Wikipedia:Teahouse

Nick Moyes, 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.

ns12

ns4

Redirect creation request for SAMPLE

Could someone please create SAMPLE as a redirect to SAMPLE history (like how OPQRST exists) and add a {{redirect|Sample||Sample}} to the latter? I can't the first half of that. Thanks 2A0D:6FC2:6A92:3F00:0:0:0:5F9 (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done. It will be interesting to see if there will be discussion to change SAMPLE to redirect to Sample instead. GoingBatty (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! 2A0D:6FC2:6A92:3F00:0:0:0:5F9 (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

red flagged/ tagged articles

I am wondering ...I see lots of articles with maintenance tags on them. I see they are dated. Sometimes I see in the histories people do work to repair them. My questions is...does anybody patrol the tagged pages to see if they are improved and possibly remove the tags? WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiTikiTavi63, the editors making the improvements will often remove tags. Also, specific tags about certain issues (such as {{POV}}) that are not paired with any specific talk page discussion are often removed as WP:DRIVEBYs. However, tags may certainly linger longer than strictly necessary. Cheers! — Remsense诉 00:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

thanks. I actually have been working on the Mater Matuta page. You made some suggestions the other day which I followed through on. Hopefully someday somebody will remove the tags. thanks again, WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@WikiTikiTavi63 In theory yes. Finding a stale article, slapping a tag and moving in is imho lazy. If you notice a problem, try to fix it. Tags are incredibly useful when the articles are being actively worked on by other editors. But if a tree falls/article is tagged, and no one hears/sees it, does it really count? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

As I am a novice I do not think I should, nor do I even know how to remove a tag. I was just wondering….there seem to be a lot of tags. Thanks for your input. User:Shushugah WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@WikiTikiTavi63 Anyone can remove a tag if they believe that the related issue has been fixed. On visual editor it is often as easy as clicking on a template like {citation needed} and pressing delete. There are some people who spend all of their time trying to fix these maintenance tasks, and some who spend their time identifying problems so that those people can find and fix them. I looked at Mater Matuta and did some small edits. It is not quite ready to have the notices at the top removed but it is getting closer. Reconrabbit 18:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Can you tell me what still needs attention? User:reconrabbit WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I see the same reference being used over and over inside the same paragraph. It is usually preferred to put it at the end of the paragraph, and to only put a citation after a sentence if it is relevant to that statement or if it is specific about a stated fact. I may take another look at the article later, but there is some writing that makes it look like an essay, describing a series of events or not describing some things that may not be obvious (matera matutae?) But this is better discussed on the article's talk page. Reconrabbit 19:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

thanks. WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I need help in creating a new article.

I need help in creating a new article for an organisation that doesn't exist. I know someone who is a part of that organisation and can tell me everything about that article. I am just confused on how to do it. I found that the article is missing because I found a red link on a related organisation's page. Ultima1108 (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't exist, but you know someone who's part of it. The article is missing, but someone can tell you everything about it. Please sort out your thoughts before you type here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to know how to create an article. I can't find the help page for it. That's why I posted it here. 59.184.253.9 (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you meant that the organization exists but an article on it does not. If so, then Help:YFA. (Incidentally, since you have a user ID, please do make sure that you're always logged in under that user ID.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Ultima1108: You may not attribute material to what somebody told you (whether in conversation, in email, in Whatsapp messages, or wherever). Everything must be based on published sources. -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ultima1108. Please note that the very first, and absolutely necessary, step in creating any article is finding several places where people who have no connection with the subject of the article have chosen to write at some length about it, and been published in reliable places. If you cannot find such sources, then there is no point in spending any time at all in trying to write the article. ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

EXACTLY!!!! That is what I am dealing with! PolskiSlaskiego! (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Single Pair Ethernet

Hi, since years I am writing some arcticles in German Wikipedia. Now I am starting some technical articles here. I would like to translate these article into en.wikipedia: Draft:Single Pair Ethernet

translated page|de|Single Pair Ethernet| version=240874606|insertversion=1194350781

SPE is a small part in article Ethernet over twisted pair#Single-pair and just a short summary without IEC 63171 like in my german article about SPE.

I would appreciate any further suggestions to improve and publish this article, and I am grateful for any help and support. Thank you. Best regards, Ralf. Ralf Moses (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ralf Moses: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you haven't done so already, please check out Wikipedia:Translation. You have lots of information in your draft that do not have any footnotes. Please add more footnotes for every section and resubmit. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks GoingBatty for your help. I have added the footnotes now.

I would appreciate any further suggestions to improve and publish this article.

Thanks again. BR Ralf. Ralf Moses (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The draft, and the sources it cites, are entirely about the technical specifications of Single Pair Ethernet. I don't see that as making an acceptable article. Does anyone use it? What for? WHat are its advantages and disadvantages? Maproom (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Contents of an article

Hi Teahouse! How do you find the article "Contents" section with in-article hyperlinks? If Contents is the right name for it, it's right after the lead and lists the main parts of the article, you click on the part of the article like example "Early life" and now you're at that part. It makes finding parts easier. Do you rember this? Does wikipedia still have this?
Thank you Teahouse. 63.248.183.70 (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. A recent change of the 'default skin' which determines your screen's layout was made a year or so ago. The in-article Contents table was moved in the upgrade to outside of the article, on the upper left hand side of the page viewing in when desktop view. You can toggle it's position so that it either expands fully as a column on the upper left of the scren, or collapses into a pancake menu icon of three horizontal lines on the upper left of the screen.

If you find it annoying, you can revert to using the old screen layout (=skin), but you would need to have a free, registered account and change that in your personal account preferences. I'm pretty sure an IP user cannot do that. I hope this all makes sense! Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Some alternatives for IP editors are explained here and here. They work reasonably well (though I've reconciled myself to the new skin and have stopped using them). 57.140.16.1 (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank yoy Nick Moyes and 57.140! The explanations and the links are fantastic! Due to browser glitches on my browser, there arent the links or icons to click on in upper left corner mentioned by NM, if and when I find another device I'll try your instructions! which are descriptive and thorough. Much thanks! 57.140, I tried "here" link #1 and the directions worked and I can see the Contents again! With practice I'll start to memirize the stuff to type at end of URL. "here" link 2 isgoing to require more practice but then i'll be able to click each time to use 2010 Contents again with my device and browser! Thank you! You guys are great! Best, 63.248.183.70 (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Copyright question

Imagine yourself in this scenario: you come across a heavily tagged, ill-maintained article. And let's imagine you add a few new details, rectify some grammar errors without significantly altering the original content, fulfil the CN tags, and then discover that someone has added several copyright infringement that has gone undetected for over 10 years. What would you do? 20 upper (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

remove it, if I had to guess. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talking Heads) (Buddy Holly) 14:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@20 upper: Recently Mathglot reminded me: "If it really was copied from a copyrighted source, that is one of the most serious violations at Wikipedia, as it violates both our WP:Terms of use as well as copyright law, and as such, it is one of a very small number of violations with legal implications (others include libel, legal threats, and there are a couple others) that require immediate attention and that are not subject to amendment by policy, consensus, ArbCom, or WP:IAR. Content in violation of copyright cannot be left in the article, and not only that, it must be expunged from the page history by an admin, so that no trace of it is left in Wikipedia. As far as what to advise a user, probably the simplest and best response is to tell the user to place a {{Copyvio}} template on the article page itself; this will both immediately hide the suspected offending material, as well as signal an admin to have a look at it and assess the situation for further action. Users should not be told to simply remove the content themselves, or to rewrite or summarize copied content, because that masks the continuing problem of copyrighted content which remains accessible in the page history; it's best just to flag it for admin action with the template." GoingBatty (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Babysharkboss2 and GoingBatty: The issue is that the article is a "vital article." I attempted to rephrase a few sentences, but a large portion of the article is directly copied from one source and it uses citations utilized by this particular source. 20 upper (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Being a vital article doesn't offer any kind of protection, unfortunately. If the source is incompatibly licensed, the material copied over needs to be removed. I've occasionally seen revdel requests declined because the violation is so old it would require deleting an unholy number of intermediate revisions, but you can just leave that up to the reviewing admin. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

IP 57: Can you link the discussions with the declined revdel requests? Mathglot (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot, I've not kept any track of them, but I think there have been several discussions at WP:AN - you might turn up some if you search the archives. I've had a few such requests turned down myself over the years, all involving small amounts of text which were added decades earlier, with many, many revisions since; I can't remember, now, which specific articles were involved. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot, here's a long and involved discussion from 2022 you might find interesting, though it's about an accepted rather then declined request: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340#Revdel on Himachal Pradesh. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

IP 57, thanks, that is indeed a very interesting discussion. There is an inherent tension between the legal requirement to remove copyright violations and the licensing requirement in ToU § 7 to preserve attribution, and it seems to me that most of the comments there were trying to square that circle. The response Moneytrees got back from WMF as I understood it resolved that in favor of the long-revdels-are-ok side, especially since contributors' names are still visible in history (through the strikeout font) which is the attribution requirement, and diffability is not. Struck revisions are non-diffable for non-admins, so traceability takes a hit for us peons, but that's short of the requirement (though sometimes irksome to me, personally). Flatscan's contribution towards the end and their § "Attribution" in RD1 section at WP:Revdel and follow-up Rfc were helpful. I'm sorry I missed those, as § 7 is clear about the fact that just a list of names is sufficient therefore diffability is not required, and WP:CWW#List of authors does mention it.

I have an idea about how full traceability for everyone might be kept as well (hint: think Earth Prime with articles having a parallel history only through the revdel era, but where the copyvio never happened at the beginning of it) and I can picture how to do it, I just don't know if it's worth it. But this is getting well afield of the OP question, and if we take this up, it should probably be at WP:VPI. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I confess that my eyes glaze over quickly when copyright issues arise - when my requests were declined, I just shrugged and moved on. I think all my requests pre-date that discussion, though, so maybe admins nowadays are handling things differently. Might be an interesting discussion indeed for the Pump, @Mathglot. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

template ref list

I am having trouble correctly citing a book that has numerous references. I have tried giving the book a refrence name and then using code {{r|Beacon1997|p=50}}. But the article I am editing uses a template ref list and I don't understand how to edit that as the references are only visible in visual editing. I end up with an error code that sends me to the same page repeatedly and nothing I try seems to work. Appreciate any help. LauraONagel (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I recommend using one reference per </ref> code, I’m still new to Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt, if it keeps sending you to the page you are editing, I’ll try to research why the problems occur. Cometkeiko 16:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'll keep trying. LauraONagel (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

If you want to indicate the page number or location in a book I recommend using Template:Rp, which doesn't need to be included inside the citation. Reconrabbit 16:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Very helpful. I'll try it. LauraONagel (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The template {{r}} can get confusing to use. Iterating on Reconrabbit's advice, the template {{rp}} could be used like this:

<ref name="Beacon">example book<ref>{{rp|23}}

which renders as:

.

This way, you can add the citations intuitively in VisualEditor, and simply tack on the RP template to indicate the page number. Ca ^{talk to me!} 17:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

You can see my article Charles Brenton Fisk for further examples of this. Ca ^{talk to me!} 17:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Trying to eliminate a copyright problem.

The article Ethiopian Manifesto was flagged for copyright violation. I have rewritten the section in question. Please note that what I have newly written does not show up unless you enter edit mode. I'd like to know if the rewriting I did has solved the problem. deisenbe (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

No, not in preview. If you go there and click Edit you can see what I wrote and saved there. deisenbe (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm goingto post this at Help desk. deisenbe (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: I answered at the help desk. Next time, just be patient and don't post in more than one place. RudolfRed (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

sandbox issue

in snadbox rules it didnt say you cant do keffir or other slurs and a person removed my edits there. 81.97.224.185 (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an environment that is intended to be welcoming for all types of people. If you are only here to post slurs, you will quickly be blocked. This is a project to write an encyclopedia not to fool around. Basic common sense and decency should tell you it is inappropriate to post slurs, you shouldn't need a specific rule. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that you should need to read a rule to know that you shouldn't post slurs Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talking Heads) (Buddy Holly) 18:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I have a question, my imagination is way too wide, but is it possible to create another sandbox? I promise I totally won’t make an entire whole different universe.

(for Nick, a little laugh is sometimes just good, we all need an appropriate joke for some collaborative projects) Cometkeiko (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

to answer the "second sandbox" question, I don't really see why you would want to, but yes, you could make a sub-page for a second sandbox. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talking Heads) (Buddy Holly) 14:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

To be blunt: if you ever post offensive slurs anywhere on Wikipedia again, your IP address will be blocked from editing. This is an adult project; try not to act like a stupid kid. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I read it like that dude in the movies who acts smug and is black. Cometkeiko (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Time zones on infobox settlement

Resolved

 – Kk.urban (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone know where the time zone data comes from on {{Infobox settlement}}?

