Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:26, 2 June 2022

Shortcuts

Cassiopeia, 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.

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

Most recent archives
1205, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224

Help Needed & Welcomed to get a page Approved

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yitzhak_Suknik

This page about a fighter in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was deleted (now in Draft for 6 month reprieve) the main issues being:

1. Yitzhak is not important enough to be included in Wikipedia
2. Insufficient references
3. Too much on the events surrounding Yitzhak's actions compared to the Yitzhak himself.
4. Style

Point 1. I attempted to deal with this point here but got no response. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Koza_-_Yitzhak_Suknik

Point 2. I have used every source available,namely 5 books where his actions are described and I have edited the reference section etc.

Point 3. Re-edited and slashed to a minimum ( I think)

Point 4. Tried as much as possible but found the instructions and guides baffling.

I have received no response about the changes I have made since the original article.
I am unsure of what else to do to get it approved. Any and all guidance welcome.
JSKutcher (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JSKutcher, consider asking for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, it can't hurt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that suggestion. I will try. JSKutcher (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grabergs, Just to let you know that I went ahead with your suggestions and the advice coming from people responding on these two sources has been extremely helpful & I feel a lot more positive. Given that my initial experience with the deletions etc was quite negative this is a good turn around. Many thanks again. JSKutcher (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JSKutcher, glad to hear it! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Joanna Langfield Page Edits

Please review latest changes.

Hello, I made changes to the page I am writing called Joanna Langfield. The last comments I received on it was that the way it was written currently was that it was not compliant with how you would like, so I made the changes.

If you can please review so it can (hopefully!) be published now that would be greatly appreciated. GregWikiMake (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Joanna Langfield. Maproom (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The enormous list in section "Notable Works and Mentions" is mostly trivial and adds virtually nothing to the draft except an air of desperation. Theroadislong (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GregWikiMake. According to MOS:SURNAME, she should be referred to by her surname following the first mention of her. Remove all those extra "Joannas". The "Interviews" section is unreferenced and it therefore comes off as shameless namedropping. Unreferenced sections are a red flag for reviewers. This would only merit inclusion if discussed by an independent reliable source. I agree with Theroadislong's comment about the "Notable Works and Mentions". It is a disjointed and jarring list of factoids. You need to develop the skill of writing in an encyclopedic fashion. Cullen328 (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing and I can remove the Joanna's.

I do want to make clear however that I know for a fact that, because she is my mother and I spoke to her about this (and that I have already disclosed), she did interview all those celebrities.

When Joanna first started on the radio 40 years ago nothing was digital or online. I have called many MANY people about this to try and get references, to no avail.

With all that being said, how do you believe I should write the Natoble Works and Mentions section? GregWikiMake (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the facts you know aren't independently verifiable in reliable published sources, then they should not be included. I have had similar problems with wine-related articles, in which I can talk to a notable winemaker in person and learn something that isn't published, but I cannot use it. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just my ha'pennorth, but "Personal communication" is a valid citation type in academic bibliography - it's then down to the reputation/perceived trustworthiness/likelihood of it being possible/true, as to whether the information given is judged by the readership/peer reviewers, to be believable... 193.105.69.7 (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the relevance of this comment is. Personal communication may be acceptable in some publications but it is entirely unacceptable as a reference here in Wikipedia. All references must, at minimum, be published. See WP:SOURCEDEF which says Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited. CodeTalker (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

editing

Is there an administrator who can delete a previous edit summary I made that has a spelling mistake or fix the spelling mistake in the edit summary? I am unsure how to complete this request with a dummy edit, if possible. 70.188.155.246 (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries cannot be changed once the edit is saved. They can be deleted, but this will not be done just because the edit summaries contain typos or spelling mistakes. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor errors in edit summaries are not worth worrying about. If you make a significant error in an edit summary, like misspelling the word "tuck", then you can use the technique described at Help:Dummy edit to clarify what you really meant. Cullen328 (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble with the format for a dummy edit. I believe the spelling error is significant. Here is the page, [1], or you can view the spelling error on this page: [2]. Thank you! 70.188.155.246 (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling grammar isn’t that significant. I don’t know why you’re getting so obsessive over it. Speatle (talk to me)(read all about it) please ping me when replying to something I said. 11:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ègoiste (magazine)

Hello everyone,

I had a AfC draft for Ègoïste (magazine) what was rejected and the reason given was the tone of voice (seems to be my achilles' heel), I was wondering if someone could help me identify what needs to be changed and how -- I'd tried my best to remove unnecessary adjectives this time. Please let me know if there's something glaring that I am missing. Thank you. SleepyWhippet (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS -- the article also exists on French Wikipedia, here: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Égoïste_(magazine) SleepyWhippet (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @SleepyWhippet, and welcome to the Teahouse! I think I was the pesky editor who declined the draft (please note that there is a crucial difference between declining a draft, which allows the draft to be improved and resubmitted, and rejecting a draft, where the draft is found to be completely unsuitable for Wikipedia). If you want to address the issues relating to the writing tone, I'll give you a couple of problem phrases that you can address if you want:

- "in fact", this phrase doesn't really fit in with the formal tone expected from an encyclopaedia

-"It deals with" could be reworded to something more formal like "It focuses on"

There are a few other prose problems, but if you could address them and resubmit the draft, as long as the subject of the article is notable (which I think it is), I reckon the draft article will be all ready to be accepted into the mainspace. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, thank you for the clarifications @HenryTemplo, it's very helpful. I will give it another go and resubmit. SleepyWhippet (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome! Have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing whatever wrong with either "in fact" or "deal with". (By contrast, rendering "Égoïste" as "Ègoïste" is some kind of crime.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A pretty grave crime, I would say. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.235.54 (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary grave indeed,🙊 SleepyWhippet (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SleepyWhippet Should the English WP have an article for foreign-language magazines? Maybe so, since some of the refs are in English. If all of the refs were non-English, I would argue against a magazine being notable to an English-speaking audience, if that makes sense. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. As a collector of primarily English-language books and magazines, I am interested in foreign magazines and publishers that originated stories or books later translated into English (think of Jules Verne or Stanisław Lem), and sometimes where/by whom a story/book translated from English has been published. I even have some (dozens of) magazines and books in non-English languages amongst my collection.

Moreover, some non-English magazines become internationally newsworthy for non-literary reasons: consider Le Canard enchaîné or Jyllands-Posten (though such will often have some English-language citations). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.235.54 (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the language of a particular publication is by any means relevant if they are otherwise noteworthy, which in this case it very clearly is. SleepyWhippet (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If all of the refs [about a magazine that's not in English] were non-English, I would argue against a magazine being notable to an English-speaking audience, if that makes sense. It makes sense in that I understand what you're saying (or think I do), but I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that would back you up, and I'd oppose the imposition of any such policy. Incidentally, it sometimes happens that a subject that's far better known to people who speak a given (non-English) language XYZ than to anyone else gets a better article in English-language Wikipedia than it does in XYZ-language Wikipedia; if this happens, speakers of XYZ as a first language may want to read up the subject in English-language Wikipedia. I don't want to boast [i.e. I am about to boast], but my creation Sakae Tamura (nature photographer), about a Japanese person, is now almost 15 years old, yet a reader proficient in Japanese still won't find an article about him in Japanese-language Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the responses. I see all of your point(s) above. I wonder if there are dozens of notable non-English magazines and other publications that could be added to en-WP, that are not here (yet). 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that there are. To take a topical example: Without denying that the Russian language has been and remains very important among Ukrainians, the Ukrainian language is too. And yet Category:Ukrainian-language magazines contains a total of just twelve. I can hardly believe that so few are notable (as defined for en:Wikipedia). Nations that aren't in the news fare worse: Category:Magazines published in Senegal contains just eight. -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Submit

Draft:Ziaul Hoque Polash How do I submit this for review? Ayatul nish (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ayatul nish, the text currently has a total of two sentences. If this is all that can be written about a person, then as a reviewer I would infer that he's not notable (as understood in Wikipedia) and would decline the submission. Incidentally, for the great majority of assertions, all you need to cite is one reliable source. -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary, Well brother, I understand. I'm adding some more info now tell me how to submit it for review. Ayatul nish (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

