Examplesite (2013), Linktoexamplesite, Example Ltd, Retrieved 2013-02-13", then the link SHOULD STAY AS IS in its entirety and should not be changed, even though it is currently broken and leads to a 404, right?

If someone wanted to "repair" the source by mereley deleting "www." from the link and changing nothing more, that is plain wrong, correct?

If they actually want to help here, they should either resource the material, use and integrated webarchive link, or just leave it alone so that someone else can do one of the above, yes? And if they do change the link, they would have to do their due dilligance, and then also change the date of retrieval. What should not be done is to say, quote, "The www. being there or not is a technical issue, it does not change the webpage but rather how the server deliver that webpage. That I didn't access the webpage in 2011 is irrelevant, someone else did. If you want to know what the webpage looked like in 2011, use WebArchive or similar.", because if I, as a hypothetical clueless third party, would then try to find the "https://subsection.example.com" from supposedly 10 years ago, I could not find a thing since back then it was "https://www.subsection.example.com", yes?

Addendum: Especially if, after doing so, they then go and deleted part of the text, to the extend of "It used to be XYZ, and now is only ABC", leading to only "And now is only ABC" left in the body (at least they capitalized the first leter of the now gramatically rather dangling sentence), because, quote, "As for "[It used to be XYZ, and now is only ABC]", there is no source to support the '[XYZ] anywhere.", based on the now "new" source (which by the way also does not corroborate ABC anymore as times have changed, and the same site contains new info (duh)).

When need be, I can link the Page and Talkpage in question if you want to see the situation in not a generalized form but "in the wild" so to speak, I however hope to have made a general enough case to not have to drag anyone down.

As I am new, yet they pride themselves as a seasoned editor roaming the Wikipedia since time immemorial, I don't want to, and most likely can't, just haggle it out with them, as I would 10 out of 10 pull the short straw.

All the best, OnlyAQuestionOfTime (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Help me please!!! OnlyAQuestionOfTime (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

(1) Please don't SHOUT! We are all volunteers here, answering in our own spare time, so no-one is obliged to respond to you rapidly.

(2) Frankly, your query is so convoluted and over-detailed that I cannot fully understand it, and am not sufficiently motivated to try any further.

Speaking generally, if a citation's internet link is broken it should be replaced: if it can be 'repaired' by redirecting it to a new url for the same original source, that is OK, but if not it would be perfectly correct to replace it with a different Reliable source that corroborates the same information. It would also be perfectly in order to replace a working link with one to a different, perhaps more recent, Reliable source that corroborates the information better. Wikipedia Articles are, by design, ever-changing and hopefully improving, and are not intended in themselves to preserve internet history – in any case all older versions, edit by edit, can be found in their page histories. I hope that helps; if not, perhaps someone else can untangle your problem. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.173 (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Search from one name to the proper title

Hi

I am a very, very intermittent editor who maybe once or twice a year makes minor fixes to articles.

I was looking in Wikipedia for information on a specific "think tank", but couldn't find it by the name it was referred to in an article. Eventually using a search engine I found that is not its formal name, which I then used to find it on Wikipedia. I thus feel that there should be a link in Wikipedia that redirects from a search using the name it is sometimes referred to.

I notice this frequently. For instance: searching for "National Aeronautics and Space Administration" redirects to "NASA"; "JB Priestly" to "J. B. Priestly"; etc.

In this case, I searched for "Misgav Institute" after seeing it in a mainstream newspaper article identifying a writer. I finally found using a search engine its proper name, "Institute for Zionist Strategies". Its Wikipedia's first line says: "The Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy (formerly named Institute for Zionist Strategies) ...".

What I want to do is add to the Wikipedia search function a link to that article if "Misgav Institute" is entered. How?

Thanks for your help.