For example, if you type in "Pacific" for the time zone parameter, it automatically links to Pacific Time Zone and the UTC offsets, and the daylight saving time. I tried to do the same with "Hawaii–Aleutian" but it's not working. Kk.urban (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the data comes from anywhere, you manually add it when you add the template. The examples in the template and in article's using it I see that it is just a Wikilink. What error are you seeing when you do |timezone = [[Hawaii–Aleutian Time Zone|Hawaii–Aleutian]]? RudolfRed (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@RudolfRed Thanks, you're right. It's actually only {{Infobox U.S. county}} that does this automatically, and the way to put a county in this time zone is to use |timezone = Hawaii (without a wikilink). Kk.urban (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Relevance to school articles of non-school activity by students

Is there an essay or guidance on Wikipedia that discusses the relevance of non-school activity to articles on schools, when it is a current or former student that's involved? The cases I've come across are crimes reported in reliable sources, where the crimes are not school related, yet some think it's relevant to put that in the school's article because the indicted attend(ed) the school. Thanks. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Many colleges/universities have a section for Notable alumni, meaning that those people are the subjects of Wikipedia articles. Notability can be for criminal activity. However, if a person is not Wikipedia-notable, I see no reason to mention that person (and their crime(s)) in a school article. David notMD (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Willondon, a former student can be notable for good things, like winning a Pulitzer Prize or starring in a hit movie. Or, they can be notable for something bad, like being a convicted serial killer, or getting fired from a high profile job. If a Wikipedia biography exists for a person, no matter why they are notable, and their connection with the school is well referenced, then they should be listed in the "Notable alumni" section. It is not the "Alumni who make this school look good" section. Cullen328 (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Certainly, I'm on board with that. In the current case [1], these are hitherto unnotable people, indicted for murder; they just happen to attend that school, and the assault took place in a park area beside the school. (BTW Thanks for all the input here.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willondon (talk • contribs) 23:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Without a Wikipedia article to link to, it's tough (not always impossible) to have alumni in the school article (WP:ALUMNI has a bit of info about some guidelines). However as you've pointed out on the talk page, the reference doesn't say anything about the school. With references comes some indication whether the two are related or not, and then there can be a debate about whether it's of significance in the school article. Without any reliable source making the connection it's a non-starter. I note there's a murder victim already in the article, with a linked Wikipedia article. Comparisons will be drawn. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Temporary Password

I am User:Wxao Zesty, I am requesting for a temporary password to my email. Since, the last one did not go through.216.176.69.228 (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Use Special:PasswordReset RudolfRed (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Question

Authority control, Defaultsort and Reflist template are minor edit? Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Youknowwhoistheman: Welcome to the Teahouse! Help:Minor edit says that adding templates is not a minor edit. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

No fair!!

I wanted to make a page called: "Republic Of Kit Kat!" on Wikipedia, (a micronation I made up.) but, when clicking on a red link, it did not even let me even create it. Even when I clicked on: "Create a draft and submit it for review." That will not make me create a page!! Even MicroWiki allows you to do this. Please tell me the proper way.

From your biggest fan: PolskiSlaskiego! PolskiSlaskiego! (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@PolskiSlaskiego!: Wikipedia is not for things you made up – please do not create such an article. Tollens (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@PolskiSlaskiego!: Hello Polski! Unfortunately Wikipedia is not the place to create articles on things you made up one day. We create articles based on what reliable sources say, and something you just made up most definitely does not have any reliable sources. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 20:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I am SO sorry, but that was not my actual problem. (I did that by complete accident.) My actual question is what I stated at the very end: "How do you properly create a page?" I tried clicking on a red link, no luck. I tried creating a draft, did not work. I am even 100% logged in, so this makes no sense to me. I am just stuck here, not able to find the correct way. So please, if you can, reply to this question telling me how to create a page PROPERLY. I am SO sorry to Wikipedia, @Tollens, and @Blaze Wolf for being so harsh. My apologies.

From your biggest fan: PolskiSlaskiego! PolskiSlaskiego! (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@PolskiSlaskiego!: Well assuming you aren't wanting to create an article (Not a page, tho all articles are technically pages but not all pages are articles) on your made up micronation, I suggest you follow WP:YFA. What are you seeing when you click on a red link? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 20:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

When clicking on a red link, it reads: "The article that you're looking for doesn't exist." And then, it says: "......create it as a draft." and when clicked on, it sends to, indeed a draft, but that is not what I want. But, are you supposed to start with a draft? Because I want an already official article when I hit done, or whatever the finish button is. I think I might have solved the problem, but if there are any alternative ways, then please let me know.

From your biggest fan: PolskiSlaskiego! PolskiSlaskiego! (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

New accounts cannot directly create articles, you may use the Article Wizard to do so- though creating a new article is challenging, it's best to get some editing experience first. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I forgot about the fact that new accounts can't directly create articles. PolskiSlaskiego! I would recommend following 331dot's advice and get some editing experience in first before creating a new article. If you really think you can't wait and want to create an article now, then you may use the Article Wizard to do so. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 21:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, PolskiSlaskiego, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. To echo what DavidMD says: would you build a car as your first ever engineering project? Or enter a tournament the first day you started a new sport? Please get some experience editing - and learn about Wikipedia's policies, such as verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability, before you try to create a new article. You will save yourself and other people a lot of frustration and effort if you do this. ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Baby steps: Think of a topic. Check to see if an article already exists. If not, find reliable source published references about the topic. See WP:42 to learn what that is about. If no existing article, and references do exist, use Article Wizard to create and then submit a draft, with properly formatted references. Only include in the draft the facts that are provided by the references. Once submitted, an experienced reviewer can Accept, Decline, Reject or Speedy delete your draft. P.S. "Publish changes" means save, it does not mean publish in Wikipedia's mainspace. David notMD (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf Thank you so much! PolskiSlaskiego! (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Translating a page

How can I translate a page from english to bangla Tausif23 (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tausif23: See WP:TRANSLATEUS for the guidance. RudolfRed (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Disabling military time

Hullo friends. I would like to disable military time in signatures and the like such that it says something like "Example (talk) 3:00 PM, 19 January 2024 (UTC)" rather than "Example (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)". I was wondering where I would find a setting, gadget, or other such thing to do that. That's all. Thanks! Antrotherkus (Talk to me!) 23:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Antrotherkus Click "Preferences" (which you can get to by looking at the top of your display or clicking what I just linked there.) Then, click the "Appearance" tab there. There should be some options for you to adjust the time display there. Cheers ‍ Relativity 00:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

When I go to the "Appearance" tab, there are only two time-related options: "Date format" and "Time offset". Neither of them seem to be related to 24-hour time. If you're curious, I use the Vector 2010 skin. Antrotherkus (Talk to me!) 01:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Antrotherkus I would use Wikipedia:Comments in Local Time. Galobtter (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks! Antrotherkus (Talk to me!) 02:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

NIAC

Can somebody take a look at the National Iranian American Council article? An editor keeps removing edits cited to news articles and replacing it with information sourced only to the organization's website. jwtmsqeh (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe that would be some form of blocking good-faith edits, and I’m pretty sure it is a sign of bad-faith. Cometkeiko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cometkeiko (talk • contribs) 08:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring ongoing! The contending editors (including Just want...) are also heatedly debating their disagreements on the article's Talk page. If they cannot solve it there, then advice needed on how to get third parties involved. David notMD (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft Article

How do I find a draft article? OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

What are you trying to do? What draft are you looking for? Galobtter (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

If it's a draft titled, say, "Aave protocol", then you look for "Draft:Aave protocol". If on the other hand you're wondering how to use a search engine such as Google to find a draft about, say, the "Aave protocol", then the answer is that you cannot. -- Hoary (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Please see my other comment OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I found my draft, and it has been rejected for unreliable sources. I have 18 sources, including LA Times, YouTube video, Track and Field News publication, and major college athletic websites. I dont know what to do to improve this? OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Are either of you willing to look at my article and comment on what is wrong with my sources? It is Drat Art Venegas OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft Art Venegas OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@OLYMPICHAMMER I see you refer to Draft:Art Venegas are "my article", but it was created by Eric-Dieter, who has also asked questions at Wikipedia:Help desk#(moving an article). Are you using multiple accounts?

S0091 suggested you review this guide for how to cite sources. Did you have specific questions about that? Maybe you'd prefer the video at WP:EASYREFBEGIN.

Victor Schmidt gave you specific feedback about some of the references. Did you have any specific questions about that feedback? GoingBatty (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I am working with Eric on this project, and he is the one that posted the article. Victor Schmidt and S0091 only sent me educational materials and guides, which I have gone thoroughly over hours and can see nothing wrong with our sources.

We are citing publications like the LA Times, Track and Field News, YouTube interview videos, major college Athletic Dept websites, and other independent articles online. What more do we need to do? OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@OLYMPICHAMMER: They expressed concerns with the formatting of the references, so I added an inline citation for reference #1 for you as an example. They also noted that the draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. For example, where is the source for all the information in the "Art Venegas coaching tree"? If you are Venegas or are working with Venegas, then you and Eric-Dieter have a conflict of interest that you each need to disclose on your respective user page. GoingBatty (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@OLYMPICHAMMER: Also note that interviews are not independent, so those won't help with notability. Plus, the tone needs to be changed from promotional (e.g. "legendary", "Venegas is regarded to have few peers", "cemented his coaching preeminence") to neutral and encyclopedic. GoingBatty (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

GoingBatty, I have cleaned up the Draft: Art Venegas article using the input of you and four other editors. Can you review, I want to submit it again? OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Sample: Venegas coached UCLA throwers to some of the greatest performances in NCAA history, and his athletes include some of the most notable collegiate competitors ever. To which is appended "[6]". "[6]" turns out to be a web page published by UCLA. This is not a disinterested source, and thus it is not a reliable source. -- Hoary (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hoary, I have cleaned up the Draft: Art Venegas article using the input of you and four other editors. Can you review, I want to submit it again? OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Note discussion about this draft are currently in a lot of places (here, WP:HD, on the draft itself, at my talk page, and at Ad Orientem's user talk).

OLYMPICHAMMER, please note that on Wikipedia, declined and rejected mean different things. Draft:Art Venegas was declined. When reviewers decline a draft, this means sorry, this cannot be promoted to an article at this time. Please improve it further, whereas rejected means Sorry, there is no potential this becomes an article any time soon. Please stop trying. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You have done a lot of work after Draft:Art Venegas was declined, but the referencing method you use is not acceptable. See Help:Referencing for beginners and examples of articles of the athlete articles you Wikilinked to see proper referencing. When refs are done right, the software inserts a superscript number and adds the ref under References. As noted above, refs need to be independent. Continue to fix stuff and submit again. David notMD (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

David, I have cleaned up the Draft: Art Venegas article using the input of you and four other editors. Can you review, I want to submit it again? OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

OLYMPICHAMMER I recommend deleting the 'Coaching Tree' section. P.S. I am not an Reviewer. David notMD (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Each one of those is annotated with online publications? At some point you editors are ridiculous......... OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Help

Í ám á new user who made lots of edits on my IP account. Í was wondering if i could have my IP account transfered to my new one. Socialstviper (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Socialstviper, and welcome! I’m afraid it’s not possible to assign IP contributions to your account, although if you wish you can indicate on your userpage that you edited previously under an IP and can specify there. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

What's the best way to proceed once I have a draft I like?

I have a draft of a page of a surrealist artist that I have been heavily researching and gathering links on. It looks and feels like a real page, but I don't want to put it out too early and have it deleted, etc. Who should I send it to (and HOW) I have never attempted a page before. BillE.Vader1963 (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

BillE.Vader1963, Draft:Raymond A. Whyte? You could ask about that either here or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk (but please not both). -- Hoary (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

thank you! good tip! BillE.Vader1963 (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@BillE.Vader1963: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest using the Articles for creation process for your draft, and have added a template to your draft for you. When you're ready to have your draft reviewed, click the blue "Submit the draft for review" button. Good luck with the draft! GoingBatty (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! BillE.Vader1963 (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

BillE.Vader1963, should "mystical animals" be "mythical animals"? Maproom (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

ooh. Good catch. Thanks! BillE.Vader1963 (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Once submitted to AfC there is a waiting period than can be as short as hours and as long as weeks - even months if the draft backlog gets huge. You can continue to work on a submitted draft. The reviewer will either accept, decline with reasons given, reject if opinion is no potential, or speedy delete (hopefully not!!) for major transgressions. David notMD (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Userbox alignment

Hi. I added some userboxes to my user page but no matter what parameter I use, they won't align. Thanks. CanonNi (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi: Welcome to the Teahouse! I added {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}} to your user page, which helped a bit, but didn't completely solve the issue. GoingBatty (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you but @Sirdog has provided a better solution. CanonNi (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

CanonNi, it appears that {{Babel}} is the issue. I think it's because it's literally just a raw module and the module may be conflicting with {{Infobox Wikipedia user}}. There is a languages parameter for {{Infobox Wikipedia user}} you can make use of, or you could use the various specific language templates (example: {{User en}}). Perhaps someone with more technical knowledge may be able to assist you in getting it to work if those solutions aren't what you are looking for. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sirdog Thank you! Used the specific language templates in |languages instead of Babel and that fixed the issue.

Quick question, what does raw module mean? Does it just mean a module is badly coded? CanonNi (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Badly coded? I'm certainly not qualified to make that assessment! I just mean that if you look at the source for Template:Babel all it does is invoke a module, rather than having wikitext with perhaps modules invoked inside of that. —Sirdog (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you! CanonNi (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

link on my name

I would like to add a link to my name , mentioned at So you think you can dance info. Thanks a lot! Miriam Larici 47.157.5.19 (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: WP:Help desk § link on my name; and referring to So You Think You Can Dance

hi ip user! 331dot has already answered your question in the Help Desk. for next time, please don't post your question to both the Teahouse and Help Desk to help keep responses to your question in one central place (and besides, most people answering questions in one probably also answer questions in the other as well). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 09:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Am I doing anything wrong?