How do i stop others from reediting my pages by removing legitimate information? Singleton4321 (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Singleton4321 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The word "vandalism" has a specific meaning- an attempt to deface an article- merely removing edits is not vandalism. In the case of your edit to Oliver James (psychologist) you replaced sourced information with unsourced information. This is not acceptable in an article about a living person, see WP:BLP. If you have sources for your edits, please discuss them on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Singleton4321 First, you can revert them. If it's a long time problem on a specific page, you can request for the page to be protected here. If it is one user that you have warned enough times (4 times or a 4im template) you can request for them to be blocked at WP:AIV. If you want to DEFEND WIKIPEDIA more, you can enroll in the counter vandalism academy. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 14:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However @Singleton4321, as @331dot pointed out, make sure the edits really are vandalism. For more information, see Wikipedia:What is not vandalism. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 14:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say "my pages". Firstly, Wikipedia does not have "pages". It has has articles. Secondly, articles do not belong to any person; they are not "mine" or "yours". The nearest WP has to "my page" is a user's own page (and related pages). In your case these would be, for instance, User:Singleton4321, User talk:Singleton4321, etc. Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood my use of the word 'my'. I mean the page about me, not my possession. I would have thought that was obvious, obviously not, from your comment. Do you have any advice on how to protect the articles about me from leaving out a great deal and only including reference to my most vocal critic? Singleton4321 (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thx for this info. Unfortunately, its a variety of opponents of my ideas who seem to quickly put back their edits. They remove my qualifications and reduce the page to an advertisment for the my main critic's comments, one Stuart Ritchie. I am not sure how to protect myself from these constant changes to the pages. Singleton4321 (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Singleton4321 if this really involves you personally, you may have a Conflict of interest. I would advise you to distance yourself from pages that offend you. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 15:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do i distance myself from the article? Surely it makes sense for me to add information to it, I am the person who knows most about my career etc? Singleton4321 (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Singleton4321, Mr Reading Turtle linked you to the conflict of interest guideline above, which explains why you should not add such information. Basically, it's difficult to follow Wikipedia's core policies when editing with a conflict of interest (commonly abbreviated COI). Editing with a COI often results in unsourced content, which should not be in biographies of living people, and it is extremely difficult to keep a neutral point of view when you have a connection with (or are) the subject of the article. That doesn't mean you have to ignore the article entirely; you can request an edit on the article talk page with this template. Perfect4th (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Singleton4321 I know this is hard to understand at first, but everything in the English WP must be verifiable (click here). That is so any reader can check the published sources that you must include in the article, to convince themselves that the subject of an article is not just "making stuff up". I am sure you wouldn't make stuff up, but people have done that in the past. Also, editors of an article (if it's not an article about yourself) might misrepresent or misunderstand a source, which is another reason that the sources must be published (even if it requires a trip to a library to consult a book, that is generally an acceptable source). And in order to lessen unconscious bias, the subject of an article should not edit the article directly. That is called a WP:COI, which sounds confusing (how can you have a conflict of interest with yourself?) but the actual conflict is between people's desire to paint themselves in a flattering light (or their company, or their invention) and Wikipedia's desire to have a neutral, balanced, unbiased encyclopedia. I hope this helps. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good explainer is Wikipedia:No original research. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 12:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise on how to warn an author. Thanks Singleton4321 (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WARN 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 12:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the books cited, the evidence for my sales is not in the public domain. how can i verify in a way that constitutes a legitimate wikisource? several of my books had periods in Amazon's top 5, how can i prove that?

I am not sure how i prove that i produced or presented television programmes that were broadcast 20-30 years ago - only one of them is available on youtube, some of them are available on my website. please advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singleton4321 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If your sales have not been commented on in a WP:RS independent of you (Amazon is not independent since they sell the books), they will not be included. An Amazon ranking can be included if for example a review in The Guardian mentioned it, but Amazon reporting on their own sales is not interesting to include from the WP-POV, WP:ABOUTSELF applies here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, if it hasn't become obvious from the above replies, Wikipedia has a definition of "truth" that isn't quite the same as what normal people define as "true". In Wikipedia, truth is what reliable sources (e.g. The Guardian Newspaper) say about something. If the Guardian writes that the moon is square, then so does Wikipedia. We individual editors have no liberty to use our own human knowledge. This is really frustrating to the subjects of our articles, and their close family. You may know that your favourite colour is green, and who would know better than you? But if the Guardian says it's blue, we have to say it's blue, no matter how much you tell us otherwise. We can (and should) remove unsourced facts. But we can't introduce facts that haven't been pre-screened by a reliable secondary source, and we can't remove relevant facts that have been published in a reliable secondary source unless some similarly reliable source has cast doubt on them. Elemimele (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele Actually we do not have to follow a source that claims the moon is square, instead we label that source as unreliable and ignore it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... okay, yes, strictly speaking you're right. I was trying to keep things simple. The caveat is that we don't generally label a source as unreliable without going through a lot of pain first. We need evidence that it's generally unreliable, which usually means other secondary source conflicting with it, and preferably writing up some stories about how the unreliable source has been caught publishing untruths. What definitely isn't okay is me personally labeling a source as unreliable just because I happen to "know" it's wrong. That way leads to all the pain in medical and fringe subjects where individual editors are quite convinced that they are right and all sources that contradict them are wrong. At the very least, personal decisions of reliability tend to lead to long and acrimonious talk-page discussions!

A useful way out of conflict is to attribute the dubious statements: "According to the Guardian, the moon is square". Provided the Guardian actually said it (which anyone can check) then Wikipedia is telling the truth, and our readers are in a position to decide for themselves whether they want to believe the fact given the background of who said it. Elemimele (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a pretty good related essay, Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My collected autographs, are they valid signatures?

I have the autographs of the late Kristen Nygaard and Ole-Johan Dahl plus the living C. A. R. Hoare, Alan Kay and Bjarne Stroustrup. I collected these by approaching the persons at Simula-67’s 25 years anniversary at the University of Oslo (in 1992).

In addition, I have a label from a letter to me, signed Per Brinch Hansen. He is also deceased. This most probably is his signature.

These are all rather famous computer scientists, to say it mildly!

None of these signatures have been written by the persons in mind to end up being published on the internet.

What is the Wikipedia policy on this?

I could photograph them (where the paper texture probably would be visible), or I could scan them at max 1200 DPI. But I would not do anything before I know whether it's ok. I have no other autographs, since I am no collector. Plus I won't sell them. However, I could give them away to some computer science museum, I would assume.

I have no contact with any of these "heroes of mine", so I would have no way to query them. Øyvind Teig (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aclassifier. Please read Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons for some good advice. Cullen328 (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like advice on the copyright status of them commons has a help page on signature copyright law in various countries, see c:COM:SIG. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aclassifier Being a computer programmer, I think it's cool that you have those signatures, especially (for my interests) Kay and Stroustrup. But personally, I don't think that a reproduction of a signature actually adds to the encyclopedic worth of any article (except one). I think "so what; that's what this person's signature looks like, and so...?" That's my opinion, and I think it pretty much matches with the essay that Cullen pointed you to. Cheers. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Cullen328 and the two of you! I guess the general concerns match my stomach feelings. I'll just let those signatures rest, at least for the living persons. For the three deceased I may mention this on the respective talk pages, and then refer back to this post.--Øyvind Teig (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question About Categories

How do you add a category to a page? DottedSkies (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DottedSkies: The easiest way to show you is to just go to an article that has a category you would like to add, and click the edit button at the top to see the code that they use, copy it, and make sure you paste it at the very bottom of your desired article. If you’d like to read more, visit Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! DottedSkies (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DottedSkies, WP:HOTCAT can be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions on working on my draft

Hi! I'm working on an article about Ben Baller. I'm not asking for general feedback since I'm not done polishing the article. I do have a few questions, since I have mainly worked on the Computer Science side of wikipedia so far.

How do I cite song lyrics on wikipedia? I noticed genius.com isn't a "good" source by WP standards. Do I just cite the song directly?
Any tips for getting a creative commons headshot of the person in the article? I can't find any from google and emailing his agent didn't result in any success.
How do I source somebody's birthday? There's definitely consensus on what Ben Baller's birthday is from social media and those weird SEO "bio" websites, just not from reliable sources.