BESTEST

David Life-Is-An-Adventure (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Life-Is-An-Adventure: This is done by creating a WP:REDIRECT page at the title Misgav Institute targeted at Institute for Zionist Strategies, which I have done. Deor (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Deor - much appreciated! Life-Is-An-Adventure (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Guidelines on adding information currently unavailable on the internet?

Edit: I realise the title isn't semantically correct by saying only "on the internet." Here I mean something more along the lines of there's no source (book, website, otherwise) for this factoid available.

Hi! I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing, despite my account being a few years old by now. I've read and understand WP:NOR and that Wikipedia is very strict on zero first-party research being allowed in articles due to conflicts of interest, etc, etc. However, I've had this hypothetical that actually had a good example in a stub I was reading the other day (I can't remember what), and I'm curious as to what the protocol would be for it.

Say that an under-cited/under-written section/article was in need of citations or would benefit from more relevant information (within encyclopedic reason/relevance): How can I get information—that has no reference/source extant on the internet—added there? My first thought is to publish (on my website or something of the like) a secondary documentation that cites the original primary/reliable source of my information; my goal would be to get the information I would want in the section/article on the internet to start. But, as per WP:NOR's policy, I would not add this to Wikipedia myself. I can respect that.

Assuming my reliability can be 100% proven to Wikipedia beyond doubt (not sure on the details of proving what I'm saying online when I'm the first person to say it…it's a hypothetical!)—what's the precedent for getting this info into the article? Is there some protocol, like when one has a conflict of interest when creating an article, they can request it be written by someone unassociated, where I can give my documentation as a reference for some fact(s) that should be added?

…Or is the NOR policy that strict? I don't know; I'm curious. Thanks! toydotgame ^talk
_contribs 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Toydotgame and welcome to the Teahouse. Sources for your citations technically doesn't need to be on the internet to be sourced for information. You can use WP:OFFLINE sources. If you do use offline sources, make sure you use a parameter in the citation template to show that the source is offline. If this doesn't answer your question, please let me know. Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 14:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah sorry I realised after writing my question that "not on the internet" isn't semantically correct and I was thinking under the assumption that the internet is where knowledge exclusively exists^{[? not sure why]}. I meant more along the lines of there are no extant books/papers/journal articles/newspaper clippings/audiovisual media or web sources for a certain thing.

My hypothetical is quite flimsy but in essence I'm trying to ask if I had relevant/useful information (that exists nowhere) I can publish and defend myself—and I'm not allowed to add own research to Wikipedia—how can I get the info into the article (as a caption or article text/whatever) in order to improve the article's reliability/encyclopedic value? Thanks for your response! toydotgame ^talk
_contribs 14:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

If the information is not sourced and you can not find any information about it, it is best to remove it as original research. You adding the information into a webpage would make the source unreliable and the sources verifiability would be questionable. So if I had an article say "Foobar had voted Republican in 2000" without a citation, I would delete it if I did not find a reliable source for the information. If you are uncomfortable with making the edit, you can link the article here and I can take a look at it. Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 14:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see, that makes sense. In my mind as much information as possible should be there (within WP:NOTDB reason, obviously)—but the policy of no own research (and un-cited info counting as own research) taking precedent over the comprehensiveness of an article is understandable and I can agree to that! Now that you say it, {{Unreferenced section}} templates meaning a section is "own research" and its existence is in jeopardy because no dubious information is better than having a section that's completely unverified by anything. Thanks for clarifying! toydotgame ^talk
_contribs 15:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Closing a long dead WikiProject

I would like to close a long since deceased WikiProject Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/House task force after discussing on that talk page, but neither I nor the other people in the talk discussion know how to do that. Is there a WP:Teahouse host that would be able to help close/delete this project page? Iljhgtn (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Iljhgtn and welcome to the Teahouse. Try asking the WikiProject coordinators in the main WikiProject's talk page. Ask here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television! Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 14:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

article on Dan Earl May

Hi,

I'm a new user. I need some advice on accepted practices.