I have recently being accused of being biased for reverting the unsourced ccontent additions. I am trying to be very gentle and let the other person uderstand why I reverted their information. But since now I lack the Wikipedia norms handy I started doubting myself. Should I mend my ways or what all I am doing is right? Should I be referring any extra guideliness or am I lacking any Wikipedia rules? I am unsure and please help me out in assessing my activity if it's going fine or not. Thank you

Please refer to Talk:N. T. Rama Rao#Reply to ip user 136.54.56.86 and Talk:2024 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly election#Latest edit - JSP infobox. 456legendtalk 09:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Althought people who accused the same later clarified that they misundertood but still I need a through check on what I am lacking. Can I get more educated before I continue editing here? 456legendtalk 09:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 456legend! I'm not seeing anything egregious. I see an innocent interaction at the 1st link and a good ole' civil content dispute at the 2nd (at time of writing). Noting that I have not checked any page history, just read the talk pages. My one comment would be that "First thing you must understand that any content addition that is contested shall be removed at the first place and will be discussed whether to add it or not" is not strictly true. Aside from fairly obvious exceptions, such as enforcing WP:BLP/WP:V policies, removing WP:COPYVIO, or fighting WP:VANDALISM, there is no policy I'm aware of that demands an article be kept at a certain version until discussed. Regardless of the article state, it's better that once 2 or more editors are aware others disagree that no one continues editing that part until a discussion happens. What you said tends to occur in practice, however, as a reversion of an edit tends to be the way editors learn there is disagreement (see: WP:BRD). Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sirdog I get that. I should have refrained from removing the addition at the first and it was my fault that I assumed it to be that way and informed the same. Other than that I think I am fine with the rest of the discussion involving the content discussion. Meanwhile, I found the same user to add such similar addition on a different article and I assumed it to be a affliation to a organisation on his part and safely requested him to disclose any such if true. The user got offended and accused me of stalking and challenging my behaviour, thus I decided to recuse myself from the article. I don't intend to complaint anything against the user now but would like to know if looking upon other user contributions here on wikipedia not acceptable and is assuming someone to be paid for editing and asking the same to them to diclose not accepted? here And since I have recused from the article, do I need to bother about anything else on that particular talk page and do I need to further get involved in the discussion there if the other users show up? Please guide about this too. 456legendtalk 10:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for editors who see what may be a flaw in an editor's edit in one article - for example updating a fact on a place or person without providing a reference - to see if the same flaw was committed at other articles. This may also happen when an editor posts a question here at Teahouse. To the recipient, can it feel like stalking? Yes. Edit summaries at the articles should be about correcting the errors. Separately, advice can be posted to the editor's Talk page. And absolutely, asking an editor if a COI or PAID situation exists is valid, and very common if there is reason to suspect such. David notMD (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@David notMD Thank you for the detailed analysis. Also thank you @Sirdog for the information. 456legendtalk 13:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Image preview on hover

When I hover over link to some articles, infobox image is shown along with lede text. But in some article hovers image is not shown, even when infobox has an image (this and this). Why? How to make sure that image is visible in preview. Also, what should be ratios of infobox image which make sure that images are not cutoff in preview (cut from top like this). -- Parnaval (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Parnaval. The preview feature is mw:Extension:Popups. At mw:Topic:X24ym9nooumpgr1h I wrote:

I suspect the actual rule is simply something like this:

width × height must be either at least 320 × 200 px or 203 × 250 px.

The images in your examples File:Andrea-Kevichusa-BH (cropped).jpg and File:Mahima Makwana snapped at an airport (cropped).jpg are too small. We don't pick images based on how they are currently processed in previews. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you PrimeHunter. I prefer that when I hover over links, then image is visible. So I would try to add portraits with min 210 x 250px. One more question. Why on hovering over Manushi Chhillar show her signature, and not the portrait image? Portrait is the first image in infobox, and clearly larger than min required size -- Parnaval (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Parnaval: The preview feature can only display an image if it has been selected as the page image by another feature mw:Extension:PageImages. A page can only have one page image and many pages have none. mw:Extension:PageImages#How are images scored? says:

• The ratio of the image's width to height is considered $wgPageImagesScores['ratio']
  • On Wikimedia wikis a ratio of 0.4 to 3.1 is allowed, with 0.6 to 2.1 preferred.

File:A Presidente do FUSSESP Lucia França recebe a Miss Mundo, Manushi Chhilar (41430422792) (cropped).jpg has ratio 445/780 = 0.57, so it's allowed but not preferred. The signature is in the preferred interval. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I have disallowed the signature.[2] The portrait is now the page image and displayed in the preview. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok understood. Thank You! -- Parnaval (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

How do I correctly start a GA Reassesment?

I know sometimes but sometimes don't GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment (with four Ss). Maproom (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages allowed if no article?

Idk how to put the title, but I will try my best to explain it.

Basically, can disambiguation (or dab) pages display something if no article exists. For example if you look at the dab page for Cross country, there is a section that does not have an article. Copied from the article above

• Cross Country (film), a 1983 drama film starring Nina Axelrod

I've removed a couple of items from Cross country, including that one.

And most dab pages do not have the disambiguation suffix for some reason like why does Great Western Railway (disambiguation) have it, but not Cross country? Breathinkeeps32 (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

My guess is that it's to disambiguate. There's an article on Great Western Railway as well as a dab page, but for Cross country there's only a dab page. Maproom (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Basically it is unclear whether to include something in a dab page if it does not have an article, like the example above. Even the WP:DAB article is unclear or I just couldnt find it, although it does have a 'what not to include' section but not the inverse?

And so that explains why GWR does and does not have the dab suffix? I mean we also have CrossCountry, a UK railway company without any additional suffixes, although the only difference is that it is spelt as one word. Breathinkeeps32 (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit 16:53 UTC - see also and copies from: MOS:DABMENTION. Idk how to use green text below so im using quotes instead

• "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader". Breathinkeeps32 (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems quite clear to me. Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts says Don't include entries without a blue link. and Don't include red links unless used in articles. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

If there is a primary topic for the name, then that article gets the bare title, and a DAB page is labelled as such in its title. If there is no primary topic, then the DAB page gets the bare title. ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Article submission declined - help, don't know how to fix it :(

Draft:Together UK Foundation

Hi I'd appreciate someone's help please in showing me how to fix the issues a reviewer outlined in my article submission.

I don't feel they're fair considering The News Letter (oldest newspaper in English speaking world) and The Irish News are both well-respected news papers. Second, this organisation's opponent (Ireland's Future) has a wiki page, so it's unbalanced if TUKF does not also have one. TheHandsomeHistorian (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, TheHandsomeHistorial, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are three separate requirements on a source in order to count towards notability: reliability is the most obvious one, but independence, and significant coverage, are also important: see golden rule.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

Looking over your reference list, almost all of them are clearly not independent; the Irish News might be, but does it contain significant coverage of the Foundation? (It might do, but I haven't looked). If it does, it will be one acceptable source, but we need more than one.

As for Ireland's Future: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is possible that the article Ireland's Future (which is not their article, by the way), is inadequately sourced: I haven't looked at it closely. If you think it is, you are welcome to improve it, or propose it for deletion if you think the organisation does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Value of the TeaHouse

I just want to say thanks to the team running the Tea House. I have told my professor how prompt your responses are and how generous too. I was running into some editors who were…. not so much, and it was becoming discouraging to try to manage the steep learning curve. Sometimes I come here just to read. Thanks again, WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi WikiTikiTavi63, you're welcome, glad you like it. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You're very welcome here! Thanks for the feedback; it's nice to hear. Mathglot (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

nurulhuda.kssg

help me please recover my Facebook account 176.16.231.187 (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

We cannot help you with Facebook issues here, sorry. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

feedback on draft f0r musical artist

Hi all - happy new year! I've re-edited a draft wiki page for a musical band and would be grateful if an editor could let me know if it now qualifies for publication. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Say_She_She_(band)

Thanks! georges_mille Georges1K (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Georges1K: Welcome to the Teahouse! I made some tweaks and restored the {{AFC submission}} templates (the ones with comments stating "Do not remove this line!") I see you added some references since the last review. When you're ready for the draft to be reviewed again, click the blue "Resubmit" button. Good luck with your draft! GoingBatty (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Posting articles written on linkedin

i am a seasoned digital marketer of global repute, written many articles on LinkedIn etc, i dont want to promote myself on Wikipedia, but want to articles written already on linked by me only. It will definitely benefit users as these are related to field of Digital Marketing and SEO and solves many issues of users. Anoopsrivastava784 (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Anoopsrivastava784: Welcome to the Teahouse! We already have articles on Digital marketing and Search engine optimization. You may improve those articles using published reliable sources that you didn't write, but adding links to your own work would be considered promotion, and Wikipedia is not the place to promote your work. GoingBatty (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

If what you have posted at LinkedIn is copyright protected (I am not familiar with LI policy), then you cannot use that content in an existing or new Wikipedia article. And, as noted above, you may not use your LI articles as references. David notMD (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

And if it is not copyright protected, you still should not use it, due to WP:SPS and conflict of interest concerns. In brief, don't use it. Mathglot (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

creating a page

Hello, I created a userpage yesterday and and watching tutorials on how to edit and build a page. My goal is to create a page for a notable musician. I understand that I need to have an account 4 days and do at least 10 edits before a page I create is considered for approval.

I created a userpage in the sandbox as a test. Do I need to have a userpage approved before I create another page? Holyhootenany (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Holyhootenany, you're free to continue working on the draft, you don't need permission to create a draft or drafts in userspace. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

Could I get an editor to look at the draft page and suggest edits that help with approval? Holyhootenany (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Holyhootenany: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see you created User:Holyhootenany/sandbox, which was declined because it did not contain multiple published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Creating a new Wikipedia article can be quite challenging, especially if you do not have a lot of experience editing existing Wikipedia articles. To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction, and then spend a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article and summarize what the sources have published, and be prepared for a process that may include waiting for review, declines, and rewrites before an article is accepted. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Do redirects from one user talk page to another work?

Hi! I operate two accounts - this one, and a mobile account, User:Phönedinger's jellyfish. I checked the list of reasons to make a redirect, but didn't see anything about talk pages on there. Is it possible to redirect the mobile account's talk page to my main one? If not, I'll watchlist the mobile talk page on both accounts. Would rather be safe than sorry. Thanks! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 19:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Schrödinger's jellyfish! While I don't see it specifically listed for mobile accounts per se, redirecting an alternate account's talk page to your main account is a practice doumented at the public sock account policy, so I'd say go for it and just add the redirect template to your mobile talk page. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you so much! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 22:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Reference add which is not available online

I want to add news to a article but online news is not available print news is available how to add? 45.124.7.168 (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Asked and answered on the Help desk. Please don't ask the same question on more than one desk: it can lead to confusion and potentially wastes the limited time of the volunteers who respond on the desks. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.47.60 (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Nazism

The ol', "far-left, not far-right" trope. Please see Talk:Nazi Party/FAQ.

Nazism is incorrectly labeled as being far-right, when it should be labeled as far-left. The politics that the party represented (fascism), as well as the National Socialism they represented, are all facets found within the far-left leaning ideologue. Yes, they despised liberals, but Hitler HATED capitalism and also utilized racial ideologues not found in either far-right or far-left of his era. It wasn't until now that the far-left have embraced racial ideologues to replace the class ideologues found within their Marxism (another facet of the Nazi's, by the way). Neo-Nazi's are the current label for any new KKK member and since it WAS the Democrat party (the same that exists today, there was no "flip") that created the KKK, Neo-Nazi's are far-left as well, so you might as well correct that article as well. History is important in the fact that you can't change it, so why are you trying to hide the left's dark history? They have so much more than any group from the right.... 70.122.110.127 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC) The Teahouse is not the place for this, I suggest you post on the relevant article talk pages, don't expect a kind reaction though. Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC) See the boxes "Frequently asked questions" at Talk:Nazism, and "Fascism is a right-wing ideology" at Talk:Fascism. See also Talk:Fascism/FAQ. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC) The OPs remarks are fringe views that are complete and utter baloney, and these views are rejected by all competent political scientists of the last 90 years. Cullen328 (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC) Collapsed; wrong venue; WP:NOTFORUM; perennial comment already answered in the Nazi party FAQ. Mathglot (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Can I delete everything, then rewrite the whole article?

Article: Tumblestone
So here's the thing... I want to improve this article, but I'm kind of cringing how bad I was writing it back when I had less experience. I was thinking to rewrite it from scratch. When is it okay to blow everything up? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 22:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

TrademarkedTWOrantula, although you wrote most of that article, several other editors contributed significantly as well. Suddenly eliminating their work seems harsh to me. Instead, I recommend a series of smaller, incremental edits to gradually improve the article. Cullen328 (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: Hello! The article right now seems short enough, so I think it would be OK to just rewrite everything. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen328 - copy a section into your Sandbox, improve it there, then paste back - would be preferred to blanking content and starting over. David notMD (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with David notMD and Cullen328. Flip the situation around: an article created by someone else, inexperienced, which you subsequently improved in numerous edits back in the day. Original user pops back up, decides to throw everything out, and start over. How does that make you feel about all the contributions you made, now dumped in the trash? See also WP:OWN. Not saying that WP:TNT is never a valid option, but you should always consider the contributions of other users. Mathglot (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

math

whitch number is closest to 0 1 fourth or 1 sixth 67.81.11.50 (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It is 1/6, but please ask these questions at the mathematics reference desk in the future. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 22:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Can I join any Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process?