Thanks! A40585 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A40585: See MOS:LYRICS. ––FormalDude talk 21:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A40585, on the photograph: See if, somewhere on the interwebs, you can find a photograph of him that doesn't seem to be commercial or by a professional, but is by a fan or similar identified person. Email or otherwise contact the photographer, inviting the photographer to upload it to Commons (but being candid about what this would entail). However, I suggest first waiting till your draft has become an article, and a fairly polished one at that, so that the photographer is likely to feel privileged to see their photo within it. -- Hoary (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, A40585, the very first thing you need to do is to find some independent sources, because if you can't find any, then Baller does not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and all time and effort you spend on the article will have been wasted. Remember that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. --ColinFine (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference - if you can't find the person's birthday in a reliable source, then it doesn't go in the article. Similarly, if you can't get a properly licensed photo, then the article doesn't have a photo. DS (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography Year Orders

When adding a production to a filmography which is sorted by year, if that production came out in a year, where another production of theirs spans across that year and others, should I add it before that production, or after that production?

For example:

Production number 1 (1995-1997)
Production number 2 (1996)
Production number 3 (1998)

So should the 1996 production go before the 1995-1997 production, or after? Danstarr69 (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to organize it by release date rather than production time. The 1996 production should go before the 1995-1997 production. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyraminxsolver I'm not talking about when they were made, I'm talking about when they were aired.

For example:

A film or TV film released in 1996.

A TV series which started in 1995 and finished in 1997. Danstarr69 (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

seperate film/tv film and series into different sections Pyraminxsolver (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyraminxsolver Still not answered my question, just like my other question about TV Films above, and many other questions I've asked on here over the years. They rarely seem to get a straight answer, or get acknowledged at all.

The person who's filmography I'm updating slightly, mainly makes TV films and TV series.

Most of her TV films and TV series are already in a table together, as they should be.

The only thing I want to know is...

Whether I should put the TV film which was broadcast in 1996, before or after a TV series which ran from 1995-1997?

Then I'll know what I should do in future with filmography tables, as I never know whether I should put them before or after. Danstarr69 (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Danstarr69 As a reader, I would expect to see the 1995-1997 series listed first, then the 1996 film. If one is reading down a column, this makes sense to me. Hope this helps. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Danstarr69: since they're sorted by the year they came out, they should appear in the order you've shown them in your example (1, 2, 3), because 1 first came out before 2. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cite book template. Author with only a first/last name.

This book [3] is written by an author: Galawdewos ...i don't know if this is the author's first or last name. Maybe i overlooked something in cite book template, question is which parametre do i use for only a single name?

The other names Wendy Laura Belcher, Michael Kleiner are editors/translators. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dawit S Gondaria. Some authors may only have one name, particularly in cases where the book is quite old; in such a case, it's probably OK to use the parameter |author= instead the combination of |first= and |last=. This seems to be what's suggested at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9#First-name only causes error. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: thank you! Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Andrej Mrvar

On my wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrej_Mrvar

I got the following warning: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (May 2022)"

What does it mean? Please tell me what I should change or remove and I will do it.

Best. Andrej AndrejMrvar (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AndrejMrvar. What that template basically means is that you shouldn't try to be editing or creating any content about yourself on Wikipedia. The article Andrej Mrvar may be about you, but it's not "your article" in the sense that you have any final editorial control over it. Persons who try to edit Wikipedia articles written about themselves often have a hard time doing so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines; for this reason, they are highly discouraged from doing so and instead are asked to seek assistance from others. You can find out more about this here, here and here, but some information about this has also been already added to your user talk page by another user. For the time being, avoid directly editing the article further and instead seek assistance from others by posting edit requests at Talk:Andrej Mrvar with respect to any changes you feel should be made. -- 07:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

hi @AndrejMrvar and welcome to the teahouse! since you are Mrvar, it's best if you let others lead the cleanup. due to conflict of interest, it would be hard for you to edit about yourself neutrally. I'd advise you to refrain further editing the article directly, instead sending edit requests about changes you'd like to offer to the article's talk page. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 07:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with references

I've been editing in the article for the film T-Men, and there are several problems with the referencing in the Production section. First, there's a cite warning regarding the ref. tag on Reference #1. This wasn't my edit, so I have no idea what's going on there. For my references, nos. 8 and 9, the error reads " {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)[access-date= requires |url=". Why does a book cite need a URL? And how can I screw up the access date, it's automated! Help, please. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A book doesn't need a url, but if a url has been given, then there must also be a corresponding access date, which should be the date that someone actually looked at the url. I use the manual editor, which has templates for citations, and these templates don't automatically populate the access date field. There is, however, a preview button, which is quite useful, because it highlights the errors before filling in the text. Elemimele (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, my mistake, wrong way round: if you give an access date, you need a url. The two belong together. If you merely cite a book, you don't need an access date because books don't change. The access date field is linked to the url field because web-pages do change, so if you give a url, you need to say when it was looked-at. For a book citation, don't bother with either of them, unless there happens to be a digital copy of the book online that you want to point to, in which case url+access-date is the way to do so. Elemimele (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pete Best Beatles I removed the access date parameter. Not needed since there's no url. But because access-date was in the cite book for some reason, it was looking for a url. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 07:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of temples in Goa

See this article List of temples in Goa then see my article List of temples in Uttarakhand

Please Analyse Both Article. (Sir/Madam) TheManishPanwar (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheManishPanwar, the reason for decline was that the draft has no references. Please add them for each temple. You can take them from the corresponding articles as well. Kpddg ^(talk) 11:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technically that's not needed as you can click-through the wikilinks to verify Zindor (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it back in mainspace, there wasn't a need for all these hands and bureaucracy. TheManishPanwar it will be possible to increase the list using Category:Hindu temples in Uttarakhand. Regards, Zindor (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand upon myself, when a navigational list contains wiki-linked items you can easily verify they meet the list inclusion criteria by clicking through and reading the lede or infobox of the article, then verifying that text using the article's sources if there is doubt. The same applies for simple easily verifiable statements such as the deity. If a list entry doesn't have an associated article, an inline citation would be necessary to verify the need for inclusion on the list. Click-through verification prevents duplication of referencing effort and it keeps navigational lists free of additional clutter. I couldn't readily find this in the MOS but it's been the case since i can remember. Zindor (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zindor The closest I can find to this policy is WP:LISTVERIFY and WP:MINREF, but I agree it could be spelled out more clearly. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah when i find a moment i'll look into how we can make this clearer in guidelines/policy. Keeping stuff like this in our heads just leads to misunderstandings Zindor (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity

Hello dear wikipedians, I want to clarify something if anyone's interested answering. I had an incident a couple of days ago with an editor, where I brought up on an article talk page diffs of their previous problematic edits in a topic area, similar to what they've recently done on that article. Since then, I had another fellow question me about this and saying that I should never discuss a contributor on an article talk page per WP:FOC. I care about guidelines and wanted to clarify this with the wider community, as I've seen many times even more experienced users commenting on each other on article talk pages. I would appreciate your thoughts. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni, one may criticize other editors' edits, but in general one tries to avoid criticizing the editors. If it becomes clear to you that the problems with an editor aren't simply that certain of their edits damage an article but rather that the editor is incompetent, delusional or malicious, has a financial stake in the article, is incapable of lucid expression in English, wants to create a hoax, etc, then saying so may be helpful; but you'd better be very careful in what you say, and an article's talk page normally isn't the place to say it. -- Hoary (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of printed Din colours which I could add to wikipedia Din 47100 page

Hi, I was going through a collection of printed sheets in Din colors from a company Gebr.Schmidt gmbh which does not exist any more I think. But I have all the DIN colour codes which are not much in use anymore but still used for cables I saw. Would it be of any interest or sense to add all these codes with their colors to the Din 47100 page on wikipedia? Thank you greetings Malente Malente (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malente. Is your proposal to scan/photograph the printed sheets and upload them to Commons for use in that article? If so, I don't think that's a good idea for copyright reasons and because there is no guarantee your scans would accurately show the colors of the sheets or that web browsers would render them correctly. However, I think that the article DIN 47100 would benefit from having columns showing the actual colors mentioned. Perhaps you could incorporate examples from the Web colors article to show this? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change style of one user page

Is it possible to change the style of one user page using CSS and/or JS and make it visible to everyone? And is it possible to import the script/stylesheet/style from external website/source? I'm trying to change the font in my user page's content using Google fonts. Thanks! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Super ninja2: Please do not forum shop, as you have also posted this at the Help Desk. Thanks. The Tips of Apmh 15:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

google knowledge panel

I'm a fairly new Wikipedia editor. I want to know how to update the description of the Wikipedia article that comes up when you search a topic on google. When I edit the beginning of an article and publish it, the changes are published on the page but nothing changes on the panel that is shown on the google results. A. E. Katz (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is controlled by google and their bots. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, thank you! A. E. Katz (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Arabic Wikipedia, we had a discussion a while ago on how this panel should look. So I think Wikipedians control it. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super ninja2 Wikipedia has no control over what Google displays, nor is that something we should be concerned with. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. What I was trying to say is that we had a say on the panel basic working mechanism when Google launched The Toledo project. But you're right, it's Google's project not WMF.

