Wikipedia:Teahouse

Marchjuly, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help

Wikipedia

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)

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)

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 What you should not do, though, is include any information you have only from unpublished sources (such as parish records): get your findings published by a reputable publisher, and it may be possible to include them (though even then, you should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)

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)

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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. --ARoseWolf 15:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

@Historydebunk It is especially difficult to improve Wikipedia articles when you care deeply about the subject. One option is to only edit articles about which you are certain that YOU can be UNBIASED, but this also is difficult, because we all have a tendency to see the biases of others while not seeing our own biases. That's how people run into confirmation bias and group bias: anyone who agrees with us seems to us to be unbiased (even if they are quite biased), and anyone who DISagrees with us seems to us to be biased (even if they are as unbiased as possible). The second option is to simply break down your edits to the small pieces, and to do the work like a scientist and/or historian, one step at a time. For example, if you have new information to add to an article, based on a published reliable source, add the information, and add the reliable source, in the same article edit. However, if you see a circular reference which you can document using a published reliable source (even if that source was published long before the internet existed), you should submit a single, separate, article page edit in which you explain, with full documentation, how that particular reference is circular. Do NOT be tempted to include a better source in the same edit, because that muddies the waters. Keep your edits simple, one tiny step at a time. It's about improving the quality of information and improving the quantity and quality of published reliable sources, not about arguing over who or what is right or wrong. CDUpchurch (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I came to this article at the end of a rather long trail after doubting the Saxon origin of the chancel of the present church in another source. I was perfectly prepared to be proven wrong, that's the name of the game. The date of 801 for establishing a church can be traced back to a newspaper article dating from July 1949 claiming it is recorded in the "annals of York Minster". Contacting York Minster and the Borthwick Collection I was informed that their records do not go back that far, think Vikings and the "harrying of the north" for reasons why. I noticed that the claim for this source has been dropped from the article and the "renewal project" has been referenced, which was written by the authors of this article. The date of 1080 is also, apparently, invented and uses similar references. I have searched records in more than 20 possible locations and the earliest record I can find for Trowell is in Domesday (1086), I am not alone in this Sir Frank Stenton et.al. in their "Place Names of Nottinghamshire" could find nothing earlier either and I'm told Sir Frank was considered quite a thorough Historian.

Two other references in the article are to Pevsner's work on Nottinghamshire buildings and the register of listed buildings of Historic England, both of which date the chancel to the late 12th century so contradicting the date of 1080 given.

My research has unearthed original documents dated by Nottingham University to c1175 transferring land in Trowell to a religious order and a report of an archaeological excavation at the church. These documents allow me to demonstrate that the half church mentioned in Domesday was connected to a different site and that the chancel was the first building on the current site. The detail in the documents even allows me to identify the masons who built the chancel by name.

It appears to be acceptable to write an article for the church's own website then use that article as a reliable source for Wikipedia. What appears to be more difficult is to refute an article based on thorough research of independent, often primary, sources.

I admire what Wikipedia is trying to do and have donated to its funds to keep it going. What I do want in Wikipedia, however, is reliable history based on genuine research. This site is often the first stop for students when embarking on projects and they deserve articles that are not only accurate themselves but also give reliable sources. In the past I have had to tell students to pick another topic because of circumstances like this and have heard of students who have failed because they relied too much on unreliable information. Staff really do check their sources, we don't just say it to frighten them.

Until it becomes more straightforward to refute articles such as this by presenting fully researched work I am afraid I would have to advise students to avoid using Wikipedia as a reliable source. Historydebunk (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

You're quite right, @Historydebunk, Wikipedia is not a reliable source (and we also don't host original research). The goal is to base our articles around reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - our articles should be jumping-off points for students doing research, not destinations (but that's often not how they're used). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree that articles should be based around reliable, independent, published sources. I stressed that to students over a career of 30+ years. My problem with this article is that it is not based on reliable and independent sources. Two of the sources given are published but the problem is they were written by the same people as this article, leaving the situation of "this is right because I say so". The date of 1080 (for which no one has been able to find any evidence) is contradicted by the references to Pevsner and Historic England, both highly reliable, independent and published sources, and both of which give dates of approximately 100 years later (and which the authors either do not seem to have read or have ignored any evidence that does not fit their dating). I did not want to re-write this article, I certainly do not want to replace it with my full research which is already earmarked for a professional journal. I simply want to raise a warning concerning some content and references, similar to those that I have seen at the top of other articles. It appears that to do this my reasons must be justified by evidence in "reliable, independent and published sources", my mistake seems to be in believing the work of Sir Frank Stenton, Godfrey Davis and Marc Morris, plus others, might fall into this category but St. Helen's "Church Renewal Project" (published on the Church's own webpage) carries more weight. Historydebunk (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Historydebunk, then we circle around to where we started almost two weeks ago - if you have better sources than the ones used, sources that meet our criteria, and you don't want to make the sourced corrections yourself, then a post on the article talk page with a following alert at the WikiProject is the way to go. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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. --ARoseWolf 15:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@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)

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. --ARoseWolf 16:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I have prepared my article for the Talk section of the article on St. Helen's Church, Trowell and have given all my sources in the body of the text. Do I need to add them as footnotes aswell. Historydebunk (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Historydebunk, that would be helpful, since they will probably need to be converted into footnotes eventually (if your changes are accepted). See WP:Referencing for beginners for a guide. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I tried to insert reference numbers in the text followed by footnotes. My footnote gets inserted in the body of the text in normal print. This is my first attempt at putting an entry on Wikipedia in order to correct an article and it is proving less than straightforward. Historydebunk (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Historydebunk, it sounds like you're trying to rewrite a chunk of the article instead of suggesting changes to one or two sentences, which is certainly very difficult work for a beginner (we often tell newcomers to spend some time doing small edits and fixes to get a feel for things). There is a place where you can practice with posting and formatting - your personal sandbox, located at User:Historydebunk/sandbox. If you follow that link, you can paste your text into the dialogue box, "publish" it, and work on getting things correct from there, plus other people can see it and help you. There also should be a link to your sandbox at the very top right of your screen, along with talk/contributions/etc.

If you're pasting in text that's been copied from the article, you need to attribute it per WP:Copying within Wikipedia. You'd do that by putting Copied content from [[St Helen's Church, Trowell]]; see that page's history for attribution in the edit summary. If you can't figure out how to do that, just come back and let us know once the page is created, someone else can make an edit with the summary for you. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to refute the two earlier dates in the article. It would not be acceptable to just say they are wrong so I need to present my evidence for saying that they should be removed. In order to do this I need to give my references. To say the dates are wrong then give a string of references would achieve nothing as no one would check the references and my contribution would be ignored.

The in line references break up the flow of the points being made and make them look amateurish and difficult to follow.

The first two dates in this article are, in effect "fake history" of the type I spent many hours showing students to identify during a 30 year career in further and higher education and it is proving more difficult than it should be to refute it.

I have got in touch with some of my old colleagues and we are considering starting and on line database of unreliable historical sources for use in sixth forms and universities so it may not be necessary to refute this article here after all. Historydebunk (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That may be a better solution, since this sounds like a much more complicated case than the usual procedure of pointing to a Wrong Thing in an article, and presenting a reliable source which says the Right Thing. Good luck! 97.113.167.129 (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

What might be confusing @Historydebunk is that when he or she opens the edit window, one sees the wikitext, with article text and footnote text all jumbled together. Who would guess that the content between the <ref> ... </ref> tags is footnote content? If the tags said <footnote> or <endnote>, that would at least be a clue. But they don't. —Finell 00:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Submission declined

Hi,

my draft is declined with this reason: Notability requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources

I've put sources independent like "Forbers", "The NY Times", "Il Sole 24 ORE (in Italian)", what kind of better sources I can add to make my draft published?