Hi! I know I'm not a Wikipedia expert, but after having created several Wikipedia pages in the past few weeks, I have gained a better understanding of the rules, particularly regarding the Notability Guidelines. While I enjoy creating biographies of random notable people, I am interested in participating in the deletion process and casting my vote. Is there a specific rule for this? Do I need to be an expert to do so? Additionally, where can I find a list of articles that have been tagged for deletion? I hope you can answer my questions. If not, I guess I will stick to editing or creating pages.Aona1212 (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Aona1212. Any editor in good standing can participate in AfD debates. Just be sure that your recommendation is based on our policies and guidelines. As for finding deletion debates, WP:AFDT is the shortcut to today's deletion debates. "Today" is based on UTC, so depending on where you live, the day may not end at midnight. That page has a back arrow, allowing you to see a list of yesterday's debates, and so on. Cullen328 (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328, thank you. Aona1212 (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Aona1212 Just to mention that deletion discussions are not based on votes. Editors express their views about the compliance of the article according to policy/guidelines and an administrator (usually) who is technically equipped to make the deletion will do so (or not) based on the arguments made. Most often, it comes down to deciding whether the subject of the article is wikinotable, which can be a judgement call. See also WP:DEL for a full discussion of the policy and process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

How can I restore edits that were deleted by Wikipedia?

I wrote neutral and accurate information about the services provided by the Arizona Department of Transportation, a government agency. The current information is outdated so major editing is needed. Most of the content was taken from the Arizona Department of Transportation's website, azdot.gov.

I disclosed that I am an employee of the Arizona Department of Transportation and I received a message saying that I have a conflict of interest and the content I provided was rejected.

How can I restore the edits that I had made? Loribaker2757 (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Loribaker2757, you do have a conflict of interest. Thank you for disclosing it. An acceptable Wikipedia article primarily summarizes what reliable sources independent of the topic say about the topic. Accordingly, use of azdot.gov should be limited. The policy language at WP:ABOUTSELF makes it clear that the article should not be based primarily on sources like azdot.gov. Any reader who wants more information from your employer's website can simply visit that website. The best practice for you as a paid editor is to make well-referenced formal Edit requests at Talk: Arizona Department of Transportation, where you must gain consensus for your proposed changes. Cullen328 (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a state government agency not a business. 2600:8800:5662:C0:F456:239B:6DC5:E2EB (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

From a policy point of view, government agencies are treated the same as private businesses. Cullen328 (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you do those citation things on mobile?

So I want to edit something but I need a citation, thing is, I don't know if you can do so on mobile, and I don't want to damage the article. Please help. RoboDoggo9123 (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, RoboDoggo9123. My suggestion is to use the fully functional desktop site, which works just fine on mobile devices. I edit using a smartphone 99% of the time, and have added thousands of references to Wikipedia that way. Just scroll to the bottom of any mobile Wikipedia page, and there is a "Desktop" link and if you click it, you can edit using the desktop site. Cullen328 (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Shumpei Fukahori

I honestly have no idea what I did to Shumpei Fukahori's article. Please can someone check it out and fix it? Thanks :) RossEvans18 (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why it looked like that but I fixed it eitherway, haha. Enlightened Southerner (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! :) RossEvans18 (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Policy question

On an article about a person who was murdered, is there any policy against mentioning the name of the murderer in the Death section? Enlightened Southerner (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Enlightened Southerner, if the killer was convicted in a court of law, then it is OK to mention the name. If the killer died without being tried, but reliable sources and investigative bodies agree that they were responsible, it is probably OK to mention. We say, of course, that John Wilkes Booth murdered Abraham Lincoln, although Booth was killed when he was a fugitive, and was never tried or convicted. On another point, was the victim notable before the crime in this case? Otherwise, per WP:BIO1E, the article should be about the notable crime rather than a biography of the victim. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The article is Juraj Vankulič who was a Slovak drag performer who was murdered in the 2022 Bratislava shooting and the murderer was Juraj Krajčik. I reworded the article in ways and in the death section I wrote “ On October 12, 2022 at around 6 p.m., Vankulič was murdered when shot by a 19-year old teenager, [NAME REDACTED by an administrator]…” however my edit was reverted with the edit summary: “No mention of the murderer, please”, I was unsure if this is just an opinion or a policy regarding murder people, would you say it is appropriate to mention the name? Enlightened Southerner (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Enlightened Southerner Looking at the source you cited, I see no mention of the killer's name. So it would be highly inappropriate to mention it there - or here - without proper citations! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Can I copy a Simple English Wikipedia page into English Wikipedia?

Hello. I noticed there are some Simple English Wikipedia articles that do not exist on English Wikipedia. Would it be okay to copy them to here, in a similar manner to how copying from other Wikipedias works on Simple English Wikipedia? I couldn’t find any guidelines that say whether this is alright, so I thought I should defer to here.

I’d also like to say that, if this is alright to do, I would of course disclose that it was copied over in the talk page, as WP:CWW recommends.

Thank you! Slamforeman (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Slamforeman. The answer is "yes" as long as the article is in complete compliance with English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, editors who are blocked on English Wikipedia are sometimes advised to edit on Simple English Wikipedia to show their ability to edit Wikimedia projects productively. So, keep that in mind when assessing articles that you find there. Cullen328 (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Slamforeman. Yes, but with limitations. You can copy an article from Simple English and provide attribution. We have stiffer requirements on providing references than Simple English does. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy while simple:Wikipedia:Citing sources is a guideline. So you may need to find more sources or leave material out, depending on the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for your help. Slamforeman (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Slamforeman, Yes, as others have said, but note that copy attribution is required, per Wikipedia's Terms of Use. You may use a modified copy of the model attribution statement near the top of WP:CWW, modified to fit your situation. I.e., this:

Copied content from [[:simple:<Exact page name>]]; see that page's history for attribution.

Add that to your edit summary when you copy the content. Mathglot (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much. Will do! Slamforeman (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

Need info on Patna

What to visit 223.191.1.204 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The Teahouse is not really the place for questions about locating relevant content, that would be more suited to WP:Reference Desk. Then again, you could just do a simple search, though in this case, it seems that there's an existing article on the content you have requested. Sigh. Fabrickator (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Try https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Patna – robertsky (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

List Class?

Hi. I was looking at the C++23 page, and started thinking what exactly a list-class article is...

This article really seems like a long list, so would this be considered a list-class article? Coulomb1 (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this would be considered a list. According to the criteria on WP:CLASSES, a list needs organized links to other Wikipedia articles. C++23 is mostly a changelog. If you think the article should be classified differently, you can request a assessment here. CanonNi (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Any good sites for finding record chart placements for all/many countries?

Are there any quality, reliable websites that have chart information pertaining to multiple countries (not just the US and UK), particularly one where I can look up a certain artist and find the corresponding album and song chart placements by country for said artist? Thanks - Elephantranges (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Elephantranges That's the sort of question that experts at this reference desk ought to be able to answer. Alternatively, try the Talk Page of a relevant music project, listed at WP:PROJDIR/MUS. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

speedy deletion

Dear Team

i am create the my self biography but after publish our content is delete speedy deletion. how to solve the issues Dr.AhmedAlSulaiti (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Dr.AhmedAlSulaiti – while I cannot view the deleted draft, the reason given for deletion indicates that your draft was promotional. Using Wikipedia to promote yourself, your business, or anything else is not permitted; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles also must demonstrate that reliable sources not connected to the subject have chosen to write about them already, and may not include any information not already in other sources. Writing autobiographies in particular is also strongly discouraged for a variety of reasons, which I see has already been mentioned on your user talk page. If you meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion someone else will likely write an article about you eventually. Tollens (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear Team

we create article for Dr.AhmedAlSulaiti related achievement and occupation ,company we are mentioned in the Articles . In the Infobox we mention he name ,occupation of company website only . kindly share guides create page Dr.AhmedAlSulaiti (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Dr.AhmedAlSulaiti, let me quote: Al Sulaiti Holdings was founded and is chaired by Dr. Ahmed Al Sulaiti, a visionary businessman from Qatar. He has built a diversified business portfolio that is well-known both locally and internationally. (And the deleted "Dr Ahmed Mohammed Hassan Al Hayya Al Sulaiti" continued in the same vein.) If it is well-known both locally and internationally, then those who know it are sure to find disinterested, reliable sources about it and to want to create an article purely based on those sources. Incidentally, the articles I've seen on companies that are well-known both locally and internationally don't bother to say that these companies are well-known both locally and internationally, and one reason for not saying this is that readers will already know it. That matter aside, I note that your user name is the same as the name of your subject. -- Hoary (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

More than one version of an article by you, about you, has been Speedy deleted. Unless you can create a draft in which all content is verified by references written by people with no connection to you, stop trying. David notMD (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Indef blocked on 21 January. David notMD (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox use

What would be the right infobox to use for this article? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 05:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TrademarkedTWOrantula! I'd probably say the best fit for a bookstore is {{Infobox company}} as I don't see any other infobox that'd be more specific. You can see if another infobox suites your purposes by scrolling to the bottom of the documentation and looking at the table. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Chrome browser

Using Chrome browser after a system update, I noticed my Chromebook's not displaying Tex (math formulas, etc.) and hyperlinks have to be double clicked. I don't normally log in. Any suggestions? 73.192.182.36 (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Wrong venue. Try Google Chrome help. Mathglot (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing is also appropriate for such issues. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 17:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

GA controversy, how to resolve?

Has had controversy over my practices of GARs and GANs, how to resolve? I don't properly know GAs GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Your user talk page, User talk:GabrielPenn4223, suggests that you have little or no idea of what you are doing. For a start, two points: (i) Do not nominate any article unless you have done a large amount of work on the article. (ii) Do not review any article that you have worked on more than trivially, let alone any article that you have nominated. -- Hoary (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I know, but when will this debate controversy stop for once? I am annoyed by this. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

What debate controversy? Just stop nominating articles for GA and walk away from any discussions that might be happening there. Find something else to do instead, here is a good place to find things to do: Wikipedia:Task Center. Polyamorph (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@GabrielPenn4223 There is no controversy. You';ve simply been told that you do not know what you're doing, and you have only just come to realise people are right. Any 'controversy,'as you perceive it, will stop when you start to appreciate that you don't yet know enough about how Wikipedia works, especially in relation to Good Article status and reviews. You've only made 60 contributions to articles, yet you seem to have caused quite some disruption and chaos by thinking you can storm in and randomly nominate articles, then seek talk page protection on those nomination or review pages just because you don't like being told to stop what you're doing and gain some understanding first.

You may be editing in good faith, but disruption is disruption. Adminstrators have the ability to put partial blocks on areas where good faith editors are nevertheless causing undue disruption and time-wastage. If you continue as you have done, I fear that could happen to your account. So, simply keep away from article assessments, and work in other areas which will improve your article-editing skills and understanding.

If you've recently made other inappropriate nominations, please go back and undo them all to avoid wasting other editors' time. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Wherever you're asked, just promise that you'll stop nominating and reviewing GAs until you've gained more experience or that you've already stopped, then follow-through. Whenever someone comes to you about a mess you've made, tell them you're sorry, and tell them to help you fix it if you need to be the one to fix it, or fix it themselves if they can. If you've made a big mess, you could post to WT:GAN apologising, and asking them to fix it or help you fix it. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes and @Usedtobecool, I've already apollogized on WT:GAN. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@GabrielPenn4223, that's it then. You don't need to run; it's better to hang around in case other people show up with questions. As the mess clears up, it will be forgotten. Meanwhile, you can do other things, as was suggested above. You are not in any trouble, as long as you stop and engage with others politely. Just take it slow, whatever you do next. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@GabrielPenn4223 Thank you - that's the best way to deal with such issues. I've just deleted your GAR proposals for Nature and for National Register of Historic Places so that's two less thing to clear up. Regards. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Article name for YouTube channels

Hi. If I'm creating an article for a YouTube channel operated by one person, should the name of the article be that of the channel or person? Thanks. CanonNi (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the name should be the YouTube channel's name because the article is about the YouTube channel not the person. Tusharhero (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking through Category:YouTube channels and , it depends under which name they are more known. Articles about YouTuber who are mostly known under their channel name use the channel name, if they are mostly known under a different name (real name or not) use that, and in Edge cases use editorial judgement to decide on one. A redirect or disambiguation entry can be considered from the other one. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will use the name of the channel for the article then. CanonNi (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit quality

How is edit quality measured in the mobile app and why isn't it shown in the website? Tusharhero (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not a mobile user, but it's possible the Wikimedia Foundation is adding features, trying things, hoping to attract more people, encourage them to become editors. As for the website, the quality of your edits will become clear to you through feedback from others. People will revert you and warn you if you do things wrong, you may get no feedback if you're doing well. People may occassionally show up to thank you and encourage you if you keep on with good work. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tusharhero: If you refer to a specific feature which isn't shown somewhere then please describe the feature and where you see it. If it's red and green numbers in parentheses then it's not about quality but size. See Wikipedia:Added or removed characters. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it just says "Edit quality perfect". Its in the edit tab of the mobile app. Tusharhero (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tusharhero, I also see this statistic. If I tap and hold on the indicator, an explanation pops up saying, "Based on how many times one of your contriburions was reverted (undone by another editor). Reverted edits: 0."