Sorry if I misguided the discussion. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

well considering Google is Google and Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation and we have no say over google, that sounds like a pretty pointless discussion. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A. E. Katz: Google is usually pretty quick. Check it again tomorrow. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! A. E. Katz (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, assume that any edits on Wikipedia that would appear on Google in some fashion (i.e. edits to the very beginning of articles) won't appear for a bit of time. Google caches its content for performance reasons, which means that changes won't be reflected until the cache clears. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found errors in an entry

I have found historical errors in a page claiming to be the history of a church I have been researching. I can produce full evidence as to why the claims are in error. What can I do to inform any readers of these errors? Historydebunk (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historydebunk Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have independent reliable sources that detail errors or why the existing sources are incorrect, please discuss if on the associated article talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Historydebunk. Your choices are basically to edit the article, or to open a discussion on the article's talk page. If you edit the article and somebody disagrees and reverts you, then you should open a discussion on the talk page anyway. As 331dot says, it depends crucially on whether you have published reliable sources (but also on whether the material already there is cited to published reliable sources). You should not remove material which is cited to (apparently) reliable sources, even if you believe it to be wrong - see TRUTH. Ideally, you should not add material unless you have found reliably published sources for it - but if the material already in there is unsourced then you aren't making anything worse (but somebody might still disagree with your edit). What you should not do, though, is include any information you have only from unpublished sources (such as parish records): get your findings published by a reputable publisher, and it may be possible to include them (though even then, you should not add them yourself, as you will have a conflict of interest, but should make an edit request). ColinFine (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to open a discussion but the links seem to send me in a circle. I went to Talk and found the article I want to comment on but when I clicked on it I was taken back to where I started. Historydebunk (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the title of the article involved? 331dot (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by I went to Talk and found the article I want to comment on: every article has an associated talk page, so for example beside Ripon Cathedral there is Talk:Ripon Cathedral. If you are editing on a browser and have an article open, then there should be a "Talk" button to take you to that article's talk page; if you are on the app, it seems to be under the "three dots" at the top. (There may be some old articles whose talk page has never been created, but if you find one such, you are welcome to create the talk page). ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I have used Wikipedia in an editing role and am trying to learn how it works. I am trying to nudge the original authors into accepting the required changes as the two earliest dates in their article are based on sources that give no references. The earliest date is based on a newspaper report that makes a claim for a reference that, when followed up, does not exist. The second date seems to have been picked to pre-date Domesday as none of the fabric of the building is earlier than 100 years after the date given, this is based on evidence from Pevsner and Historic England plus original documents. A discussion page might achieve my aim but I do not know how to start one. Historydebunk (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Historydebunk, please give us the name of the article, or at least of the church so we can look for the article ourselves. It would be much easier to help you. You have no edits to any page but this one, so we can't track down what you're talking about through your contributions.

Every article has a discussion ("talk") page attached, though they must be created by an editor before first use (by clicking on the red link and typing in the edit window). If you give us the name of the article/church, we can point you right to the talk page. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article I am questioning is St. Helen's Church Trowell. I have contacted the local people responsible for the history but they do not seem to be interested in documentary evidence. However, I know a number of people who use Wikipedia as a starting point for references when doing local history projects, including for qualifications, so my hobby has become trying to ensure the articles are accurate. I am finding churches to be a little stubborn as they seem to use age as a USP. I'm also working on a "pre-conquest Norman church". Historydebunk (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historydebunk, I would start with opening a discussion at the article talk page rather than engaging the creating editor, directly, or any user that has edited the article for that matter. You can then make a plea at the talk page of this Wikiproject to join the discussion at the article's talk page. --ARose Wolf 15:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the article's talk page and cannot for the life of me see anything that mentions starting a discussion. I have never tried to do this before, is starting a discussion called something else on the articles talk page? Historydebunk (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Historydebunk, click on "New section" at the top of the talk page.

The two earliest dates are sourced to the church's website (not a great source, a better one would be... well, better) and the Southwell & Nottingham Church History Project, which doesn't look too bad. The folks at the WikiProject will be good judges of that. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to find out how to find the people on the Wikiproject and have only managed to get back where I started. The problem with the page is that the 801 date goes back to a local newspaper report of 1949 that says it is recorded in the "annals of York Minster", according to the records in York it is not. The 1080 date looks like an attempt to make the chancel appear to be the half-church mentioned in Domesday when all reliable sources date it to the 12th century. Unfortunately all the on-line histories, including the Diocesan history, use the work of the same person, who does not provide references. In the first two references in the article they are, in effect, referencing themselves. Historydebunk (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historydebunk, See Talk page guidelines. I think you can find most of what you need to know to start a discussion there. --ARose Wolf 15:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historydebunk, The only way you are going to "find" people on a Wikiproject is to open a dialogue with them exactly the same way you would on an article talk page. You are where you started because you haven't begun the process to gaining consensus which is the way to get material changed on Wikipedia, especially information that has been contested. We are trying to help guide you to that point. --ARose Wolf 15:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Historydebunk, to try to be extra clear: the talk page of the WikiProject is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism. If you want to argue against the sources currently used, and have better sources to provide (see WP:RS for our guidelines), then click "New section" on the article talk page (Talk:St Helen's Church, Trowell) and provide your sources and arguments. Then ask for input by clicking "New section" at the WikiProject talk page. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source of my difficulty is that I do not know how to start a discussion. When I click on "new section" I get a dialogue box to type in but no indication of what is expected next, will typing in that box start a discussion? Historydebunk (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Historydebunk, whatever you type in the dialogue box will be posted on the page after you hit "Publish" (BTW, remember to include a subject in the Subject box). Other people can then read the post and reply. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be worried about making a mistake. It can always be fixed. Just take your time and lay out your issues with what is written and make sure to provide sources for your claims. --ARose Wolf 16:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proper way to handle edit warring and content issues?

A week ago I happened upon an article and in verifying information in the sources found that only WP:Tertiary sources were being used and misquoting the subject. I edited the passage and grabbed better sources. Another editor reverted my updated, I reverted once, they reverted again, and I attempted to find some kind of consensus, but found the editor unwilling to accept any changes. I took the discussion to BLPN, and found that the editor had been doing the same thing to others, along with hostile edit summaries, and also filed a report at ANI, and now that's being challenged as frivolous, with a proposed ban from my posting in ANI, despite providing ample evidence of the editor's pattern of behavior.

I am honestly perplexed about what I did wrong, and how to handle this in the future. (I'm also confused why no one seems to care that a celebrity's biography is stating incorrect information, but I don't have the mental space to care much anymore about that aspect). Some guidance would be appreciated. Thank you! SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy links: BLPN thread, ANI thread. Article involved is Claire Danes (RfC on talk). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get started?