My example to write is: Nanoleaf

Thanks for the suggestions, I really wish i could publish this first entry :) TheCrown81 (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I recommend adding more sources such as this one, and as many as you can find. Product roundups like the NYTimes, and product reviews may not be as strong as as an article that covers the company in-depth. Add more of those, and cut back on any content that could be construed as promotional. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out what a dreadful piece of bloated advertising the article Nanoleaf is. I have tagged it for various problems. ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yur Sandbox draft improved, but there still many statements of fact without references. David notMD (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is a terrible article. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skipper, That was a very non-judgmental assessment. I got a better understanding of your ability to talk facts instead of opinion. And this is not an attack but merely pointing out that dishing opinion even if not about the people involved casts a bad light on your belief in a positive environment. I see it all the time in Craigslist, people hiring to have created an article for them. And it does not help to know from what i have read that WP allows administrators, senior system experience contributors, to do such work as long as they establish separating themselves from the areas that they edit.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Help editing erroneous information in ADHD article

Some months ago I noticed some information on exercise in the ADHD article which conflicts with the recent Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement (which I believe is a tertiary or even, er, quarternary? source). As far as I can tell it should pretty much overrule any other sources that predate it.

I raised this on the ADHD talk page and was encouraged to make the necessary changes myself. However, I have been struggling to make time for it due to general life chaos (having ADHD myself), and as I've never edited a page before I feel like I'd need to take a lot of time over it, reading up on how to write things and cite things etc. so I don't get yelled at lol. And at the moment I barely have the headspace to think.

Is there someone who would be willing to take it on instead or, failing that, help me make sure I get it right and up to Wikipedia standards? It shouldn't actually be that big of a job - the Wiki article makes claims about how exercise helps ADHD but the consensus statement says that no evidence has been found supporting a significant effect of exercise on ADHD, once you correct for publication bias. Just not sure how to go about it. (Also I haven't checked if the sources used in the Wiki article are mentioned in the consensus statement.) RapturousRatling (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @RapturousRatling, and welcome to the Teahouse! It's great to hear you've been reading all the policies on Wikipedia, it can be a steep learning curve, but it is still very good to do. I will first let you know that when it comes to medical statements (where things can get pretty controversial both on and off Wikipedia!), there's a special set of guidelines (WP:Reliable sources (medicine)) when it comes to sourcing, so I don't blame you for not wanting to take it on, although sometimes, it can be best to just be bold and add it, as it there's a problem, another editor can just come along and correct it, and if there's a dispute, just talk about it on the talk page. If you still don't want to add it, and you've already put something on the talk page, may I suggest asking a relevant WikiProject about it, as I imagine they would be able to give you any feedback on the reliability of the source etc. (although some WikiProjects are more active than others, so you might have to wait a while for a response). Have a great day, and happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

In same vein, I do see that you raised this issue on the Talk page in January, and were encouraged to proceed. The exercise section in the article references three relatively recent reviews (2013, 2014, 2017). My recommendation is that rather than deleting any of that content or the review refs, you add a statement, with a ref, for the conflicting theory - that exercise is of no clinical benefit. If reverted (reversed), invite that editor to the Talk page, where you should start a new discussion, as the old one is already archived, and should not be added to. Wikipedia's policy is be bold, but if reverted, discuss. David notMD (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Having looked at the World Fed report, it states that the evidence for a benefit from exercise is weak, BUT the two meta-analysis references it cites (item 207 in the article) actually concluded there were benefits!! David notMD (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies guys, that's helpful! I think I might post on the WikiProject page as I'm getting myself a bit muddled about which sources are more reliable and what they reasonably conclude (I think what's currently in the ADHD article might need some rephrasing). @David notMD they do conclude there are benefits, but the report says that once you correct for publication bias there isn't a significant effect (assume they mean statistical significance?) Doesn't that mean that at best there are reliable but conflicting reports on the topic? They don't emphatically state that that exercise has no clinical benefit, but say there's no significant evidence of it in the studies they examined (which were restricted to large-scale studies). RapturousRatling (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Creating a page

Lou Stallman was is very successful songwriter of the 1950s and 60s and although he is mentioned as a song collaborator on some pages, there is not one on the man himself. I am a screenwriter who has been asked to write a story about him. There is also a biography currently in the works about his life. He has had over 15 songwriting hits and is an important public figure for there is little information. How would I go about creating a page about him on Wikipedia? MusicMyThing (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Start by gathering sources. Wikipedia is intended to be a compendium of the information found elsewhere. What published sources do you have? (So, for instance, that "biography currently in the works" won't count until it is in fact published.) DS (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@MusicMyThing, since you mentioned that you've been asked to write an article, I think you should take a look at our policy on editing with a conflict of interest - here's a link to a simplified guide: link. The more complicated page is at WP:COI. Please ask if you have any questions. Lou Stallman does get mentioned in a lot of articles, he may very well meet our standards for notability, but if not much has been written about him - yet - there's not much to build an article around. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Should I wait to pursue after his biography or feature film about him comes out? MusicMyThing (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@MusicMyThing, that's probably a good idea. Note that we can't use a feature film as a reliable source to base an article on, but we could have an article on the film itself if it meets our notability standards (outlined at WP:NFILM). Also, here's some general reading about creating your first article: Your first article. Always feel free to ask questions here at the Teahouse. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. MusicMyThing (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on whether your research turns up sufficient already-published information, or if you'll be sourcing from interviews and unpublished primary documents, MusicMyThing. Either way, best luck for your film! ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 10:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I have extensive interviews with him as does his biographer now as well. The author has a major publisher, so when either Lou's biography or the feature film comes out, I think that will be the time to create a page on him because of heightened public awareness. MusicMyThing (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@MusicMyThing The point about interviews is that they cannot be used to show a subject's notability. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense. MusicMyThing (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding article for new technology process (with patent)

I wrote a scientific article with cited references, but it got rejected as an advertisement. How to I edit the article to allow it to be accepted as a scientific, industry piece for a new technology process in the energy conversion industry?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_eXERO_Process Nwiles1414 (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: The submission has been deleted, so it's not visible to non-admins. Question has also been asked at the AfC help desk. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nwiles1414 See WP:GNG. You find sources that are at the same time reliably published (WP:RS), independent of the subject (and inventor, etc) and about the subject in some detail. Then write the article as a summary of those sources. The WP:PATENTS doesn't help in this context. If the sources demanded at WP:GNG don't currently exist, an article will not stick. Also, if WP:COI applies to you, follow the guidance there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nwiles1414 Wikipedia does not want to be the first place where research is published. Once the wider world has taken note of something, and written about it, then Wikipedia can summarize those secondary sources. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Question about biography and crime

Hello. Maybe someone can help me troubleshoot. I made a few edits to Bobby Shmurda, Rowdy Rebel, and 6ix9ine's biographies. Namely, that they are rappers who are also convicted felons in the lead of their Wikipedia pages. I saw Martin Shkreli's profile (that he was a hedge fund manager convicted of misappropriating the funds of his clients and, thus, a convicted felon) and decided to copy that style of writing. After a few days, these edits were reverted with two of the reversions coming from an account that justified the reversions by writing 'not an occupation' — in reference to their felony convictions.

It is true that being a felon is 'not an occupation'. But if that is true, shouldn't people like Andrew Fastow, Martin Shkreli, Elizabeth Holmes, have their respective crimes taken out of their leads? I didn't want to revert the edits made to my edits (and start an edit war) so I decided to come here, to the teahouse, to get an education on the relationship between a person, their crime, and how that crime is displayed on their Wikipedia page. Thanks for any help you can proffer.

