Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 777: Line 777:
:::Thank you! [[User:SkyOfRose|SkyOfRose]] ([[User talk:SkyOfRose|talk]]) 21:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Thank you! [[User:SkyOfRose|SkyOfRose]] ([[User talk:SkyOfRose|talk]]) 21:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
:::[[User:Michael D. Turnbull|Mike Turnbull]], the relevant article in ja:WP is [[:ja:東京都立国際高等学校|this]]. It cites a grand total of zero sources. (A very common phenomenon in ja:WP.) ¶ [[User:SkyOfRose|SkyOfRose]], it seems that you are trying to write [[User:SkyOfRose/sandbox|your draft]] [[Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward|backward(s)]]. I fear that the enterprise is doomed. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 21:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
:::[[User:Michael D. Turnbull|Mike Turnbull]], the relevant article in ja:WP is [[:ja:東京都立国際高等学校|this]]. It cites a grand total of zero sources. (A very common phenomenon in ja:WP.) ¶ [[User:SkyOfRose|SkyOfRose]], it seems that you are trying to write [[User:SkyOfRose/sandbox|your draft]] [[Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward|backward(s)]]. I fear that the enterprise is doomed. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 21:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

== Citing an entire list in the References section ==

In the body of my Wikipedia page draft I say that a person <u>has won numerous awards</u>. This comment refers to an ''entire'' later section titled '''Recent Awards''' and not to just one award in its list. How do I do this in Wikipedia? In both Word and Acrobat one would first create a target, like the words "Recent Awards", and then create a hyperlink earlier in the document to the target. Is this allowable in Wikipedia? [[Special:Contributions/2601:5C0:C380:4980:BD25:9843:27D3:B53C|2601:5C0:C380:4980:BD25:9843:27D3:B53C]] ([[User talk:2601:5C0:C380:4980:BD25:9843:27D3:B53C|talk]]) 21:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:48, 8 September 2023

Skip to top
Skip to bottom


my page is not accepted

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
User is blocked. Cwater1 (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the page I've prepared has been deleted twice. Despite adhering to all the rules, not including advertisements, providing complete and detailed sources, it keeps getting deleted for these reasons and possibly others. I need to write and publish the page. What should I do? Rojhan Kuyumcu (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link Draft:James Van Patten your draft has been deleted three times, firstly it was created by a banned or blocked user (Kileyburk), second time for Unambiguous advertising or promotion and unambiguous copyright infringement and thirdly unambiguous advertising or promotion: self written vanity page. Why do you "need" to publish this page? Theroadislong (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coz, UPE. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rojhan Kuyumcu You were not adhering to all the rules if you based large parts of your draft on copyrighted material. I suggest you carefully read WP:YFA and this advice before creating a new draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Rojhan Kuyumcu. Like nearly everybody who p;lunges straight into creating an article as soon as they start editing Wikipedia, you are having a frustrating experience, because you don't yet understand enough about Wikipedia to make it work.
My advice is to leave Van Patten aside for a few weeks or months, while you make improvements to existing Wikipedia articles, and learn how the whole thing works.
Then read the links Mike has given you.
Of course, if you are an undisclosed paid editor, as various people suspect, you probably can't do that. If that is the case, you will continue to be doing paid work that you are not yet competent to do. ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rojhan Kuyumcu, your Draft:James Van Patten is a very long way from being acceptable as an article. It cites no sources at all, making its entire contents worthless. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners and WP:BACKWARD.   Maproom (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to keep replying. The OP is blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LGBT parenting

Are there too many inline citations on this Wikipedia article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting 2A00:23C5:F405:2001:3CA3:859D:677B:BDBC (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there to many citations?

Are there too many inline citations on this Wikipedia article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting Are there too many inline citations in the "Sub-processes within fast carbon cycle" of this Wikipedia article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle Are there too many inline citations in this article? 2A00:23C5:F405:2001:3CA3:859D:677B:BDBC (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment consider the above comment by this IP, this feels like some LLM shenanigans. Googleguy007 (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to assume good faith and point out to the IP that we do have guidance on this at WP:OVERCITE. Suggestions to improve any article (such as by removing excess citations) can be made on its Talk Page, e.g. Talk:Carbon cycle. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IP user and welcome to the teahouse. From the first glance, the first article is indeed suffering from Wikipedia:Citation overkill, especially in the second paragraph of the lede and the first two paragraphs of the "Forms" section.
However, the problem of citation overkill is less obvious in the second article you mentioned. I think it certainly happens in the "Types of dynamics" section.
That being said, I encourage you to bring these concerns up in the talk pages of these articles. Also, please be mindful to not post repeated questions at the teahouse. Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding. I agree with the points. Should I remove some unnecessary citations or first bring up concerns in the talk page? sorry for repeating question, I just meant to add the second article.
Do I need to talk on talk page about edits or just be bold like it says?
What is LLM shenanigans?
Thanks! 2A00:23C5:F405:2001:3CA3:859D:677B:BDBC (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:LLM. Shantavira|feed me 18:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IP address,
You are very welcome. I suggest that you bring up the concerns in the talk page first. Cluttered citations may be signs of an edit-war, and we sure do not wish to provoke another. Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I've added a section on the talk page. Let's see what happens now.
Thank you for your help. 2A00:23C5:F405:2001:B814:5B78:8694:748F (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what is a redirect?

I attempted to edit my work and saw a notice that the page was redirected. In simple language, what does this mean and how do I respond? What action did I do to result in this?

When I click on the greyed-out draft name, a dialogue box appears with the following options for Page settings

  • Redirect this page to (selected) - why would I want this option?
  • Prevent this redirect from being updated when target page is moved.
  • Show the Table of Contents (Always, If needed, Never) - "If needed" is already selected - what is the consequence of accepting this?
  • Disable the edit links next to each heading on this page.
  • This is a disambiguation page

Sorry to be such a dunce about this! Co1umbus (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which page were you looking at? If it's Carol A. Mullen then that's at Draft:Carol A. Mullen, because it's an as-yet unpublished draft. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Co1umbus, I see that in Draft:Carol A. Mullen all the citation links are fakes, the numbers in square brackets don't link to anything. You need to read Help:Referencing for beginners.   Maproom (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Co1umbus You started that draft on Mullen in your sandbox at User:Co1umbus/sandbox. When you moved it to draft space, the software left the redirect in its place. Assuming you wish to use your sandbox now for something else, you need to go and edit it to remove the redirect and replace it with anything else you like. This link will take you there. Use "edit" in the normal way to change what's currently in the sandbox. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google 25th anniversary and how to edit this article

Hello, I am new editor of Wikipedia and I trying to edit in this article. Since is currently semi-protected indefinitely due to Vandalism, the article's talk page has also been semi-protected. I am here to recommend to edit anything in Wikipedia, in this IP address. Since I was blocked in several times and once the block expires, I want to make useful contributions. I noticed that CEO Sergey Brin and Larry Page created this company on September 4, 1998. If created an account, I recommended to read per WP:SOCK is to use one account and one preson, also read WP:USERNAME to choose in new username that keep I very happy and not abusing multiple accounts, I'm so excited to see that Wikipedia will continue forever to see what happens. Can anybody help me if I created account in the near futures and if just to edit useful contributions and don't delete your account and if in doubt, just abandoned and make new accounts per WP:ACCOUNT now? Also, please see WP:PAG, WP:WWIN, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHIES and WP:BLOCKING. Thanks. 2402:800:63B0:4EBD:CEA:1784:B5BE:D337 (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you currently have an account that is blocked, you may not edit until the block is lifted. The block applies to you as a person and not just to one specfic account. Go to the talk page of the blocked account and there should be instructions there regarding your block. RudolfRed (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm sure I not blocked if I understand after reviewing Guide to appealing blocks. Also, I see there are over 1,174 billions edits in English Wikipedia, over 6,710 millions articles and 118,343 recent contributors with making 1 edits during last month. See Wikipedia:Wikipedians for more details and go to Help:Introduction to get started edit in English Wikipedia, that was not shutdown indefinitely. 2402:800:63B0:4EBD:CEA:1784:B5BE:D337 (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the links here: [1] with a list of recent changes to Wikipedia. Thanks, 2402:800:63B0:4EBD:CEA:1784:B5BE:D337 (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor – if this is not just chatbot-generated nonsense, then I have to tell you that you are not making much sense. It is not clear what question you are asking, or even if you are asking a question at all. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.81.165 (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, don't post nonsense such as this on the teahouse. I suspect you are using a chatbot like the previous editor suggested (repeating information just said, linking irrelevant policies, nonsensical sentences), and if you are, knock it off. If you are not using a chatbot, try rephrasing your questions so they are actually comprehensible. Industrial Insect (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Next time I don’t used nonsense anymore. And don’t using a chatbot for making unblock request. 2402:800:63A5:DAFF:C11B:5A70:16AC:BC63 (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need to know...

If it's possible to create a song using the MIDI format as shown in WP:MIDI. All I need to know is how to convert a note to a whole, half, eighth, tied, etc. And if it's possible to change a note's pitch an octave higher or lower, and to sharpen/flat the note. I wanted to test it out in my sandbox, but I just need to know if any of the things listed are possible. Thanks, 🄼🄾🄳 🄲🅁🄴🄰🅃🄾🅁 (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mod creator, and welcome to the Teahouse, I'm not sure what you're asking. The section you link to mentions various pieces of software you can use to create midi files. Are you asking about the score extensions? If so, then it also links to mw:Extension:Score, which should answer your questions. ColinFine (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I find your signature hard to read. ColinFine (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi people I need your help with making Demiboy and Demigirl Demiboy609 (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Deimboy_and_Deimgirl
@Demiboy609: Based on the draft review comments, you need more references. WP:REFB is a good resource and also WP:N RudolfRed (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Demiboy609 Fix spelling throughout. Demiboy and demigirl, not deimboy and deimgirl. David notMD (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't this mean the draft should be moved to one whose title doesn't have that minor spelling mistake? cogsan(give me attention)(see my deeds) 20:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Simple Wikipedia page for "Demigender". You might have more success if you take inspiration from that. It has some more usable sources. The title would be good to copy as well as it's broader and shorter. VintageVernacular (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC) And now that I look again, English Wikipedia has demigender as a redirect to a small section on another page with some sources you may find usable. VintageVernacular (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Active editors in subject-areas list

If I remember correctly, there was a list somewhere that had every user who had made recently a certain amount of edits in different WikiProject areas - can anyone find this for me, or am I just not remembering things right? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11 You may find WP:EDITS close to what you remembered. At the foot in the "See also" section there is a link to this page which is exactly what you are looking for but is currently defunct. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull: I found what I meant here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject National Football League - though it seems it hasn't been updated in 14 months? Is there a newer version of that available or did that stop altogether? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11 I don't know. I suggest you ask at WT:NFL, which seems to be an active Talk page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where Might I Ask For Writing Help?