Hello. I have been an avid user of Wikipedia for a long time, and just recently I decided I also wanted to contribute to the website and become an editor. However, I am unexperienced, and I don't really know what's going on. Are there any pages that can help me get a head start and learn how to edit overall? Thanks! Bellaloca (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bellaloca: Welcome, and thanks for wanting to help. Check out the WP:TUTORIAL for some learning activity. Then, head over to Wikipedia:Task_Center for a list of tasks for users of all different skill levels. Pick one that looks interesting to you, and jump in! RudolfRed (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. There are lots of pages that serve that purpose, such as this introduction to editing Wikipedia. I recommend you read that over and follow the links at the bottom to the Task Center, where you can start making the edits that best fit with the type of contributions you'd like to make. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bellaloca for some hints on what's "going on", you can scroll through Wikipedia:Dashboard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a draft

I have made a draft. Subject is Relative World. I now want to update it. When I press edit I get to a page titled: Editing Draft talk:Relative World, but I don't see any of the text I wrote. Just; What am I missing? Triplemaya (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what I am actually seeing is

[{{WikiProject Physics}} :[{{WikiProject Philosophy}}

not the expanded boxes shown in the above post. Which appeared when I clicked to post. Triplemaya (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it's at Draft:Relative World. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Doh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triplemaya (talk • contribs) 18:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're editing the wrong page (in this case, "Draft talk:Relative World"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issue to Preview Display

"There was an issue to preview Display" , why this issue comes on article? Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Endrabcwizart, I have made an edit to the article which - if I've guessed correctly - will fix the problem you're having. Is the problem solved? (Courtesy link: Dipak Sharma). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wow , yes sir problem solved. Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Endrabcwizart, I'm not a sir - in fact, I appear to be a string of numbers - but I'm glad the issue is fixed. For future reference, do not put a header (text between these: ==) at the beginning of an article (before what we call the lead/lede section). Only use them for sections after the lede. Welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia, by the way! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need an Advice on my declined draft

hi everyone! my article for a musician has been declined by a reviewer , i just wanted to know if anybody could help me to pass the approval. link to the article JoeSimpson1 (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JoeSimpson1 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this is in regards to Draft:Amir Ugo. The main issue with your draft is that the sources do not demonstrate how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. The three sources you offered seem to be very brief, doing little more than telling he exists. The draft should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about him. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

dear @331dot we got more news, articles and sources to add to the page but some of them got blocked automatically by the wikipedia so we decided to use the minimum, we can provide more than 15 articles, official news and television reports about him but how does that improves the notability of the draft? also thanks for the fast response. JoeSimpson1 (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JoeSimpson1 Your use of the word "we" suggests to me that you work for or represent Mr. Ugo. If so, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. (declaring paid editing is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory if applicable)

I would first ask you, if you haven't already, to read the notability guidelines for musicians and tell which one(or more) of them Mr. Ugo meets. If these other sources you have demonstrate that, and are not primary sources such as interviews with him, that's what we are looking for and what any article about him should summarize. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia a trusted source of info?

I've heard about teachers saying that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of info.

Any ideas on this?

Thanks Organic Increse45( ͡ಠ ͜ʖ ͡ಠ) (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't consider ourselves a reliable source simply because we're user-generated. Cite what we cite, not us. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...however for outside sources, see Reliability of Wikipedia. for me, usually it's a good source for basic information and springboarding a research, but if you're gonna cite, it's almost always better to cite the source/s instead, and lack of one likely means you shouldn't be using it. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 00:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what Wikipedia says about that: Wikipedia:General disclaimer. Here's another take: Using Wikipedia: Crash Course Navigating Digital Information #5. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find WP to be a reliable source of information for my own brain, but as others mention here, it's not a good idea to use WP as a cited reference for another WP article or for a scholarly paper you are writing. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Organic Increse45 Your teachers are absolutely correct. See Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks.

~~~ Organic Increse45( ͡ಠ ͜ʖ ͡ಠ) (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So should I still use Wikipedia?

~~~ Organic Increse45( ͡ಠ ͜ʖ ͡ಠ) (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Organic Increse45: That's up to you. Consider Wikipedia to be a collector of information from sources it deems reliable. You can follow the citations to learn more. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Organic Increse45 Wikipedia is great if you just want to read something for your own personal information. For research for an academic paper, you should not cite Wikipedia itself, but the sources that an article uses- and you should examine those sources to make sure they say what is claimed. 331dot (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Organic Increse45 When following book citations, try clicking on the ISBN, and you'll be taken to the "Book Sources" page. You can try clicking on the "Find this book on Google Books" link to see if you can read the source for free. If not, scroll down on the "Book Sources" page and you'll find links to libraries near you where you might be able to find the book. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks to all of you for awnsering my question in great detail. Organic Increse45( ͡ಠ ͜ʖ ͡ಠ) (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get pinged when s.o. replies to my Talk comments?

Unless I misunderstood something, I used to get a notification when someone hit the 'reply' button to one of my comments. AFAICT, I still do on other wikis. That is one of the purposes of the buggy 'reply' button, isn't it? I've been relying on it for notification of replies, but recently I haven't been getting them on WP-en. Am I misunderstanding something, or have I maybe somehow turned that option off? — kwami (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Kwamikagami and welcome to the teahouse! I believe the [ subscribe ] button should do the trick, which would give you a notification whenever the conversation is active. do you have that on? 💜 melecie talk - 03:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's in MediaWiki prefs, not WP-en prefs where i was looking. I do have "Enable topic subscription" active, but have never seen a 'subscribe' button when I edited a talk page. (For instance, there isn't one now.) I'll check "Automatically subscribe to topics" and see if that helps. Thanks! — kwami (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to the thread below (using the 'reply' button for the first time), and it hasn't been added to my list of subscriptions, which is still empty. Could you respond to this thread to see if I get pinged? — kwami (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done I also have this thread in my subscriptions, and the above pinged me. 💜 melecie talk - 05:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I correct grammar?

I tried to make some changes to make the "gang stalking," page more grammatically correct, and a user told me that I have to site a source in order to do so?? Does not seem legit.

Someone please check this out. The grammar is off from the very first sentence on the page. A term like "gang stalking," cannot be used to mean, "a set of beliefs." Gang stalking is either a verb or a noun that refers to an alleged event. A specific event can't also be defined as a set of beliefs - that makes zero sense. Anybody? English Language grads? Help!

I also want to make the page more neutral and less skewed towards one specific opinion. Pages that are about a controversial topic generally seem to start off by stating something along the lines of, "An alleged event," "A group that *claims* something happened," or, "An unproven something or other." Usually, if there is a controversy inherent to the topic, Wikipedia mentions this immediately in order to remain neutral. NOT SO with the gang stalking page. What's with that?

Someone please reply! THANKS Ms. Ann MMO (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is hardly even paraphrased. The first source says, "Gangstalking is a novel persecutory belief system". Unless you have some reason to believe that source is unreliable (inconsistent, conflicts with other sources, etc.), then that would appear to be the definition of the word. Whether you agree that it's a good term is irrelevant. There are lots of words in English that don't make any sense if taken literally. For instance, according to the IAU, a dwarf planet is not a planet.

Anyway, the place to discuss this is on the article talk page, and if that proves insufficient, you can make a WP:request for comment. — kwami (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, needed to take a break. I don't have access to the 2nd source, but the 3rd speaks of a belief in "'gang stalking,' or surveillance and harassment at the hands of the government or private security firms," and "this is 'what happens when you report radiological weapons (a component of gang stalking) to law enforcement,'" and "I’m not convinced that the institutional 'gang stalking,' the phenomenon that Brian and others have described, is actually happening." That would seem to support your argument, that 'gang-stalking' is an activity, not a belief system, that they believe in gang-stalking or in gang-stalking conspiracy theories. If another editor is proving uncooperative, this is the kind of argument you would need to make in a request for comment -- not some a priori argument that 'that's not what the word should mean according to English grammatical rules', but 'that's not how the word is used in the majority of reliable sources.' You might then use the grammatical argument as a reason to prefer the use in some sources over that in others, or that one source is incoherent.

Anyway, IMO this isn't a matter of correcting grammar so much as of correcting the definition, when the source now used for that definition appears to be poorly worded. — kwami (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Ann MMO, you've been making extensive edits to Gang stalking while leaving edit summaries that give the impression that you're merely correcting the grammar. That does not help your credibility. Maproom (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are trolls on this page it's not my problem - I'm not interested. Ms. Ann MMO (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article submission

MY article got rejected saying that it is promotional. What kind of changes i have to made for the submission of article successfully.

