Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 145: Line 145:
:What a good question! I can share a little bit about my experiences along these lines. I started editing in part because of a chronic illness has made other activities that I previously enjoyed more difficult. Previous work and hobbies which involved reading, research, and writing have been put somewhat beyond my reach. But the piecemeal nature of editing Wikipedia has let me enjoy parts of what I feel like I'm missing, without exhausting my limited energy.
:What a good question! I can share a little bit about my experiences along these lines. I started editing in part because of a chronic illness has made other activities that I previously enjoyed more difficult. Previous work and hobbies which involved reading, research, and writing have been put somewhat beyond my reach. But the piecemeal nature of editing Wikipedia has let me enjoy parts of what I feel like I'm missing, without exhausting my limited energy.
:I have been editing with focus for less than a year now, and there certainly have been a lot of frustrations. I've encountered plenty of editors who are unfair, belligerent wrecking balls. And they tend to be loud, and can have the reflex to talk down to new editors, or to people wandering onto pages they have some investment in. And this attitude is unpleasantly brash and macho, deeply invested in some kind of social darwinist meritocracy. However, these editors tend of be loud, and they tend to be easy to identify.
:I have been editing with focus for less than a year now, and there certainly have been a lot of frustrations. I've encountered plenty of editors who are unfair, belligerent wrecking balls. And they tend to be loud, and can have the reflex to talk down to new editors, or to people wandering onto pages they have some investment in. And this attitude is unpleasantly brash and macho, deeply invested in some kind of social darwinist meritocracy. However, these editors tend of be loud, and they tend to be easy to identify.
:However, There are many others who are thrilled at every little addition, who are tremendously patient, even though they explain the same things over and over again, or do the same little fixes repetitiously. Editors who operate like this tend not to stick out as much, tend to be quieter, less argumentative, and so it's easy to see just the scary ones.
:There are many others who are thrilled at every little addition, who are tremendously patient, even though they explain the same things over and over again, or do the same little fixes repetitiously. Editors who operate like this tend not to stick out as much, tend to be quieter, less argumentative, and so it's easy to see just the scary ones.
:I've personally gotten a lot out of offering people help, putting my inexperience up front, asking lots of questions, and I've learned to disengage more quickly once it seems like someone isn't going to be welcoming, isn't interested in collaboration. It's been tremendously satisfying, even with my reasonably little experience, to be able to help people out who have even less experience. It seems that the need to find ways to help new editors stick around is really underprioritized, so if there are tiny bits that I can do to make it feel welcoming—and to make the less welcoming editors a bit easier to ignore—that's very satisfying.
:I've personally gotten a lot out of offering people help, putting my inexperience up front, asking lots of questions, and I've learned to disengage more quickly once it seems like someone isn't going to be welcoming, isn't interested in collaboration. It's been tremendously satisfying, even with my reasonably little experience, to be able to help people out who have even less experience. It seems that the need to find ways to help new editors stick around is really underprioritized, so if there are tiny bits that I can do to make it feel welcoming—and to make the less welcoming editors a bit easier to ignore—that's very satisfying.
:As for more practical advice, choosing a few types of tasks that you want to do can help to build confidence, and can limit the policy areas you have to be hyper-familiar with. I got a lot out of setting myself goals like "add ten short descriptions a day for a week" or "copyedit two pages a day for a week" to help push myself to actually practice specific tasks; I will also decide to focus on a particular topic area for a few days, which makes it a little bit easier to get things done. It's good to recognize that different types of tasks will in some ways open cans of worms as far as how much you have to read about, and to understand that if you're trying a type of edit, that may be a much bigger investment of time and energy than something you've done a dozen times already. I've gotten a lot out of looking over page histories to see the dynamics of how changes happen on pages, what sort of things are likely to cause conflict, what mistakes are commonly made, but also to identify what sort of edits by others seem valuable to you. When an editor makes a contribution that I find valuable in that way, I often click through to their user/talk/contributions pages to see what I can learn about their workflow, because sometimes I can learn valuable tips just by virtually shadowing someone else. I also find it has been useful to build a personal list of pages in the manual of style, or some lists, or essays by editors that I either frequently refer to, or are just inspiring/motivating in some way.
:As for more practical advice, choosing a few types of tasks that you want to do can help to build confidence, and can limit the policy areas you have to be hyper-familiar with. I got a lot out of setting myself goals like "add ten short descriptions a day for a week" or "copyedit two pages a day for a week" to help push myself to actually practice specific tasks; I will also decide to focus on a particular topic area for a few days, which makes it a little bit easier to get things done. It's good to recognize that different types of tasks will in some ways open cans of worms as far as how much you have to read about, and to understand that if you're trying a type of edit, that may be a much bigger investment of time and energy than something you've done a dozen times already. I've gotten a lot out of looking over page histories to see the dynamics of how changes happen on pages, what sort of things are likely to cause conflict, what mistakes are commonly made, but also to identify what sort of edits by others seem valuable to you. When an editor makes a contribution that I find valuable in that way, I often click through to their user/talk/contributions pages to see what I can learn about their workflow, because sometimes I can learn valuable tips just by virtually shadowing someone else. I also find it has been useful to build a personal list of pages in the manual of style, or some lists, or essays by editors that I either frequently refer to, or are just inspiring/motivating in some way.

Revision as of 20:27, 7 December 2023

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

Dbfirs, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.
Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host
New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.