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC) SpicyMemes123 (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, SpicyMemes123, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for not edit-warring. But rather than coming here and asking a general question, what you should be doing is engaging with the other editors who reverted you, on the talk page of the relevant article. Open a discussion with them specifically (though of course others may join in), and try to reach consensus. If you (collectively) are unable to do so, then dispute resolution tells you how to proceed further. see WP:BRD for more on this process. ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the answer (in the sense that I have recourse to an official channel to resolve the dispute between what I think the lead of the Wikipedia article should reflect and what my, uhh, interlocutor thinks it should reflect). But I want to know, concretely, why there is an incongruity between how the malfeasance of a financial figure (like Martin Shkreli or Andrew Fastow or Elizabeth Holmes) is reflected in their Wikipedia page and that of three famous rappers (6ix9ine, Bobby Shmurda, and Rowdy Rebel). Five of the six listed are convicted felons yet only two of the six have their felony convictions reflected in their lead. Why is this? Why are some criminals treated differently by Wikipedia than others? What is the rationale here? Do you know? If not, can you link me directly to someone who does? I'm seriously curious.

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

SpicyMemes123, it's a reasonable question. Only one name among the six is familiar to me, and I'm not in a mood to refresh my knowledge of him, learn about the five others, and evaluate the articles. But perhaps the variation among the six articles in their emphasis on malfeasance reflects the variation in the coverage of that person in the reliable sources that are cited. -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, SpicyMemes. The simple answer to But I want to know, concretely, why there is an incongruity between ... is "because that's how Wikipedia is". Even with core areas of policy, such as verifiability, there are thousands of articles which don't conform. For most questions such as yours that come up, there is no easy way to check if the question has been debated in general; and even if it has, and a consensus reached, there may be hundreds or thousands of editors working in the same area who are unaware of it. Obviously consistency is a laudable aim, and most editors will agree that it is desirable, but not many of us are willing to spend much effort on it. Probably the best place to discuss concerns such as yours are on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, (maybe WT:BIOGRAPHY - in fact, if you look through its archives, you may find relevant discussions). ColinFine (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

This is the quality response to my query I was looking for. I'm still kind of new to editing (three months in), so I still have a lot to learn but thanks for pointing me in the right direction!

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

History of 138 Dutoitspan Road, Kimberley South Africa

Good afternoon. I am the Manager of Cecil John Rhodes Guesthouse in Kimberley, South AFrica. I am trying to find more history tying Cecil John Rhodes with our Guesthouse, 138 Dutoitspan Road, Kimberley. Is there perhaps anyone available to assist me? 41.163.0.52 (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello fellow IP, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has an article on Cecil Rhodes with many, many useful sources listed at the end, but for a more specific idea of where to look for such information, you could try asking at one of our reference desks - Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities seems like the best fit. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Asking someone at the McGregor Museum in Kimberley is probably your best option. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Tried to suggest an article - ended in nothing

Tried to suggest the page: Synthetic nicotine or perhaps two capitals Synthetic Nicotine the result was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles#Natural_sciences 152.115.75.158 (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, a request for an article on Synthetic Nicotine is probably not notable. You may be able to add a section on the Nicotine page, as it is probably not suitable as its own article Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Probably correct. However I cannot find to make such suggestion. I am not interested to edit or write. 152.115.75.158 (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello fellow IP editor. I don't see any such request from this IP, and the page you linked is a general one with links to specific subpages where requests can be made. A request for an article on synthetic nicotine would probably be most appropriate on the chemistry page - specifying the exact compound(s) might be better. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I followed the links make suggestion ... 152.115.75.158 (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I'd recommend following this link: link, clicking "edit" next to the heading "Other chemistry terms", and adding Synthetic nicotine to the list between Pseudo-noble-gas core and Thermal neutron flux. Copy the formatting of the other entries. Maybe someone else will come along with a better idea of where to put it, but that's my best guess. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Suggesting/requesting new articles rarely works. David notMD (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP editor. I concur with the comments above that there would be no reason to have a separate article on synthetic nicotine. However, I was surprised to find that our article on nicotine doesn't have a section on its chemical synthesis, only its biosynthesis. Per WP:Manual_of_Style/Chemistry/Chemicals#Preparation we usually have an account of the first synthesis of a compound. In this case, that might be for racemic and/or chiral samples. We would also describe the industrial synthesis if relevant. Do you happen to have citations for any/all of these, to save me time looking? If so, I will happily write something appropriate for the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The first synthesis is likely to be DOI:10.1002/cber.19040370206 which is mentioned in the history section of the article but not fully described. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Review of Page: Alabi Oyinkansola

Hi there! This is Andrea here. Hope you all are doing great. The page I recently came across, Draft:Alabi Oyinkansola seems to have notable and is in a neutral point of view. I do know that posting here does not make the review process faster, but it would be really great if a fellow Wikipedian will assist me in adding any Edits needed to the page now. This is just a request, kindly apologise if I said anything wrong.

Best Wishes, Andrea Jocelin Andrea (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Jocelin Andrea First, Teahouse hosts are not necessarily Reviewers. Second, the system is not a queue, so while could take months, could also happen in days or weeks. David notMD (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi there @David notMD, as I did say in my post that I understand that Teahouse hosts are not reviewers, What I meant is that it would be great if someone would take a look into the draft and suggest me ways to improve if it is lacking anything. Thank you! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

At three spots there are six or more refs in support of simple facts. The draft would be better with one or two refs from reliable sources. David notMD (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Will look into it. Jocelin Andrea (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

There's also Draft:Oyinkansola Alabi, about the same person (and made by another SPA). Neither draft makes her notability (as understood in en:Wikipedia) obvious to me. -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hang on let me check something first

will get back to you Ember Tesfaye (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ember Tesfaye and welcome. Next time check it first then ask the question. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 19:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Differential operator typesetting

Hi, my recent change to an article was reverted. Does Wikipedia not use ISO 31/XI typesetting in which operators are written in roman font? The "d" is an operator and therefore should not be italic. See this explanation under section 2.2, point 6.

I have noticed some articles use roman font while others do not (like the article I corrected).

I was referred to the teahouse by @Pulpfiction621 who reverted my comment. 213.55.220.91 (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. For questions about a specialist area like this, I suggest going to the relevant WikiProject, in this case WP:WikiProject Mathematics. I see there is a link to the relevant MOS page in that, or if you can't find an answer, you can ask on the WikiProject's own talk page. ColinFine (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I was taught dx, not dx. Another user has already re-reverted. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics#Roman versus italic is non-committal on this point, though. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 20:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Visual editor grayed out

I seem to have lost the ability to swap between source editor and visual editor when doing certain tasks. I have the preferences set so I show both Visual Editor and Source Editor as I like to move between both. However, now when I do something like edit source at AfD discussions, the visual editor option is grayed out which means I can no longer preview the source code I have written. I am pretty sure this is a new issue, though I cannot pinpoint exactly when it started happening. Thanks in advance for any thoughts. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean, you cannot use visual editing in Afd pages, just like in talk pages. See Wikipedia:VisualEditor#Limitations. Kpddg ^(talk) 12:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, OK. That seems unfortunate, but at least I am not missing a check box somewhere. Thanks. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean: Note that its still possible to use the Visual Editor in namespaces where it isn't enabled, by using a URL similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insert URL-encoded page title here?veaction=edit, as long as the page you're trying to edit uses the wikitext content model. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Victor Schmidt - I will try that out, on the first page I tested it looks like that will be a good solution. Thanks for the help. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

1914 United States House of Representatives

Hi, on this page, I've been wondering whether I should keep copy the special election results from Alabama's 8th into the Alabama infobox instead of having the general election results.