I think it must be only looking at your most recent edits for the count. The Wikipedia app is FLOSS, so you could look at the source code to confirm. --Habst (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

--Habst (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see. Thanks. Tusharhero (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Book cover and page referencing

Hello, how would I go about making a book reference where a page and the back of the book back up 2 separate claims on an article? Should I make 2 different references with one specifying a page, and then the other specifying the back of the book? Goldclock (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Goldclock Welcome to the Teahouse. Two separate references are not necessary. Both of our editing tools allow for one reference to be named and used again and again. See WP:REFNAME if using Source Editor. Personally, I would use the {{rp}} template after each of the citation, such as [citation] and [same citation] Hopefully this helps. But do bear in mind that if you're basing a factual statement about, say, the author of a book by what they have written about themselves on the back cover, then that source is not deemed as 'reliable' as it's written by the subject. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I use visual editor. If I use the {{rp}} template after the inline citations should I remove the "page cited/pages cited/at" field from the reference since its specified by the {{rp}} template? If not, then how do I add both the back cover and page number to the reference, because if I try to use both the "page cited" and "at" fields then it rejects it. Goldclock (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Goldclock Yes, I would remove the specific page number from within the original reference so that it simply points to the book as a whole, then I would add the respective page number/frontispiece/back cover mention to the rp template for each specific use. (Note: I have seen others here recommending the {{sfn}} template, but I find {{rp}} works fine for my needs, so I've never investigated any alternatives.) Nick Moyes (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Goldclock (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

When is it OK to re-write a page from scratch?

Hello... what do you do when a page is so badly written, with lots of mis-information and few proper references, that it would be much easier to start again than try and correct / edit it? Is it Ok to do that?! In this case I'm talking specifically about Antony Gibbs & Sons - I have read the key texts about the company and his family recently, so am aware of all the mistakes in the Wiki page. It's ages since I've edited anything, so can't remember the etiquett about signing off... I'm @Ruthhenrietta ;-) Ruthhenrietta (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Ruthhenrietta. Welcome to the Teahouse. Nowadays, your signature is automatically added to your post, or to any response if you click 'reply'. But if you respond the old way by clicking 'edit source' then you still need to use four tilde characters (like this: ~~~~) to insert your signature.

Now, regarding a 100% rewrite: personally I would strongly advise against it. It would only take one error in your version for someone to completely revert what changes you'd made and take you back to square one. A better way would be to first add a note to the article's talk page to explain your concerns and highlighting major flaws, and saying what you'd like to do, and inviting any feedback or cooperation on the project. Taking all the sources and starting from the beginning, I might work on rewriting each section, one at a time. Making clear edit summaries when you save changes means others can see what you've done, and relatively small edits are easier to understand and less soul-destroying to have reverted and to re-fix than massive edits and massive reverts.

If you insisted on doing a complete rewrite, you should prepare an alternative version in your sandbox and then link to that on the article talk page along with your concerns and seek comments and feedback. But there are probably less than 10 people 'watching' that article, which gets about ten views a day, so the likelihood of many people seeing your 'call to arms' is quite low.

So, whilst I would encourage you to WP:BEBOLD, I'd also recommend you make changes in a piecemeal fashion, rather than one quantum jump. Does that help at all? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes - it really helps - thank you... I'll take your advice... I realise it's a very niche subject! But it bugs me when information is so poor, so I think it's worth doing Ruthhenrietta (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ruthhenrietta Yes, I've just looked at it a bit closer and it does rather cover a broad range of topics in one article, so it could well be that a rewrite in your sandbox is a good way forward. Feel free to bring anything back to the Teahouse if you want further input.

...And good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I will definitely get back to you if I need help - thanks Ruthhenrietta (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ruthhenrietta: @Nick Moyes: We also have the essay Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over but in my experience that typically involves a valid reason to delete the article first. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

most References

is Vic Damone You Were Only Fooling the most References i ever in article i ever did? Samchristie05 (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Samchristie05, could you please re-phrase your question so it makes sense? Qcne (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Vic Damone You Were Only Fooling References Samchristie05 (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not really a question @Samchristie05..? Qcne (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

anyway have you heard the story of me at the beginning at website, that I acted like a reviewer approved my own article!? Samchristie05 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, @Samchristie05, I have no idea what you are asking. Is English perhaps not your first language? Qcne (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Samchristie05: Welcome to the Teahouse! I believe you're asking us whether the number of references in the article You Were Only Fooling (an album by Vic Damone) is greater than those in other articles you have created. According to this report you have created 42 articles - congratulations! You can use the report to compare number of references in each article.

In the future, providing a link to the article you're asking about will help other editors understand your question and provide a quicker answer. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

anyway have you heard the story of me at the beginning at website, that I acted like a reviewer approved my own article!? Samchristie05 (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Amir Tsarfati

The Amir Tsarfati article has not been published although he is a famous author and speaker. Can anyone shed some light on this? Aiinceku (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I have rejected the draft @Aiinceku, so it will not be published. Qcne (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Is Qcne (talk) a bot? Aiinceku (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

No? Qcne (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your fast response.

You clearly are a very dedicated moderator to be responding during a weekend.

Would it be possible to give reason for your rejection of the Amir Tsarfati article?

Thank you. Aiinceku (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

There are no "moderators" on Wikipedia- we are all volunteers.

I rejected the draft as there is zero evidence this person meets our special definition of a notable person, which can be found at WP:NPEOPLE.

I would also recommend reading Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amir_Tsarfati which sets out why the article was deleted in December. Qcne (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering and thanks for replying.

BR Aiinceku (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Using PGP signed messages from the person the article is about as a source

Hello, I am currently considering making changes to the Cicada 3301 wikipedia article. I was planning on using direct statements made by 3301 as a source, however I have run into an issue. Every step of the puzzle and other miscellaneous statements made by 3301 have been clearsigned using PGP in some way or another. tl;dr, its a way to mathematically prove that the content can only be from 3301 themselves, and the signed message content is unmodified. Due to the complex math involved in generating the RSA keypairs and signatures, it is considered practically impossible to bruteforce/forge within our lifetime, and many lifetimes after that. Upon a signature being verified in a program like GPG, you also get all sorts of information about the message such as the author, date, and time the message was created. Because of this I believe their PGP signed messages would fall in the category of direct quotations, with 3301 themselves being the source.

The issue I have ran into though, is that due to the formatting of PGP signed messages(example of one here) it is often easiest to upload them to pastebin for people to download and verify themselves using GPG software. 3301 did this for a few of their signed messages. I have been informed by the wonderful folks in the help IRC channel that pastebin is still not considered a reliable source regardless of document contents and verifiability, due to lack of editorial oversight etc. I was wondering if there would be a way to still cite/precedent for citing a PGP signed message confirmed to be authored by the subject of the wikipedia article, without the issues associated with using pastebin. This is may be an uncommon issue without a clear answer, but if there's one thing I've learned in the past several years it's that 3301 is really good at creating unique problems for solvers. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration responding to this post. Ctvrty (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ctvrty! Taking a step back, I would be wary of WP:Original research here. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so the idea is that we summarize information that secondary sources (like newspapers and books) have found notable to write about. Using info directly from Cicada 3301 (a primary source) would be more appropriate for a secondary source than for us. If no newspaper has found the info sufficiently important to write about, then I question whether it's important enough for us to cover in the article.

There are some exceptions where using primary sources is OK. For instance, we like to have birth dates for all biographies, so if the only source for 3301's birthday is a statement they made themselves over PGP, we'd want to find a way to cite the PGP message. I'm afraid I'm not techy enough to be able to give you advice on that. But that's downstream of the original research issue, which should be worked through first. Hope that's helpful! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I was afraid that would be an issue. Thank you for the thorough reply.

Re:secondary sources, one of our community members suggested that recordings of talks at DEFCON conferences/presentation slides from the talks when a/v recording isn't available(the files are usually hosted by DEFCON or DEFCON Villages, so you know for sure that the slides are legit) that cover the history of 3301 could be an acceptable secondary source. There are currently 3 separate talks that were either approved by DEFCON as a main track talk, or by the Crypto & Privacy Village at DEFCON in previous years that cover the history of 3301 and cultural impact to varying degrees. DEFCON is a world-renowned hacking and cybersecurity conference hosted every year(except when its cancelled), with both the DEFCON main track and Crypto & Privacy Village talks being subject to review and revision before being accepted. Would these be acceptable as reliable, secondary sources? Ctvrty (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd say conference proceedings can be acceptable sources, but it depends on who gave the talk, the extent to which the proceedings were published, and other factors. Editors more familiar with the subject area would be better positioned to answer than me. Feel free to try using them as sources and see how others watching the article react to it. If you're confident that the information belongs in the article, then including it with some source is always better than doing so with no source. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Awesome! I figured it might be a bit nuanced, but I'll still give it a try. Thank you so much for your help! Ctvrty (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Need help with my drafts

Hi,I have made 3 pages that already exist in the Turkish Wiki so these are translations but they are quite different from the original (Draft:Erenköy, Kadıköy, Draft:Göztepe Park, Draft:Caddebostan, Kadıköy). I am slowly improving them and the best one out of the three is the Caddebostan article with over 20 sources. Is it possible for experienced editors to give me advice on these drafts and how can I improve them? It would be an honor for me to get an article published. Thank you. Youprayteas (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)youprayteas

@Youprayteas, I went through the drafts and made various cleanups. I'd suggest looking in the revision history to see what I've done. The biggest issue is establishing the notability of the neighborhoods (WP:POPULATED), which needs to be done through in-depth sourcing. The quality of sources is what matters, not the quantity. It's okay if these sources are not in English, but we're looking for media coverage (or, even better, scholarly books). The other thing I'd pay attention to is WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. We don't want a Wikivoyage travel guide, but rather an encyclopedia article, and things like a destination list or overly detailed description of which bus lines run through a neighborhood are questionable. Hope that helps! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I established the notability of Caddebostan and Erenköy through the sources. I added the bus lines because it was also on the Turkish version. Youprayteas (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Youprayteas, editorial standards differ between different language editions of Wikipedia. The fact that the neighborhoods are considered notable for Turkish Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean they will be here. Likewise, the bus lines being appropriate to add there doesn't mean they necessarily will be here. I would look to high-quality examples of articles about places to see what we're aiming toward. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

PS: shouldn’t all legally declared neighborhoods have an article, no matter how small? Less is better than none, I presume. Youprayteas (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily. We are pretty strict about WP:Notability here compared to other language editions of Wikipedia. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I just read the changes and thank you for your help. I would like to ask you, do you think my Caddebostan article is ready for being an article? I have multiple sources declaring Caddebostan is a neighborhood. The other ones are work in progresses. Youprayteas (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Youprayteas, that's for the reviewer to say, not me. Looking at the 20 or so sources in the article, which three do you consider to be the strongest? Are any of them from media outlets/publishers that have an article? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The first source is used in literally every neighborhood article in Turkey so I would definetly include that. The second source is for the km2. The third source is for the population and the list of neighborhoods in Kadıköy. The 8th and 9th sources are for the history. The 12nd source is for the Barlar Street which isn't mentioned on the other sources. The 14th article is probably the most inclusive for destinations in Caddebostan. 19th source is needed for the mansion being sold. The 21st (last, for now) article is for the Göztepe Park. So in summary these 9 sources are enough. I wanted there to be as much references as possible because I really want this article to get published, since Caddebostan is a very notable neighborhood. Youprayteas (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Youprayteas, you say "I wanted there to be as much references as possible"; but Sdkb has already commented on this: "The quality of sources is what matters, not the quantity." Sdkb asked you "Looking at the 20 or so sources in the article, which three do you consider to be the strongest? Are any of them from media outlets/publishers that have an article?" Please answer these questions. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It is impossible to choose 3 sources. I need at least 9-10 sources or the information will be unsourced. Youprayteas (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

We're not asking you to remove the other sources from the article. But establishing notability is separate from ensuring information in the article is sourced. We want sources that establish notability. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

My sources establish notability though. Youprayteas (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

to reply to your second comment. I added five sources legally recognizing Caddebostan's neighborhood-ity. The first source is used in literally all subdivisions of Turkey and it is a database where you can search for legal divisions. I thought it as enough. but everyone kept saying we have no proof this is a real neighborhood even though it is and you can see from the references so I added 5 references just to prove that Caddebostan exists. I think it is unnecesarry too but eh. Youprayteas (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

No one is doubting that the neighborhood is real. But again, that's separate from establishing notability. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Caddebostan and Erenköy are notable enough for Wikipedia. They are redlinked in some places too, as I checked. I listed many attractions about the neighborhood and overall it is notable because there are plenty of sources about it too. Youprayteas (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The Erenköy article is a work in progress though so don't review that one but I think Draft:Caddebostan, Kadıköy has importance regarding Wikipedia and is notable enough Youprayteas (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

To further add to your second comment, the population of Caddebostan is over 21 thousand. There are many countries below this population, for example. I am not mentioning Erenköy because it is a work in progress, but it has over 30k which is incredibly a lot. Youprayteas (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Youprayteas Vis a vis notability of "legally declared neighborhoods", WP:Notability (geographic features) addresses this. (Well, I"m not even sure that we generally have "legally declared neighborhoods" in the U.S. Typically, we have plat books which may name subdivisions and the like, but I'm doubtful that meets this criterion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrickator (talk • contribs) 19:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

George Van Driem's Source for Maghrebi Mint Tea History

Hi there! I'm here because my edit on Maghrebi mint tea got undone. The reason given by the user was that the source's author, George Van Driem, is a linguist, not a historian. However, considering George's specialization in historical linguistics and his book "The Tale of Tea: A Comprehensive History of Tea from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day" delving into tea's history from prehistoric times, should his source still be excluded from the history section? Thanks! MoroccanTeaEnjoyer (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