Please check the link of article : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:ProductDossier&action=submit ProductDossier PSA (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @ProductDossier PSA and welcome to the teahouse! your draft has to be written neutrally and detached from the company, and writing with sources that are reliable and independent, avoiding PR fluff from your writing.

however, I strongly recommend not creating an article on your own company. creating one is already very difficult as a beginner, and even harder as someone with a Conflict of interest (which I advise you to read). instead, if your article is deemed notable enough by editors not affiliated with you, one may be created, however be warned that it will not be your article or controlled by the company, nor a place for PR, and it will cover the good and bad sides of it (provided there are sources available). happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 05:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

one other thing. if you are User:Snehap1, please abandon this account and log in using that and then mark a disclosure of Conflict of interest or Paid editing over there (which is required), if you aren't then please ask for a username change and do the same. your current username "ProductDossier PSA" is not allowed as it is a organization name, which may count as promotional and a possible shared account that doesn't identify one user. a username like "Bob at ProductDossier" may be better, but you still have to comply with the CoI and Paid Editing policies. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 05:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request to create a page

Hello, My father Joe Portale is listed in 2 wiki pages and I would like to link his name in those pages to his own page. I have many more articles about my father and his athletic career. Most notable moments being his ohio all-american award in 1976 (already noted in wiki) playing football for the University of Florida from 1976-1979 (already noted on wiki) he was drafted twice by the New York Yankees, the first time after high-school. He played spring ball with the Yankees minor league team after his UofF football seasons. He was drafted again in 1980 after my father graduated. He played for the Yankees from 1980-1982 before being diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. I have online links to all of his stats. He passed away on Friday and I just want to honor him any way I can. He was a phenomenal athlete and I believe is worthy of his own page. Thank you for your time. Jfpull01 (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Jfpull01 and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm sorry for your father's death. unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't the place to memorialize someone. while you could still write an article about him (although it is very hard for beginners to write a new article, and even harder for those connected to the subject they're writing about), you'd have to see if he meets the notability criteria for athletes first. find some reliable sources like news outlets online dedicated to him showing he meets one of those criteria, and you could write an article. see Your first article for more.

however, being connected to him, you'd also need to write carefully. declare a Conflict of interest before starting the article since you are his child, and you might have to forget all you know about him personally and write as if you're someone who doesn't know him only summarizing what those sources say. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 05:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. Absolutely, not for memorial purposes my apologies if it came across that way. While I do want to honor him I believe from what I have read he does qualify. I will keep in mind when working on the article to keep it as formal as possible. Thank you again for providing the links on how to get started. Jfpull01 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

2A01:4C8:488:E59:E96A:BCED:6643:A55E has vandalised a single article (Polynesians). I don't know how to quickly revert it so I leave the info here. I don't know why it shows as red-linked but I leave this as is. Whoever deals with the vandalism can still easier figure it out than when I remove the red-link I think. Dutchy45 (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done

hi @Dutchy45 and welcome to the teahouse! for future reference, you can use RedWarn or Twinkle to revert changes back to an older revision. additionally, user contributions can be obtained by using {{contribs}}, which would result in the link contributions when used for the above ip. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 07:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hayward (political scientist)

Last night the BBC broadcast a program on British academics including Edinburgh political theorist Tim Hayward, who are accused of sharing misinformation about Ukraine on social media. It covered allegations from students that Hayward also used such material in his teaching. Criticism was first reported by various media back in March. The BBC program has now been covered by other media. However, two users (Kashmiri and Reflecktor) are gatekeeping to keep this off Hayward's wiki page. They claim this is just 'some random students', 'BBC does not dictate what we add to articles' and 'conservative media are having orgasm for 3 days, a government official responds to media query, and then someone on Wikipedia feels this must be encyclopaedic material'.

The receipts, as they say:

Are these two users, who seem to share a worldview with Professor Hayward, allowed to censor what appears in his article? 147.188.240.134 (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Tim Hayward (political scientist) 💜 melecie talk - 09:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has started on the talk page of the article (Talk:Tim Hayward (political scientist)#Students at Edinburgh have accused Hayward .... That is good. If the discussion reaches a standstill, see here for the next steps in our dispute resolution processes. (FWIW, at a glance, I believe that the sources are enough to warrant a mention, but the opposing arguments that it’s a storm in a teacup are well-founded in policy.)

Trying to determine the motives of other editors (these two users [seem] to share a worldview with Professor Hayward) or using inflammatory language (allowed to censor) is unlikely to be productive. Please comment on content, not editors.

Finally, you mentioned two editors by name in your post here. That is considered poor etiquette on Wikipedia (but I do not blame you for not knowing that); generally, you should choose between two options. Either you think the situation can be resolved without input from the other party (for instance if you think you might be wrong), and you explain the situation in general, vague terms; or you mention them, but then you should ping them or otherwise make them aware of the separate discussion.

Going forward... I suggest you keep any content-related discussion on Talk:Tim Hayward (political scientist), or through the dispute resolution channels linked above. If you have general questions about the dispute-resolution processes, you can ask them here, but try not to make it too personal.

If and when editor conduct problems occur, those are "resolved" at WP:ANI. Before going there, make sure to come with diffs (rather than quotes) and a clear explanation of what Wikipedia guideline was violated when. As far as I can tell, the current dispute is a fairly run-of-the-mill content dispute and nobody came even close to being sanctioned. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for any breaches of Wikipedia's protocol. I'm just concerned that an unrepresentative group of users have exerted control over the page's content and think it needs more eyes on it. 147.188.240.134 (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article submission

Courtesy link: Draft:Soufia Taloni

I have created a draft page but how do I publish it for the world to see? Soufia1983 (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Soufia1983: I see you resubmitted the draft after it was declined, which will make it more likely that it will be declined again (and closer to a rejection). I would also strongly discourage you from writing about yourself, as that kind of draft is almost always declined as they're usually not neutral in tone. If you become notable enough, someone will write an article on you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please help in publishing (updating and significantly expanding a v. short existing) article

Hello,

I am trying to expand a page with very limited content in relation to the Worshipful Company of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. There is very little information on this page and it can be expanded to provide a lot more background and history. I have drafted an article which is aligned with what is set out on the Livery Company's own website (but not copied and pasted). I also have images I can include for the crest etc.

However, there are a couple of issues I am encountering:

1) the section on the coat of arms seems to be flagging as a risk of copy and pasting / copyright issue. The section is very factual and I have tried drafting a rephrased version but would appreciate guidance. I could leave the section out / just reference the Livery Company website but it would be good to include here as I think it is interesting.

2) I happen to be a Liveryman of the Company and so there appears to be concern over a potential conflict of interest. I think I have been blocked from editing the page as a result but it suggests there may be a way to have an editorial review to address this?

I am new to Wiki editing and as a Livery Company we are keen to educate about our history and also ensure accuracy and so it makes sense to have information form the Livery Company itself in the entry as this is probably the best source for the history, practices etc. - whilst accepting this should be reviewed to ensure if conforms with the Wikipedia conflict of interest and transparency policies. I had tried to post a simple text entry without any pictures etc at this stage as I could add those in later if appropriate and reflecting my learning curve of updating an entry.

What is the most efficient way to address these issues? Grateful for all help available and in particular if it is possible to open a dialogue with someone that can help me navigate this / improve my editing ability and contributions.

PS - I was using the visual editor - the word looking version and not the one with code etc. I also watched / read the tutorials and lots of guidance but seen to have started going round in circles on some of it! CharteredAccountant2012 (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CharteredAccountant2012, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that you have taken on a tas kwithout understanding what it entails. Aside from your conflict of interest, please note that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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.

The society's website is amost irrelevant to a Wikipedia article about it - you need reliable sources wholly independent of the society, such as books or articles in journals, that are not written, edited, published, or commissioned by the society or any of its members. As the existing article has no such sources, I see it has been proposed for deletion: your edit did not improve that in any way - rather, it included a lot more unsourced material, much of which was (from an encyclopaedic view) totally unrelated to the society.

The only way for you, or anyone, to cause the article to be retained, is to find sufficient independent reliable sources to establish that the society meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request move draft intro a page article

(Someone edited this page to remove this section. I hope I did the right thing by putting it back. Feel free to Fix it if I messed up.) 73.127.147.187 (talk) 12:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Sockpuppet?) 73.127.147.187 (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for resolve this issue 196.78.238.51 (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fairly new Wikipedia editor, I request to know how to update the draft move intro of the Wikipedia article page? Or someone make a merge Draft:Soufia Taloni intro Soufia Taloni Please a strong belief that all my articles are best on people that require the wikipedia kind of recognition

However the rules of notability do not seem that clear for me maybe to understand

Aanywell wisher will be grately appreciated 196.78.238.51 (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi ip user! firstly, you may've forgotten to log in, you might wanna do that. there's a near-identical question that you may've asked a while ago found over at #Created page for : Ali Sabri Musician, which I responded with the following:

you'd want to read the notability guidelines for music topics in this case.

first, you would need Reliable sources: sources from stuff such as news outlets or trusted sites in the music industry that have a reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking (not blogs, not wikis, not social media).
if you do have them, check whether these sources prove that he fits in one of these criteria.
if you do not have reliable sources or they don't fit the notability criteria, then stop: an article won't be created.. perhaps it may be too soon to create the article, you should wait until they get notability and outlet coverage first.