I desire to revisit the 1924 United States presidential election that I had worked on in the far past, and I can dig up plenty of information rather easily with key points, but I have not been effectively able to formulate that information into something proper for the article. Is there are place where I can find prospective writers for said article? In the past I would inquire WikiProject United States presidential elections, but that is largely dead now it seems; I've made a number of inquiries with other WikiProjects or Users, but I haven't had any luck finding a collaborator. While I could certainly continue to expand the database of newspaper sources I've linked to on its Talk Page, its getting harder to do so with no one making use of it. I'm not sure if there is any official place to ask for a collaborator on an article, at least beyond hoping someone picks up on the article's Talk Page, but I figured the Teahouse might have better ideas on where I could do so. Ariostos (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond an article's talk page, Ariostos, or the talk page of a relevant "WikiProject" (if this isn't moribund or worse), there is no particular place to ask. I suggest that you make modest starts to improving the article 1924 United States presidential election yourself. As long as they cite reliable sources, represent these sources fairly, remain neutral, and don't add mere trivia [but let's forgo an unabridged list] and all in all clearly are improvements to an article, unpolished edits are welcome and are likely to be noticed and improved on by editors qualified to do so. -- Hoary (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your OP, I'm guessing you've tried Wikipedia:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/American politics as well. "No luck" is unfortunately fairly common, millions of WP-articles and ten of thousands of active editors, with a broad definition of "active". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unresponsive editor

How does one deal with an editor who keeps restoring their preferred version of content, which contradicts reliable sources, and refuses to provide any argumentation in support of their position? 93.72.49.123 (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see of your particular dispute, they are not restoring a preferred version but rather simply enforcing the sanctions related to the Russo-Ukrainian war, under which non-extended-confirmed users may not edit in areas related to the topic, regardless of whether the edit is constructive. There is nothing you can do to continue making these changes, as they are simply not permitted. If you would like to edit in these areas in the future, consider creating an account so that you may eventually gain the required permissions. Tollens (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"regardless of whether the edit is constructive" - what a joke. Guess P:CE readers would have to suck it up and leave away misinformed because some busybody wants to second-guess reliable sources and enforce pointless rules against common sense. After all, what do those retards at the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Reuters know? 93.72.49.123 (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the content, but your problem seems easy to fix. You could create an account and become extended-confirmed. Or, you could ask an extended-confirmed user to make the changes you wish to see. Pecopteris (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, if you call anyone a "retard" again, even if it is joking or sarcastic, you will be blocked. I hope that's clear, and that you now understand that you are not permitted to edit in any way regarding the war between Russia and Ukraine. You know exactly how to gain that user right. Cullen328 (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can one request an edit request? Wikipedia:Edit requests Cwater1 (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undisclosed COI

I came across a page here that was written by a person who works there - so a clear COI. They didn't declare anything. But the page isn't promotional. It was created in November 2021 by AFC. Nothing to see here? Just ignore it? Or should some action be taken? If so, what. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 06:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which article? David notMD (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me to name them I will but I was thinking I should be discrete. Or is there no need to do so? Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Whitemancanjump23. There's a difference between an "undisclosed COI" and "undeclared paid editing", with the latter being a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. While users are strongly encourage to be as transparent about any conflict of interest they may have with respect to content they're creating or editing on Wikipedia and COI editing is highly discouraged, it's not prohbitted per se and disclosing such a thing isn't mandatory. WP:COI is a guideline and COI editors are highly encouraged to follow it because it can help them avoid running into problems, but it's not policy in the sense that compliance is mandatory. Undeclared paid editing, however, is (as previously stated) a serious violation of Wikipedia policy and paid editors are required to make a proper disclosure per WP:PAID. If you just suspect this to be a case of simple COI in which the user in question is acting in good faith and is not otherwise violating any other Wikipedia policy, then you can (if you want) just leave them be or at most may be suggest that they declare their COI by posting something on their user talk page. If, however, you feel this person is somehow violating Wikipedia policy in some serious way, you could post something at WP:ANI or try email per WP:PAID#Reporting undisclosed paid editors. What you want to avoid doing is to start trying to connect the dots between someone's Wikipedia identity and their real world identity as explained in WP:OUTING. You can provide the names of articles that you think might be impacted by this non-disclosure and even the user names of those who are involved, but you shouldn't reveal anything more than the other person has already revealed themselves through their Wikipedia edits. It's best to use email personally identifying information unless the user has posted it themselves somewhere on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marchjuly The editor in question did 11 random edits and then created the page via AFC. They haven't edited any other page since, including this one. They work for the company in question but I think this is undisclosed COI as opposed to UPE. But like I said, I don't think the page is problematic. What I'm thinking is to just let it be but keep a page on the editor's activity and edits to the page. If I see anything untoward, I will flag it. Ok? Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they work for the company, they are a paid editor. There doesn't need to be specific payment for edits. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok they're a paid editor. How should I proceed? Do you want me to email you the name of the page? Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may if you don't wish to publicly reveal that it was you who came across it. You may also email via the address given on the page provided by Marchjuly above if you want to be more general about it. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to email MarchJuly or yourself about it as you have some context and then I will leave it in your hands. If you decide to do nothing, I'm ok with that.How do I email one of you? I couldn't see an address. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whitemancanjump23, both editors have the "Email this user" function enabled on their user pages. I suggest that you use the desktop site in case you are using an app or the mobile site, which lacks full functionality. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I was looking for that but in the wrong place. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Whitemancanjump23 and Cullen328: You may also go to the special page Special:EmailUser and input the recipient user name there. Then the form opens, where you type your message. You may also go directly to the form through Special:EmailUser/Username CiaPan (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Whitemancanjump23: I'm not a Wikipedia administrator so emailing me will not resolve things and I won't respond to your email. 331dot and Cullen328 are Wikipedia administrators, however. Even so, I still suggest you email the address listed on WP:PAID since that's what it's for. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that it's sometimes worth viewing this from the reader's perspective? If an employee of a university edits the article about their university to correct an out-of-date department name or something like that, technically it's undisclosed paid editing, but they probably didn't even think of it as such, but it's actually beneficial to Wikipedia, useful to our readers, and likely correct. If we wade in and revert it on principle, we make things worse. Basically I'd suggest fighting UPE (and COI) ferociously when it's used to create promotional and rubbish articles and distort the balance on contentious subjects, but where it's quietly doing the job that the unpaid editors would have done, if only they'd known, I'd leave it. So it depends on the edit... Elemimele (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it depends. A one-off edit fixing or updating something might not even be noticed as UPE. Sustained involvement, though, needs some sort of response- not necessarily immediate indef blocking, but encouragement to comply. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photo upload

i want to upload photos on wikipedia page of 2 politicians and there are their official portrait on the Indian government sites because they are member of parliament.should I upload the official portrait from government site WikiAnchor10 (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiAnchor10, Maybe. Look under "licensing" at these examples:[2][3]. Perhaps something similar applies to the pictures you have in mind. If you don't get a better reply here, try asking at Commons:Help desk, and include the weblinks of the photos. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiAnchor10 The Indian government has a very open policy and there is a template commons:Template:GODL-India you can use to tag your upload. It will be reviewed by an admin to confirm that the URL you used as the source of the file does indeed comply to the rules. Make sure you don't suggest the image is your "own work"! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiAnchor10 I can see you uploaded two images today an Commons. File:Sunny Deol official portrait.jpg looks fine to me - it's from an official Indian government site and the tags look right. The other image, File:Hanuman Beniwal during rally.jpg is not from a government site, but from the site of a political party and has a copyright tag at the bottom. There's nothing that would support a compatible license for Wikipedia. That image does not look it will for Wikipedia. Ravensfire (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my mistake on second photo, should I remove that and upload a another one which is available on this link https://www.india.gov.in/my-government/indian-parliament/hanuman-beniwal WikiAnchor10 (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiAnchor10 Yes and yes. Anything obtained from india.gov.in is suitable for Commons, as far as I'm aware. Indeed, I think that there are bots which do the transfers for some images but I don't know the details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes you are right , I am talking about Hanuman Beniwal Page ,on this page image from gov.in site is removed by a bot few days ago and then I uploaded a new image from his party official site but why the government officials image was removed by bot ?? WikiAnchor10 (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiAnchor10 Apparently, this was the deletion discussion at Commons: c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SharadSHRD7. I'm not sure of the details and you might be best to take any further general questions to Commons at c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

Hello all,

I am currently working on a draft on "throw ups" which are a type of graffiti. It's currently in my sandbox. Based on my understanding, parenthesis in titles are only for if there's already an existing article (e.g. "Bob Bobson" is an article, and a second article is "Bob Bobson (author)". For throw ups though, there isn't a page called "throw up" but it is a redirect to vomiting, and I expect more people searching wikipedia for "throw up" would be search for vomiting.

Therefore, would it be better to title the draft/article as "Throw up (graffiti)" and leave the redirect, or to make the page "throw up" and put in a "this article is a about the graffiti style, for the action of vomiting see vomiting" (or something like that).