Could someone please give me some feedback on what way to do this would be correct? PoliticallyPassionateGamer (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep it the way it is because it pretty much gives further detail into the election itself. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 19:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I was worried I made an error there. :) PoliticallyPassionateGamer (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

How to get category entries to say something different from the article name?

For example there's Falling (Howard novel) which contains a small paragraph of the 2005 ITV Television film of the same name, which is based on the book.

When you add that article to film and TV related categories it shows up as Falling (Howard novel).

How can I change it so that it says Falling (TV film) or Falling (Television film) in the film/TV categories which contain it? Danstarr69 (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Danstarr69 Welcome to Teahouse! See WP:SORTKEY ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Lots of UserBoxes

Why there are many users of Wikipedia/WikiMedia who have a lot of UserBoxes? and by a lot, I mean a LOT. is it some kind of WikiPedia/WikiMedia joke? 186.137.76.153 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's a better general answer than "It seemed like a good idea at the time." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

With so many reverts taking place and some things so simple that it could be corrected without much difficulty your assessment just might be the answer. Is there a mechanism within WP to create your own boxes? I do not get too involved in some of these mechanics because I am not that vested in WP except for the general obvious things like misspellings and run on sentences.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I kind of agree with the IP/OP and with Grabergs. I probably say more than I should about myself on my User Page. Think of it as getting caught up in the novelty of things when I was new. Yes, I made several of the Userboxes myself (about my being a nudist and an art school model, and the countries I have visited--those edited from existing boxes), but it was many years ago, and I just sort of stumbled through it and finally got them to work more by accident than anything else, so I couldn't really tell you how it's done.

One thing that's incredibly important though: If you think of editing a Userbox for yourself, DO NOT edit the code at the template itself--you will then edit it for everybody else who uses it. Copy the code onto the edit portion of your own User Page and make the changes there. And hope they come out the way you had in mind. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia:Userboxitis can help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I find all userboxes (and barnstars and other such things) to be jokes that I would be glad to see expunged from WP. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

Could someone do a search on "impossble" in this article to see if it needs to be corrected. This is the only listing of impossble in WP so it should not be too difficult to determine after reviewing the article. I would have done it but it is a locked article and an editor has felt that reporting it on the talk page was vandalism and so I have been blocked there. Thank you.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a misspelling on List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, but making an empty post on the talk page with "impossble = impossible" as the header, and no other context, is easily going to be mistaken for vandalism. Since you don't have an account, your best option in such cases is to make an edit request on the talk page which clearly describes the problem and solution - see Wikipedia:Edit requests#Making requests. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

It does. The example and that the article is locked and clearly it can be seen that I am an IP user. I am sorry that it is perceived that i am imposing on others.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

All taken care of concerning the needed correction.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

how do i respond to someone who is changing my edits?

I have constantly seen that the "Kenna" page changes ages from 43 to 48 randomly and I was trying to change it back, but someone reverts my edits. the actual age it October 30, 1978 - please advise. In addition, there are a number of wrong things with the page and doesnt include any of his new information. How can I contribute? I feel like any work I do will be edited out. MadKennaFan (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Be grateful they have not already warned you about disruptive editing, or vandalism. When it comes to some things dealing with numbers is not there something in WP that you can code a tally recalculation such as for years?2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Just checked your talk page and they are claiming that you have posted "original research" in this matter. If it is his age I guess you cannot use his birth certificate but you can reference someone in a source of integrity such as the NYT saying how old is he or when he was born?2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @MadKennaFan and welcome to the Teahouse. You need to include a source for any information you add, and the source must meet our standards - in other words, it should be a reliable, independent, published secondary source, especially when it comes to info about a living person. Primary sources - people writing about themselves or things that happened to them - can only be used in very limited circumstances. The talk page (Talk:Kenna) can be used to discuss what should be added based on the sources available, if there is disagreement. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I just DM-ed Kenna again. He literally put his DOB on his profile for me. Does that reference work? Can can someone else change it, as I don't want to risk being suspended or something. I am a novice - just learning this world. https://www.instagram.com/kenna/?hl=en&__coig_restricted=1 MadKennaFan (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

its his verified page MadKennaFan (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

and how do things on wikipedia get locked? MadKennaFan (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

It is done by someone with administrator status.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@MadKennaFan, please stop adding the information to the article without a source. That is not allowed, and in fact, you are engaged in what is called an edit war, which may indeed lead to your account being suspended. A verified Instagram account may work as a source - please start a discussion on the talk page instead of continually restoring unsourced information. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

not trying to start any war. just trying to do the diligence and make sure the page is updated properly. not sure how to do that. apologies. MadKennaFan (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Nothing criticle toward those that assume an action is warring but it is a tool that is unfortunately applied to those who do not know about it and quite possible the accuser is not providing a sufficient explanation why reverts are happening. Remember that a review of the history of someone's "contributions" can show how quickly those actions are done in succession. Not saying they are unneeded but if you as an experienced WP user do not bother to explain and just appear to jump the opportunity to teach is lost and it might appear to some of not sustaining a uncooperative environment. Not all contributors act in the same manner when it comes to their reverting. Unfortunately, some reverters take possession of an article.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MacKenna fan: good news. WP:DOB says: A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it. So provided the account is indeed verified as his, and the birthdate is not controversion (sometimes it is, for a public figure), you may add the information, with a proper citation to the account. ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

As for getting a page locked, @MadKennaFan, the place to request that is WP:RFPP, but you'd need to provide proof of continuing disruption. Right now the only disruption going on seems to be over this birthdate issue, which can pretty easily be resolved with a little discussion. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

thank you colinfine. i am not used to this wiki-world. there are quite a few discrepancies with his page and unverified information. since i have direct access to him via instagram, I thought I could help. However, it feels like I am actually doing the opposite. Maybe I should leave it alone? maybe someone on his team should reach out? i could tell him. I just see a lot of issues with wikis like his, kilokish, chad hugo, and a few others i like a lot and i thought i could spend some time editing, but i feel a little nervous now - someone mentioned "war!" MadKennaFan (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@MadKennaFan: It's OK if you meant well and just was unfamiliar with things Wikipedia. If you're in contact with Kenna, you can ask him to take a look at this. There are processes in place where he can seek assistance about what's written about him on Wikipedia. As posted above, you can start a discussion about this at talk page Talk:Kenna. Politely explain what you're trying to change and why. You should also explain that you contacted the subject of the article and they responded. What a subject publishes themselves can sometimes be cited as a source for a Wikipedia article, but it's considered to be a primary source that needs to be used carefully. Since there are lots of people out in the real world who are (for various reasons) sometimes not inclined to tell the truth when it comes to their age, you may find other editors a bit skeptical about the claims made by subjects of articles. Don't be offended if that happens in this case, just try and figure out whether there are any secondary sources unconnected to the subject which support the same claim. If there are, they can possibly be cited in support instead. Regardless, if you conitnue to try and force this change into the article (no matter how right you believe you are) instead of trying to establish a consensus for doing so on the article's talk page, you're account is likely going to end up (1) reported for edit warring or some other type of disruption and (2) possibly blocked by an administrator. Please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and try to resolve this on the article's talk page. For reference, articles can be protected to various degrees when there's some serious disruption involved: this, however, needs to be done by an administrator. In this case, I'm pretty sure no administrator is going to protect this page simply because you want to page "locked" to stop others from removing the poorly sourced or unsourced change you've been trying to make. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you ever be certain about what any administrator will or will not do? Is there a board on WP recording chastised administrators for getting caught? There would not be WP standards about something if it did not happen. Not an attack on the credibility of administrators but it is like your accountant embezzling your pockets. It is not a good thing, You do not like it if it happens. If it happens, do not be surprised.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Understood. I think Im going to back up and learn more about wiki first. there is a serious protocol and i am ignorant to it all. maybe i can get smart and come back to support. i will send him the link. thank you. MadKennaFan (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

wait! i found this https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/230687 - if he was 35 in 2014 - that would make him 43 now. also, these are the things missing from the page that i wanted to contribute. MadKennaFan (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