once you feel like you're ready to take it to being article, you can submit it with the button in your draft: this turns it into an active submission that can be reviewed, and if it is accepted they'll move it to an article. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 00:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi melecie, I am so very thankful for your timeand the assistance you provide my business. It is sincerely appreciated

It was very kind of you to refer me to her. I hope I can find a way to return the favor soon! For the Draft:Soufia Taloni merge intro move to page article Soufia Taloni Thank you for your help. and we hope if you can find way to help us as soon as possible you can

And thank you for your understanding

Warm Regards,

Sam 196.78.238.51 (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...one more thing. by my business and us, do you happen to have a connection to Taloni or are they your client? if so, you have to declare your Conflict of interest, see that link for more information on that. if you've been paid, it's doubly more important as undisclosed paid editing is forbidden under the Terms of Use. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 01:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi melecie again,

sorry my english is not good): because im french people i try to translate on google I mean you, our business support, and i'm big fan of "Taloni" and i'm his best friend, I speak it every day she's asking me to solve this problem, and because there are many people pretending to be her and cause her a lot of problems

thank you for your understanding

Waiting for your help move draft info namespace article page 196.78.238.51 (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this would be for twitter verification? unfortunately, I am unable to and am not qualified to review drafts and make them articles (plus I am using my phone right now so I am unable to translate the news articles). however, I'd advise you to read Your first article, Writing better articles and gather more reliable sources in the meantime, plus also disclose your Conflict of Interest in your talk due to you being their friend. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 03:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 196.78.238.51 It's fairly apparent that your motivations for putting a profile of Taloni on Wikipedia are contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. You have said: "because there are many people pretending to be her and cause her a lot of problems", as well as "belief that all my articles are best on people that require the wikipedia kind of recognition". Gaining recognition and solving online problems do not comprise any of Wikipedia's goals. I'm afraid you misunderstand that Wikipedia is not social media; it's an encyclopedia of notable subjects. Please note that trying to help a friend is not a bad thing, it's simply not appropriate for Wikipedia, which is a serious encyclopedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP user, I know that English is not your native language. However, you'll need to improve sentences like This coherent playlist to spend a day with a personality, known or not, but with a specificity. so that it makes sense in English. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you so much for responding and i hope someone will help me to restored the page articles 196.78.238.51 (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think the OP is a sockpuppet, if it's this user User_talk:Baderantar01. I didn't think we deleted the entire section in that case, but I could be wrong. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So far only that account has actually been tagged as a sock. We've had posts from socks before and they were not removed after confirmation. (In this case, it was the initial IP who tried to remove their own thread; I agree with the restoration, I restored it myself a moment ago before noticing you'd done it elsewhere). 97.113.167.129 (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you color a text

Is there any way to color a text in an article? The reason is i want to test random stuff in the Sandbox, but i'm not actually gonna publish it. Leahnn Rey (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Leahnn Rey and welcome to the teahouse! yes there is, you could use {{color}}. if you'd like to color something purple, you do {{color|purple|purple text}} which creates purple text. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 13:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, you're the best. Leahnn Rey (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to add an icon/image using a link

Is there any way i can add an image using a link? Yes, i know this is a dumb question and the same reason, Testing random stuff in the sandbox. For example i would like to use this icon: https://cdn-icons-png.flaticon.com/512/590/590685.png And just with the link it can appear on the article insantly? (sorry for bad english) Leahnn Rey (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't. Images need to be uploaded either to Wikimedia Common or here to enwiki. You need to be aware of the restrictions regarding copyright on the images. You'll find information at Wikipedia:Images. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Leahnn Rey: ...instead of that, why not try using File:Strawberry by cactus cowboy.svg instead, which is usable in Wikipedia? there are a few more images accessible using Commons, some of which you may want to use if you'd prefer a different one. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 14:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you melecie! thank you. Leahnn Rey (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh.. Thank you. Leahnn Rey (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons edit summary not possible

I uploaded something to Wikimedia commons however after doing some changes am no longer able to edit the summary of my upload, I believe it is because I not knowing any better added a reference to the top most line in the source editor, but I dont know for sure, is there any way for me to fix this? Frislr (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frislr, Wikimedia Commons is an image repository and has a different function than Wikipedia. You should be able to leave a summary in the upload form though (commons:Special:Upload). Sungodtemple (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is it possible for a younger editor to gain admin/bureaucrat? If not, what is the minimum age? Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 15:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a question or issue of age. Rather, the community discussion & decision to promote a user to an administrator is one of experience in the Wikipedia, how much you have contributed thus far, and what you feel you could contribute in the future with administrator tools. ValarianB (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DinosaurTrexXX33. I am aware of one long time administrator who became an administrator at age 16. Cullen328 (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit page

Hello. I have an edit for List of best-selling manga and list of best-selling comics. I heard One piece has reached to 500 million copies. Here is the link: {https://www.sportskeeda.com/anime/news-one-piece-sells-500-million-copies-worldwide} Wolfp5 (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use that website as a source for information to place in an article on Wikipedia, Wolfp5. It is not considered reliable (see WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_343#Sportskeeda generally unreliable?). Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Twitter a reliable source?

So, basically, while I was editing this page: Draft:Beluga (YouTuber), I filled the whole reference with YouTube links. But the submission was declined, as YouTube isn't a reliable source. Then, is Twitter a reliable source? Tematikkp (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tematikkp. A verified Twitter account can be used in very limited ways, described at WP:TWITTER. Material sourced to Twitter cannot be used to establish notability. That requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tematikkp, Generally twitter is not considered as a relaible sources, as it is a self published sources where it may be reliable on some cases, if particular twitter account was official and comfirmed. See WP:RSPTWITTER for more information. Cheers! Fade258 (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tematikkp, for future reference, a quick, easy way to check whether a source is reliable is to go here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources. It doesn't list every source in existence, but it does have the more popular ones, with their status and the reasoning behind it. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First draft editing

As title, I'm looking for assistance fixing my tone to a much more sterile one in the article and looking for the proper points to apply third party reviews to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MikKaminsky/sandbox MikKaminsky (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MikKaminsky: The draft as written will unfortunately not be accepted. You need to show the game meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, through the use of independent third party sources that have written about the game. The sources in the sandbox draft are either the web sites of the developers or the platform, known as primary sources, or dead links. See WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Request prmission

How to get WP:RCP rights? Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Endrabcwizart: I think the info you need is here Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol#Monitoring. Happy editing! TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to contribute to Wikipedia and create articles, however I'm not confident within my English skills.

Requity (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered contributing to the Wikipedia project for your native language? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Requity: - Per the essay Wikipedia:Competence is required#What "Competence is required" does not mean, those with a less than perfect command of English can still work in maintenance categories. But it's better to avoid writing articles, as Jeske suggests above, since that requires an above average command of English. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusting the Great Barrington Declaration page (Covid Policy page)

I am convinced people are not arguing with me in good faith on the Great Barrington Declaration page.

I am planning to give a couple weeks for people to argue with my proposed edit of removing the slanderous comment of calling the Great Barrington Declaration and the policies it advocates for fringe. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, could someone please advise on how to ensure Wikipedia's standards are applied in this change. I let my emotions get the best of me and had my IP address blocked, I understand edit warring is wrong but I am finding it very difficult to assume good faith with the editors preventing the change.

The World Bank recently released data that lockdowns have killed millions of more people than the Coronavirus and resulted in 1.4 million extra teenage pregnancies alone [1][2] and I think it is crucial to peoples misunderstanding that this article be corrected as soon as reasonably possible within Wikipedia guidelines.

The Great Barrington Declaration whose main purpose was to show the lack of scientific consensus around the lockdowns and social distancing policies is improperly referenced as fringe in a smear against it and this level of misinformation is clearly costing the world many lives and unintended consequences and the faster Wikipedia changes the page the faster we can all come to a better consensus on what to do next as a world.