How to become a teahouse host

I am a lot more experienced than most editors here. Reason? I want to become a host here. How can I become a Teahouse host? What are the requirements? (I think I meet all of them and there’s no way where I would be presented as not even close). I will reach 500 edits today or tomorrow, which increases my chance of meeting all requirements. Equalwidth (C) 05:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you assume there's a set of requirements per se. However, are you truly experienced enough to locate the "Become a host" button at the top of this page, and then click it? That may send you on your way, cheers! :) Remsense留 05:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is invisible. Equalwidth (C) 05:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! in that case, I would go to this page. Good luck. Remsense留 05:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just need to make 45 more edits and I will become one! Equalwidth (C) 05:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
…500 mainspace edits? That’s a little strict so for that case the criteria will be 500 edits across all namespaces. Equalwidth (C) 06:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Equalwidth, nothing special happens when you sign up as a Teahouse host, so you don't need to worry about getting a certain number of edits to clear this imaginary bar. There isn't anything stopping you from answering other people's questions here, no matter what your edit count or account age is, so if you can help someone, just go ahead and do so! -- asilvering (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve successfully registered myself as a Teahouse host after reaching 500 edits. Equalwidth (C) 07:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I am a lot more experienced than most editors here." Well, no. The most active of Teahouse Hosts have been such for years, had accounts longer than that, and number their edits in the thousands (I am at >52,000 edits). That said, welcome! Teahouse needs more active Hosts. Start by offering advice only when you are sure your replies are correct David notMD (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am a lot more experienced than most editors asking questions here Equalwidth (C) 06:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope so, this is a place for newcomers to ask questions! Remsense留 06:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is essential is having enough knowledge and experience to ANSWER questions correctly. David notMD (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am concerned looking at their talk page: it seems to consist of an already extant track record of receiving advice and help from more experienced editors, which is met with silence at best and unequivocal disagreement usually. Plus the editing behavior I've happened to also see, featuring pretty arbitrary references to policy whether actually read beforehand or not. I would really recommend keeping an eye on this person's advice in the Teahouse, unfortunately. The enthusiasm is good, but. Remsense留 07:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Equalwidth, becoming a Teahouse host is not a reward or a badge of honor. It is taking on an obligation to do your very best to provide friendly, accurate and informative answers to the questions that editors ask here. And to be willing to learn yourself. I have been editing for 14-1/2 years and have contributed to the Teahouse since its earliest days. I have made over 10,000 edits to the Teahouse. Do not be quick to answer a question unless you are highly confident that your answer is correct. This is not a race or a game. There are many questions that I do not answer because this is a very complex project, and after over 100,000 edits to Wikipedia, there are still aspects of the project that I do not fully understand. It is far better to remain silent than to give out incorrect information. Cullen328 (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I knew all that… Equalwidth (C) 10:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you "knew all that", go ahead. But if you see that your Teahouse replies are being subsequently criticized/correct, consider stopping. Competency is required for all aspects of Wikipedia (WP:CIR), and can lead to you being indefinitely blocked if you persist and are consistently wrong. David notMD (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that Equalwidth was blocked for a week earlier today, for disruptive editing. Equalwidth, you'd still be welcome to help out at the Teahouse in the future, preferably when you have more experience, but it seems you need to work on your own behaviour first, before seeking to help others. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and then there's this quotation from their user page:

Books sound like a waste of time because I believe that they provide no value whatsoever

which does not bode well for their complying with WP:Verifiability. Mathglot (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they also have a userspace essay about how sourcing isn't important, and in their unblock request, mentioned their intention to restore a talk page notice that tells editors not to tell him to read up on policies. I've been trying to help this editor for the last two weeks because they do seem to have a good-faith desire to contribute, but much like this thread, all they do is insist that "they already know" and refuse to change.
Please notify me if they return here after their week long block expires. They've been rather prolific in giving bad answers and advice both on at the tea house and across the project, so they really shouldn't be fielding questions here any time soon. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73, to sum it up, it seems like they have good faith in themselves, but not in anyone else. Remsense留 21:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much. It's like he wants to start a career as a Trainer, but refuses to spend any time doing the jobs he hopes train people in; commendable to want to help people, but entirely ineffective because there's no base of experience to pull from. Sergecross73 msg me 23:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do I challenge an uninvolved administrator's decision not to change date format?

In Nintendo article, it was retained as mdy for 11 years after early January 2004, but an editor unilaterally changed the date format in violation of MOS:DATERET and since then retained that date format for 7 years. And an uninvolved administrator closed a date format discussion, effectively stopping the discussion. The administrator said no consensus to change, so we default to the WP:EDITCON of the last seven years. So, I mainly said on administrator's talk page that mdy should be used based on MOS:NUM (and the WP:EDITCON does not prevent all changes without gaining consensus). The MOS:NUM states that if discussion fails to resolve the question of which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. The administrator lastly said on the administrator's talk page that the reason mdy shouldn't be used is because you're not even upset about wrong dates, you're upset about how the same dates are written out. According to this administrator's personal opinion, there is no reason for MOS:RETAIN rule to exist. In any case, even if an explicit consensus is not achieved, it should be changed to the first major contributor's date format, according to the MOS:NUM. The WP:EDITCON also does not prevent all changes from violating the rules. I don't want to continue endless arguments with this administrator because Wikipedia is not a democracy, but I would like to challenge this administrator's decision somewhere to change the date format. How do I challenge the administrator's decision not to change the date format? WAccount1234567890 (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant statement in MOS:DATEFORMAT is:

If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.

It seems that DMY is based on the 'strong national ties' given that Nintendo is one of the most famous Japanese companies. This is plausible—and personally, this would be my choice, but that's irrelevant here. I am not sure you have read the policy correctly, since you have said that "even if an explicit consensus is not achieved, it should be changed to the first major contributor's date format". This is not what the page appears to say. Remsense留 05:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaving a comment because you wrote as if I misunderstood the rules. The MOS:NUM states that if discussion fails to resolve the question of which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. I know the "sentence" you're talking about isn't explicitly included, but this actually doesn't require any explicit consensus. WAccount1234567890 (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, User:WAccount1234567890, welcome to the Teahouse! Let it go. It's already not worth the editor time that's been spent on it, much less a further investment. WP:DTS is instructive in this situation. Twenty-six of your thirty contributions to this project have been about the date format at a single article. Surely there's something else you care about too? Folly Mox (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WAccount1234567890, focusing on date formats is a complete and total waste of time that does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. I highly recommend that you focus on substantive improvements to Wikipedia articles instead. Cullen328 (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article of Georgios Dritsakos