What kind of industry following does it have to show its reputation? Is it a publication that those who want publicity can pay to have it included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

i dont think so - its like forbes or fast company MadKennaFan (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

the writer is catherine clifford who was a former cnbc, cnn senior reporter and writer. MadKennaFan (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@MadKennaFan, that's a pretty good source, though since it's at least partially an interview, it's not entirely independent. Not to worry, you can probably use a lot from it, plus there's the Instagram account, as said above. I'd recommend looking over Help:Referencing for beginners and making a few small edits for practice. Don't worry too much about making mistakes - as long as people see you're trying to add good info from a good source, they'll be forgiving. Don't forget that you can use the talk page for discussing the particulars. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@MadKennaFan Having access to him through Instagram does not mean that you can ask him questions, and put his answers into the article. Sources need to be independent of the subject. The DOB issue is an exception. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Editing to add spouse to article

How do I add a spouse to an article page? I tried twice and got denied. What would I need to show that this is a reliable source? Baseballgirl5099 (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Obviously you have already used the common acceptable way to do it by just doing it but sometimes some editors think that what you think is important is not or you have provided no source or a less than reputable one.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Baseballgirl5099 and welcome to the Teahouse. You didn't provide any source at all in your edit. You need to include a source for any information you add, and the source must meet our standards - in other words, it should be a reliable, independent, published secondary source, especially when it comes to info about a living person. The talk page (Talk:Tyler Danish) can be used to discuss what should be added based on the sources available, if there is disagreement. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay what is considered a reliable source for marriage?? Photos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseballgirl5099 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Baseballgirl5099, a reliable, independent, published secondary source would be something like an article in a well-known newspaper or magazine with a good reputation. What coverage has there been of this marriage by the media? 97.113.167.129 (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Why are the hyperlinks dead when I click on them?

I'm used to the hyperlinks allowing me to deep search a tropic. But today they are not working. I created an account just now thinking that was a new requirement but still no luck! FiberBundle (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@FiberBundle: Can you give examples of what links you're trying to click? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

And if you are trying to click on a red link, it will not work. Kpddg ^(talk) 09:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Electronic Dance Music Producers “Over Easy”

I am a concerned fan and collaborator and I have been trying to find the Wikipedia page for Electronic Dance Music production duo “Over Easy” so I can reference an article but I can’t find them? I am including a link to all their socials and work - hoo.be/overeasy

Been seeing so many fake pages of theirs and I want to source them correctly.

Thank you Jroodz Jroodz (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Jroodz, English-language Wikipedia has no article on this subject. If you are sure that it's notable according to Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then you're welcome to create Draft:Over Easy (music producers); however (i) as you describe yourself as a "collaborator", you'll have to announce your conflict of interest, and (ii) you'd be well-advised to get experience improving existing articles before attempting to create a new draft. -- Hoary (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, Jroodz, please note that "their socials", by which you may mean social media, cannot be the basis for any article about this group, as "socials" are connected to and controlled by Over Easy. Please make the effort to unearth reliable sources.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Their work can be part of the article, but that does not count toward establishing notability. David notMD (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Gristmill video

The article says I may freely copy the video file, but there is no download icon. How do I copy the file to my laptop for appropriate use? Ehansonsmi (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

That depends on your software, Ehansonsmi. For any of a number of browsers, right-click the video display and choose an option called something like "Save this video". -- Hoary (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ehansonsmi - Welcome to the Teahouse! From the Gristmill article, click on the video and then click on the (i) in the bottom right corner to go to File:Wayside Inn Grist Mill video.webm. From there, click on the "View on Commons" tab to go to commons:File:Wayside Inn Grist Mill video.webm, where you will find a "Download" button. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Discord post as a citation

Hi! I'm a very new editor and I've run into an issue that I can't really find a consensus on. For an article, I'd like to find a citation for a major event in the history of the game. The problem is that I can only find one official source on the event, a Discord post from the game's lead community manager. The game was never very big, and this event occurred some time after development was stopped and the game was removed from Steam, so I am unable to find any news articles relating to the topic. I understand this is very much a edge case, but would it be better to add this as a citation or to leave the statement uncited? If the former, would it be more proper to add a link to the message (requires the user to have a Discord account, and be in the game's Discord server) or to take a screencap of the message?

Sorry for such the strange case! Like I said earlier, I'm very new, so if there's any other information I can provide to help please let me know :)

Link to the article: Hellion (video game) GTink911 (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@GTink911: I'm afraid if something never got beyond the stage of a discord post from a primary source connected with the article's subject, then it's not appropriate to include it in the article at all. I am also very much afraid that I'm far from convinced that Hellion (video game) should even be in Wikipedia; it looks like a very non-notable game that barely made it into the world before disappearing again, and that hasn't generated more than a handful of routine press-release-inspired reviews. If you've got strong feelings about the game, I'd keep quiet, tiptoe away, and hope no one notices the article exists... Elemimele (talk) 09:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Contributions are not getting updated

My recent contributions including new article creation and the related changes-its assessment are not getting updated in the summary of my user page.! This is to seek any guidance & support.! Thanks.! Thirukannan (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if this is relevant, but XTools seems to have replication lag right now. If you go to xtools:ec/en.wikipedia.org/Thirukannan, it says that there is replication lag, so contributions from the last two days might not be counted. (They didn't get counted for me.) weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 05:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much.! Thirukannan (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Dead interwiki links

Hello from german wikipedia! For the german wikipedia I wrote some script to identify dead interwiki links, now after 2 month almost all those "redlinks" are gone. So maybe the english wikipedia (or others) are interested in such a list. Currently I find 3,706,692 interwiki links to 401 wikis and there are 129,018 "redlinks" in 39,420 articles (I did not check namespace draft). So 3.5 % of those interwiki links are not working, in german wikipedia we had about 3 % such dead links, so there is no big difference. If you are interested, I can create it. --Wurgl (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Wurgl Try asking this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), it's probable that editors with deeper understanding hang around there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

√ Done. Thanks. --Wurgl (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Incomplete List of Sundown Towns

I am contacting Wikipedia to suggest that it cross references this list of sundown towns and counties with another massive list. The following database has a more complete list of sundown towns and counties, and it could help Wikipedia make a more complete list.

https://justice.tougaloo.edu/sundown-towns/using-the-sundown-towns-database/state-map/

The following is the page that needs to be edited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sundown_towns_in_the_United_States_by_state The Troth (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I challenge the accuracy of the proposed additions. I have been writing about the history of Maynard, MA for 12 years (newspaper column and three books). There is no evidence whatsoever that Maynard was a Sundown Town, but it is listed in that Tougaloo document. David notMD (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Help

Hello community Wikipedia (En), Please I prefer to creat Santrinos Raphael. He is an a Togolese singer. Who can I state ?