[1] https://www.globalfinancingfacility.org/emerging-data-estimates-each-covid-19-death-more-two-women-and-children-have-lost-their-lives-result [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-05-26/contraception-s-cost-teen-pregnancy-in-poor-countries-sets-back-gender-equality 65.175.199.251 (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 65, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you may have some misconceptions about how Wikipedia works. One of our core policies is verifiability, which means that all statements in our articles must be attributable to a reliable source. As such, we have a policy against what we call "original research", and if the articles you've linked to are representative, I'm afraid you're running afoul of this policy. Put simply, a reliable source must directly support any statement that it is used for. In this case, if you're looking to support the statement "the Great Barrington Declaration represents mainstream scholarship, rather than a fringe", you will need sources that directly say that. Posting articles that provide vague support to the same ideas that are supported in the Great Barrington Declaration is not going to cut it, and since neither of the articles you've linked even mention the Great Barrington Declaration, they are going to be of extremely limited use to you. Even apart from that, the articles don't make the claims you're asserting, and are of questionable reliability regardless--press releases are usually not considered reliable, and especially not on medical topics. You need to engage civilly on the talk page, but you will need much better sources than this if you want to make major changes to that article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is if independent reliable sources call this fringe. If they do, there is nothing that you can do. That you disagree with this or those who tell you this does not mean that they are not acting in good faith. If this topic areas is too contentious for you, I would suggest disengaging. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add onto what everyone is saying above, I would strongly consider finding a different, less controversial topic area to work in; pages and edits related to COVID-19 are under heightened scrutiny. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi IP 65.175.199.251. It certainly can be frustrating when you feel so strongly that something is a great wrong that needs to be righted and can't fathom why others simply aren't feeling the same way. However, it's not really Wikipedia's role to try and convince the world to change through its articles. Article content is primarily governed by what established reliable sources are saying about something, and reliable sources for articles about medical topics are highly scrutinized. Disagreements over article content, in general, are expected to be resolved per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution which basically means using the relevant article's talk page to establish a consensus that resolves the disagreement or at least finds some common ground that both side can accept. So, the only thing I can suggest is to continue to assume good faith and discuss things on the article's talk. Articles about medical related topics, in particular, can become quite contentious and extra special care needs to be taken, but ultimately it will be the consensus established through talk page discussion that decides the content of the article. If a large part of the outside world feels that this declaration is "fringe" (I'm not saying it is), then the change in that perception is going to have to take place first in the outside world before it's reflected on Wikipedia; in other words, a Wikipedia article isn't the place to try and make that change happen. The Teahouse isn't really a good place to try and discuss this type of thing in detail or debate the sources you're citing, but there are noticeboards such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard where you can. Ultimately, however, it's still going to be consensus which determines the outcomes of any such discussions. If you're unable to establish such a consensus, then there's not really much more that can be done no matter how wrong you truly believe the consensus to be. -- 21:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Help with editing

I need help with editing. Like how do I create wiki tables or charts, things like that. Can someone please show me how to make wiki tables graphs weather boxes etc. 100thingsperson (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction I think this could be helpful for youJaguarnik (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unassessed draft moved to mainspace

There is a certain Wikipedia article about a person who may or may not be notable, that did not go through drafts and was automatically moved to mainspace, and made by a Wikipedia editor who themself stated does not have much experience. When I put a proposed deletion tag on the article due to non-notability the creator of the article removed it. Would it then be appropriate to open a deletion discussion?Jaguarnik (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though kicking it back to draft also helps. Name the page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it is Eve Barlow. while it is true that the writer has written for several prominent news outlets I do not feel this necessarily makes a person notable, and I don't feel she passes WP:Author, however I myself don't have a lot of experience writing for Wikipedia so maybe I'm wrong. That's why I would like to open up a discussionJaguarnik (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the extensive coverage that Barlow has received in connection with Depp v. Heard, I think that it is unlikely that this article will be deleted. She has also received coverage as an activist against antisemitism, so the article is not an example of WP:BLP1E. But maybe I'm wrong. Cullen328 (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll leave it alone then.Jaguarnik (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is my company notable enough to get approved?

Hi! I am trying to create a Wikipedia page for The Murder Diaries podcast. I have been technically hired to create this page, and I know I need to disclose that information before making the page. But I just want to know how to create a Wikipedia page that gets approved. Thank you in advance. Truecrime22 (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Truecrime22: Based on what I'm finding in a Google search (string:["the murder diaries" podcast]), you cannot because there're no usable sources for us to work with. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Truecrime22. You need to comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure before editing any more. This is mandatory. Cullen328 (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to get rid of disambiguation page

The page Quiza has only one page on it(there was an earlier page that was deleted), continuing to have a disambiguation seems unnecessaryJaguarnik (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jaguarnik, you can convert it to a redirect page pointing to Quiza Xenitana. Simple replace the page's text with #REDIRECT [[Quiza Xenitana]]. On the talk page of the redirect you can replace the disambiguation tag with {{WikiProject Catholicism}} to add it to that project. Interestingly Quiza Xenitana isn't being indexed currently on Google, just the dab page. Zindor (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I have done exactly as you advised.Jaguarnik (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, nicely done. Zindor (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added a book I authored to a list, and had the edit reverted for not providing a reliable source

I understand why the editor reverted my edit (I use a pseudonym on Wikipedia, so he could not have known I am the book's author). He suggested I re-add it with a reliable source added, or leave a message on his Talk page. I visited his talk page, but could not find a way to leave a message. So, I replied to the message he left on my Talk page. He has yet to reply.

How do I add myself as a reliable source on an edit I make? How do I leave a message on his talk page?

Thank you, in advance. Trev Swain (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Trev Swain. Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your books. There are plenty of websites where this self promotional content is acceptable. But not on this encyclopedia. You are not and never will be a reliable source about yourself or the books you have written. You have a glaring conflict of interest about yourself and your work. We require entirely independent sources to establish notability. Sources that have nothing to do with you but have freely chosen to write about you and your books without prompting from your self-promotional efforts. Cullen328 (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to Get a Peer Review

I'm working on my first article, about the 2009 murder of Joanne Witt, and I'm trying to get peer review. When I add the PR template to the article's talk page, here's what I got:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Just_Another_Cringy_Username/sandbox/Murder_of_Joanne_Witt

It isn't supposed to look like this, is it? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just Another Cringy Username, welcome to the Teahouse. In the documentation at {{PR}} it says that it can only be used in the talk namespace (talk pages of articles) otherwise it will generate an error message. As your draft is in your user space that's why. Zindor (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I put it on the talk page for the draft. Isn't that the same thing? If not, how do I get to the place I need to put it. Bottom line: what do I need to do next? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you use bold, italic and superscript text at the same time

Basically, i was messing around with some stuff in the sandbox when i came across a problem, I can't use a bold and italic at the same time, the superscript works with the boldtext and italic, but i can't seem to make them work all together, the superscript, boldtext and italic like this:

^abc

but when i use italic, it appears like this, so basically italic needs double quotation marks like this. But when i use it, it appears like this:

^"abc" Leahnn Rey (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leahnn Rey, welcome to the teahouse. The only way I know how to make bold italics is to wrap the word or phrase in quintuple single quotes. bold italic--Quisqualis (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still does not work. The bold works but the italic doesn't. It just displays: ^'abc' Leahnn Rey (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions disappeared

I made some contributions which later disappeared What should I do now? KingBiscuitBlues (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KingBiscuitBlues, some of your contributions were reverted because they were not backed with reliable sources. Kpddg ^(talk) 06:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the blues researcher that I'm crediting in the contributions I should have been front page news but there's a campaign to suppress the information because of my personal identity No one has ever challenged the validity of the information because they wouldn't be able to because you can see very plainly who those people are in the film Their excuses may include things like not wanting to eclipse the work of Wardlow KingBiscuitBlues (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of 'biography of living person' panel

What do I have to do in the way of providing additional sources and citations for an entry on myself? In addition to my university-moderated website, I have cited four academic articles in which my work is discussed (not just cited), and five reviews of my books. I have recently added an award from a professional organisation, but don't know how to reference it. Source is AILASA_Newsletter_2021Dec.pdf file:///C:/Users/acame/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/MJJRUS47/ Johngs 06:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 661: / Line 661: @@
 :[[User:Leahnn Rey|Leahnn Rey]], welcome to the teahouse. The only way I know how to make bold italics is to wrap the word or phrase in quintuple single quotes. '''''bold italic'''''--[[User:Quisqualis|Quisqualis]] ([[User talk:Quisqualis|talk]]) 06:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 ::Still does not work. The bold works but the italic doesn't. It just displays: <sup>'''<nowiki/>'abc''''</sup> [[User:Leahnn Rey|Leahnn Rey]] ([[User talk:Leahnn Rey|talk]]) 06:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
-:::Look at my bold italics in edit mode. Surround the phrase with five ' in front, and 5 ' following, nothing else.--06:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 == Contributions disappeared ==