I just submitted the draft of Georgios Dritsakos will be transferred to the articles about the retired Lieutenant General Georgios Dritsakos. He served as Adjutant of the Hellenic Air Force to the President of the Hellenic Republic Constantinos Stephanopoulos from 2002–2005. He was a Lieutenant Colonel and Colonel. Do you have somebody make an articles of Georgios Dritsakos? He is now the Governor of the Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority. 108.21.67.83 (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! I see you resubmitted Draft:Georgios Dritsakos, which I just declined again because you haven't addressed the comments from the previous reviewers. Wikipedia editors are volunteers who write about what they like. I added some additional WikiProjects to the talk page in the hope that will get some more attention to your draft. You could also try asking at the appropriate subpage of Wikipedia:Requested articles, but there is no guarantee that anyone will respond to your request. GoingBatty (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to explain this. How do I try to ask at the appropriate subpage of Wikipedia:Requested articles before somebody will help me out about the draft of Governor of the Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority Georgios Dritsakos, former Adjutant to the President of the Hellenic Republic and the Retired Lieutenant General of the Hellenic Air Force? 108.21.67.83 (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is – you shouldn't try, because it's very unlikely that anyone who could help, and would want to, will see such a request.
What you need to do is find acceptable (i.e. lengthy, independent, published) Reliable sources that demonstrate the Notability of Georgios Dritsakos, add the information from them to the Draft, and correctly cite the sources. This may not be possible, because Georgios Dritsakos may not be "notable" (in Wikipedia's use of the term).
You also need to cite sources for much of the information already in the Draft – every fact needs to be cited to a source (which may mean citing the same source several times). If those acceptable sources do not exist, no article about Georgios Dritsakos can, at this time, be made to meet the requirements. Not every current or ex-military officer or Civil Servant is "Notable", most are not: perhaps if Georgios Dritsakos attains more prominence in future, more source material will be written that can be used.
Incidentally, you begin the draft by describing him as a "Greek colonel". The regime of the Greek colonels ended in 1974, so this is puzzling. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.32 (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. I have this in the information about the reference for Lieutenant General Georgios Dritsakos. https://web.archive.org/web/20140806053317/http://www.haf.gr/el/structure/hgesia/dritsakos_cv.asp 108.21.67.83 (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://web.archive.org/web/20140806053317/http://www.haf.gr/el/structure/hgesia/dritsakos_cv.asp says "Σμήναρχος: 20/04/2004", and Google Translate and Wiktionary agree that "σμήναρχος" means colonel. Just because the Greek junta run by colonels ended doesn't mean that Greece no longer has colonels. Solomon Ucko (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But this is the English-language Wikipedia, and in the English language "Greek Colonel" is usually understood to be a reference to the Junta, rather than just to any Colonel in the Greek military forces.
It may be that very senior Greek military officers are routinely referred to as "Colonels", but this is not usually the case elsewhere, so you would need to clarify what is meant by it in this instance. For comparison, in the British Army a Colonel is the seniormost soldier of a regiment or corps, but is junior to all Brigadiers, Major-Generals, Lieutenant-Generals, Generals and Field Marshals. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.32 (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the sources you use in your Draft:Georgios Dritsakos are sufficient to constitute notability.
The General notability guidelines require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The basic criteria for notability of people clarify this as "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (see the link for additional explanation). As far as I can tell, the first source is not independent of the subject, and the other two do not constitute significant coverage.
Alternatively, the "any biography" notability guidelines provide the option that he have "received a well-known and significant award or honor" or have "been nominated for such an award several times". https://web.archive.org/web/20140806053317/http://www.haf.gr/el/structure/hgesia/dritsakos_cv.asp lists various medals, but I don't know if they count as "well-known and significant".
In order for your Wikipedia article to be accepted, start by providing any of the following:
  • Reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage.
  • Evidence of any of the medals being both "well-known" and "significant", ideally in relation to Georgios Dritsakos specifically.
  • A reliable source stating that he received a "well-known and significant award or honor".
Solomon Ucko (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with editors (and admins!) removing factual information

Hi there, I'm new to editing Wikipedia. I've been trying to update some information for the city I live in. I've been attempting to update the Demographics section with raw unopinionated data from the most recent Census and American Community Survey, but I've had it repeatedly removed by editors. I attempted to undo the removal, and an admin reversed that and said it needed a 'consensus'. Is that true, that Wikipedia requires a consensus for raw demographic counts to be posted? I'm kind of concerned about it, and hoping someone can provide guidance. For reference, I'm talking about the Vista, CA Wikipedia page. 76.232.123.103 (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! Consensus is the way Wikipedia editors decide what information (and at what level of detail) is included in an article. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure does not provide specify what demographic sources should or should not be included. The Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a common way to start the process to determine consensus. I'm glad you're having a discussion at Talk:Vista, California page. You may need to have separate discussions for each topic you've added that has been reverted. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks for your help. I had a discussion with the admin in question and sorted the issue. Reposting a question I posed to the admin here if anyone is open to answering:
"To follow up, I was wondering generally if there are any specific Wikipedia rules or policies relative to deleting otherwise factual information. As in, if an editor deletes a cited fact that is presented without opinion, does that still require discussion before undoing the removal? Or could the removal be considered vandalism or something, given that the edit removed a truthful and relevant fact. I always assumed Wikipedia would allow factual information to stand, so long as it is in fact relevant to the topic of the page. I'm planning a series of edits to update the page in question, and plan to support them all with citations, but I'm concerned about getting bogged down in 'discussions' over things that are actual facts, if that makes sense. Discussions relevant to whether or not something is relevant to the topic, whether or not it is actually true, or supported by a given reference, etc I can see would clearly warrant discussion. Just wondering what to do in the case someone undoes a factual edit over an undefined or overtly subjective/preferential reason, and whether that still requires discussion before reinstating the facts." 76.232.123.103 (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is always required when another editor disagrees with content that you have added. A cycle of repeatedly adding and removing content without talk page discussion is Edit warring, which is blockable offense. Cullen328 (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think what I'm trying to ask is at what point would deleting factual information count as vandalism or some other offense? Surely consensus is not required for factual information, if the veracity of the fact itself is unchallenged. 76.232.123.103 (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is still required when someone challenges factual information. Wikipedia does not aim to contain all factual information, and discussion is needed when we disagree about what factual information should be included. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia: Vandalism begins by saying On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia. Any good faith disagreement about which content to include in an article is, by definition, not vandalism. False accusations of vandalism are a form of disruptive editing. You are incorrect that consensus is not required to add factual information. If the addition is contested by another editor, then gaining consensus is mandatory. According to Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not, which is policy, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia and Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. So, how is the decision made about what to include in a specific article? Through consensus among the editors interested in that article. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You stated "Surely consensus is not required for factual information". However, consensus IS required, even for factual information. For example, imagine if we could find reliable published sources for the daily temperature for Vista for every day for the last 30 years, or every street name in Vista, or every person who ever served on the city council. While we could all agree that it was factual information, we would still not include all of it in the article. We don't have guidelines stating listing every possible piece of information and whether it should or should not be in the article. Instead, we rely on consensus building to make those determinations. GoingBatty (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, my full statement was "Surely consensus is not required for factual information, if the veracity of the fact itself is unchallenged." Still, I see your point about not including every possible data point. However, if someone is removing current factual data, such as current demographics, which is present on every other city page, without contesting the veracity of the data, is that not fitting the definition of vandalism? It seems to be that would be a deliberate intent to obstruct or defeat the purpose of the city project pages, especially because the city project guidelines do indeed specify that current demographic estimates should be included. If an act is believed to be vandalism, is there a way to report to admins, or what would be the proper avenue? 76.232.123.103 (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summaries briefly explain why your edits were reverted, which demonstrate that you're having a difference of opinion, and the editors involved are not committing vandalism. I see you've started a discussion on the talk page about the Native American history, and suggest you do something similar for the demographic data. For reporting actual vandalism, there is WP:AIV, and it's important for you to read the big green section at the top before posting there. If you do post there, you might receive similar responses to those you received here. GoingBatty (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say you've read the edit summaries... but several of the edit summaries did not address at all why certain things were removed. The Native American history being removed is one such example. I do think that qualifies as vandalism. Please feel free to let me know if you disagree. 76.232.123.103 (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For more context, what I'm referring to is edit summaries that address one particular facet of what was removed, but not other parts that were removed. Are editors allowed to revert such edits without discussion? Especially if factual information was removed without any indication of rationale or disagreement in the edit summary. 76.232.123.103 (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay upon further review it looks like vandalism warnings are what I was looking for. Sounds like at least one of those warning templates apply if things were deleted without explanation. I will use those in the future if needed. Thanks for your help 76.232.123.103 (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Be *very* careful before issuing a vandalism warning, as it is likely not what you think; the specific meaning was quoted above. Even if an editor adds false information, even in a disruptive way, even while edit-warring, it is not vandalism if their goal is to improve the article with the edit in question. The edit might violate other policies or guidelines in those circumstances, but not vandalism per se. Be sure you understand this before issuing any warnings. Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how do I write a new article without using the article wizard every time?

Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesemaster12 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cheesemaster12: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can create a page at User:Cheesemaster12/sandbox or as a draft and work on it at your leisure. When you are done with it, you can use the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process to ask for a review, or (if you've had success creating articles before) move it directly to articlespace. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheesemaster12, use of the Article Wizard is a convenience, and is entirely optional for established editors. Use of the Articles for creation process is also entirely optional for established editors. I have written over 100 new articles and none of them went through tje wizard or AFC. None has been deleted. That is because I understand Notability and other relevant Policies and guidelines, and I gather up my high quality references before trying to write a new article. Only then, I then create citations to those reliable sources, and begin summarizing what they say. This is how an acceptable Wikipedia should be written. Writing down what you think you know about the topic, and then later trying to find sources is the wrong approach that repeatedly leads to frustration. To summarize: find your reliable sources first and format them into references. Only then, summarize what your reliable sources say. Do not use weak or mediocre sources. Use only the highest quality reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. That approach followed correctly guarantees success. Cullen328 (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheesemaster12, you haven't made many edits so far; and of those that you have made, a number have been reverted. I advise you to practise improving existing articles some more before you embark on creating a new article. That way you'll have a greater chance of success. -- Hoary (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you decide to skip AfC and create an article in Mainspace, and it is not up to or close to Wikipedia standards, then New Pages Patrol (WP:NPP) reviewers are likely to convert it to a draft, start a deletion process at WP:AFD or just Speedy delete it. Hence, waste of your time. David notMD (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only way I could think of without the Wizard is by using your sandbox. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me!) (Stone Free) 14:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what this user is referring to. They want to directly create articles, not create them elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh, so like, skip the draft process entirely? Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me!) (Stone Free) 14:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My registration date is incorrect. I'm not sure where to ask about this...

Like I said, I'm not sure who or where to address this matter, but I believe my registration date is incorrect.

The earliest edit I can find that I made is dated 23 June 2012 but on my account page it says I registered in 2015.

How do I get this corrected so my account shows the correct date/year that I actually created my account here?

Tallship (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any way as far as I know to go back and change the date your account was created. The global log indicates you registered in 2015 so I don't know how you could have edited in 2012. It could have something to do with when accounts were made global across all projects, but someone with more knowledge than I would need to speak to that. Did you create your account on this project? No account creation date is listed for you, which suggests you created it on another project. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that your Xtools record shows the first edit on 2012-06-23 09:02, while Special:CentralAuth/Tallship shows registration as 14:03, 17 March 2015. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tallship: The user creation log was started in 2005 and you aren't registered there. Is it possible your account was created before that and made no edit until 2012? I don't think the creation date can be found in that case. Special:CentralAuth/Tallship shows the global account creation, a system that didn't exist in 2005. The date shown there cannot and should not be changed. mw:SUL finalisation ended in 2015. Your account was in the last group to get global accounts because you didn't request it and your username existed at different wikis with different passwords. Before global accounts, different people could pick the same name at different wikis. MediaWiki had no way of telling whether it was the same person when the password was different. An account at meta which may or may not have been yours was automatically renamed to Tallship~metawiki.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much (everyone who chimed in)!
@PrimeHunter 's explanation actually provided me with the most comprehensive likelihoods possible of the various scenarios. As an early adopter I usually create an account somewhere I consider important even if I've no immediate plans to participate - so it stands to reason that I created the account years before I actually affected my first edit in 2012.
Thank you again everyone, and kindest regards,
Tallship (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New and intimidated, could use some advice and encouragement.

Here's my situation. I could use something else to do to pass the time. I lost the taste for computer games quite a while ago, so that's a non-starter. Never been particularly outdoorsy, so all the outdoors things are a non-starter as well. Youtube's getting stale and transforming more and more into TV as time goes on, and I dislike TV so much that I haven't watched it in 12-14 years. While I do love to read, when it's the only thing to do, it starts to get old. Not to mention for an unknown reason I can't read a book more than 2-3 hours a day otherwise place names and character names begin to mean nothing to me.

I figured that I had this Wikipedia account I'm not using, so why not help out Wikipedia?

The thing is, even though I've looked through the new editors' tutorial and the introduction to contributing, I still feel completely intimidated! I'm worried I'm gonna mess something up and be told to go away and never come back. I do have some MediaWiki experience, so I feel confident in actually executing an edit, the markup isn't the scary thing to me. But I'm concerned I'm gonna break some rule or policy I don't know about or I may be interpreting differently than everybody else. Again, it's intimidating.