I created an article on the artist Dan Earl May. I see that it has recently been revised. Many of the additions (on exhibits, publications, etc.) strengthen the article. The first sentence has been changed, however, to note the artist's association with a specific art gallery. (The original highlighted what May was known for.) To me it reads as if it is promoting the gallery.

I'm not sure how to proceed. If I were to change it back, it could be seen as a petty attempt to maintain my original work. Is there a third party or someone to look at this? Thanks in advance for the advice.

Dan Earl May

I'd like a reply in this format. Owleyesinthelibrary (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Owleyesinthelibrary. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and nobody owns any article. Editors regularly have disagreements about what is best for an article, and are expected to discuss the matter calmly and attempt to reach consensus. If you collectively are unable to achieve this, then dispute resolution tells you ways to proceed.

If you disagree with the edits that another editor has made, the best thing to do is to open a discussion on the article's talk page Dan Earl May, and make sure you ping the other editor there. Please see WP:BRD for how this is supposed to work. (It says that you are permitted to revert their edit once, but in this case I suggest that you go straight to the discussion phase). ColinFine (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

"Many of the additions (on exhibits, publications, etc.) strengthen the article." Owleyesinthelibrary, the bulky additions on exhibitions do not strengthen the article, as they're unreferenced. Almost all of the group exhibitions sound very minor and I suspect that the great majority, perhaps all, are better deleted, unless some editor can cite an art critic/journalist/historian commenting on them. The list of awards, too, is unreferenced. -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Someone took my thing down on a page and said I need a reference, but I was adding to a chart where other columns of the same thing didn't have references. Jd101991 (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Where did you get the info from? Cremastra (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

An insta post Jd101991 (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

That I also cited. Jd101991 (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jd101991 Unfortunately, social media sites like instagram are generally unreliable — any one can basically say anything, and there's no fact-checking. However, if it's an instagram post about the subject, by the subject, it can be used. Which article is it? See WP:RS and WP:INSTAGRAM for more information. Cremastra (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I just find it weird because the entire page is about a YouTube channel and people seem to be doing exactly what I did and I’m confused why theirs aren’t being taken down. Jd101991 (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

people seem to be doing exactly what I did and I’m confused why theirs aren’t being taken down. Hmm, that is weird. Which article is it, please? You can link to the article by putting the title in two square brackets like this: [[Paris]] (That results in Paris) Cremastra (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

||Jet Lag: The Game|| Jd101991 (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry - Jet Lag: The Game Jd101991 (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

And I spent so long doing it today, just for it to be taken down. Jd101991 (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Looking at the edit history (a timeline of changes to the page, see Help:Page history) two different editors have undone your changes. @Cerebral726: said not a sufficient source to establish that this is when they began filming. They are simply posting the photo that day. Lots of WP:OR here. The second user seems to agree, saying season 11 has not yet happened, nor official confirmed Cremastra (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I’m not here to argue. If I’m not mistaken, you were telling me it’s not that I didn’t do it correct, it’s just that there wasn’t enough evidence? Also, where can I see these feedback notes? Jd101991 (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jd101991 The reason for that is WP:PLOTCITE and WP:PLOTSOURCE, which essentially says that while yes, you do need inline sources for quotes and analysis, you don't need them for the overall summary (although they are nice to have), which is what is being done in the prior seasons.

What you tried to add wasn't a plot summary, it was information about a game show that hasn't been shown yet, thus it requires a source. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

And yes- I linked the source, and there was a subscript number in the top right Jd101991 (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the problem is that the existence of season 11 hasn't been confirmed yet. My search for it only finds some Reddit speculation. While it's fun to speculate about when the next season of your favourite show is coming out, Wikipedia isn't really the place for it. We need a really solid source — something like a new article saying "The long awaited eleventh season of Jet Lag: The Game is now being filmed!"