==Noel Tchallagassou (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Noel Tchallagassou, could you specify your question? Does this page help? Kpddg ^(talk) 13:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

According to BBC, "In four years of professional career, the singer has established himself as one of the most essential artists on the music scene in Togo." An article on him may be possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:St Thomas Aquinas Catholic Primary School

I am once again asking for this page to be published. I have added reference and more depth to the page. Here it is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:St_Thomas_Aquinas_Catholic_Primary_School — Preceding unsigned comment added by QCS 2020 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

There are 2,924 pending submissions waiting for review. Please be patient, what is the hurry? Theroadislong (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, QCS 2020. The vast majority of primary schools are not notable. Only those of exceptional historical or architectural significance are notable. Your draft requires several references to reliable sources that are independent of the school and that devote significant coverage to this specific school. Currently, there are none. You have primary sources, passing mentions and database entries. That is not good enough. Please read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Cullen328 (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

article creation

need help with article creation Dcmpedia (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Ashfaque nabi. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @Dcmpedia, and welcome to the Teahouse! Are you referring to your draft article on Ashfaque nabi? If so, please bear in mind the feedback the reviewer left. The draft has been declined twice because the reviewer, KylieTastic, found that the draft does not demonstrate that the subject is notable, and therefore doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article. Unless you can prove that the subject is notable by providing multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources which cover the subject in non-trivial detail, your draft is unlikely to be accepted into the mainspace. Regardless, have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Tea house

' 41.138.73.8 (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi 41.138.73.8 and welcome. Do you have any question? GenuineArt (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Her

Singer from Vallejo cal. Not listed in musicians from Vallejo California. 2600:1700:7800:A720:9D46:B2F1:5380:4A75 (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. In order for that to happen, she must merit a Wikipedia article, and in order to do that, she would need to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

She is indisputably notable. She has won several Grammy Awards and an Academy Award. I spend a lot of time in Vallejo since I own a home nearby. The biography is at H.E.R.. Cullen328 (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I have added H.E.R. to Category:Musicians from Vallejo, California. Cullen328 (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

article about Wahabi Islam

In the text from citation (104). It says, "the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon". There should be a year obviously, (01 or 2001), and the sentence, should also include something, in reference, to the downing, of the jetliner in a Pennsylvania field. As I live in Pennsylvania, and have visited the memorial site. I consider a jetliner, being used by a missile, after the killing of innocent stewardesses, and pilots, and then all the passengers including babies, an attack, on the Unites states also.207.44.34.110 (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

It says "September 11, 2001", so I am not clear why you think the year is missing. And the linked article about the attacks has information about the Penn. part also. You can discuss suggested changes on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I edited the dates for clarity. Personally, I do not see the need to mention the crash near Shanksville, Pennsylvania in this article about a theological movement. If you disagree, the proper place to make your case is at Talk:Wahhabism. Cullen328 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding a name.

Re: Wiki list "Friends Seminary Notable Graduates." First let me say that I'm 84. and happy when my toaster works. This is whom I tried to add to the aforementioned list, my late daughter, Christiana Ley Parker, author, equestrian, humanitarian. [https://www.christianaparker.org The website mentioned is my privately funded charitable entity in her memory. Additionally, I endowed her non-sectarian "Christiana Ley Parker '92 Humanitarian Award" at Friends Seminary; which, in perpetuity, has and will provide a yearly grant to that person, as chosen by the school, "Who went their own oft-times lonely way with goodness and grace" as she did. Chris was the co-author with me of "Camp Off The Wall" and "A Horse In New York" published by Avon, combining our initials as CaM Parker. It was our way of spending time together during school holidays or waiting for camp, when her ongoing efforts to save the world and every horse in it allowed. The listing is not all that important I suppose, to any save me, but it would be nice. Be and stay well. Mtnpkr821 (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Mtnpkr821, I don't doubt that your adding the name of your late daughter would give you great satisfaction. You should note, however, that names added to lists of notable alumni need to have an article written about them on Wikipedia. Otherwise, they are subject to either immediate or eventual removal from the list. In order for an article written about Chris to be published on Wikipedia, she must qualify as notable, which Wikipedia defines as having been discussed in depth in multiple, published, reliable sources (i.e., sources in no way connected to her or her family, friends, etc.). If you wish to go down that road, please read Your first article and the articles to which it links. --Quisqualis (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. My Latin studies were eons ago, but "What is this" rings a bell. Thanks again. 71.230.172.147 (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Mtnpkr821. I am so sorry that you lost your daughter and I can see that you are trying to commemorate her. I am 70 and I lost a loved and expected and eagerly anticipated first grandson at birth 6-1/2 years ago, and it was devastating. In response, I wrote and expanded articles like Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep (organization) and Rainbow baby and Zenith Radio Nurse and Baby rattle. So, I suggest to take your valid and legitimate grief about your daughter's death, and work to neutrally improve articles that do not mention your daughter, but instead have to do with the things you loved about her and the things that she loved. I am very fortunate to now have a 4-1/2 year old granddaughter, so that motivates me as well. She makes life worth living for me. I wish you well. Cullen328 (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. If anyone knows your feelings of loss, and that of your grandson's parents, I certainly do. Mine was 15 years ago, but I relive that awful day each and every day; and I suppose I shall until I too am no longer around. Chris was born in what might be considered late in my life, and that in itself was a miracle I treasured. I appreciate your article suggestions, but since her death have chosen to perpetuate her memory by continuing her good works in the only meaningful way I know of, via financial arrangements for the benefit of those who deserve recognition for traits that reflect her goodness and concern for others. Adding Chris' name to the list of her Alma Mater's "Notables" isn't really important. There, via her endowed fund's yearly grants in perpetuity, Chris will remain a kind of living presence long after I as well as all now, or in the future, alive are long gone. It was just something that occurred to me when coming upon same. Keep well, and please accept my best wishes for the health and happiness of you and yours. 71.230.172.147 (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

My edits are not saved

I am trying to edit this page - Viber, and I am adding words/sections that are updated about the company, including relevant sources, and its still always reverted back and not saved. I am always providing reasons and links, and its still not saved. Who can I speak to in order to solve this? CKWiki1818 (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

This edit did save, but it was reverted because the citations were incorrectly formatted. It looks as though your edits at Viber did save, but were reverted for various reasons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there anyone who is an official representative from Wikipedia that I can speak with? CKWiki1818 (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

CKWiki1818, here's one of your additions: "One of Viber’s very first collaborations was with the BBC. In 2016, the news channel launched a public account on the app. In its public account, the news channel delivered real-time news to its subscribers and gave them access like never before to breaking stories." It's completely unsourced. It has an external link, but this isn't a reference for any proposition. Additionally, in-text external links are frowned on, and "like never before" sounds promotional. Had I seen this addition, I too would have reverted it. But the matter can be discussed in Talk:Viber. -- Hoary (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but what about the rest of the edits? I added more things, more sections, with sources, and everything is reverted. Is there any way to check the reasons for the rest of the unsaved edits? Also, is there anyone who is an official from Wikipedia that I can speak with? CKWiki1818 (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

You also added an unsourced section which said "Viber works closely with global brands across various industries to help users connect with their favorite brands, and teams, or get access to essential information." that was VERY promotional and correctly removed. Theroadislong (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there anyone who is an official representative from Wikipedia that I can speak with? CKWiki1818 (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

CKWiki1818 We are all official representatives- Wikipedia has no paid staff involved in day to day operations. You may ask any questions you wish here. Please also see your user talk page for important information. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

You can try to find something at Wikipedia:Contact us, but they will point you to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR. If WP:COI applies to you, follow the guidance there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Trams in Ostrava

This is both a rant and a question about the Trams in Ostrava article.

A rollbacker and a page mover admin completely ignored my contribution on the article. Their argument on my talk page was that the article wouldn't pass WP:V. I read about WP:V and admittedly, there wasn't many references to the article, and as a beginner, I was 1. practising my articles whilst openly contributing 2. providing in depth translations and 3. working on references. But wouldn't millions of articles on Wikipedia currently not pass WP:V?