MoroccanTeaEnjoyer, since the book has received positive reviews, such as this one in an academic journal, and I have found no negative reviews, I think the book should be considered a reliable source. Many academics branch out from their original field of study and do excellent work in related fields. The best place for a source analysis, though, is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Cullen. Your answer was helpful. MoroccanTeaEnjoyer (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding "Democratic School" and editing "Democratic Education" accordingly

Hi Everyone,

I'd like to improve the article democratic education and have read in the Talk article discussion that the article should be split into Democratic School and Democratic Education, with a new definition for the latter. I wrote a draft for the new "Democratic School" article here in my Sandbox ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Altiflash/sandbox ) and also recommended a few changes for Democratic Education. However, I wouldn't want to delete the parts from "Democratic Education" that I adopted into the Democratic School article until the "Democratic School" article has been reviewed and approved. If I publish "Democratic School" now, though, there may be criticism that the topic is already covered by "Democratic Education". What do you recommend I do?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/About Altiflash (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Altiflash: What I suggest you do is create the new article, using only material you pull out from the original article. Then, add any additional material. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

photograph on the Wikipedia page for Kathy Ellis

The photograph on the Wikipedia page for Kathy Ellis, swimmer, is incorrect, the photo is of Donna deVarona, not Kathy Ellis. 2601:805:C100:ADA0:156A:FB3C:E694:E76B (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I looked at the original image, and it seems like it is Kathy Ellis. The image on Wikipedia is just a cropped version of the image. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 23:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the poster is correct. The original says "Caption ...Donna deVarona, left, individual medley, and Cathy Ellis, freestyle, pose prettily." But the displayed photo is mirrored, for example seen by a mirrored "EXIT" in the right side. I guess the caption was made for the correct orientation. Compare also to other photos of Donna deVarona and Kathy Ellis. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, and to PrimeHunter for the further research. I have removed the photo from the Kathy Ellis article, citing this conversation in the edit summary. Pinging Holly Cheng, who uploaded File:Donna de Varona and Kathy Ellis.jpg and extracted File:Kathy Ellis, 1964.jpg. GoingBatty (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This happens occasionally with photos in the UCLA archive. I'll fix it. —holly {chat} 02:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, the tool server seems to be down, so I can't redo the Kathy Ellis pic via CropTool, but I'll get it when it's available again. —holly {chat} 17:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Good detectiving! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Standards for meeting validity bar on new pages

Hi, I've created two pages that I though had enough third party references to meet the criteria for a page on wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DFJ_Growth and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Randy_Glein. I'm not being paid, but doing to help DFJ (I have done some paid work for some of the companies in their portfolio) and to learn more about the Wikipedia ecosystem. How much more third party validity to these pages need or is there something else? they are both factually accurate, Randy Glein is a well known and important person in the venture community and DFJ has evolved into DFJ Growth and Threshhold Ventures (you can see this on DFJ.com). thank you! Scottfasser (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Scottfasser The issue is not factual accuracy (that's at WP:V), it's notability (WP:N). You need to show that these are notable people/things in the way that Wikipedia defines notability ("he is well known in the venture community" is a good indicator that someone might be notable, but that's all). You need to show that your topics have significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. -- asilvering (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey Guys!

Toothy Was Voiced By Dean MacDonald In Banjo Frenzy (Happy Tree Friends) Helpmechoosehappytf (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Helpmechoosehappytf: Welcome to Wikipedia. If you have a suggestion to improve an article, and don't want to change it yourself, please start a discussion on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

For the curious: Happy Tree Friends mentions Toothy (a cartoon beaver) voiced by Warren Graff. The History section does mention Banjo Frenzy as in effect a pilot episode in which Toothy and two others are killed by being hit with a banjo. Characters are maimed/killed in every episode, but appear unharmed in subsequent episodes (to again be maimed/killed). Dean MacDonald is not named as a voice provider for any other character. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Edits not showing up

Hi, I recently tried to make an edit on the page Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom, giving more info on the Kingdom of Hungary. I made my edits, hit publish, got the little pop-up saying "Your edits have been published," scrolled down, and they weren't there? I then went back in to the edit page to see if something went wrong, and maybe re-do my edits, but my edits did show up on the editing page - they just wouldn't show up on the article page. Does anyone know what's going on? Thanks, Rj1255 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

hi @Rj1255 and welcome to the Teahouse! are you referring to the Kingdom of Hungary entry? it didn't display due to some errors with the table. in a table, |- denotes a split in the row of a table, and since your entry was after a |-, the code parser thought it was just a row break instead of a full entry which meant it did not display. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 01:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see, thank you. Yes, that was the one. I am new to this and was trying to imitate the layout of other entries. It worked for a couple entries but I guess I made a mistake on that one. Thanks a lot! Rj1255 (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Media bias

Is there any place in Wikipedia where we can discuss media bias of popular newspapers and news channels, where many experienced editors can discuss and come to a conclusion? Nightingagleyt (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

If I am interpreting your question correctly, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (for sources that are commonly used) are the closest pages you are going to get to Wikipedians assessing source bias and reliability. Hope that helps! ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 04:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I know about reliable sources. My doubt is about bias among reliable sources. CNN, BBC are reliable sources. Example-In any Argentina political issue they are supporting one party while locals who read Argentina newspaper know that politicians from both parties are corrupt and violent. Nightingagleyt (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

While the linked articles do discuss bias a bit, it doesn't go in to too much depth about bias. To my knowledge (I could be totally wrong), there is no dedicated noticeboard for bias only. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 05:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

No Control (1927 film)

i added a "distinguish" notice near the top of this page, I can't quite figure out the formatting around the brackets "[[]]" that allow for the wikilink of No control (2015 film) but also permit the added annotated text that I included. please help me fix this please. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

With the distinguish template, you don't need to add the wikilink brackets. The template does that itself, so you should remove the wikilink brackets you added. Hope that helps! ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 05:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

no that doesn't fix it. please look at this page and see what i mean. it breaks the annotated subsequent text if i remove the brackets as you advised. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

See: No Control (1927 film) Iljhgtn (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: To resolve the issue, I replaced {{Distinguish}} with {{for}}. You could have also used {{Distinguish}} with |text= to do something like this:

{{Distinguish|text=[[No Control (2015 film)]], a film made in 2015 by Jessica Solce about gun policy in the United States}}

which would generate:

Not to be confused with No Control (2015 film), a film made in 2015 by Jessica Solce about gun policy in the United States.

GoingBatty (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

ok so pipe text was what was needed. thank you goingbatty Iljhgtn (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: I didn't know how to make {{Distinguish}} work either until I read the documentation at Template:Distinguish. GoingBatty (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

user 98Tigerius imposes his will

user 98Tigerius imposes his will.. user 98Tigerius imposes his will.. all the changes I made were based on credible sources AGB Nielsen website on Korean drama page but he changed my changes after that he made changes as he pleased Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Michaelelijahtanuwijaya: Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm glad you see that the two of you are following the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and discussing this on the article's talk page: Talk:Korean drama. That's the best place to come to a consensus. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Babel for WikiProject Userboxes?

Hi. I recently joined several WikiProjects but can't find a template to organize them on my user page. Is there a template like Babel that I can use for WP Userboxes? Thanks. CanonNi (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi: Using {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}} together will likely do what you're looking for – see the documentation page of {{userboxtop}} for all the details. Tollens (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi: When you visit the user pages of other users and like their layout, you can click "Edit source" to see how they formatted their page. I've copied code from other users, pasted it on my user page, and then played around with it until it was something I liked. GoingBatty (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

User made information

I have read through all the guidelines(I could find) of Wikipedia and as user made information becomes more prevalent I imagine there must be some way user made information(e.g Youtube) may be used if confirmed by numerous sources. I will accept a simple yes or no. Sputnik274 (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sputnik274: If confirmed by numerous reliable sources, just use those sources instead. User-generated sources are nearly always not suitable for use in any article. If all of the numerous sources you're referring to are also user-generated, the material should not be used. See WP:USERGENERATED. Tollens (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That is a solution, thanks. Sputnik274 (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Sputnik274, there is no simple yes or no answer. Sorry. The vast majority of YouTube videos are of no value as references because they do not comply with our policies in a variety of ways. On the other hand, the small percentage of YouTube videos on the official channels of established reliable sources are also reliable sources. It is your obligation to personally verify the reliability of any source you plan to use on Wikipedia, whether it is a video or anything else. Cullen328 (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Way to know source is blacklisted beforehand

It seems to me that there is no way to see a source is blacklisted, other than if it seems false. Which is not good for one's own time nor effort. It would help greatly to see a source is blacklisted immediately. I also find no guideline for this myself despite my searches through the pages. Thank you. Sputnik274 (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sputnik274: You are likely looking for WP:RSP. Tollens (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Sputnik274 (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Sputnik274, one of the most important skills of a Wikipedia editor is the ability to assess the reliability of a potential source on your own without asking. Who is the publisher and what is the publisher's reputation? Who are the members of their editorial team and what is their editorial policy? What is the reputation of the specific source, and have they won major journalistic awards or have they been consistently criticized for false reporting? These are only a handful of the questions that should run through your mind when evaluating the reliability of a source. You cannot ask about every single source. You must make judgments on your own most of the time. Cullen328 (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That definetly does clears things up for me, thank you. Sputnik274 (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

How do I add an Old Boy to the list of Alumni at St Bees in Cumbria

How do I add to the list? Gnidwod (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:ALUMNI. People should only be added if there is a Wikipedia article about them. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

...just to add that it may be OK to add a name of an alumnus if there isn't an article about them, but only if one or more citations are added after their entry. This is both to prove that they did indeed attend that school or college and to demonstrate that they do meet our Notability Criteria. In that case, it is OK to add them as a REDLINK in the expectation that there will be an article about them in due course. However, no suitable citations; no entry on the list! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Gnidwod, it is always optimal to mention the specific article that you are talking about, since we have 6,773,292 of them, and no human can possibly remember all of them. After searching around, I am guessing that you are talking about List of Old St. Beghians. Please let us know if it is another article. Briefly, if the Wikipedia biography of a notable person verifies that they attended St Bees School, then add them to that list article. If the person is not the subject of a Wikipedia article, then either write an acceptable Wikipedia biography first, or add references verifying their notability, or don't add them to that list at all. After all, the school has been around for 440 years, and it would be inappropriate and of no value to try to list everyone who ever attended. We list only notable alumni, which in effect means that they are the subject of a Wikipedia biography in most cases. While you are at it, you could alphabetize that list. That would be useful. Cullen328 (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Since the list has an existing order (note the parenthetical "by order of birth date" in the heading), rearranging it alphabetically could be a controversial move, requiring prior discussion on the talk page. Deor (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Bibliography

How to add books in someone's Wikipedia biography authored by the person in the biography? I want to know so that, I can fix the bibliography section of biography pages! TheProEditor11 (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@TheProEditor11 It depends on how many entries you want to cover. For example, J. K. Rowling has a large table, where other authors have a simple bulleted list (e.g. Coral Bell). There is no reason to include absolutely everything someone published: a "selected publications" list is fine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes! I know it but how can I cite those selected books in a correct form? TheProEditor11 (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@TheProEditor11, there are citation templates you can use. I believe the relevant one here would be a template like {{Cite book}} which you can use to format these references. a general and in-depth guide to referencing can also be viewed at Citing sources. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 13:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!!!!!! TheProEditor11 (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that in this case you would put the {{cite book}} directly after a bullet (*), without any <ref> tages around it, so it will be part of the main text and not included in the footnotes/references. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I will make it sure! Thnx! TheProEditor11 (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Where to put commas and dots

If I have a reference in the end of the sentence or phrase, should I put it after comma/dot or before?

For example: ...was established on October 30, 1923[1], to the 32nd Government...
or
...was established on October 30, 1923,[1] to the 32nd Government...
Thanks. Aredoros87 (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I recommend doing it before a comma or period. User:Cometkeiko — Preceding undated comment added 13:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Aredoros87 WP:REF gives the full guidelines, from which you can see that references always come after punctuation. @Cometkeiko please don't comment here at the Teahouse if you don't know the correct guidance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I’ll see. Cometkeiko (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok, got it. Cometkeiko (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I remember there were articles who added references before commas and periods? Cometkeiko (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cometkeiko: You may see some articles where editors have incorrectly added references before commas and periods. Feel free to fix them when you see them. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I've seen this specific typo/guideline get fixed by bots before. Is it possible to make a direct request for a bot to make this fix on a specific page? Do you know which bots can do it? Reconrabbit 18:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Publishing Article - EBTRON

Hello. I can not seem to figure out how to publish this article. I moved it out of my sandbox - by hitting "Move" (article). Lisahickey (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

hi @Lisahickey and welcome to the Teahouse! are you referring to Lisahickey/sandbox? firstly, that article is currently named that instead of EBTRON, which you can edit by moving the page again to a different title. however, instead of that I recommend you to go through the Articles for creation process (instead of publishing the page immediately) by moving the article back to User and following the steps in that page, since they could provide you with more advice to improve your article. editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 13:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Lisahickey According to your contribution history you have moved things around a bit an ended up with Lisahickey/sandbox in article space. As a new user and one that is a declared paid editor (thanks for the declaration) you should not move drafts into the main encyclopaedia but should use the WP:AfC process: see that link for the details. A brief look tells me that there are all sorts of problems with your draft and it is likely to be speedily deleted if you don't follow our accepted process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It was moved to EBTRON and I have tagged for speedy deletion, you need to go through the WP:AFC process. Theroadislong (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. This is all a bit foreign to me. I had seen that other companies are listed in Wikipedia and wanted to get EBTRON listed. I did read the article links. I thought I removed the company promotion copy. Not sure what you mean by paid editor? Lisahickey (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Lisahickey Sorry, I noticed that you had declared a WP:COI and I just assumed this was because you were employed by or an intern with EBTRON. The requirements to use the WP:AfC process is advised in any case. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Please help me rewrite.