In response to your comment above-- you can see the feedback (called "edit summaries") by going to the article and clicking on the "View History" tab— or just following this link. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The Instagram post that was used as a source was unfortunately insufficient, as it doesn't state anywhere that the 11th season was confirmed or that it's being filmed, it only shows them posed in front of a building. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jd101991 see WP:INSTAGRAM. Instagram is not reliable. 48JCL ^(talk) 02:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@48JCL Well, not quite. Reading above, it looks like the post qualifies as a self-published primary source. The main issue mentioned is that it's being used for WP:OR, as the post doesn't explicitly say season 11 exists. ayakanaa ( t ) 04:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Well everyone who watches know's it's starting and when this happened for S10 someone did it and it didn't get taken down. Jd101991 (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs. Simple Wikipedia

Pretty much just a basic question; is this Wikipedia in any way affiliated with Simple Wikipedia? (In my case, Simple English Wikipedia)

The reason I ask is I noticed there are very little sources and frequent vandalism on some articles, and when I tried to fix the SEW article on Amun (SEW) as best as I could, I realized that they're two different websites. Madamepestilence (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Madamepestilence! It's a little complicated. The English and Simple English Wikipedias are both administered by the Wikimedia Foundation, so in that way yes, but the Wikimedia Foundation is not responsible for article content. Articles are written and maintained by volunteers on each project, and while some of them work on both projects, most do not, and users with advanced rights (administrators, for example) on one of the projects don't automatically get them on the other. Policies on each project may also differ significantly. For most purposes, no, they are not affiliated. Tollens (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding to what Tollens said, there are discussions about merging the two language editions, and implementing a similar feature for other language editions of Wikipedia. See a discussion from 2018 meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikipedia (3) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Shushugah, as a curious outsider, can you give me an example as to what the merger of the languages would look like? ✶Quxyz✶ 02:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

A separate tab called "Simple" on every language edition of Wikipedia, which shows the simplified summary using approved list of simplified words/grammar, but is summarizing somehow the regular language edition. I know Simple English is a distinct language, which complicates this, but this would enable English Wikipedia editors to contribute to both English/Simple English.

A similar concept is the WP:SHORTDESCRIPTION which functions as a preview. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Can RfCs be removed for any cause?

I have come across an RfC that was removed by another editor (without any discussion, withdrawal, or close ensuing), see diff (though the editor has notified the submitter thereof on the appropriate talk page section).

I appreciate that RfCs without prior discussion on an article’s talk page are not encouraged, but I thought it was against community policy to remove an RfC from community purview once submitted – no matter how rushed or ill-advised the RfC may have been. I am aware of WP:RFCBEFORE, but that is, per the project page itself, not a policy, nor a guideline, so not all steps listed therein necessarily reflect consensus.

What are the established rules for RfCs that are submitted too soon? Can they be removed so unceremoniously? Thanks in advance!
(P.S.: If any editors should be notified of what I consider an informal question, please let me know!)
–Konanen (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Since @Primefac: removed the tag, I assume they're knowledgeable on this point? Cremastra (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to speak for Primefac, but his comment at Talk:Vaush#Pronunciation of 'Vaush' was I've removed the RFC tag - there has been little in the way of previous discussion, and we don't need all and sundry giving opinions when likely the folks watching this page will be able to make a well-informed opinion on the matter. Deor (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

And that did happen; a good discussion developed. Primefac (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, well, uhm… I have as of now not received an answer to the core of my question. I am trying to learn the massive amount of existing WP P&G, so I will elaborate some more: I thought consensus was key for most things, especially when it came to RfCs or other community-widely requested input. I do not disagree with the outcome, nor with the opinion that the RfC in question was a bit too rushed, but would the only permissible courses of action not have been to either
(a) ask the submitter to withdraw, or else
(b) move for a procedural close (if they exist in RfCs)?
–Konanen (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ads