For example, the article now reads more succinctly (congratulations to the editor), but there's no information on steam trams that has been completely rubbed out. Surely not every sentence on Wikipedia has to have a corresponding reference? I find it unlikely that this would be possible.

I risk highlighting Trams in Košice article for the same reason; yet there are a few books available on it. While I can speak a bit of Czech, Slovak is a little different; I don't understand some words or context to be able to cite the book properly. Kmlbon (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to tell which of your contributions you are talking about. Could you give us a diff? And this isn't really the place to raise such issues. Deb (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trams_in_Ostrava&diff=next&oldid=1092492798 Kmlbon (talk) 08:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Kmlbon. Unfortunately we have thousands and thousands and thousands of seriously substandard articles, which would not be accepted if they were created today in the form they are. Our standards have become significantly higher since the project began. Ideally somebody would go through these improving them or deleting them if they cannot be made acceptable; but not many of our volunteer editors are intersted in spending their time in this way. When somebody does work on one of these articles, it tends to bring it to other editors' attention, and the result is sometimes that the article gets moved to draft, or deleted. Please look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

It is true that Wikipedia's policies do not require that every statement be cited; but they do require that every statement be citeable - that is, that a reliable published source exist for every claim; and reviewers nowadays tend to strongly prefer that the citations be present (after all, if there is a source, why not cite it?). If there is no reliable published source for a piece of information, then that information should not be in a Wikipedia article - period. ColinFine (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I will endeavour to improve my referencing Kmlbon (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I trying to make page but I can't

How to make page? 156.213.93.184 (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

See Help:Your first article for instructions. Deb (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We call pages in the encyclopedia "articles". New accounts and IP users cannot directly create articles, and need to use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft article for review by other editors. Be advised that successfully creating a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it's a good idea to first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Whether you prefer to do that or to dive right in to article creation, please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

along with Your first article, I advise you to also read Notability (or whatever notability guideline is appropriate for your subject) and Reliable sources, which show what subjects can have an article and what sources can be used to prove claims in the article respectively. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 09:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Where to get started on Counter-Vandalism

Hi!

I've been reading about Counter-Vandalism here on WP and would like to contribute. Do you have any pointers for me? Where do I start? What tools do I use?

Thanks! Kvoou (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

hi @Kvoou and welcome to the teahouse! I'd advise you to take a look at Counter-Vandalism Unit and read as many policy articles as you can, starting with Vandalism and Disruptive editing (and make sure to know the difference between both! vandalism is deliberate disruptive editing, while disruptive editing can be unintentional or caused by them not knowing the policies). you might also want to get a script to help with your CVing, I advise RedWarn and Twinkle. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 09:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Melecie! Thank you for the welcome. I will definitely do that! I'm going through the TWA right now. --Kvoou (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Any way to contact an editor who might be wasting their time?

Due to a misunderstanding, an editor I was involved in a dispute with is now implementing what they consider to be the consensus. It's not. This is affecting 57 articles and presumably a lot of work for them. I've left a message on their talk page but fear they haven't seen it and are now in an editing trance. Is there any non-etiquette-breaching way I can contact that editor and suggest they stop?

IpseCustos (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

IpseCustos, you'll be more likely to get a helpful answer if you link to the dispute, so that Teahouse hosts can assess what is happening. Maproom (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be a dispute at Talk:Oxygen about high-energy oxygen, with spillover here (and on many other pages). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The more wide-ranging discussion is at WP:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Chemical energy and related articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@IpseCustos, it wouldn't be wiki-illegal to e-mail them if they've attached an address to their account, though doing it repeatedly would obviously cross a line. It's generally best to keep things on-wiki as much as possible. They're aware of the various discussions, you've taken things to a noticeboard and started an RfC, seems like it would be best to let things play out until a consensus is reached, then implement it. If they then go against it, there's a different problem to be dealt with. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your responses and advice. I shall try to be more patient and see where things go.

As a very minor nitpick, it's not "high-energy oxygen" we're arguing about (i.e. oxygen species that are more reactive than ordinary oxygen), it's about calling ordinary old oxygen a "high-energy" molecule. About 2 food calories in a deep breath, in case you're wondering (though I suppose we ought to call them air calories). IpseCustos (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, @IpseCustos - I was just copying the title of the RfC, since chemistry is far from my area of expertise. Unfortunately this looks like it's going to be a complicated issue, with some WP:COI flavoring on top, so much patience will no doubt be needed! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

why my article has declined?

Hi there,

this is my first article on wikipedia,

it's been declined, the question is why?

this is just a name that people use for their Girl in Kurdistan and the reference for that is a physical dictionary. I'm wondering if the referencing is the case how can I reference it? Yuseferi (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

hi @Yuseferi and welcome to the teahouse! the problem is that the sole reference is a dictionary which does not really establish notability (there are lots of words in a dictionary, not all of them deserve separate articles since we're not Wiktionary), not that the dictionary is physical. not all names are automatically notable for Wikipedia. you could make it a disambiguation and show links to all notable people with the name Gashin (for example, see Lucy (disambiguation)), although if you want to make it a full article detailing the etymology, history, and notability of the name Gashin, you have to prove it meets the general notability criteria, see Anastasia for an example of such article. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Melecie,

thank you for your message. the problem is that there is no any English reference for this name, nobody has added anything to this name in English. and in the Kurdish alphanet are different.

I'm wondering in case that someone like me wants to add a Article for the first time which there is no English reference for that what should he/she do? I found some news in English with people with Name Gashin. like https://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iran/19102013 . is that something that I can use as reference? Yuseferi (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yuseferi, the great majority of personal names are not of encyclopedic significance. Imaginably Gashin is an exception; but your draft doesn't start to suggest that it is. -- Hoary (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Melecie, sorry I didn't get that. what can I do know?

could you please help me how can I improve it and make it published. at the moment what I have is translation of it from Kurdish to Persian and I translated it from Persian to English.

I have a reference from Kurdish to Persian in the top kurdish-persian dictionary. ( it's pdf file of this Abdurrahman Sharafkandi person).

that is. Yuseferi (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Yuseferi, sources do not have to be in English, that is not one of our requirements. The problem is that one dictionary entry isn't enough to build an article on - it doesn't demonstrate that a word is notable by our standards. If you wanted to make a disambiguation page, you could use the dictionary entry to support a sentence about the name's meaning and/or origin, but right now there don't appear to be any articles which need disambiguation on enWP. Gashin redirects to Gasin faith, which is the main context for the word in articles here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Melecie,

but this Gashin is different with Gasin faith,

I have reference for Gashin, it's a paper book. ( of course it's pdf is around). if I upload it somewhere and add it as a reference will be approved? Yuseferi (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

(Note: I am not Melecie) @Yuseferi, you don't need to upload it. You just need to cite it. See {{cite book}} for how to do that. If it's online as a pdf, you might be able to use {{cite web}}. One book is probably not going to be enough for an article, though, especially if it's just a dictionary. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

we don't mind that sources are not online, we accept paper sources or sources in other languages when they are available, however what we are looking for are sources that are not just dictionaries, ones that actually show that the name gashin is notable for wikipedia standards.

however unless if the book was published a long time ago (very early 1900s or before) please do not upload the full book at all, just citing the book is fine. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 15:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Got it. I just need ti cites it. I will update it. thank you very much for time and clarification Yuseferi (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

hey

hey 2601:2C5:4200:C440:68E0:47D:9E27:9F02 (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

hi IP user! do you have a question regarding editing wikipedia? 💜  melecie  talk - 13:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding the page "Teenage pregnancy in fiction".