Advice? Thoughts? Kilroy Was Here 1856 (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kilroy Was Here 1856, Welcome to Wikipedia.
You can begin your editing journey by visiting the Wikipedia:Community portal and fixing articles with maintenance tags. You must not be scared to edit, if you do something wrong (not repeatedly), someone will definitly notify you about it and rectify the error. If you have copyediting skills, improve the quality of Wikipedia articles..
If you need any assistance or have doubts, you can always reach out to me or any other editor or put up a question in the Teahouse. Leoneix (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kilroy Was Here 1856 WP:TASKS, is also a good place to find tasks initially. Leoneix (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoneix Thanks for the help, those two pages definitely help. I feel a little less anxious about this whole editing thing now. Kilroy Was Here 1856 (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kilroy Was Here 1856 You might make a mistake (which will get fixed by someone after you), but you won't break anything. One of the Wikipedia editing guidelines is WP:BE BOLD, so just go edit, and don't worry! Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kilroy Was Here 1856, I was in the same position a few months ago - there are so many policies and pages that it can be overwhelming for a new user! I would encourage you to find articles about things you are interested in and start small. I learned a lot from jumping in and starting, like add a fact to a stub article with a citation, fix typos or grammar, or fix markup that displays an error in edit mode. My suggestion is to explore categories in your interests and find tasks you feel comfortable doing. If there is an area you would like to learn, there are lots of friendly editors who can point you in the right direction. Good luck and welcome! NatFee (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatFee Thank you for the advice and encouragement. When you break editing down like that it does seem a lot more accessible and achievable. Thanks again! Kilroy Was Here 1856 (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As others have been saying, the general policy here is to WP:Be Bold, and sometimes bold changes are wrong, but that’s what everybody else is here for. I totally get the intimation. It seems like everybody has every policy linked and memorized and locked & loaded, but the truth is, those with the most knowledge self-select for making corrections! That’s what’s kinda great about it. It doesn’t mean you’re so far behind. Also small tip, don’t be too discouraged if one of your good-faith edits gets caught by a vandalism filter or bot and gets reverted. It can be discouraging, but it happens a lot and doesn’t mean you did anything wrong. Best to just chat with the person who made the revert over on their talk page and clear it up. This place really benefits from new editors, and there are doubtless many projects waiting for your interest, expertise and attention. Welcome! Wow Mollu (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wow Mollu Thanks for your reassurance. It does seem like everybody"s got everything at their fingertips doesn't it? Glad to know it's more of a process of just applying the knowledge I already have. Your tips regarding the filters and edit reversions are welcomed and appreciated. Kilroy Was Here 1856 (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What a good question! I can share a little bit about my experiences along these lines. I started editing in part because of a chronic illness has made other activities that I previously enjoyed more difficult. Previous work and hobbies which involved reading, research, and writing have been put somewhat beyond my reach. But the piecemeal nature of editing Wikipedia has let me enjoy parts of what I feel like I'm missing, without exhausting my limited energy.
I have been editing with focus for less than a year now, and there certainly have been a lot of frustrations. I've encountered plenty of editors who are unfair, belligerent wrecking balls. And they tend to be loud, and can have the reflex to talk down to new editors, or to people wandering onto pages they have some investment in. And this attitude is unpleasantly brash and macho, deeply invested in some kind of social darwinist meritocracy. However, these editors tend of be loud, and they tend to be easy to identify.
There are many others who are thrilled at every little addition, who are tremendously patient, even though they explain the same things over and over again, or do the same little fixes repetitiously. Editors who operate like this tend not to stick out as much, tend to be quieter, less argumentative, and so it's easy to see just the scary ones.
I've personally gotten a lot out of offering people help, putting my inexperience up front, asking lots of questions, and I've learned to disengage more quickly once it seems like someone isn't going to be welcoming, isn't interested in collaboration. It's been tremendously satisfying, even with my reasonably little experience, to be able to help people out who have even less experience. It seems that the need to find ways to help new editors stick around is really underprioritized, so if there are tiny bits that I can do to make it feel welcoming—and to make the less welcoming editors a bit easier to ignore—that's very satisfying.
As for more practical advice, choosing a few types of tasks that you want to do can help to build confidence, and can limit the policy areas you have to be hyper-familiar with. I got a lot out of setting myself goals like "add ten short descriptions a day for a week" or "copyedit two pages a day for a week" to help push myself to actually practice specific tasks; I will also decide to focus on a particular topic area for a few days, which makes it a little bit easier to get things done. It's good to recognize that different types of tasks will in some ways open cans of worms as far as how much you have to read about, and to understand that if you're trying a type of edit, that may be a much bigger investment of time and energy than something you've done a dozen times already. I've gotten a lot out of looking over page histories to see the dynamics of how changes happen on pages, what sort of things are likely to cause conflict, what mistakes are commonly made, but also to identify what sort of edits by others seem valuable to you. When an editor makes a contribution that I find valuable in that way, I often click through to their user/talk/contributions pages to see what I can learn about their workflow, because sometimes I can learn valuable tips just by virtually shadowing someone else. I also find it has been useful to build a personal list of pages in the manual of style, or some lists, or essays by editors that I either frequently refer to, or are just inspiring/motivating in some way.
It has helped me to think of this as a hobby; I build patterns of investment in my work, I explore how others engage, and I try to set myself goals. A woodworker who tries to reinvent the wheel with every new project, not consulting how others have accomplished tasks before, and not investing in follow through will likely walk away from the half finished jewelry box, and wobbly chair, and dull tools pretty unsatisfied. There's an overwhelming amount to learn, but we can understand that every step along the way is just another small task, and that we never get to understand or master every part of it. Best of luck, apologies for being a bit long-winded, but I hope this has been helpful, and I'm very happy to help in any further way I can! Handpigdad (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of Author bio page

I wrote a novel. Signed a contrac with an editor and it is going to be published this month, or begining of january.

I tried to create a page of the Author, but was not approved.

How should i proceed?