Hey everyone! I should ask this at the help desk but this is way more active. Anyways, for Wikipedia ads, I was trying to create one (which I did successfully) and after reading the tutorials, I found something slightly confusing. The tutorials talk about how only gifs can be approved which was enforced, I assume, considering around the first one hundred ads were all gifs. However, now, there is an influx of non-gif ads being png ads with not much to say other than “WikiProject Thing” and a logo. Should all these ads be removed? I wanted to try the talk page but after seeing how inactive it is… yeah. Does this require a concensus somewhere? If so, where? 48JCL ^(talk) 02:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

48JCL, the string "gif" nowhere appears within Template:Wikipedia ads/doc. Neither does the string "png". -- Hoary (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@48JCL: I think GIF is required for animated images. If you saw a page which says GIF is required but doesn't say it's for animated images then please link it. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary There are tutorials in the user space that say gif 48JCL ^(talk) 12:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi, I can't get access to the book used as the source but it looks like a large chunk ("The Last Will and Testament of Miss Sophia Smith") of this article was directly copied from a source. This isn't okay... is it? And if it isn't, do I just delete it (and request revision delete)? Thanks. GoldRomean (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The will must have been published before she died (1870 based on the article), so is therefore in the public domain and freely reproducible anywhere. In my personal opinion it should probably be summarized rather than placed there verbatim for readability but there is no legal issue with how the article is currently written. You are correct that if the text was eligible for copyright protection (which it isn't), you would delete it and request revision deletion. Tollens (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

How to work on articles about politics

I've been on Wikipedia since 2008, but only off-and-on. I'm an academic in the fields of political science and international relations. I'd really like to get back to editing regularly, and I'd love to help improve articles and resolve disputes in those topic areas. But I don't know quite where to start.

I've signed up to receive RFC notices about politics. Can anyone offer some other ideas for how to get involved in the editing community on those topics? Pecopteris (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Pecopteris: have you considered joining some of the WikiProjects, eg. WikiProject Politics and/or WikiProject International relations? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't considered it, but that sounds like a great idea. Thank you, @DoubleGrazing! Pecopteris (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

wiki code to Excel, any Ideas??

I was working Indian Constituencies and Indian Assembly Election for all states, I need Wiki Table code to Excel table

any online tool or Excel Formula

for e-g

1	Nippani	Shashikala Jolle	BJP
2	Chikkodi-Sadalga	Ganesh Hukkeri	INC
3	Athani	Mahesh Kumathalli	INC
4	Kagwad	Srimant Patil	INC

actual code

{|
|1
|[[Nippani Assembly constituency|Nippani]]
|[[Shashikala Annasaheb Jolle|Shashikala Jolle]]
|[[Bharatiya Janata Party|BJP]]
|-
|2
|[[Chikkodi-Sadalga Assembly constituency|Chikkodi-Sadalga]]
|[[Ganesh Hukkeri]]
|[[Indian National Congress|INC]]
|-
|3
|[[Athani Assembly constituency|Athani]]
|[[Mahesh Kumathalli]]
|[[Indian National Congress|INC]]
|-
|4
|[[Kagwad Assembly constituency|Kagwad]]
|[[Shrimant Patil|Srimant Patil]]
|[[Indian National Congress|INC]]
|}

I wanna like this

1	[[Nippani Assembly constituency|Nippani]]	[[Shashikala Annasaheb Jolle|Shashikala Jolle]]	[[Bharatiya Janata Party|BJP]]
2	[[Chikkodi-Sadalga Assembly constituency|Chikkodi-Sadalga]]	[[Ganesh Hukkeri]]	[[Indian National Congress|INC]]
3	[[Athani Assembly constituency|Athani]]	[[Mahesh Kumathalli]]	[[Indian National Congress|INC]]
4	[[Kagwad Assembly constituency|Kagwad]]	[[Shrimant Patil|Srimant Patil]]	[[Indian National Congress|INC]]