Thank you :) -- NotCharizard 🗨 07:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Throw up (graffiti)" would seem to me to be the better option, since vomiting is likely the primary topic for "Throw up". There is a hatnote template on Vomiting that should be edited when your article is published in order to allow readers who wind up there to reach the correct page:
Currently, {{Redirect-multi|4|Vomit|Emesis|Heaving|Puke|other uses|Vomit (disambiguation)|the butterfly genus|Emesis (genus)|the 2021 Argentine film|PussyCake|the sailing terms|Heaving to|and|Careening|the municipality of Albania|Pukë|other uses|Puke (disambiguation)}} produces but if you change it to {{Redirect-multi|5|Vomit|Emesis|Heaving|Throw up|Puke|other uses|Vomit (disambiguation)|the butterfly genus|Emesis (genus)|the 2021 Argentine film|PussyCake|the sailing terms|Heaving to|and|Careening|the municipality of Albania|Pukë|the type of graffiti|Throw up (graffiti)|other uses|Puke (disambiguation)}} (wording is up to you, but something similar), it will produce Tollens (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Notcharizard Interesting draft! One minor point. You shouldn't duplicate the URL for a citation that has a doi. That URL will make the title a blue-link, which is misleading if the article in not open-access. If indeed the target is open-access, then use of the parameter |doi-access=free will create the blue-link automatically. There is a bot that goes around cleaning up these sort of errors but it is probably better to avoid them (e.g. your current #3, #5, #9 & #10) Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Turnbull What do you mean by duplicating the url? -- NotCharizard 🗨 22:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Notcharizard I've made one edit to remove one of the links I'm talking about. The DOI ends up in the same place as the URL I removed but should not suffer from link rot in the way the URL might. The article title is now not blue-linked but could be made so if |doi-access=free was added (which isn't valid for this citation). Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, I understand now! Thanks for showing with an example, that makes sense with link rot, I think I'd just always let the bot sort it out for me before so I appreciate the extra lesson I learnt here :D -- NotCharizard 🗨 04:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! And thanks for the info on "primary topics" I don't think I'd read that before :) -- NotCharizard 🗨 22:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Robinson Crusoe

The person 68.67.244.157 (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user and welcome to the teahouse. With all respect, Wikipedia:Do your own homework, please. Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can read about Robinson Crusoe and Defoe's possible sources for his character at Robinson Crusoe. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, I submitted the draft for review and it got deleted due to possible "unambiguous advertising" . Is there anything I can do to change this? What specifically can I change to get it approved? Andresusfedu (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Andresusfedu Firstly, welcome! Secondly could you provide a link to your draft? Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 14:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, here you go Draft:Dr. John Cochran . Andresusfedu (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Andresusfedu:
Welcome to the teahouse. Right now, I see that the draft lists all the publications of this professor from 1985 to 2023. Please note that Wikipedia is not a database. Please see WP:What Wikipedia is not. I would say that a Wikipedia page gives people information about why the subject is notable. In most of the time, when it comes to a WP:Biography of a living person, prose is strongly needed.
Please also note that, by the manual of style, we do not include "Dr." in the title of articles. You can read more about it at WP:MOSWP:TITLESINTITLES.
Finally, I see that you're writing about a professor from the University of South Florida. With all due respect, your username suggests that you are from "usfedu", which can be interpreted as USF, the university of South Florida. If you have a WP:Conflict of interest, please declare it on your user page.
Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andresusfedu Academics like Cochran need to meet the specific notability guidelines, which he may well do. However, as advised, Wikipedia articles don't just list publications (although they can mention his most important and cited ones): they show why he is notable. Suitable sources to demonstrate that include only those which meet these criteria. The draft must also meet the standards at biographies of living people, which means that every fact such as his education and awards must be supported by an inline citation. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted >90%. Start over. David notMD (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andresusfedu, the draft looks better after David's edit. Your next task will be establishing Notability. As a rule of thumb, you should look for at least three WP:INDEPENDENT, reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage about the person. Right now, you have none. Mathglot (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it illegal to vandalize Wikipedia?

Can any action be taken to Wikipedia vandals, other than simply blocking them from editing? Can any more severe punishments be taken, or can legal action be taken? 2A00:23C5:F405:2001:E111:64EB:E6CA:BB52 (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Against WP:LTA there can be taken some action, such as complaining to their internet provider (if known), or even harsher measures. But a user or IP which vandalizes once or twice is not prosecuted. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are towns with only one or two good internet providers, so getting blacklisted as customer is a serious inconvenience. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, since edits are attributed to those who made them, an editor could be sued for libel, for example by a company or a living person that they targetted. I'm not aware of such a case but would urge you not to test this out! Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi tgeorgescu and Mike Turnbull, thanks for your fast response. That's very interesting, I didn't know that ISPs would consider Wikipedia vandalisms an offence. Upon their knowledge of the vandal, what does getting blacklisted as a customer involve? Blocking access to the website? (By the way, this is pure inquiry, I don't have any plans! 😆) 2A00:23C5:F405:2001:E111:64EB:E6CA:BB52 (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any ISP who has ever taken action against a Wikipedia vandal. Same goes for schools; we get vandalism from schools all the time, and those IP addresses tend to get long-term blocks so nobody can edit Wikipedia from those addresses. We have blacklisted ISPs also; this is just an inconvenience for the customer and doesn't affect the ISP. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought vandalism on Wikipedia wasn't a crime. Posting content that is illegal under US law can obliviously get that person responsible for doing so in legal trouble. Cwater1 (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of things which are not crimes could produce trouble for someone doing those things. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course not. If you're taken in the night and held in detention on an island indefinitely without access to the outside world, you haven't technically committed any crimes, because you were never taken to court. GMGtalk 18:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How credible the citation sources are?

Hello Wikipedians,

Please take a look at the draft at User:Sultanularefeen/sandbox - Wikipedia and let me know if the citation sources have enough credibility for the subject mentioned topic in the draft.

Thanks for any help. Sultanularefeen (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Sultanularefeen/sandbox - 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sultanularefeen Brief answer: no. The topic is not mentioned at endometriosis, where I would expect it to be if a proven technique. Note that Wikipedia has very strict sourcing requirements for medical-related topics, summarised at WP:MEDRS, which you should read carefully. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Michael D. Turnbull for your suggestions. I shall try the subject mentioned article if the sourcing requirements are fulfilled. May be later on, I shall try to add some information about the topic to Endometriosis Sultanularefeen (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sultanularefeen: Looking at the sources, I think they are not reliable. Our articles on medical topics require a highly credible sources for information, and the ones listed do not meet those requirements. Wug·a·po·des 19:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions Wugapodes. Would you give me a clue about the type of suitable references for this kind of article? Can published research papers in the relevant fields be accepted as authentic source of reference? Sultanularefeen (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sultanularefeen As the guideline which we linked says, the main distinction is between a WP:PRIMARY source and a WP:SECONDARY one. All Wikipedia articles should mainly be based on the latter type, and for medicine-related articles they should be used almost exclusively. Even primary publications in high-quality journals like The Lancet need to be seen through the eyes of qualified professionals and placed into context, which is what secondary sources do. Medical claims do not always stand up to close scrutiny, especially if there is some conflict-of-interest (e.g. a drug manufacturer or an academic reporting initial trial results). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting a page

Please how do I protect a page from many editors and limit it to only contributors Daniel Ifeanyi Igwe (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ngo Udeh Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Typically "editors" and "contributors" mean the same thing here on Wikipedia. I assume this relates to the article for which you declared a conflict of interest. Articles are not protected merely to limit contributions to those by certain people, or to protect the version of an article that one might prefer. Articles are protected to prevent disruption, such as vandalism or edit warring. If an article has a demonstratable problem with vandalism, edit warring, or other similar disruption, page protection may be requested at WP:RFPP. Typically the problem must be recurring and be unable to be stopped by lesser measures(like blocking individual editors). Are you having difficulty with that article? 331dot (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for ~30 year old film

This is in regards to Draft:Not This Part of the World. I cannot find more reviews for it and found out the director said it didn't receive much when the film released. Looking at WP:OEN to see what other options may be available, most of the coverage is from Boise State University and The Idaho Statesman. Most of the citations are significant and reliable, but some may not be independent.

  • I have not been able to find non-trivial articles more than 5 years after its release.
  • It has received an award, though I do not know if it is major.
  • It seems to be substantially covered at BSU, or at least it was back when it came out.
  • I found multiple sources saying it is the first full-length film made in the state of Idaho in ~70 years.
  • It looks to be one of the first film roles for Matt Letscher, and Adam West was also cast for being a local to the area.

I think 1 to 3 bullets above may apply, but I am not certain about them. Would like more insight please. – Filmforme (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Filmforme: In my opinion, this looks notable, given the Statesman coverage. If I were you, I would move it to article-space at this point. If someone disagrees about its notability, they can take it to AfD and make their case. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thank you for your insight @Elli Filmforme (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Made this page for Giorgio Baldi restaurant.. First page..

Made this page but everywhere i look it says it is in santa monica but from what I see it looks outside the city limits and in the pacific palisades.. Anyone have any thoughts?

Giorgio Baldi Megalographery (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalographery, could you explain the "COI troller!" note you have as your userpage? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Megalographery, welcome to the Teahouse. If reliable sources say it's in Santa Monica, that's what the article should say. Is there confusion among the sources themselves? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out it is sort of both.. It is officially Rustic Canyon in the City of LA but it is a Santa Monica zip and post office that covers that area.. Megalographery (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious on how to approach revisions

I am a 53yo retired military person and familiar with several writing styles such as official correspondence, educational training courses, standard PowerPoint briefs, instruction manuals, award submissions, and a few other documents. I am currently trying to put up a reference page to account for a musical band. I have reviewed several other Wiki pages for musical acts and feel I have captured the main feel and reference points required, but the article was denied by “ARandomName123” and the suggestion made to utilize the “Teahouse” for assistance to accomplish “needed changes” for the page acceptance. I am requesting assistance from the team here to achieve success. I am unsure if anyone here has the ability to review the Draft:Chaos Warehouse . Thanks in advance for any assistance to help move forward.