Hi, there is an extended user (@Bonedea ) who moved my page that I created, Teenage pregnancy in fiction, it says: Not ready for mainspace, incubate for draft space because the page is not suitable as written to remain published due to just an indiscriminate list with a poorly written and unsourced introduction. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources for the lead section or somewhere in my page. It's a good thing if someone can help me for my page, just like this one, List of highest-grossing films based on video games. Fortunewriter (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Fortunewriter! To create an acceptable Wikipedia article, it's not sufficient just to show that something merely exists, even if you can provide a long list of examples. An article needs to show that the subject is Notable in Wikipedia's sense of the term. That is, that other people have discussed the subject in some depth in well-edited, published Reliable sources.

In this case, instead of just creating a list of examples (which by itself is bordering on Original research or at least Synthesis, Wikipedia no-nos), you need to find examples of, for example, literary and film critics discussing teenage pregnancy in fiction, how it has been portrayed and used in fiction, and what significance these uses have. You then need to base the article mostly on summaries of what these sources say, and cite them appropriately. The list (which is well constructed using notable works – well done on that aspect) can form a useful part of such an article, but it's insufficient on its own.

Using the argument that "Other stuff exists" is not a good idea – other articles may themselves be substandard (in part because Wikipedia's standards have become higher over the years), and there's a lot that should really be either improved or deleted if only there was the editorial time available. Also, some list-based articles (like the one you mention) at least have hard numbers that can be measured and compared (money is always significant to some points of view).

I suggest that you look at the articles about your list entries and see if any of the sources used in them lead you to discussions of the titular topic (which could easily be the subject of PhD or D.Litt theses), and if writers of those sources have also published other articles about it. Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.131.154 (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking for a post by Jimbo

Hi! Not sure if I should be using the Teahouse for this question, but some months ago, I came across a post by Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales where he pointed out how the ratio of unreviewed Wikipedia pages was on the rise (he also shared a graph showing this). I remember the comment thread was pretty active then. Can someone share that post here? Thanks in advance! Toofllab (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Toofllab, are you referring to this? A corresponding message from the newsletter is also present in some user talk pages, like this one....Kpddg ^(talk) 15:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes! This is the (somewhat alarming) graph. I remember Jimbo referring to it in a post. Any idea where I can find that? Toofllab (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Toofllab, is it this discussion? Kpddg ^(talk) 16:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Toofllab: (edit conflict) I think you'll find the discussion in Jimbo's recent archive User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_248#New_Page_Patrol_on_its_last_legs. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah this seems to be it! Thanks a lot @Kpddg and @Michael D. Turnbull! Toofllab (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone

What would be a good first article to edit here? This encyclopedia is so big and I'm a little overwhelmed. 96.31.192.54 (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Go to the top left column and click "Random article". I used to enjoy that. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Hi, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse! In addition to random articles, you can also look at the Community Portal (also in the top left column). It has a section near the top titled "Help out" which has lists of articles that need improving. If you're interested, you can also create an account, and you'll then get a 'homepage' that will suggest articles you can improve for you. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• See if you find something you like at Wikipedia:Task Center. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Another suggestion is to ask yourself what specialist interests you have, and what reference books you might have on your shelves at home that could be used as sources that maybe other editors haven't got access to. Then go check out some articles that interest you - perhaps about your home region, or your hobbies. For example, one of my interests has been climbing the highest summits in the Alps over 4,000m. I have many guidebooks on those topics, and I find that many Wikipedia articles about these mountains (with a few exceptions) are usually very short and incomplete. So I might go and look at a few I know and whether I have some good climbing guides I could use. I'd consider what content is currently missing from that article and use those books to add additional information.

We have lots 'WikiProjects' here, which are simply groups of editors who come together to work on specific topics. So, in my case I'd visit WikiProject Mountains of the Alps. They have a table of all relevant articles there (3,097 of them), and all listed by importance and by their quality (=completeness). To have the greatest impact, I might choose to look at all the 'High' Importance articles that are really short (we call them stubs). The table shows me there are currently 22 of them. By clicking the number in the cell, I get list of those articles, and can visit each in turn to see whether I have anything I could add to them from my reference books. I can't base what I write on my own personal experience of them, and must be able to cite published books or other reliable online sources to support everything I want to add. I suspect you don't have the same interests as me, so why not visit the full list of Projects. Most WikiPrtojects have similarly helpful Article Assessment Tables, and I hope you might find one that inspires you to edit. I hope this helps a bit. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Oilphase

Hi. I would like to ask if it is possible for me to create and publish a wikipedia page for a past company called Oilphase (Oilphase Sampling Services Ltd., to be precise). It could link to the reference of "Oilphase" on this other company's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlumberger). I only ask as if Wikipedia has a policy of not publishing pages for past companies or anything like that, since if it does then I would rather not waste my time. Otherwise, I will try to compose something of value. Oilphase was/is notable in the oil & gas industry for revolutionizing bottom-hole sampling technology in the mid-90's in North Sea oilfields. It then soon grew and oil & gas companies around the world were using their tools in their wells. The technology, single-phase sampling, has since been adopted by several other service companies (Halliburton, Baker Hughes, etc). Thanks & regards for your time and consideration, Chris Batzer. 216.227.241.182 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Chris, and welcome to the Teahouse! To answer the question generally, any article (not page) can exist on Wikipedia if it follows the relevant guidelines. For your specific question, an article could be created for the company if it is notable by Wikipedia's definition. The article would also need to be neutral and verifiable. If you wish to create an article, you should look at Your first article, which describes the process. However, if you are connected with the company in any way, you should first read the conflict of interest guideline before editing about the company. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Chris. To add to what Perfect4th said above, you would have to be confident that Oilphase met our very specific notability criteria for businesses. You can find them with this shortcut: WP:NCORP. Whilst there are millions of companies that someone might deem notable within that field, our definition used by Wikipedia is that you would need evidence that the world at large has already taken note of that business, and that people independent of the company and of the sector have written in detail and in depth about the company. If you can find three books, newspapers or major publishers which have written about that company, and supply us with links, we can take a look at them and advise further. You would need to exclude all insider business sources, press releases, social media posts and blogs. It's a hard ask, so unless you can unearth some really good sources, there would be no chance of an article here. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

How do you know if a source is reliable

I've been making an article about one of the battles fought in the Philippine-American war, i was looking for sources and found bunch, however, most of them seem fake. There were either no proof or classification. They looked like sketchy websites. I don't know if one source is reliable and i don't wanna get blocked from editing. Leahnn Rey (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

For the Phillippine-American war, I expect the best sources are actually going to be scholarly books, not websites. But as a rule, I apply a five-prong test, as follows:

1. Does the source discuss the subject at some length?
2. Is the source not something that would exist as a matter of course in the first place? (i.e. routine business news)
3. Does the source have any direct connexion to the subject or their surrogates? (i.e. was it written, filmed, said, etc. by them?)
4. Is the source attributed to an identifiable author?
5. Has the source been fact-checked to within an inch of its life?

Note that we accept offline sources, if cited properly. We also accept non-English sources and offline non-English sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

On the page of protected titles. Why is the first entry "Category:Motherfuckers"?

The first entry is Category:Motherfuckers. most other entries make sense, as they are basic functions or pages that would be created often, but this isn't the case for this entry, did something happen? AccountantOfGrillers (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

My guess is WP:BLP concerns. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Relationship limits

1. Is there a policy for mentee-mentor relationship on Wikipedia? Or a list of what a mentor is not supposed to do?
2. What does a third person do, if a mentor appears to be abusing their role and harassing a third person in order to protect their protege?

--Armatura (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)