IJohnKennady (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@IJohnKennady I was able to copy and paste the table directly into Excel. Not the MediaWiki source code, but the displayed table itself, the thing you have after "e-g". Toadspike [Talk] 12:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It's just en example, I have lots tables IJohnKennady (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I was used this link | https://tableconvert.com/mediawiki-to-csv, i didn't get expected result, need help — Preceding unsigned comment added by IJohnKennady (talk • contribs) 05:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect reversions (repeated)

Hello - how do I deal with somebody repeatedly reverting an article to put incorrect information in it. It is quite frustrating - I have addresed the issue in the edits, but every time I do they revert it back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Air_Transport_(Belgium)&action=history D-AIFF (talk) 06:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, D-AIFF. I haven't looked at the article, but by the sound of it, both of you are edit warring, which is regarded as disruptive editing and may get you blocked.

If you have a disagreement with another editor, you must not keep reverting them, but must instead discuss it on the article's talk page - if you cannot reach consensus, then dispute resolution tell you how to proceed. See WP:BRD for an overview of the process.

One other thing I will say is "I am right and they are wrong" is not a helpful approach to the collaborative process that is Wikipedia. You may be right, you may be wrong, I don't know. But the object is achieving consensus, not bludgeoning your version into the encyclopaedia. ColinFine (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

editing a Page

Hello Everybody, Im looking for a mentor who could construct my band's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beast_in_Black Unfortunately i dont have the time or knowledge and especially the energy to learn how to make a proper wikipedia page but id like to have a great page which goes well with all the wikipedia rules. Because i think wikipedia is the most important online platform to deliver accurate and up to date information to people. Thanks in advance Mate Molnar Wisdommetal (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Wisdom metal Hello and welcome. I would encourage you to think of it more as an article about your band, and not your band's page- the article is not for the benefit of your band in any way. There may be benefits, but those are not our primary mission. An important thing to remember is that the article about your band is not a place for your band to provide current, up to the minute information about itself- you should do that on your band website and social media. The article about your band is for summarizing what independent reliable sources choose to say about it. This can include current information, but our goal is to provide a good summary of general information about the band and what makes it an important band as Wikipedia defines it.

This isn't really the place to seek out editors to edit the article for you- you are welcome to propose edits on the talk page(Talk:Beast in Black) as formal edit requests(click for instructions) that detail the specific changes you want to see. You will need to declare your relationship with the band, please see conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Beast in Black is already a "proper wikipedia page" and it is not clear what you think requires improvement, but if you have specific suggestions the place to do so is the talk page of that article. If you are looking for someone to create a page for some other band, you should be aware that by saying so you are liable to be scammed. Do not pay anyone to create an article for you as it is very unlikely to be published. See WP:SCAM for more information. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Wisdommetal. I see no problems with the Wikipedia article on Beast in Black, and after checking the View history I see that several editors have voluntarily chosen to improve the article over the years. Could you explain why you want an article "constructed" when the article already exists? Karenthewriter (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you want to create an article about the band in the Hungarian Wikipedia? David notMD (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

First Iraqi on Everest

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

---

,,Dadvan Yousuf" needs to be added in Wiki List with first summits of each country.

And his article needs to be updated with it. He summited 20 May 2024.

Dont know how to add here. If someone help, thank you. Iraqi77255 (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate of #Article addition: Conquest of Mount Everest by first Kurd & Iraqi above. See the discussion there. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

??? Iraqi77255 (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

How does that help? 95.170.203.162 (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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