Very respectfully, Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucien, of the two notes the reviewer left on Draft:Chaos Warehouse, the one about sources is the bigger impediment to the draft being accepted for publication. See the notability guideline for bands, which will explain the sources you will need to add for it to be accepted. Some general copy editing and style adjustments (e.g. removing inline external links) would also help, but they're less critical. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Lucien, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you have taken on an extremely difficult task, for which I suspect little of your writing experience will prepare you. The issue is that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
Obviously this is difficult to achieve when the article is about yourself: that is why writing about yourself is so strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. Generally, you should not include anything at all in the article that cannot be verified from a reliably published source totally unconnected with you. ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources cited in Draft:Chaos_Warehouse are both Wikipedia articles (and therefore not reliable - if WP regarded everything anyone has added to it as reliable it would soon turn into garbage), and neither of them mentions Chaos Warehouse. Therefore neither does anything to establish that the subject is notable. Maproom (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Revolucien, I quote: The music has an aggressive punch with melodic interlude and chorus textures, mixed in with some ferocious leads. The blend of progressive and thrash styles can be felt throughout the album and is an explosive introduction [to] the heavy metal scene. In the opinion of which reliable source(es) (NB "reliable" as defined by and for Wikipedia) is the punch aggressive, are the interlude and chorus textures melodic, are the leads ferocious, can these styles be felt throughout the album, and is the introduction explosive? For each claim, either add a reference, or delete. -- Hoary (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted all that. Do not restore unless - per Hoary - that content comes from reliable source references. David notMD (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - Teahouse Hosts are generalists - what their expertise is about is format, style, referencing requirements, etc. There is no requirement that Hosts (or Reviewers) have music career experience to review a draft. David notMD (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have left the changes you made and applied content to support the Wiki:Notability reqs with WP:Band. The album is currently in worldwide rotation/distribution with Amazon, Apple, Pandora, Spotify for major networks and SoundCloud, BandCamp, ReverbNation and Jango for minor networks. I did not put external links to the actual album on their sites, but it can be found and verified on each one.
I appreciate all the input and assistance you all have provided, Thank you very much.
Very respectfully,
Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Revolucien, nothing you have posted here or written in the draft seems to meet the requirements of WP:NBAND. There are 12 criteria listed - which one(s) are you saying this band meets? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you need to declare as a paid editor per WP:PAID, since this seems to be your band and your album. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.
...
11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
Spotify, Pandora, Apple Music and Amazon Music are MAJOR worldwide music listening networks and Chaos Warehouse is on all of them as well as the minor(but also worldwide) platforms SoundCloud, BandCamp, ReverbNation, and Jango.
I believe I have edited my USER page with the Paid Editor template, it was a little confusing and hope I have made the correct adjustments.
The band currently does not make money and is only me paying into it right now, the initial submission for the page is just a statement of current facts- A. the band does exist and is named as such. B. It is a completely solo performance for art, music, recording, production and distribution. C. It is an internationally recognized band by the major music platforms and is registered with ASCAP and GS1.
Thank you for the assistance and I look forward to all information that will lead to successful completion.
Very respectfully,
Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Revolucien, those platforms do not count as major networks, since they allow self-publication without editorial oversight. It sounds like your band is not yet notable. My advice would be to focus your efforts on attractive coverage from media outlets. Once that happens, it'll possible to have an article. But without those sources, there is nothing that can be changed at the article that would make it acceptable for Wikipedia. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spotify, Pandora, Amazon and Apple all have a curation process and require review and oversight by their curators before they reach a rotation status just like NBC, ABC, or Fox for TV. I did not submit directly to them as all submission to them came from my Publisher (CDBaby - Ref[2] on the page) who also provides oversight and review before THEY do the actual submission to those Networks. The minor networks SoundCloud, BandCamp, ReverbNation and Jango accepted self-submission without review. I will also look into the media outlet coverage. Revolucien (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Revolucien, those are music streaming services. I think you'll find that they do not qualify as major radio or music television networks. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a definition provided for "Major" ? In the first Quarter of 2023 Pandora had 46.7 Million listeners in the US alone https://www.statista.com/statistics/190989/active-users-of-music-streaming-service-pandora-since-2009/ , and Spotify for the same time period had 210 million worldwide paying listeners https://www.statista.com/statistics/244995/number-of-paying-spotify-subscribers/ These are not just major, they are the new way that people listen to music and have far more reach and listeners than ANY air broadcast network. Revolucien (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Revolucien, the fundamental point is that we require reliable sources to have taken note of your work in order for it to warrant a page here. There are a million works on Spotify etc. that do not meet that threshold, so we are never going to accept appearance on Spotify as sufficient for an article. Bluntly, see WP:GARAGEBAND. You are not going to shift consensus on this by arguing. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to argue or change consensus, just ask for information- What is the definition of “Major”, so that I may provide facts as to the largest/Major musical platforms.
If it is not facts that decide the decision of what is “Major” and it is a consensus, then I accept that answer as well, but I have provided facts and numbers from an outside source to show major share of listeners on the planet utilize those platforms and only asked for the deciding factors of what constitutes “major” for Wikipedia.
Very respectfully,
Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rules on Wikipedia are decided by consensus. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 00:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have to say it feels like more weight is being applied to the WP:GarageBand blurb that WikiPedia "Bluntly: states "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously." and "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." , rather than the data that was provided.
I will say thank you for the assistance provided as it was an education in the operation and standards used, and very much appreciated. I feel I have learned quite a bit in this initial page write and will use that information moving forward.
I will leave you with this as a small return learning piece for the status of the music business and TV regarding streaming vs broadcast and which is is larger.
" When “Drivers License” bowed at No. 1 on Billboard’s Hot 100 — which determines songs’ popularity based on a combination of sales, radio play and digital streams — it drew 8.1 million radio audience impressions, not bad for a song that’s new to the market. But that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the 76.1 million streams the song clocked in that same week." Variety Magazine https://variety.com/2021/music/news/radio-signal-fading-streaming-1234904387/
and this one from Forbes regarding TV- https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2021/06/17/nielsen-streaming-video-audience-share-is-higher-than-broadcast-tv/?sh=31133f82c0e3
Thanks to all in the TeaHouse who participated in this conversation.
Very respectfully,
Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how many times a song has been listened to, if it hasn't been written about in reliable, independent sources, then we have no material to base an article on, Revolucien. That's why the notability criteria exist. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the response and refer to the criteria being met under # 11 of the WP:Band requirements for notability. The only question that was left was, “What determines a MAJOR network?”. I feel I have provided the data to show the networks it is played on ARE the MAJOR networks, but in light of data showing where the MAJORity of listeners are, the consensus by the team has decided in opposition to the evidence provided. I did not write the rules for notability in WP:Band, nor was I part of the consensus to apply them, I was just attempting to adhere to them. I have already accepted the decision of the team here and understand that these are the operational standards that will be utilized. I appreciate the response and information provided.
Very respectfully,
Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

movie 'In the Valley of Elah'

Hello,

recently I watched the movie 'In the Valley of Elah'. Very impressive. I then read the article on the movie on Wikipedia. The description of the story of the movie was correct. But the only two reviews that really mattered, the only ones that appreciated and recognized the value of the movie, the essential ones, weren't mentioned. Those were the reviews by Roger Ebers and Rolling Stones' Peter Travers. Is it possible to insert them? And if so, how can it be done? (cab I do it?) The link is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Valley_of_Elah

thanks and greetings,

Barbara Bee.bees2002 (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bee.bees2002! Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. To edit, just click the "edit" button at the top of "Critical reception" section. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our tutorial. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bee.bees2002 I noticed some concerning wording there, "But the only two reviews that really mattered, the only ones that appreciated and recognized the value of the movie, the essential ones, weren't mentioned". I'd recommend you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and Wikipedia:NPOV. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i need help like now write sand box

how can i check my sandbox article or page content is ok or not ok Wikiwriterforall (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikiwriterforall, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that your sandbox has no chance of being accepted as an article in its present form, as it has no reliable sources, and so does not establish that the school meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
Writing a new article is very very hard for new editors, and I always advise people to spend a few weeks or months making improvements to existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before they even try it.
But in any case, please read and study your first article, especially about notability and references. ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"established in 1982, towards the end of the twentieth century(1982)" reads like a parody of Dan Brown. Maproom (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiwriterforall, the draft currently has one reference. This reference (at alchetron.com) itself has one reference: the (subsequently deleted) Wikipedia article Happy Palace Grammar School. Thus the draft would appear to be referenced, indirectly, by Wikipedia, which isn't acceptable. As for alchetron.com itself, we read: "Alchetron's free social encyclopedia allows users to search, share and interact with content on millions of topics." So it too isn't acceptable. -- Hoary (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can a page be created on only one source

Hello everyone, I am Harvici. A student of St. Francis College. Since the last 2 to 3 days, user:The Herald has been reverting my edits on the page about St. Francis' College. As the college isn't that famous, no other respectable sources have verified its history. But the official website of the college (https://www.stfrancislucknow.com/) should be considered as an authorative figure in relation to the school as WP:RS states- reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. Still user:The Herald isn't accepting and citing many other Wikipedia Guidelines (like:Wikipedia:Articles with a single source) Harvici (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harvici: The Herald was pretty clear in the first edit summary of a massive revert. I suggest you read the documents linked in that summary.
Wikipedia doesn't care what the subject of an article has to say about itself. We need reliable sources that are independent of the subject (that is, secondary sources). It is OK to cite the subject here and there, but when the bulk of the article becomes reliant on a primary source rather than a secondary source, it isn't useful, you may as well just go to the subject's web site. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B-class evaluation

I want to add a B-class evaluation to this talk page, but every time I add the code, I keep getting the same preview warning and it doesn't show up. I've tried copying the code from other article talk pages, but it still doesn't work. TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 04:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TrademarkedTarantula: Unless I misunderstand, it looks like you added b1, b2, and a bunch of other paramaters that the template does not recognize. See {{WikiProject Video games}} for how to use the template. RudolfRed (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hearing aids

phonak va widex

NormanNellyOurDogs (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi @NormanNellyOurDogs and welcome to the Teahouse! do you have a question regarding Wikipedia? 💜  melecie  talk - 05:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, NormanNellyOurDogs, and welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, we can't help you compare hearing aids, and we do not compile lists of their features in any articles either. You may want to use a search engine to look for other websites which may have already made a comparison between the two. Tollens (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Kyell Gold article on WIkipedia?

Hi.

I see there is no Kyell Gold article, neither Tim Susman one. I am sure that once upon a time there was such an article. Might I ask why it is so? And I would like to "redo" the article, if only such a thing would be possible?