Thanks Rmrribeiro (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that you want to make a page about yourself, or that you paid another user to make one? Either way, this is WP:COI. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me!) (Slim Shady) 16:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rmrribeiro You have been trying to create an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged for the reasons given at that link. We have a policy on biographies which you ignored: all facts stated must have inline citations to reliable published sources. To demonstrate that you are a wikinotable author you would need multiple sources meeting these criteria. I suggest you stick to novel writing for now and let someone else create your biography when appropriate sources are available. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer.
I though that it was normal, as i see a lot of published "small" authors bios here.
Your last sentence was not that friendly, but i will follow your advice.
regards,
rmribeiro Rmrribeiro (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
rmribeiro Many articles - especially older - exist but do not meet current standards for verifying notability. When the book is published and is reviewed, the reviews may serve as references for an article about the book, but not necessarily about you, the author, unless you are the primary subject of published articles. Mike's reply was perhaps a bit short on tact, but it is in line with Wikipedia guidelines, to wit, if your writings end up making you sufficiently famous, then someone with no connect to you may decides to write an article. David notMD (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David. I understand, and it makes perfect sence. I also understand Mike´s answer, because you guys must see alot of marketing and self promotion atempts.
Regards and keep up the good work Rmrribeiro (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns

I was patrolling recent changes and saw someone edit a person's biography section by adding their pronouns. Is this something that should be removed or what? I didn't mess with it because I thought, personally, it might be useful information; however, I am no policy maker and wanted to seek advice for the future. Jan Silija (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jan Silija, If possible please link the article here. Leoneix (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoneix, here it is: Yiftach Fehige. Jan Silija (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jan Silija It's all good. The subject is referred as "he" in the article and a lookup on the university's website verifies it. There is no need of explicitly mentioning pronouns. Happy Editing! Leoneix (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Jan Silija: Someone else reverted the addition of "(He/Him)" in this edit. The usage of "he" and "his" throughout the article are sufficient. For more information, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity. Of higher importance is that the article has no references. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty Should it be blanked or deleted? per WP:NOSOURCES Leoneix (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoneix: The edit was reverted, and I think that is sufficient. GoingBatty (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but there are no sources to support the info written. There are only primary sources (uni profile) available. Leoneix (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoneix: You asked "Should it be blanked or deleted", and maybe I misinterpreted what you meant by "it". I was thinking about "it" meant the addition of "(He/Him)" to the article, which was reverted. If you meant "Should the entire article be blanked or deleted", then that's outside the scope of this discussion of pronouns. Feel free to nominate the article for deletion if you think that's appropriate. GoingBatty (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a full professor in a book-writing field - it would be extraordinary if he did not meet our notability guidelines. -- asilvering (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not mentioning clearly Leoneix (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
YUP ! it should be removed from the article. 😂🤣84Swagahh🤣😂 17:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it was, by me. Though perhaps something could be done with the infobox. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Wrld) 17:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Football talk

Good evening, I wanted to ask if in the English Wikipedia there were generic talk page on a given subject such as in the Italian edition, in particular I would be interested in one about football. Thank you very much and kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

see wp:football or its talk page, but also keep wp:notforum in mind cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 22:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cogsan Thanks, this is what I was looking for. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia

hi! I'm not reporting anything I just have a question for the people at Wikipedia: How fast does the information get put on Wikipedia? (like does it take a few minutes, days, ect) (also i really want to say hi!!) Jude marrero (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jude marrero Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Generally, an edit is live the moment you click "publish changes". If you are referring to submitting a draft, it does take time for a review. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a quick question about the same topic: is Wikipedia information from one source (like Google only) or multiple sources? Jude marrero (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google is not a source; but it links to other sites, many of which are WP:reliable sources with a reputation for independence, editorial control and fact checking, but many of which are blogs, promotional sites, predatory publishers and other unreliable sources - Arjayay (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jude marrero, almost everything on Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors, who may research the topics they write about however they like. You can see what sources editors used to write each article by looking at the "References" section or following the footnotes in each article. -- asilvering (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Information gets put on Wikipedia when someone puts in on Wikipedia. How long that takes is highly variable. For topics that get a lot of attention, this could be within minutes of the news breaking; for obscure topics, it could take years, if it ever gets added. Usually it's somewhere in-between. Solomon Ucko (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sports results may be added within seconds. I have done it myself with the edit already written and ready to save. If I'm watching the event live and rooting for the winner then it can be satisfying. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article avout Henry Kissinger was converted from "is" to "was" within minutes after his death became general news. David notMD (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Henry Kissinger QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 08:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you mean like, info? There's hundreds of edits a minute, so pretty fast. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me!) (Stone Free) 14:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tech note: the Wikimedia set of sites (not just English Wikipedia) lately has a typical average of a little over 20 edits per second, and that easily spikes much higher when there is a major world event. DMacks (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alt Accounts

I see many users use alternative accounts when using public internet. Should i do the same or does it not make a difference in terms of account safety? Subariba (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK:

To maintain accountability and increase community trust, editors are generally expected to use only one account.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very unhelpful contribution, Sollyucko. Alternate accounts are legitimate per WP:SOCKLEGIT. One stated reason is: "Security: You may register an alternative account for use when accessing Wikipedia through a public computer, connecting to an unsecured network, or other scenarios when there's a risk of your account being compromised." It is probably for individuals to assess for themselves the level of risk associated with public networks they use, and to determine the need or otherwise for an alt account. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not edit the same article with more than one account. David notMD (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even that's not the case. WP:BADSOCK lists "inappropriate uses of alternative accounts". On the two accounts one article issue it says "Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people. Contributing to the same page with clearly linked, legitimate, alternative accounts (e.g. editing the same page with your main and public computer account or editing a page using your main account that your bot account edited) is not forbidden." --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Subariba, Sollyucko, and David notMD: I believe that it's only really a problem if you're using sockpuppets deceptively or for some personal gain. As @Tagishsimon pointed out, socks are permitted if it's for security reasons. Just make sure that it's clear it's a sockpuppet. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 08:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And if I decide to make a new account will the same email I use for this account work? Subariba (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Subariba Yes, it will. The account name is used to log on, not an email address. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Advice for attempted de-orphan category

Greetings, For "Category:Attempted de-orphan from December 2023" (57 articles), a new editor (User talk:Orange sticker) added the "att=December 2023" wikicode replacing the original orphan tag's date. Question: should these be Reverted? Or manually fix each one? I did fix one article myself (Yard Kings). What would be the best option? Note: I'm on vacation now, but do daily check watchlist. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Category:Attempted de-orphan from December 2023 {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoeNMLC, it's a little hard for me to tell exactly what's going on without links, but when I checked the user's contributions, the first thing I found was an instance of them removing the tag from a page that hadn't actually been de-orphaned. They should be watched to make sure they're receiving appropriate help and, if they're not receptive, that the disruption is limited. I'd suggest posting at WT:DEORPHAN, as folks there may be more familiar with that area of the project than we are. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - fyi, for these articles, I fixed by inserting the original orphan date back into the tag. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[PERSON] has been covered by [MAGAZINE 1], [MAGAZINE 2], [MAGAZINE 3], etc.