I no longer have access to some pages

Hello, I can no longer access some pages that I have been working on for several years. These include: Cardano (blockchain platform). Can anyone tell me what's happened? GreyStar456 (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@GreyStar456: The article you linked has been EC protected since 2021. But your account is already extended-confirmed, so you should be able to edit it. Could you describe the situation with more detail? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I have made edits to this page many times, most recently 23:34, 26 March 2024 diff hist  +82‎  Cardano (blockchain platform). Now, I see the EC padlock. I noticed it this morning. That's all I know. I've made 1,173 edits since 20 April 2020. GreyStar456 (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Does it save your edits when you click "publish"? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Panic over. There's now no problem. I don't know what happened. Apologies for bothering you. Thanks again. GreyStar456 (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That's good. No problem at all. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @GreyStar456: - I see the issue has been resolved. What might have happened is that you tried to edit the page without being logged in. Madam Fatal (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

internal links and inviting to a talk

I would like to do two things and am struggling to see information about them: 1 Put a link in a talk to page to an internal wp page eg this one or a wp policy? 2 invite someone to a talk page? Hewer7 (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hewer7 The classic way to link to a WP-page of any kind is putting the title between double square brackets, for example [[gold]] gives gold. To WP:PING another editor, one way is writing like this: [[User:Hewer7]]. If you're in conversation, using the "reply" link in a WP-thread, there is a button that can be used for that, little guy with a plus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hewer7 To link to a talk page, type [[Talk:Article_name]] in source editor. To invite someone, you can ping them using @[[User:Hewer7|Hewer7]], like I did here. Toadspike [Talk] 12:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both. Hewer7 (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

 Courtesy link: Talk:M._K._Stalin § Removal_of_sourced_content GrabUp - Talk 15:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

An editor, Grabup reverted my edit which can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M._K._Stalin&diff=prev&oldid=1226277559&title=M._K._Stalin&diffonly=1 as it seems to break the WP:NPOV rule. How to add that without breaking the WP:NPOV rule? If you can form and give me a sentence I can add, it will be nice!-Biddaki (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The proper place to ask this is the talk page of the article which you have already done. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Title of a draft

So I'm currently working on this draft right here which is a novel by John Connolly but there is already a article on the mainspace called Dark Hollow which is a novel by a different author. Both novels have the same name which can be confusing so what can I name the draft so it isn't confusing? Soapforduck(Say what?)(Did what?) 15:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

If you submit your draft through the AFC process, see the "submit for review" button on the top of the draft, and the draft is accepted, the reviewer who accepts your article will properly rename both articles. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

So whoever accepts the article will rename it? Soapforduck(Say what?)(Did what?) 16:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The typical way this would be disambiguated is that the Connolly novel would be titled Dark Hollow (Connolly novel) and the other article would be titled Dark Hollow (Keene novel) based on the way I see other pages doing it. Reconrabbit 15:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

How can i add a image In visual edit?

Asking, as I need it for my page Föli Honk! (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Text coming and going

A query...I added a section to a page about a book store called Cody's Books as the history section was thin. I have no connection to the bookstore and have never been there. The text I added was based on information I had gleaned from a book written by the people who founded the book store and owned it for years. The book details the history of the store. My additional text was reverted without explanation. I put it back and asked the editor via their talk page, politely, to explain why they had removed the text. They removed it again claiming that it had been copied and pasted from a website and they gave the link to a site. The link led to text nothing like mine. Also I still have the original source and double checked to verify that nothing was copied from the book. The information is gleaned from the book but is written up in my own words. Is this the start of what is known as an Editor war? I have not experienced one before. What should I do? It seems that a page about a book store that has a section on History should have information about the history of the store. If this is in the editor's own words and is correctly cited, I cannot see the problem. Any advice gratefully received. Balance person (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Balance person:, if someone removes your edit, per WP:BRD the best thing to do is start a discussion on the article's Talk: page (Talk:Cody's Books), and ping the other editor. Replacing your edit risks an WP:EDITWAR and you risk being blocked. Madam Fatal (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Help with research & article

I need guidance and help for my wiki I'm working on Draft:Early Echoic Skills Assessment

Can someone help me make sure this meets wiki standards? After the initial denial, I've made more edits, added a lot of references and uses of research. If someone could point me to what else I need to do, or given help research these assessments themselves that'd be great. (Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment and Placement Program) Needs more citations too which was created in 2008~. Risinglms (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)