Best wishes. --Kaworu1992 (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. An article about Kyell Gold was deleted in March of 2022 per the result of this deletion discussion. If you are able to address the concerns that led to deletion, you can create and submit a draft artice via Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kaworu1992, there doesn't seem ever to have been an article titled "Tim Susman" or "Timothy Susman". -- Hoary (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kaworu1992. There could be an article on Tim Susman, if:
(a) Several reliable sources have, independently of any direct or indirect influence by him, published a substantial amount of material about him (not just his books) that explains how he is important (meaning that in Wikipedia jargon, he is "Notable"); and
(b) Someone puts in the considerable work of finding those sources and summarising them in a (preferably Draft) article with appropriate citations to the sources.
No one directly connected to Susman should do this. From a cursory web search, it looks to me as if there is not (yet) enough reliably published about him to justify an article, even though he potentially seems to be an interesting person even apart from his Young Adult fantasy fiction. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.81.165 (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My content check pls Early Life and him Family

Mr.P.NAVEENKUMAR was born to the parents of Mr.Periyannan and  Mrs.Amsaveni. His father is a physically challenged while his mother is a victim of intense Rheumatoid Arthritis.  He was solely brought up by his grandmother. He as a child growing up in such an environment, the only prominent thing in his mind was fear and pain. Seeing all this, he had a burning desire to become a doctor and eventually cure his parents. But these hopes came crashing one day when he ultimately realized that school education itself was a luxury. So, in an attempt to manage his finances, he would go to the fields in the morning and work for 4 Rupees. It helped him to get his own snacks. Evenings were more pitiful, for he had to clean cow dung for money, in the small 2-hour window between his school and tuition. Considering these circumstances this young man studied hard, completed his engineering and shined as a topper. Atchayampage (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atchayampage Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This content is completely unsuitable for Wikipedia, which is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources say about topics that meet our criteria for inclusion. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Atchayampage and welcome to the Teahouse.
Could you provide the source for this? 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 08:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The writing style suggests to me that the text is about its author, who is treating this as a social media style website. It would be interesting to see the source for the claim that this person cleaned cow dung for money. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot See Cow dung#Uses for some general sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft Draft:ATCHAYAM TRUST appears to be heading toward Speedy deletion, meaning all evidence of its existance will disappear. The draft has a lot of content about P Naveenkumar and the organization he has founded (the Trust). If you intend to start over, decide whether your goal is an article about him or the Trust, not both. Either way, all information in a draft must be verified by references. Have all references in place before submitting. David notMD (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: The draft in question has been deleted and the OP blocked for contravening the username policy. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I discuss improvements to Wikipedia (i.e., the whole site)?

IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 08:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. The best place to discuss changes to Wikipedia itself are at the Village Pump. You may want to first test out how your ideas will be received at the Idea Lab section of the VP. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IPs are people too. What is it about? There may be better places or maybe it has already been discussed and we can tell you where. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 22:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete, or add a helpful tag?

A prolific editor spends part of her day excising text that is backed only by a deprecated source (she does not, so far as I can see, address the vast acreages of text that has no explicit source at all). This behaviour is justifiable, as I understand it, on the grounds that the text may not be reliable.

The particular source I noticed is Find A Grave, a site which like Wikipedia is user-generated but unlike Wikipedia seems to have only light editorial control. While some of its information is 100% accurate, backed up by burial records and photographs, some is speculation or plain error and therefore as a whole the site has to be suspect.

As the extremely busy editor deletes and passes on in seconds, I assume she cannot have done much assessment of the accuracy of the text. Since it might in fact be wholly correct, rather than instant deletion might it perhaps be more helpful to tag it as “unreliable source” or “better source needed”? Belle Fast (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the text remains in the article history, if it is accurate it can always be restored if a reliable source can be found. Unsourced or unreliably sourced content does not belong on wikipedia. While in some cases, a tag could be helpful, it's really the prerogative of the reviewing editor - it's better to remove the content than have unsourced or unreliably sourced content remaining in main space. Polyamorph (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Belle Fast, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you feel this strongly, you are free to revert the change and add a {{cn}} to it. But don't be surprised if somebody else comes along and reverts you - after all, what you will be doing is explicitly adding uncited material. Best would be for somebody (the original editor, or you) to find a better source. But we are all volunteers, and work on what we choose.
I myself am more likely to tag plausible but unsourced material than delete it; but as Polyamorph says, it is not clear that I am improving Wikipedia by doing so. Arguably, unsourced material is of zero value to Wikipedia, because a reader has no way to check it. ColinFine (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for swift and helpful replies!
My personal feeling is that if the text looks right but just lacks a credible source, tag it, If there's no means of knowing whether it's right or wrong, ignore it. Only if fairly confident that it's misplaced or plain wrong, delete it. Belle Fast (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS While accepting the logic of excising inadequately sourced stuff, if everybody followed this counsel of perfection we'd end up with an encyclopedia like Stalin's USSR in the film Ninotchka: “The last mass trials have been a great success. There are going to be fewer but better Russians”.
It's perfectly possible to completely make up stuff that looks right. Just ask ChatGPT. Tagging unsourced info is fine. Removing it is also fine. This is clearly more critical for some articles more than others, such as biographies of living people. Polyamorph (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing CoI warnings at Talk:Razom

This talk page has ugly CoI warnings from many years ago. Shouldn't they be cleared since the article itself changed a lot? Thx B030510 (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, B030510, and welcome to the teahouse. Material is almost never deleted from article talk pages, though it can be archived. Since Talk pages are not part of the encyclopaedia, and will not be seen except by those going looking for them, why does this matter? ColinFine (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine: May be, because the template links the article (its talk page, actually) to the Category:Articles with connected contributors, which attracts attention of those who try to 'neutralize' POV? So if a template warns about some issue, or potential issue (possible bias, in this case) which has already been resolved, it is misleading. And then it should be deleted. --CiaPan (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CiaPan - good point. Now that the discussion is archived by @Polyamorph, the remaining issues are the category and the grotesquely large banner listing 1 (one) connected user. I wouldn't blink if the banner was 3 lines high, but it's huge, has blinking lights on it and a loud siren (no, no lights or a siren - I am kidding :) That connected user didn't touch the page for 8 years now. Must the show go on? Thx B030510 (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the COI notice, the user was active for only a few weeks in 2014 and hasn't edited since. Polyamorph (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have archived the discussion from 2015. There is a link to the talk page archives in the banner at the top of the talk page. Polyamorph (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Polyamorph Fair enough, and thank you for doing that. B030510 (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Notice removal

How can i get a edit notice for a Wikipedia page removed? A.FLOCK (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A.FLOCK Hello and welcome. Can you be more specific? I'm not sure what you mean by "edit notice". 331dot (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Editnotices/Page/Laser_Kiwi_flag A.FLOCK (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot "get the edit notice removed". It's not quite that simple. Maybe, you could find an administrator who'd remove it, but that's not the best way to proceed. Better ways to proceed would be:
1) Get to 500 edits. Looks like you're at 293. Only 207 to go.
2) You can post on the "talk" page for the article you want to edit, and request that someone else make your edit on your behalf.
Hope that helps. Pecopteris (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A.FLOCK: For the second option suggested by Pecopteris I'd encourage you to see Wikipedia:Edit requests first. --CiaPan (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wagner group page

hiya. since the UK recently declared the Wagner mercenary group a terrorist organisation, i would appreciate it if someone could update the page to reflect that, as i am unable to edit it since the Wagner group page has been locked Bird244 (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bird244. You can make an edit request for a change in a protected article. ColinFine (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bird244 You should do as ColinFine suggests on the talk page of that article; Talk:Wagner Group. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Bird244 (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imdb self verified

does the section of * self verified in imdb was verified by the actors themselves or its something we still cannot use in articles? Veganpurplefox (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still can't use it. It has moved from nonWP:RS to non-WP:IS. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ah so it would be a primary source so I would need a source that take that information into a reliable source as I understand? Veganpurplefox (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can use primary sources for simple information like birth date or location of residence. However, secondary sources are always better. Ca talk to me! 02:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
can I use the primary source for these: Athletics *
Boxing | Cycling | Equestrian | Fencing | Martial Arts | Skateboarding | Surfing | Tennis | Yoga
Accents *
British | French
  • self-verified
There is no secondary sources that refers to these Veganpurplefox (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make an edit to my Wikipedia page Samuel Afful

Hello, I want to put social media links on my Wikipedia page, but no they are being saved. Can you help me solve this problem? I want to add my website

Samuel Afful Klauspca (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. It is highly inadvisable for you to attempt to directly edit the article about you- please read the autobiography policy. You may submit an edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, Talk:Samuel Afful, describing what you want to do. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NB: Editor is almost certainly a sock puppet as User:1Samuel afful and five other accounts have already been blocked - Arjayay (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kkllop is certainly the one who's been attempting to add such links to that article, not the OP. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Arjayay SPI filed: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/1Samuel afful. Best, A smart kitten (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:ELOFFICIAL, one link to a person's official website or official primary social media presence is not only permitted but encouraged. The link should be in the infobox or in a dedicated "External links" section at the end of the article. Cullen328 (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to Cullen's comment. Perhaps if Mr. Afful (@Klauspca) provided us with one (only one) such link, someone here would be willing to add it on his behalf? Pecopteris (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting for assistance

Hi everyone! I have recently created the Draft:i18next but was declined twice. The first reason was due to an advertisement-like article that I have already fixed. The second one was because the references used do not show that the subject qualifies for a wikipedia article. However, before starting this page, I reviewed articles similar to i18next, like KateX , Bindows, JerryScript, and Raphaël (JavaScript library). Despite having limited resources, these pages were successfully created, which gave me hope that I could do the same for i18next. If you check their references, you'll notice that some of the sources they presented are similar to i18next. So, I'm wondering why those pages were accepted while my draft wasn't. Please don't get me wrong; I'm just curious and would like to understand the reason for my draft's rejection so that I can improve it in the future. By the way, i18next was created in 2011, which means it has been around for over a decade now. I hope you can assist me with this. Thank you to those who are taking the time to review my draft.~~~~ Iamsuperingbo (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iamsuperingbo Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. So my first question is if you are associated with i18next in some way.
Second, it's not always a good idea to use other articles as a model, as these too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of this as a new user. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us. We can only address what we know about. That another article exist does not necessarily mean that it was "approved" by anyone, the draft submission process has not always existed, and it is possible to create a draft without using that process(though inadvisable, and having a connection to the topic makes it necessary). Please read other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue with your draft is that it just tells about the existence of the framework and its features. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. "Significant coverage" is that which goes into detail about what the source sees as significant/important/influential about the topic. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iamsuperingbo, for what it's worth, Bindows and Raphaël (JavaScript library) were both first written in 2009, long before the Articles for Creation process was started. Cullen328 (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft disambiguation page

Hi! I’ve created a draft disambiguation page at Draft:Mayor West (disambiguation), with the intention of replacing the three hatnoted links at Adam West (Family Guy) with a link to the dab page. As it’s (to my memory) the first non-redirect page I’ve attempted to write, I’m wondering if another editor wouldn’t mind giving it a quick look and seeing if there’s anything out of place, and/or providing any feedback you wish to give. Please don’t feel under any obligation to do so though - I don’t want to force anyone here into reviewing my draft!