Hello I was wondering if this sentence structure is always considered puffery for a biography article and if so I can delete it. I do know be bold, but was looking for a paragraph in MOS category to justify removing this sentence I see in even well-maintained biographies. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @बिनोद थारू; great question! We tend to avoid absolutes on Wikipedia, so I hesitate to say always, but that sentence does read as quite puffy to me. One reason it may exist is that it's someone attempting to establish notability for a subject by linking to the best sources on them. If the sentence is supported by refs that look high-quality, you could try removing the sentence and just moving the refs to after the first sentence of the article. Otherwise, just take it out.
Regarding policy-and-guideline-based rationale for removing it, there are a few different things you could cite. WP:PUFFERY is certainly one. Another would be WP:DUE, as articles are supposed to reflect coverage in secondary sources, and while a magazine profile might normally be a secondary source, it's a primary source for the fact that it has covered that person. And so unless e.g. Magazine 2 have written about the fact that the person was covered in Magazine 1, there isn't secondary coverage.
Hope that helps! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's also a legitimate "does removing the sentence improve the encyclopedia" question to be answered. If we take the Mike Hollingshead article, for instance, I'm not convinced that we do anyone a favour by removing the sentence here:

Mike Hollingshead is an American professional storm chaser, photographer and videographer from Blair, Nebraska.[1] His work has been covered by NPR,[2] numerous photography magazines and websites, and on the cover of National Geographic.[3] It is also featured in films and television, such as Take Shelter, The Fifth Estate, and the series finale of Dexter. In 2008 Hollingshead released his first book titled Adventures in Tornado Alley: The Storm Chasers with co-author Eric Nguyen.[4][5][6][7][8]

A core WP policy is WP:IAR: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Examples of users following their conception of the rules, but degrading the product, are all too frequent. Please don't be one of those. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion numerous photography magazines and websites does not convey any information, so it would be better to remove it. Same is the NPR bit since it's a standard news outlet. But Nat GEO cover is very relevant for photographer so can be left included. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does convey information. Citations are not provided for the claims, but then it is not highly likely the claims will be challenged. So I do need to put it to you: what's so damn important about your opinion? Who died and made you king? --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
? बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are presuming your judgement is better than the person who wrote that part of the article or, come to it, mine. You are boldly stating that a sentence which conveys information does not convey information. Does it occur to you that you may not be correct? --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I would say am 60%-70% the times correct. So maybe some decision fall into 30%-40%. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those odds, inflated as they are by your own confirmation bias, do not seem great to me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
बिनोद थारू, good question. Statements such as that in the title of this thread strike me as near worthless. If somebody was "featured", or if his work was "covered", in some issue of some magazine or wherever, then decide if the feature or coverage is worth describing, and if it is then describe it. The article Mike Hollingshead says that "In 2008, Hollingshead released his first book titled Adventures in Tornado Alley: The Storm Chasers with co-author Eric Nguyen" and points to four reviews of this; summaries of the reviews would be far more valuable. I'm not volunteering to do this myself (either because I'm up to my ears in another article or because I'm a lazy bastard; take your pick). -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC) (sixty to seventy percent of the time right, maybe)[reply]
बिनोद थारू, I agree with Hoary. If a source says something relevant about the subject, tell the reader what it says. If it doesn't, don't bother citing it. Maproom (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Converting articles from different language?

Hi! Is there any specific policies about converting articles from another language? My draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Werther_Dell%27Edera is drastically different from the Italian's page https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werther_Dell%27Edera (partly because I recently found it) ALtered000 (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ALtered000 there is no need to structure articles the same across languages. In fact sometimes the communities have different preferences for article structure across languages. But if you feel confident you can translate content from that article to your draft as long as you provide attribution. If you don't provide attribution then that would be plagiarism. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 07:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Immanuelle Cool! Do I provide attribution by linking the Italian article itself as a cite/source or just mentioning it in the edit notes? P.S. anyway to get rid of this question as it's resolved? ALtered000 (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ALtered000 do not cite the article in the sources, since it is not a source, you are just adapting the written content. But you can do it in a variety of ways. The preferred one is linking the revision you are taking it from which in this case is this one https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Werther_Dell%27Edera&oldid=136738421 but there are a variety of ways to do it such as mentioning it in the edit history, or linking in the edit history Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 08:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Immanuelle Okay! Consider this resolved thanks for your help Immanuelle! ALtered000 (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ALtered000: More Info can be found at Help:Translation, especially the part about license requirements. Lectonar (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft acceptance

Hello! I have been trying to get this article Miguel Di Pizio into the main space but keeps getting rejected from reviewers. Is there anything I could do to get it accepted? Or should I just wait until more information is released? I have no idea what is wrong with the article in terms of wikipedia guidelines. JC Kotisow (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MORE INFO: Di Pizio is described as playing for Australia men's national under-17 soccer team. He shows up in the roster list as a red Wikilink, as do most of the players, but a few are blue Wikilinks. So, is accepting this draft arbitrary, depending on the reviewer, or is there some nuance to the references for the accepted players that got those articles accepted? David notMD (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AH HA! The blue Wikilink articles about players were created in Mainspace, i.e., not through AfC. We need an expert football editor to opine on notability of junior athletes. David notMD (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:NFOOTY no longer applies, we basically fall back to WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thus, very unlikely that any teenage football athlete meets WP:GNG, and someone with more energy than I would nominate the other athletes' articles bluelinked at Australia men's national under-17 soccer team to be deleted. Life is harsh. David notMD (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question about CTOP restrictions

Hey all,

I like to process requests for article quality assessments. Someone asked me to reassess an article that pertains to AA2. I did so but now I'm wondering if I made a mistake there. I checked the listed page restrictions and didn't see a problem as I didn't make any reverts or anything but I was also not extended confirmed at the time and I know that's a restriction. Should I have deferred it to someone else or am I in the clear? Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 13:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this specific case is moot, since you're now extended confirmed. In general, I would advise that non-EC editors not do quality assessments on articles covered by community-imposed EC restrictions. It seems more like an "internal project discussion" than the "constructive comments" or "edit requests related to articles" that are permitted by the restriction. It's a grey area, as far as I'm aware. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright! Thank you, I'll keep that in mind. I should've checked more thoroughly before assessing. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 14:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't login via Android