Help me with this caution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnoppix Tumrabert (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC) asdas

@Tumrabert: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see the article has been moved to Draft:Gnoppix. As stated at the top of the draft, all the sources are primary sources, and Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources. If you haven't done so already, I suggest reading Help:Your first article and Wikipedia:Notability (software). Then, gather multiple sources that meet the four criteria listed at the top of your draft: "(1) reliable (2) secondary (3) independent of the subject (4) talk about the subject in some depth." (Click the links at the top of the draft for more information about each criteria.) Then rewrite your draft based on what the independent sources have written. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Gnoppix Speedy deleted (again!) and Tumrabert indefinitely blocked. User:Gnoppix also indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion

Via my article on this page.

Link to article:Gnoppix - Wikipedia

Please help me with any suggestions.(rewrite,appeal etc.)

Wikipedia shown that

This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. However, the mere fact that a company, organization, or product is a page's subject does not, on its own, qualify that page for deletion under this criterion. This criterion also does not apply where substantial encyclopedic content would remain after removing the promotional material as deletion is not cleanup; in this case please remove the promotional material yourself, or add the {{advert}} tag to alert others to do so. See CSD G11.

If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. 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. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message.

Note that this article may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.

Nominator: Please consider placing the template:

{{subst:db-spam-notice|Gnoppix|header=1}} ~~~~

on the talk page of the author.

Note to page author: you have not edited the article talk page yet. If you wish to contest this speedy deletion, clicking the button above will allow you to leave a talk page message explaining why you think this article should not be deleted.

If you have already posted to the talk page but this message is still showing up, try purging the page cache.

Tumrabert (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Tumrabert, and welcome to the teahouse.

As the notice says, you can context the speedy deletion by picking the button. But reading the article, the first paragraph is entirely promotional.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

An article should be based almost entirely on what those independent sources say, but not one of the sources you've cited is independent. Please read about notability, and your first article.

A more general suggestion: If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.
I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles.. ColinFine (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tumrabert: I have moved your article to draft space (Draft:Gnoppix) to give you time to improve it before submitting it for review. In draft space, you don't need to worry about someone coming along and deleting it. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist I think the history of the numerous attempts to create this article has gone beyond a joke. Content was not only highly promotional, but also only sourced to Gnoppix-related sites. I have therefore WP:SALTed the article, meaning it will require administrator approval should anyone wish to create it in the future. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Articles can be speedily deleted for a variety of different reasons, including the ones you mentioned. It is customary to place a notice on pages that have been nominated for speedily deletion while also notifying the creator of a nominated page. Speedy deletion is used to bypass the longer process of voting on whether or not to delete an article. Ishitomo (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Gnoppix Speedy deleted (again!) and Tumrabert indefinitely blocked. User:Gnoppix also indefinitely blocked. Both for advertising/promotional. Sockpuppeting possible, but not raised as a blocking cause. David notMD (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@David notMD: This seems wrong. User:Gnoppix is a very old account with no edits in 11 years (it created the mainspace article Gnoppix then) and there was no need to block it. The article was created in mainspace even before then, and prod-deleted and restored. For some reason Tumrabert, a fairly new account created last October, moved it all over the place between draft, main space, and User:Gnoppix for some reason. I attempted to clean up the mess, deleting the user page, moving the main space version back to draft.

While it was in main space, it was tagged for G11 speedy deletion and administrator User:Sj declined it, so it was ineligible for G11 speedy deletion again, but User:Theroadislong, who shouldn't have reversed Sj's administrative decision without prior discussion, deleted it.

And Tumrabert was deleted as an advertising-only account by User:HJ Mitchell when it seems to me like overkill given the history here.

What a mess. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Minor Linux distros are generally a mess. (Gnoppix these days is built on Kali Linux, a significantly more notable distro, which article is nevertheless only slightly more contentful.) Salting seems fine here, I didn't see the history of title-dancing (+ on closer look there really are no modern sources to be found). – SJ + 05:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Please note Anachronist I did not delete anything I am not an admin, I tagged Draft:Gnoppix for deletion and reported User:Gnoppix in good faith. Theroadislong (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Anachronist Gnoppix is not an acceptable username in any case per WP:ISU and WP:ORGNAME. Polyamorph (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Editing a co workers page

Hi! I work at a music studio and a couple people that I work with want me to edit their Wikipedia's but when I tried in the past it either didn't save it or told me that if I tried doing it again it would delete their page. How can I edit it without any of those things happening? 38.142.212.186 (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You should review the conflict of interest policy and how to make edit requests if you intend to contribute about co-workers. If you are doing so as part of your job duties, the Terms of Use require you to declare as a paid editor. These things are easier to do with an account, but you must do them even if you choose to not create an account. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for asking.

Please note that, as a colleague, you have a conflict of interest, and as you are employed there, you almost certainly count as a paid editor, even if you are not specifically employed to edit Wikipedia.

You must make a formal declaration of your status, and then you may make edit requests for changes to articles where you have a conflict of interest.

Please remember that Wikipedia's articles about your colleagues do not belong to them, are not controlled by them, and will not necessarily say what they want them to say. If you provide independent, reliably published sources| for any information you want to add, then it is likely that whichever volunteer editor deals with your edit request will carry it out. But if the material you want to add is at all promotional, or is not adequately sourced, then it will not be inserted into the article. ColinFine (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

You cannot edit your coworkers page because you have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia takes combating promotional editing very seriously and if you persist, you will likely be blocked. Ishitomo (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Professor Mary Mellor

Mary Mellor – UK sociologist who moved to ecofeminist ideas from an interest in cooperatives. Her books Breaking the Boundaries and Feminism and Ecology are grounded in a materialist analysis.[citation needed]

This is part of a post on econofeminism. I would like to create a page for Professor Mary Mellor, can you help? 2A02:C7C:7A06:5400:D88A:556D:ACEB:979E (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, @2A02:C7C:7A06:5400:D88A:556D:ACEB:979E: you should read Help:Your first article. It will tell you everything you need to know about creating an article. If you have a WP:COI with the subject, you should disclose it, and also make sure it follows our notability guidelines. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Signing up for an account is recommended but not required. David notMD (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new Wikipedia article can be quite challenging, especially if you do not have a lot of experience editing existing Wikipedia articles. To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction, and then spend a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article and summarize what the sources have published, and be prepared for a process that may include waiting for review, declines, and rewrites before an article is accepted. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

You should create an account, make ten edits, and wait four days. After that, you will be able to create articles without going through the review process. Note that your article will still be reviewed by patrollers gunning for adminship, hoping to boost their AfD and CSD stats. To give your article a better chance of surviving this process, make sure it has a lot of sources to make the subject appear notable. Ishitomo (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Template removal question

Hello, Teahouse. Today my question is: If an expansion template on an article is there, but upon research there is no reliable sources for citation/ expansion on the topic, how should one proceed in regards to the template? Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, @UnexpectedSmoreInquisition: welcome to the teahouse! I would suggest leaving it there, because who knows, maybe a reliable source will pop up one day, or is already there. Also, can you show me where you saw this? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see it anywhere in particular, just in general. Thanks! UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @UnexpectedSmoreInquisition: Welcome to the Teahouse! You have several options:

• Do nothing, as someone else may find sources you cannot (such as offline sources)
• Discuss the issue on the article talk page, explaining the details of where you researched
• If there are not enough reliable sources to keep it as an article, consider the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process (especially WP:BEFORE)
• If there are enough reliable sources to keep it as an article, remove the template and the unsourced information (with descriptive edit summaries)

Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That's another thing- I'm sure that there's no perfect solution to this problem, but I've found that talk page visibility has been low- I don't believe that I've gotten any responses from questions there yet. I know that this is what project pages are for, but I've only gotten a reply once there in the 5-7ish times I've tried that. Should I come here in that scenario? Anyways, thanks Batty. Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@UnexpectedSmoreInquisition: If no one responds to your article talk page conversation, you can invite editors involved in a related WikiProject to the conversation. GoingBatty (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Templates can be added to articles to notify readers of any problems the article has or any maintenance it may need. There are many different kinds of templates, which have different appearances depending on how you are accessing Wikipedia. If you want to change the appearance of templates, try adjusting your settings and reconfiguring your browser firewall. Ishitomo (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Finding low-importance articles marked with advert template

Hello! I saw a page recently that read like an article and had little encyclopedic value, in my opinion. I've marked that one for deletion, but I think there are likely a lot of articles like it. Mainly low-importance articles, or articles not part of a wikiproject. I figured out how to use deepcats to search for low importance articles with the advert template, but the search errored because there were too many categories. Is there a way to look through a subset of the results at a time to avoid that error?

My goal right now is to mark pages for deletion that have little to no encyclopedic value or relevance at present, not to revise larger, more relevant articles that happen to have some content that reads as an advert. From my experience using Wikipedia just as a reader, I've seen quite a few that don't seem to have much use for Wikipedia, and seem to exist only as an attempt to say "we have a Wikipedia article!". Written either by the subject of the article or by a fan or PR person.

So I want to look for articles that are more likely to be spam/adverts in their entirety so that I can mark them for deletion, without having to sort through as many articles that are more appropriate for a rewrite or revision. Dvallin (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but unless you download the database yourself and devise your own search to combine Category:Articles with a promotional tone with low-importance assessments, there isn't really a good way to search for what you want.

One approach would simply to be go through the articles in that category, improving or tagging as you go. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The difficulty in finding those articles that exist solely as advertisements that haven't been deleted already is that they probably are out there with little to no maintenance tags on them. Anachronist has pointed out the most straightforward way of finding what you're looking for. It may do some good to limit your search to articles that are start-class, stub-class, or unassessed. Reconrabbit 18:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dvallin: Welcome to the Teahouse! You could try reviewing those articles where you have an instance and/or knowledge. You could try adding another category to deepcats, such as Category:Software and its subcategories. Another option is the Cleanup listing for WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force report bundles articles by templates on the articles. Hope these help, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

There are many ways to do this on Wikipedia, mainly by searching through projects where these things are curated. Your best bet is to post your question at WP:ANI or another noticeboard such as WT:ACN. Ishitomo (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding contributions to top navigation bar?

Currently the buttons at the top of the screen (when scrolled all the way up) are alerts, notifications, watchlist, then a dropdown with more options. I'd like to add contributions to the list so I don't have to navigate through the dropdown each time. I know it's something to do with css but I have no experience with it, and I'd like someone to provide me with the code to do so, if it is possible. Redoct87 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Redoct87, welcome to the Teahouse. Saving the below in Special:MyPage/vector-2022.js should add a new link on "C" when you have the skin Vector 2022 at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It works, thanks! Redoct87 (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The top navigation bar can be customized to include a number of user specific interface options that account for run time variability in nested virtual algorithms. Simply reset your data input formatting to synchronize processing speed. Ishitomo (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

$( document ).ready( function() {
  mw.util.addPortletLink(
    'p-vector-user-menu-overflow',
    mw.util.getUrl( 'Special:Contributions/Redoct87' ),
    'C',
    null,
    'Contributions'
  );
});

Draft: Dr. Mynampally Rohit

Hi, could you please tell me which citation is not reliable in this article?

I cited everything. am not sure what am i missing here to make the article public. Nishikanthprabhu (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Courtesy link: Draft:Mynampally Rohit. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for clarifying, i will remove the awards and put it under general information.'

  The doctor is a known personality in my community. As the youngest member of legislative assembly i would like to contribute his article on Wikipedia. Nishikanthprabhu (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Nishikanthprabhu Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would ask you what your connection is with this doctor, as you took his picture and he posed for you.

Any article about him must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. None of the sources you have do that. The award does not contribute to notability as the awards itself does not merit an article(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). 331dot (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, i will remove the awards and put it under general information.'

The doctor is a known personality in my community. As the youngest member of legislative assembly i would like to contribute his article on Wikipedia. Nishikanthprabhu (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

None of the citations you provided meet WP:RS criteria, indicating that the subject of your article isn’t notable. Ishitomo (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Help with notability guidelines on companies

Hello all, I am working on creating a draft about a online casino, Gamdom. I notice that there are a lot of independant, popular sources in both the news and casino news space that report on it, though I just have a bad feeling it's not notable enough (although it is promoted quite a lot on user-created content websites such as YouTube, and several sponsorships are/were active with them). Could I get some advice on that all? OnlyNano 20:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@OnlyNano: Check out WP:NCORP for the guidance on this. RudolfRed (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! OnlyNano 21:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, OnlyNano. I would have major doubts about the reliability and independence of sources in the casino news space. As WP:NCORP says, Attention solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town), or media of limited interest and circulation (e.g., a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job), is not an indication of notability. At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. Cullen328 (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey there, would you mind checking on the draft's sources and letting me know if I need additional ones? Yahoo Finance reported on their partnership with Usain Bolt, which I would say is pretty big for information. The others are either primary sources (about their legalization, etc), and independent sources (such as HLTV, a CS:GO news source) reported on a tournament they sponsored. It's seeming to be a bit more notable as I go, though I'd love other editor's input on this. Thanks! (Draft) OnlyNano 22:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, OnlyNano. Just answering one point: no, their partnership with Usain Bolt is not, of itself, of any great significance. If the article about the partnership talks in some depth about the company (and is not just regurgitating a press release) then it might be useful. ColinFine (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the article does talk about what Gamdom is. I have found some other interesting sources which describe it, and the founder is an editor of CoinTelegraph, which provides some background information on the company's foundings. I believe the sources should be good, but I'm going to find a bunch more to beef up the information and notability, as I do believe the company is quite notable. We'll see how it goes, though. OnlyNano 22:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

OnlyNano, Liquipedia is user generated content so not a reliable source. Yahoo Finance is a reprint of a press release so not an independent source. You need references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the company. So far, you don't have any. Cullen328 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep digging! OnlyNano 23:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

You are strongly encouraged to disclose any potential conflict of interest you may have with the company article you intend to edit. Failure to do so may result in a COI investigation. Ishitomo (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

User boxes (the continuation)

hi everyone! I know this question has been asked before but I'll say it again how do you make a User box? Jude Marrero \=D (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Help:Userbox Maker Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Big scary floating text!! (Talk Page btw))} 21:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Tone accents in Chinese pinyin:

Tone accents in Chinese pinyin: The idea I propose is to add the tonal accents in the Latin alphabet (pinyin) used to transcribe Chinese. There are 4 tonal accents. Please consider making it a rule when using pinyin Chinese so as to convey that Chinese is a tonal language. 2603:7000:4300:DBE:7C7D:9C01:EA30:A2C4 (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. The policy is stated at MOS:CHINA#Romanization: English Wikipedia uses Hanyu Pinyin without tone marks as the default method of romanising Chinese characters, and at WP:NC-CHINA#Orthography: The titles of Chinese entries should follow current academic conventions, which generally means Hanyu Pinyin without tone marks.