All the best - and thanks in advance! A smart kitten (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @A smart kitten, and welcome to the teahouse! I happened to come across the disambiguation draft you've created, and it looks like it's perfectly acceptable for the mainspace. However, it seems there might have been a small oversight, as it hasn't been submitted for review yet. Could you kindly submit it for review so that either I or another reviewer can carry out the usual approval process? Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Thank you! 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 16:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamRimmer Yep, I can submit it for review! I deliberately hadn’t done so yet as I wasn’t confident enough in my edits having brought it up to ‘mainspace standard’ yet, and wasn’t sure if there was anything else I wanted to add (if you’re interested, take a look at the html comments in the page source). But I’ll try and polish it off and submit it today. All the best, A smart kitten (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamRimmer If you don’t mind the question, can I ask if there’s a policy/guideline on which order people should be placed in on a dab page? I found MOS:DABORDER, but unless I’m missing something, I couldn’t find an answer there. All the best, A smart kitten (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. it was there in bullet point 4 all along, I just missed it earlier: …then alphabetically or chronologically as appropriate. A smart kitten (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A smart kitten, everything looks great; there's no need for any changes. You can go ahead and submit it for review now. Typically, disambiguation drafts are reviewed within a day, so please be patient and wait for a reviewer to have some time to review your draft. Thank You! 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 17:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

citing tweets

I got a little confused, I tried to correctly cite, the tweet, the last cite in honours section at List of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. records and statistics, however there are few red errors. Can anyone help me fix it. Thank you very much. Regards. Govvy (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have fixed it. You were using parameter "id" instead of "number" and "username" instead of "user". CodeTalker (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can i ask why sometimes twitter tweets cant be added while in some articles they are added? I was told not to cite tweets but if we can do it how can we do it? Veganpurplefox (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CodeTalker: Thank you, much appreciated. @Veganpurplefox: I think tweets are okay from official sources. However, that then becomes a primary source when wikipedia is suppose to be built on secondary. So I would assume tweets should probably only be used sparingly. Govvy (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be used in Draft:Burning Men to show the person point of view camera they use so people could know what it is? Cause it shows the behind the scenes on the official twitter of the film Veganpurplefox (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its in the production filming section Veganpurplefox (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TWITTER for a discussion about when Twitter and similar self-published sources may be used. CodeTalker (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Learning how to edit Wikipedia

Anyone here would you please sugest me any videos online that teach Wikipedia policies, guidelines and the system? Worldviewfrom (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Worldviewfrom and welcome to the teahouse! I don't know about any editing tutorial videos, but I can help you by providing links to some helpful policy and help pages. You can have a look at Help:Editing for assistance regarding how to edit Wikipedia in general. For information about the editing policy, please refer to Wikipedia:Editing policy. If you'd like to know more about how and where you can contribute, take a look at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia and if you need assistance from someone, visit Wikipedia:Questions. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 17:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldviewfrom WP:TUTORIAL has some videos, but much is text. You can also try searching Youtube. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldviewfrom: There's also a video at WP:EASYREFBEGIN that shows how to add references. GoingBatty (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like that one, he uses both autofill and refname. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review

Hello Teahouse. I wanted to get feedback and edit suggestions for a new draft article in my sandbox - User:/RustyatMTIGlobal/sandbox

Thank you for your help. Rusty at MTI Global (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Rusty at MTI Global/sandboxdudhhr talkcontribssheher 17:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rusty at MTI Global. Welcome to the Teahouse.
Your article in it's current form is inappropriate for Wikipedia: it reads like a PR advert and therefore breaks our strict WP:NEUTRAL language policy. It'll need complete re-drafting to remove all the promotional language. Qcne (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse. As Qcne said, please remove all promotional language as per WP:NEUTRAL. Given your username, it may be that you are affiliated with the organisation MTI Global. If you are, you should immediately disclose your affiliation with the institute as per WP:DISCLOSE. Also, as per WP:COI, you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly.
Regards, ContributeToTheWiki (talkcontribs) 18:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW you are also in breach of the guidelines at WP:MISSION, WP:EL, and WP:EDITORIAL. Shantavira|feed me 18:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to beat a dead horse, but this definitely shouldn't be sugarcoated: that article in its current form is such an insanely flagrant violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines against promotional material (not to mention WP:NORG) that "feedback and edit suggestions" consists of: do not put any more time and effort into this lost cause, and read WP:NOTHERE. Even if you delete the draft, start over from scratch, and abide by neutrality policies this time, the organization categorically does not meet notability guidelines, and thus no article about it can possibly be accepted at this time. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i saw there was a user that edited wrong infos that i corrected back as they were very inappropriate but also saw there are sources i am not sure they are reliable especially from its early life section. One of the source doesnt mention what is written there. I also created his career section using reliable sources. Could someone tell me if those sources (early life section) should be kept or should i remove them? Veganpurplefox (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted posting of an article on the filmmaker Barkley Dubis

Good Afternoon,

My article on Barkley Dubis was recently declined publication by an editor as they said it did not fit the criteria of notable persons. In the San Diego Punk and Video Art scene Mr. Dubis is a very important person and his work has been very influential on the aesthetics and tone of the scene at large. How can I emphasize this in the article so that it may be more acceptable for submission?

Many thanks! Zebean264 (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zebean264. An acceptable Wikipedulia article summarizes significant coverage of the topic published by reliable, independent sources, which are presented as references. Your draft lacks any such references. The URLs at the end do not meet the standard. Cullen328 (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zebean264, asserting that Dubis "is a very important person" will have no effect at all. To establish that he is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, you'll need to find several reliable independent sources with in-depth discussion of him, and cite then in your draft. It currently lists six sources, but does not cite any of them. I suspect that anyway none of them satisfies those criteria. Maproom (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

would it be better if I'd remove the entire section of production as from primary sources and not from secondary ones for better way of getting it approved ? Veganpurplefox (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Veganpurplefox, so here's my process:
  1. find an instance of significant coverage of my subject in a reliable, independent secondary source
  2. write a draft that includes only information from those sources, citing them each time I make an assertion
  3. find a second instance of significant coverage, and then a third, ditto
Once you've proven notability, you can add detail from other sources. But the primary hurdle is to show the subject is notable, and for that we ideally would like to see an article written from three instances of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. And giving us a couple dozen sources to assess makes it harder for us. Which THREE are the ones that show notability? Valereee (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that avclub, apple tv and rotten tomatoes has more informations Veganpurplefox (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of those three seem to provide significant coverage; read the link for more information. They're all just listings. They prove the film exists, but they don't prove it's notable (info at the link), which is the minimum standard for having an article.
We need to see someone discussing the film at length. Ideally three someones in three different sources, and interviews don't count. For films, lengthy reviews are the kind of thing we generally see, but the reviews this one has had look to be blogs, which we generally don't use (an exception might be if it was the blog of a notable film expert). The awards...unless an award is generally considered important (in which case it is highly likely to be notable and therefore have its own article), it's unlikely any number of such nominations or even wins will get the film over the hump. Valereee (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image that pops up on mouse-over

A new editor reports

The thumbnail picture for neo-nazism is a picture of gore. Is that intentional? Apologies if this has already been discussed, I didn't find anything regarding this when I looked, but am also quite new. Oxturn (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Regrettably, the report is true and there is clearly some disruptive vandalism involved. The article neo-nazism is a redirect to Neo-Nazism but I can't see anything in either article that would account for this behaviour. Can someone resolve, please? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A template was vandalized. The vandalism has been reverted and no longer shows in the article but the preview uses caching and takes time to automatically update. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Images in link hover-over popups. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
purging the page can help (i just did that for both pages, and the image no longer shows up for me ) ayakanaa ( t · c ) 01:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can I register for an account?

I have been working on a page but it won’t let me post bc I am not a registered user. How do I do so? 2600:1017:B803:6C34:95DF:A0A2:52A5:4A4B (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Find the "login" button and click on it. You should see an option to create an account. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Click here to create an account. Pecopteris (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to make new photo

how? 71.4.186.194 (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can submit a request for an image to be uploaded at Wikipedia:Files for upload. If you would like to upload an image yourself, you will need to create an account - after being registered for four days and having 10 edits, you will automatically be given permission to upload images. Tollens (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can i post a wikipedia in new account?

The page "name" does not exist. You can create a draft and submit it for review, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered. Surat antcomp (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Surat antcomp, and welcome to the Teahouse! You can use the article wizard to help you create a draft, I would recommend you also read WP:YFA and WP:BACKWARD before starting. You may also be interested in contributing to a Wikipedia which uses a different language than English - see WP:List of Wikipedias for the full list. Tollens (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IT appears you have created two drafts about the same person: Draft:Indah Megahwati and Draft:Ir. Indah Megahwati, MP. Neither is properly referenced. David notMD (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New article, new user

Hi all, I created an article for a movie but this is the first time I create something and I'm completely lost on what should I do next, how do I get it reviewed and how can this be uploaded to the web. Can someone help me? Filmartandfact (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this is the article... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Filmartandfact/sandbox&oldid=1174155215 Filmartandfact (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simpler and more flexible way of linking to the draft article: Draft:The Shadow of the Sun (film). --CiaPan (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Filmartandfact, and welcome to the Teahouse! I have added the Articles for Creation submission tool to the top of the page for you - to submit the draft for review, you can click the button provided. The review process may take quite some time as there are many articles in the queue, but feel free to continue working on the draft in the meantime - the better the draft, the better the chances of a speedy review. Tollens (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! Filmartandfact (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool article idea, @Filmartandfact. I wouldn't say I'm a Venezuelan cinema "fan", but it does interest me. I wish you success on your work. If you run into any problems, you can reach out to me on my talk page. Pecopteris (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Filmartandfact (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing an image

How do I replace an image Flags and Geography (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Flags and Geography, I think you're asking how to replace one image with a different image? You just swap out the filename. If you tell us which image you want to replace, we can give you clearer instructions. Valereee (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Flags and Geography Help:Pictures should give you all you need to know. If not, please come back for further advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Flags and Geography: The answer depends on what you actually ask about. Do you want to replace the image itself, that is put another graphical contents under the same file name (for example, to improve perspective, fix brightness or colors saturation etc. without substantial change in depicting the subject)? Or do you want to replace some picture in an article with another one, without replacing the file itself (so that, for example, the same picture in another article remains unchanged)? Or something else? --CiaPan (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Places on a border

Earlier this year after getting a bit annoyed trying to work out which cities certain places were in, as the places themselves couldn't be trusted to put their full and correct addresses, I realised that you could see the city/district borders on Google Maps by typing "City of Blank" for example.

Tonight I've found out about a place which I didn't even know existed, and doesn't anymore as its since been demolished, however it's boundary can be seen, as the fence for the non-existent place still exists, along with just 2 small buildings (which look like those energy storage type buildings).

Roughly 35% of the area is on one side of the city border, and the other 65% is on the other side of the border.

Obviously I will add the full address if I can find it, but can we also put that it's location is split between 2 districts? Danstarr69 (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Danstarr69, and welcome to the Teahouse! I can't really tell what you're asking - would you mind sharing exactly what article and locations you are referring to? Tollens (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tollens I never tell, until I've finished doing whatever I'm doing.
Basically if a building/estate is 35% in one city, and 65% in an another city, can we say that it's located in both cities?
Slightly off topic, but there's a village in my run by my city which contained some buildings run by the city next door. The village itself is physically split roughly the same, with 65% in my city, and 35% in the city next door, however 100% of the buildings were located in my city's side. However most of those buildings have now been demolished and replaced with residential housing, which the property developers claim to be in the city next door. How that's possible I have no idea (as they should have the same postcodes), as the city next door have basically stolen land, unless there's something I'm missing. Danstarr69 (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tollens actually now I think about it, I've just remembered somewhere I found earlier this year, with this exact problem, which does exactly what I'm asking... Walt Disney World which is located in Bay Lake, Florida and Lake Buena Vista, Florida.
I can't remember which way around it is, but I'm fairly sure that it's postal address is the city of Lake Buena Vista even though most of the resort is in the city of Bay Lake. The city of Kissimmee, Florida is located next door, but isn't actually inside the theme park area itself. Danstarr69 (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that example helps - the resort is not a single entity, but rather numerous buildings which I assume would be located in one or the other. I assume the location you're talking about is in the UK based on your user page, and the UK also seems quite a lot trickier to determine than the USA from the reading I've just done - I seem to be getting more confused as I read more. It seems entirely possible to me that the answer is simply that the border is poorly defined and that Google Maps is just making it up, but this could also be entirely mistaken - I don't believe I have the knowledge to figure it out for certain. Tollens (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tollens it's simple.
It's almost a perfect square, practically empty piece of grassland surrounded by a fence in the middle of nowhere, which used to contain some significant buildings by the look of it, but now contains just two small buildings and a small track for vehicles.
The Eastern side triangle is in a city and metropolitan borough.
The Western side triangle is over the border in another metropolitan borough.
The border line goes almost from corner to corner, but slightly more in on the South-Eastern side, which is where my 35/65 area estimation comes from.
The entrance and one of the two small buildings is roughly 50 metres away from the physical border sign on the South-Western side.
The second of the two small buildings is in the corner of the North-Eastern side aka the city side, which contains the educational organisation who used to run it, and possibly still own it.
Some sources seem to say it's part of the moorland on the city side, some sources seem to say it's part of the moorland on the metropolitan borough side, and some sources seem to say it's part of both moorlands.
However I don't have a physical address yet. Danstarr69 (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I still can't manage to come up with a good answer. It would be completely correct to say that the physical area does exist on both sides of the border - I just have no idea about whether this is the case legally. I've just realized now that you might only have been wondering about the physical properties; if this was the case my apologies for misinterpreting. Tollens (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think located on the border between X and Y is suitable prose, and {{unbulleted list}} can be nestled into the appropriate infobox parameter. That seems like it should get the point across. Folly Mox (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Upcoming Film Poster

I am working on a draft article named Draft:dono (2023 film) and I want to upload a promotional poster for this film but I don't know how to upload copyrighted posters for fair use , and I mistakenly uploaded a poster File:Dono theatrical poster.jpg , can anyone please delete this and upload the same in right way so that I can complete my work on that article. Thanks WikiAnchor10 (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiAnchor10, only an administrator at Commons can delete the file that you wrongly uploaded. They are overworked, and few of them spend time here. I have therefore applied for its deletion (which is something that you could have done). ¶ "Fair use" is a claim made for the appearance of a particular image (or sound file or whatever) in a particular article. No claim can be made for appearance in a draft. ¶ Incidentally, I read in the draft that: The film centers around contemporary romantic relationships against the backdrop of an opulent destination wedding. This makes it sound utterly generic. Rather than worry about an image, you should consider the text and its sources: this cited source, for example, smells like an advertorial. -- Hoary (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiAnchor10, fair use images are only allowed in the main article space. They are regularly removed from draft articles. I would hold off trying to upload it until the article is moved out of draft. Ravensfire (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ravensfire for your helpful information. WikiAnchor10 (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help regarding fixing of source

While editing Dominant caste, a Redlink appeared in source 8, in which i added a quote. Can someone help to fix it.- Admantine123 (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The text which you quoted included three linefeeds and the sentence fragment "The emergence of the backward castes on the political scene in Bihar was due to". I have removed all those. You may want to restore the sentence fragment together with the rest of the sentence. There was no "redlink"; there was a red error warning "line feed character in |quote= at position 882", which indicated what was wrong. Maproom (talk) 07:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lost access to account

This is @PunishedRottweilerAppreciator, I'm posting from a new account. I've lost access to my Wikipedia account. My computer had to be formatted and it was the only place where my Wikipedia password was saved. I didn't enter an email address when creating my account and now cannot recover my account. Can someone help me out? Matarisvan (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't associate an email address with your old account then it cannot be recovered. Simply switch to your new account. If you wish you can leave a note on your new and old user pages to explain this. Shantavira|feed me 08:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Excuse me for posting this again.) I've heard there is an option to merge the edit history of your old account with your new account. How can this be done? I believe if Wikipedia admins can verify that I did create the first account then they do allow the merge. In that case, I've on my computer the original PDF drafts of all the articles I created, which no one but the user who created them has access to. Matarisvan (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What Shantavira said. If you like, I think you can also tweak your signature to appear as "Matarisvan (formerly PunishedRottweilerAppreciator)". Or you could register the account "PunishedRottweilerAppreciator2" and use that instead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard there is an option to merge the edit history of your old account with your new account. How can this be done? I believe if Wikipedia admins can verify that I did create the first account then they do allow the merge. In that case, I've with me the original PDF drafts of all the articles I created, which no one but the user who created them has access to. Matarisvan (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such option. We can merge edit histories of articles and their talkpages, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see WP:HM. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Matarisvan, at User:Matarisvan you can create a section 'Articles I created under a former username'. That will let people know about your previous creation work. Valereee (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Ham

Hello, I have just had my first Wikipedia article rejected, I was most dissapointed, but I am continuing in my attempt to get a local artist recognised.

It says it cant be verified which I understand but his works are available to view at artuk.orghttps://artuk.org/discover/artworks/search/keyword:ernest-ham--referrer:global-search/page/2

I did not include any images in my Wikipedia page.

I just need help in getting started

Brian Kidd Ngraeditor (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His works merely confirm that he was an artist. That is not in doubt. However, to qualify for a Wikipedia article he would need to be a notable artist, as defined at WP:NARTIST. Have you read WP:YFA? Shantavira|feed me 11:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Shantavira for your reply I now understand why my article was rejected. Of course being a notable artist or not is down to personal opinion. I did briefly read both the articles you mentioned and it made perfect sense to me.
I will have a think on it for a while and decide what to do. Thank you Ngraeditor (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, @Ngraeditor, "notability" in the Wikipedia context is not down to personal opinion. We have a very specific meaning of notability which is defined at WP:GNG. Qcne (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, welcome to the teahouse. For creating an article on Wikipedia, the subject need to have enough WP:NOTABILITY, and got confirmed by WP:Reliable source. For what kinds of people are considered have enough notability, you may want to have a read on Wikipedia:Notability_(people), especially WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST -Lemonaka‎ 11:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lemonaka yes I understand now about the notability of a person. I think his artworks are very notable but I understand others may not. Ernest Ham has some local accountability but because he did not sell many if any of artworks he is not widely known. Ngraeditor (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some reliable sources to provide that Ernest Ham has local accountability? if yes, please add it to your drafts as reference. -Lemonaka‎ 11:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have one source from the internet https://www.southallinpictures.com/e-l-ham I am not sure if this group is still operating or not but locally you often see his paintings in print Ngraeditor (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, what we would be looking for is some coverage of the artist or his work. This could be in newspapers, books, magazines or any other publication (online or offline, as long as you can provide the details). Is there any coverage of his exhibitons or his life?
Unfortunately, if you can't find at least two pieces of coverage, it likely won't be possible to have the article accepted. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 12:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ngraeditor, I don't understand why each paragraph has just one sentence. Or why we have to wait till the fifth paragraph before we encounter even a hint ("he was a talented craftsman") of noteworthiness. Indeed, we have to wait till the seventh before we learn that he was a painter. -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ngraeditor As an aside, your draft was not rejected but merely declined. The former means "give up" and the latter try to improve to Wikipedia standards. You have a long way to go. We don't link external websites in the body text of articles (see WP:EL) but can wikilink things that already have an article here. Note that it doesn't matter whether you, or I, think that Ham was an excellent artist. What matters is that others have published about him in reliable sources and any article must be based solely on what these sources say. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is due to my inexperience of being a Wikipedia creator, there is very little information on him available but I will take heed of your comments and try to make a better page for him Ngraeditor (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say, but I think you might be wasting your time, Ngraeditor. If very little has been written about him, then there's no way for there to be an article that will be accepted for publication. Everything in the article needs to be based on what published sources say about the subject, who also needs to pass the threshold explained at WP:GOLDENRULE. If the sources simply don't exist then no amount of work by you will change this. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ngraeditor: I don't know if you have read the information contained in the decline notices, by which I mean not just the notices themselves but also the various hyperlinks to relevant policies and guidelines? If you haven't, I recommend doing so now. They are not just decorative, they actually provide the grounds why the draft is declined, to save us reviewers having to explain every reason anew each time. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ngraeditor, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that my attempt to get a local artist recognised is precisely what we mean by promotion, which is forbidden anywhere in Wikipedia. Once your artist has already been "recognised" by several independent reliable sources, you can write an article which summarises those sources. Until then, you are trying to do something inconsistent with the purposes of Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since the artist died in 1958 and the majority of their work was donated to local libraries, I don't think this is promotion. Probably just a brand new user who maybe lives in the area and thought this local artist might be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Valereee (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Valereee, you hit the nail right on the head Ngraeditor (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the artist is recognised by artuk.org Art UK I didnt think he would be unrecognised, I admit to being unused to the rules of Wikipedia but as this was my first attempt at putting something on Wikipedia i will know in future to make a better job of it Ngraeditor (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ngraeditor, starting out in your first edits creating an article from scratch can be frustrating. Art UK is a perfectly fine source, but the article about them says they list more than 50K UK artists. It's not likely all 50K are notable.
We do want you here! If you're interested in art, you might check WP:WikiProject Arts. Valereee (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3 month unreviewed math articles