These policies are established by consensus, and you are welcome to try and argue to change the consensus, but I don't think you'll have much success. The place to discuss this is the talk page of one of those, probably WT:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles. Please search this and its archives first, to see if there are any previous discussions on the question. ColinFine (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Making an article "Aziz Alili" in Bosnian

Hello, I started making the article "Aziz Alili" in my Bosnian language, after seeing no such article in Bosnian or English. Only just now have I found that the article does indeed exist in the sq.wiki domain (don't know the language). It is a fairly small article while I wanted to do a medium sized article about it. Now I'm wondering if I should translate that article or just make it anew in Bosnian like I have already started. Thanks a lot in advance. A flurry of stars (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, A flurry of stars. Each language version of Wikipedia operates independently, so we cannot give you detailed advice about the Bosnian Wikipedia. You will have to ask there. Any articles created here must be in English. Good luck. Cullen328 (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, A flurry of stars. That is Albanian Wikipedia and the article is sourced to a single database entry which does not exist. It would be unwise simply to translate it into English. We have pretty tough criteria for notability (see WP:NBIO), and require good, reliable sources as the basis from which you should write any content (not vice versa).

Because this is English Wikipedia, it is not the right place to start drafting any article in another language. You should do that on the relevant language Wikipedia. Again, base what you write on published sources, not a translation of (potentially) nonsense that you might read on any Wikipedia page.

For English Wikipedia see this page for guidance on creating an article from scratch (never an easy task, especially for a beginner). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to the both of you, I appreciate the help. Cheers A flurry of stars (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Question about COI

Ruth Ashton Taylor was my grandmother-in-law. Am I allowed to edit her page? I did so before realizing I should ask first. Sorry. Thanks, Nirva20 Nirva20 (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Others may disagree, but my interpretation of WP:CoI is that you probably do have a "conflict of interest" (given that she was a relative by marriage whom presumably you knew personally).

That doesn't mean you must not edit the article, but you should declare this COI on your User page (which you haven't created yet, but that is trivially easy – just click on your red signature name and type something to start it).

You also must ensure that anything you add to the article is cited to published Reliable sources that are independent of her or her friends/family/associates. Doubtless you know a great deal about her, but unless the information has been published, and you cite its published source, you must not add it.

If there's something in the article you know to be false that is not cited, you may remove it: but if it's false and cited (maybe the published source made a mistake), you should discuss its removal on the article's Talk page, be prepared to have your removal reverted, and then discuss the matter with the reverter – this is called the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and is a normal part of Wikipedia editing. It may be that we end up presenting information from two sources that disagree ("A says this, but B says this.") allowing readers to make up their own minds.

If you have an edit and citable source for something but are hesitant about editing the article with it, present it as a proposal on the Talk page and add an Edit request template so another more experienced editor can evaluate it and make it if they think it's appropriate.

Please click through all of the blue links I've included above and at least skim the material they lead to. Hope this helps, and happy editing! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.47.60 (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Template:Nirva20 As an editor with a conflict of interest, your best approach is to propose any substantive changes on the article talk page. You can preface your proposal with the tag {{Edit COI}} to cause your request to be listed on a category page that is monitored by some editors.

Generally, you can edit the article yourself to make minor corrections to spelling, grammar, names, dates, and numbers. You can add citations to reliable sources that are independent of the article topic. You can revert obvious vandalism. But anything more substantive, you should propose on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Burns and Porter

Burns and Porter ARTICLE was written by the subject, Sharon Burns 3MRB1 (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@3MRB1: And your point is? I note that the article was created over a dozen years ago, back in 2011. Do you feel the topic isn't sufficiently notable to merit an article here? Do you see any evidence of non-neutral prose? ~Anachronist (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Review

Can someone look up at my recent assessments made on the article talk pages. I would like to know if I am placing the class and importance parameters at the right place or not. And ensure that I am not missing anything to add. Thank you in advance. (Please ping when replying) 456legendtalk 23:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@456legend I just spot-checked a few, looks fine. By the way, you can also use WP:RATER for this, if you would like an easier method. -- asilvering (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Asilvering, Thank you for the insights. This looks good but I need some time to understand the coding I believe. I will better do it manually for now. Thank you 456legendtalk 00:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@456legend Of course, feel free to do it manually, but I do want to point out that there's no coding (not even wikicode) involved with rater. All you need to do is copy this exact text:

{{subst:lusc|User:Evad37/rater.js}}

onto Special:MyPage/common.js. Once you hit "publish changes", everything else is done for you. -- asilvering (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering, Okayy. I should have cared to read the entire content properly. Anyways thank you. 456legendtalk 01:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Proper way to cite online lecture slides

Hey everybody, I found an online PDF of some lecture slides presented at Johnson Spaceflight Center back in 2017, and I want to use it as a resource for the STS-41-B article. I'm not sure how I would cite it though, specifically with the CS1 Style Templates. Would it fall under {cite web} or is there a more specific template for lectures/presentations? Also, since this presentation was made and presented by and for NASA employees, would the images inside, which were presumably prepared by NASA employees, be in the public domain? SpacePod9 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, SpacePod9. Perhaps Template:Cite conference might work for you. You are correct that text and images created by employees of the US federal government as part of their job duties are in the public domain. This does not apply to all state and local governments. Cullen328 (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SpacePod9. I tend to use "cite web", but see Template:Citation#Conference papers and public lectures for another way of doing it. As far as copyright, don't assume anything about who made the images. They could be using images from other sources. It would help if you provided a link to the source in question. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks y'all, this (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20170002910/downloads/20170002910.pdf) is the link to the website/pdf/slides in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpacePod9 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@SpacePod9: cool, we're below quota for good NASA sources :) NASA has a nicely structured reports server, which you could reference instead of the raw pdf. [3] – SJ + 06:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Is an official transit map fair-use?

Hi! I'm working on this article on the REM de l'Est, a cancelled public transport project in Montreal, and I'm wondering if the official route map of the system could be considered fair use and usable in the article. Right now I've included a simple outline of the map that I made myself and it's obviously not great. I've noticed the New York City Subway page and other similar articles have maps but I'm a bit confused as to whether or not they're the official one or just really good recreations. Thanks for any help! WikiFouf (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, WikiFouf. Wikipedia's policy on using copyrighted images is much more restrictive than fair use. Please read the requirements at Non-free images. In most cases, we do not use copyrighted maps, because it is a relatively easy matter to create a freely licensed version. Cullen328 (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Understood, thanks:) WikiFouf (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I want to add that copyright licenses can differ between transit agencies, and there is accurate transit mapping data out there that does fall under acceptable free use licenses. For example, in the United States, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics offers transit mapping data across the US that is licensed under CC-BY-3.0, which is an acceptable free license for Wikipedia. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my original answer was based on the assumption that the specific transit map in question is copyright protected. If it can be established through specific evidence that the map is in the public domain or is freely licensed, then what I said above about this specicic image does not apply. But it applies more broadly to images that are legitimately protected by copyright, which is a very low bar for anything published in recent decades. The bottom line is that we must assume that anything published in the last 95 years is copyright protected, unless we have solid evidence to the contrary. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

a new article

Hi, I'm working on an article and I don't seem to understand how that the reference isn't indepth as it was stated, I'd appreciate you help me figure it out Starheroine (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Starheroine, you need sources that comply with WP:NCORP. That means, among other things, that they need to be from WP:RS and they cannot be interviews. -- asilvering (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Language issues with making a new article

Hello! I am a very new editor, and I wanted to try my hand at making a new wiki page. Some context: a wikipedia page about my grandfather (a hebrew scholar) is written in Spanish, I cannot fluently write wikipedia-worthy articles in Spanish however. I want to write the conjoining page for my grandmother, also a hebrew professor and author, but I am unsure if I am allowed to write her page in english. Thanks! Dryforester (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

hi @Dryforester and welcome to the Teahouse! an article doesn't need to be related to existing articles in English or non-English languages to be eligible for a page, however what it does require is that it falls under the notability criteria (with reliable sources to back up these claims), whether or not it is related to existing articles. however do note that since you are their grandchild, you also need to take note of the conflict of interest policy here (as you are related to them) before writing the article. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 01:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

awesome! I will keep the conflict of interest policy in mind as I write :) They are both notable hebrew scholars with multiple published works and awards, I would not have thought wikipedia worthy, but I was doing a bit of googling for fun and found that a complete stranger had already made a page for one of them. My grandmother was just as accoladed and published as her husband, so I do not think notability will be a problem if his page has been kept up! Dryforester (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dryforester I didn't notice anybody providing a link to the COI page, so here it is: WP:COI. In very short summary, for existing articles, you should generally make a request on the article talk page for any edits to be made. For new articles, you should use the articles for creation process. Fabrickator (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Sheesh, I now see that there was already a link to the COI page, though there's certainly no harm in mentioning it twice. ;-) Fabrickator (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

large non-free file Tag

Hello, I recently uploaded a non-free promotional poster File:EXchange (Transit Love) Promotional Poster.webp for article EXchange (TV series). It got the tag large non-free file. Can anyone guide me to the correct help article about how to fix it? Thank you in advance! Shenaall (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Shenaall: you can fix it by uploading a smaller version, like 320 pixels wide. My understanding, however, is that a bot comes along and does this eventually for large non-free images. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Shenaall, it is best that you downsize the file yourelf. That will show that you understand the standards imposed on non-free images. If an image is freely licensed or in the public domain, we want the most accurate and highest resolution version available. On the other hand, if the image is non-free, we quite deliberately want a low resolution version, as part of our ongoing efforts to comply with copyright laws. Cullen328 (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Unicode or… something?

Hello! I was wondering if anyone knows what the Unicode-like system is in which %20 represents a space character.

Thank you! 98.97.36.1 (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Percent-encoding: it's mostly used just for URLs. Tollens (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Brunsviga

Good morning, I'd wrote an article above Brunsviga (brand of calculating machines), translating the page I made in French (with the help of translators). But I might have made some mistake, therefore the page is redirectd toward another page Odhner arithmometer : would it be possible, please, to make the page independent, I fear to make a mistake.

Best regards, Thémisté Thémisté (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Brunsviga

hi @Thémisté and welcome to the Teahouse! don't worry, if your article is accepted another editor will convert Brunsviga into the article for you through page moves. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 09:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The conflicting "Archived from the original" and "[Original document] (archived)" formats

I'm using Wikipedia as a way to find scientific papers related to a topic such that my research is more effective.

I keep seeing an inconsistency concerning archives. For example:

"Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus". International Software Testing Qualifications Board. March 31, 2011. Section 1.1.2. Archived from the original (pdf) on October 28, 2017. Retrieved December 15, 2017.

vs

"ISTQB CTFL Syllabus 2018" (PDF). ISTQB - International Software Testing Qualifications Board. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-03-24. Retrieved 2022-04-11.

(from the same page - Software testing)

Happen to have very different formats. One puts the original first, and the second puts the archived first. When i'm clicking on links, this forces me to think a vital few seconds before each link, which can slow me down a lot when i need to quickly review, say, 40 sources, of which 20 are "need further investigation", and 10 are "Relevant to what i'm doing". I generally trust archived links over the original, so i prefer to link to those when it's easy.

Is there any reason for this disparity? It could be something to do with dead links, but as we all know, a lot of links haven't been checked in a while and are dead, despite having the primary, presumed "alive" link first. 56independent (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@56independent: It is indeed because of dead links. The first citation you've provided puts the original second, because it has been marked as dead, whereas the second puts the original first because it is still live. In both cases there isn't usually a need to visit anything but the first link. In theory WP:IABOT will automatically find dead links and tag them, but yes, not all of them are always tagged as dead immediately. No matter what the ordering is, there's extra work involved for somebody: if they are always in the same order, if someone is trying to read the most up-to-date version of the source they always have to check the first link (which may or may not be dead), but if they are reordered, that person can usually just click the first link. There's not really a perfect solution, and as far as I'm aware there's unfortunately no way to always display archived links first for a particular account. Tollens (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)