Hello,

Some of my mathematics articles are since 3 months not reviewed such as Goldston-Pintz-Yıldırım sieve, is this normal? I understand that articles from other area have a longer reviewing procedure since one has to check notability, copyright, policy etc. but math articles? I don't think the reviewer will check whether the math is correct unless it's a mathematician that knows about the subject, but that is mostlikely not the case. So I assume the reviewer can only check few things such as sources that are used or if the name appears in a journal/book.--Tensorproduct (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at your Talk page, most of the drafts you created have been accepted as articles (including GPY sieve). What do you mean by not reviewed? New Pages Patrol? If an accepted article is not reviewed by NPP within 90 days it is automatically processed so that it will be visible via search such as Google. David notMD (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the new pages patrol. The thing with the GPY sieve was, that it was reviewed but then someone put the article again into the unreviewed category because the reviewer did not review correctly other articles (or something like that) and the user's reviewing right was taken. Now it still says unreview in Special:NewPagesFeed and it is not visible on Google even though the article is older than 90 days.--Tensorproduct (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, now I can see the article on Google. When I wrote my initial comment I could not.--Tensorproduct (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tensorproduct. You're not the only one experiencing this right now. The new page patrol backlog has ballooned to 10,600 articles and 14,140 redirects (and growing rapidly), which is certainly the highest I've ever seen it. In addition, a lot of reviewers often do not review subjects they're not comfortable with and thus may not often check articles on mathematics. I just reviewed your article, as it does look good, and the prominent mathematicians who've used and modified it do lend enough credibility to meet WP:GNG in my opinion. Thank you for being so patient. All the best, TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, all the best to you too.--Tensorproduct (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

saving draft when adding a section to existing page

I'm adding a section to an existing page. Can I save it as a draft before publishing? rootsmusic (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rootsmusic: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you're editing the page directly, no; virtually every edit on Wikipedia is public (if you know where to look). You could work on it in one of your userpages like your sandbox beforehand to see how it'll look. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Tenryuu! I don't mind a public draft, but I don't want to publish on the page until I return to finalize my draft. rootsmusic (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rootsmusic You can make a personal sandbox (Help:My sandbox) for work in progress. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use of a source

Hello everybody! It's good to see you again. I am searching for sources for two articles I am working with, and I was wondering if Genius is considered a reliable source to use in the articles. Thanks in advance ~ fenia🖤tellmehi 18:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fisforfenia according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_258#Genius.com and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_206#Genius_as_a_source?, Genius should not be used to source song lyrics, since the website is partially user-generated. In the future, you can search the archives of WP:RSN or check WP:RSP to see if a source was already discussed.
Of course, it may be appropriate to open a new discussion if the website's policies have changed since last discussed in 2019. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 18:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look over a new article?

Hello everyone! I recently had a new article rejected because it was an essay and lacked encyclopedic style with a neutral point of view. I have gone through the article a couple of times to improve the language, take out anything that is not neutral, and add citations. I am wondering if someone could please look over the article and tell me if I have addressed the reviewer's concerns. My apologies if this is the wrong forum for this request. If that is the case, could you point me somewhere where I might get feedback? This is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Minflux Thank you in advance! AByolia (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AByolia maybe you should resubmit the draft. That's how you get feedback. You can also ask the original reviewer what things specifically can be fixed. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 18:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AByolia Clearly you have put a large amount of work into the draft and, slightly to my surprise, none of it seems to be a copyvio, so: well done! Nevertheless, on such a specialist topic there will be only a few Wikipedia editors capable of giving feedback and help in improving it further. I suggest you post at whichever Project Talk Pages you think might have relevant expertise. I note that you have already added project tags to the draft's Talk Page and so are aware of likely places to ask. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content unacceptably by other editors

I have just restored some previous edits to Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool by an anonymous user who had added a lot of valuable information over the past few days. I found that the user was a mobile user and the user said that he couldn’t cite the sources he took the information from. So I was able to restore them and cite them for him and for that page. But some of the restored edits were being reversed by SamX for copyvio. I don’t understand. Why do you remove content when it is cited and the sources are cited. If this continues, I might leave Wikipedia for good. Because how unfair it is to claim that it is completely copyright when clearly the sources were cited and referenced accordingly to Wikipedia policy. DavidDunnymede (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Material from sources must be paraphrased and not copied verbatum. RudolfRed (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is paraphrasing? Can you give an example? DavidDunnymede (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidDunnymede, there is a lot of information and some examples at WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you DavidDunnymede (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's surprising that somebody whose user page describes him as a senior lecturer at the University of Central Lancashire is unacquainted with paraphrasing. 119.245.86.251 (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidDunnymede The top of the article has the relevant copyright-infringing details. They will be removed from the article and redacted from its history. See WP:COPYVIO for general considerations. As RudolfRed (nearly) wrote, verbatim copying is not permitted unless specifically marked as a quotation in circumstances where quotations are appropriate. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

citing an existing reference

I'm adding a paragraph in an existing page. In the VisualEditor's (refToolbar 2.0), how can I cite an existing reference (that has already been cited)? Thanks. rootsmusic (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, rootsmusic. What you'll want to do is go to the quotation mark in the toolbar for adding a citation. Next, under 'Add a citation', you'll see 'Automatic', 'Manual', and 'Re-use'. When you click on 'Re-use', you can scroll through the existing citations and choose which one you want. All the best, TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @TheTechnician27, where's the "quotation mark in the toolbar"? My refToolbar looks like this screenshot. rootsmusic (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's entirely my bad. I didn't realize you didn't have one. I honestly couldn't say for sure in that case, so I'll step back and let someone who knows more about that layout step in. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rootsmusic Welcome to the Teahouse. You can use the 'Named Reference' tool to reuse an existing reference. Just click the clipboard icon to the right of the word 'Named reference'. If someone hasn't actually given a 'ref name' to a citation, it'll probably appear as a :0, ;01; 02; 03 etc. If you're still struggling, please pop back and link to the article, specifying the sentence and reference you want to reuse and we'll sort it for you. You could add any new statement yourself and follow it with a {{cn}} template (which appears as [citation needed]), prior to resolving this issue. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rejected due to lack of 3rd Party Sources

Hello all, I am writing my first Wikipedia edit after 20ish years of using articles. It is for an open source project that is pretty small. I am not part of the dev team or anything but I like the software and am in the Discord, so when they asked for someone to do the Wiki article I volunteered. T

he feed back included that there were not enough outside sources and it seemed like an advert. I think these are both fair although it is free software so it is not selling anything. The thing is, it isn't a very big project. There are not really any outside sources to point to.

I did make sure that the article gives specifics on the design philosophy, examples of what makes it unique from other similar projects, and linked to its manuals and materials. Is this a situation where the project is just too small for a Wikipedia article or is there a way to improve it to meet standards.

Thanks for any tips/support you can provide.

This is the article in question if that helps: Draft:MiniScript Autistmouse (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Autistmouse Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If a topic does not receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it does not merit an article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something and what it does- Wikipedia wants to know what those unaffiliated with a topic choose to say about it and what makes it significant/important/influential.
The good news is your draft was only declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning in the draft submission process- that a draft may not be resubmitted. "Declined" means a draft may be resubmitted if you can address the concerns of the reviewer. If this project receives coverage later, an article may be possible later. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding, and for clarifying the difference between rejected and declined. I will pass this along to the discord. Even though the article didn't get posted I still feel like i learned something about Wikipedia, so that is something. Cheers! Autistmouse (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading image

I have a logo that is free to use from a public press kit, how can I upload it? Because I have to tick a box that states I own this image.

What to do? BassieMonz (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, BassieMonz. What license is the image under? 'Free to use' is quite ambiguous here. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, BassieMonz, and welcome to the Teahouse! It's actually unlikely that the logo is actually licensed in a way that allows for the free use of the logo. However, non-free content can be used in limited scenarios such as what you are describing here. Assuming you want to upload a corporate logo, you can use the file upload wizard and select "Upload a non-free file", choose "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." in step 3, then indicate that the image is a logo. If you need any further help or clarification, please feel free to ask. Tollens (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only other edits you have made are to Draft:Injective. The presence or otherwise of a logo will not contribute to notability of the subject and WP:NONFREE logos are not in any case allowed in drafts. See WP:LOGO for more guidance. If you can provide the URL of the logo in question we can give further advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should I continue working on this article?

Hello! I am writing an article about a public senior high school. The problem is that I struggle finding reliable third-party sources save for T-score rankings. Thus far I want to link the article to the school's website and Tokyo Metropolitan Government.

Should I not bother with finishing it, or is there a place I can get help with finding sources? SkyOfRose (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SkyOfRose As the sources are likely to be in Japanese, it is going to be difficult for most editors here to help. Is there an article already in ja:Wikipedia where you might find some sources? If not, you could look at Category:Schools in Japan and seek out editors who are currently active on some of these (via their User Talk Pages). Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The good news is that there are indeed articles in other-language versions, linked at Wikidata here. Read WP:TRANSLATE and WP:NSCHOOL before doing much more drafting for the English Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! SkyOfRose (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Turnbull, the relevant article in ja:WP is this. It cites a grand total of zero sources. (A very common phenomenon in ja:WP.) ¶ SkyOfRose, it seems that you are trying to write your draft backward(s). I fear that the enterprise is doomed. -- Hoary (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citing an entire list in the References section

In the body of my Wikipedia page draft I say that a person has won numerous awards. This comment refers to an entire later section titled Recent Awards and not to just one award in its list. How do I do this in Wikipedia? In both Word and Acrobat one would first create a target, like the words "Recent Awards", and then create a hyperlink earlier in the document to the target. Is this allowable in Wikipedia? 2601:5C0:C380:4980:BD25:9843:27D3:B53C (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]