I can't login while using Chrome on Android, when I literally push "Log in" on Wikipedia's mobile homepage the side bar just disappears again, and nothing else happens. 2600:6C50:4800:1052:5CB2:B046:D30D:FE48 (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:6C50:4800:1052:5CB2:B046:D30D:FE48 See Wikipedia:COOKIES for troubleshooting steps. Leoneix (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need help editing an article

Prevention Project Dunkelfeld is a group that offers therapy to pedophiles. The sources make that clear, and only use this phrase. I am automatically prevented from replacing the weasel word "chronophile", which isn't in the sources for pedophile, which is. Can anyone explain why this isn't allowed? Big Money Threepwood (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Big Money Threepwood According to the edit filter log you added pedophile to the text, which tripped the edit filter for common vandalism words (as you can guess, 'pedophile' is commonly used for vandalism). In this case, you can report the false positive at WP:EFFP. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Big Money Threepwood. The article actually previously did use the correct word, but then someone changed it (among a set of related changes that all look poor). I undid them all. DMacks (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
Big Money Threepwood (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to establish your own novel

I want to be a novel writer S S ngwenya (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This isn't the forum to seek help with your career path. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
try asking a publisher, not Wikipedia (WP:NOT FORUM) Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me!) (Stone Free) 17:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

submitted draft article

I submitted a draft article for review about a week ago. How long does it normally take to receive an initial response? Is the response made directly to my email address? Legendt9455 (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Legendt9455: if you mean  Courtesy link: Draft:Draft "Robert E. (Bob) Bourke Jr.", then you haven't yet submitted that; you need to click on the blue 'submit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot locate a blue "submit" button.
I believe I clicked the blue "submit" button on 11/28! Legendt9455 (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome. If you are referring to Draft:Draft "Robert E. (Bob) Bourke Jr.", you have not actually submitted it yet. You need to click the "submit your draft for review!" button. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Legendt9455 Don't submit it in its current state or it will be rapidly declined. You need to read and comply with the policy relating to biographies and this means you must cite the information correctly. See WP:REFB. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.... you also need to decide whether you are writing about Bourke or about Studebaker. If the former, a lot of your current text is not on-topic. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That page relates to biographies of "living persons."
Is there a link to biographies of deceased persons? 2600:8800:A800:B2A:DC6C:D7B3:8650:688F (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did click on the blue "submit" button on 11/28.
I cannot locate a "submit your draft for review" button now.
Any suggestions? 2600:8800:A800:B2A:DC6C:D7B3:8650:688F (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the time varies. When I first submitted my draft, it said up to 4 weeks. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me!) (Stone Free) 17:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - There used to be a backlog of thousands of unreviewed drafts. The system is not a queue. At that time submitted drafts got a note that it could be months. Currently a tremendous effort by many reviewers shortened the list to under 200. I echo the advice not to submit your draft until you fix the obvious; otherwise, you are just wasting a reviewer's time. David notMD (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft declined

how do I submit a biography of a well known plastic surgeon? Drwilliammiami (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have already attempted to do this, and it was deleted as promotional. Furthermore, you seem to be writing about yourself. Please read the autobiography policy as to why that is highly discouraged. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tried twice, speedy deleted twice. Unless "Dr. William" (you?) is as famous as surgeons listed at Surgeon it is unlikely that a third attempt could succeed. David notMD (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Drwilliammiami: Note that "famous" isn't quite right, it's whether there are sufficient independent reliable sources providing significant coverage of the surgeon to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, called "notability". See WP:NBIO for more information. GoingBatty (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware that if you do succeed in creating an article - by including reliable source references - you do not "own" that article. If there are publications about reputationally negative events, for example a malpractice suit, that could be added to the article by other Wikipedia editors. David notMD (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patents as 'noteworthy information'

I'm working on improving American Biotech and, while it seems they have a fairly widespread product, there isn't much information about it other than the same press release on a bunch of different websites. I'm considering deleting the Patents section altogether. For companies like this, is it useful to include information like this that is just a list of products or patents, or to cite an otherwise uncontroversial FDA product approval? Reconrabbit (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Reconrabbit, with sources like that, I'd remove it per WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:PATENTS. If no one else is interested in their patents, neither is WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Reconrabbit, our general approach is that we want to reflect what has been written in secondary sources, so if it hasn't appeared outside of press releases and primary sources like FDA documents, then we don't need it. WP:NOTCATALOG may also be relevant. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dobroflot

I wanted to leave a note on this artile's talk page, but that seems impossible. Any idea Whst I am doing wrong? Perhaps the comment snhould be made to one of the subgroups?Oldsilenus (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Oldsilenus. Could you describe your problem more precisely? When look at Talk:Dobroflot, I don't see any obvious problem. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and sorry for not entering Dobroflot (with braces). Usually on the talk page when one moves below the top banners, the cursor changes (ton I) so that a comment can be added. This does not happen on my screen. There seems to be no way to enter anything below the Wikiproject Russia entry. Oldsilenus (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right. There should be a button labeled "New section" or "+" at the top of your screen which will add a new section. Alternatively, you could simply click "edit" and add a section manually. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Click "New Section" at the top of the page. Subariba (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OOPS! You ar correct I wasn't in "Edit." A bad day today Oldsilenus (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alethea

Hi, I recently removed an image of Jodie Foster from Alethea. As stated in my edit summary, I don't think that the image is appropriate. Another editor reverted my removal of the image (with no edit summary). Could someone here please take a look and adjudicate. Thank you. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else removed the image. Personally, I agree it does not belong. David notMD (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would Bookworm857158367 like to comment? Cremastra (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
please discuss this at Talk:Alethea RudolfRed (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added the image because the character that she played was the reason for the increase in usage of the name that year and the following year. The picture is of her as a child actress during that time frame. A picture of her in the Alethea role would be preferable but I didn’t find a free image on the Wikimedia commons. Nonetheless, I think a picture of her at the age she played the character is appropriate. I object to the removal of the image and reverted the edits. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reversing my opinion, as the temporary increase in popularity of the name circa 1973 is linked in the text to the appearance of Foster's so-named character in a popular TV show, even if only for one episode. David notMD (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David notMD Since the ref is imdb, and doesn't say anything about temporary increase in popularity of the name circa 1973, how about removing everything about Foster-Athea from that article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the name increased after the TV appearance, per the other mentions in the article. I continue to object. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. And just because something is online, it doesn't follow it's a good WP-source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Started a discussion at Talk:Alethea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no skin in this game (my daughter's name is Rachel). David notMD (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, now you made me remember Althea, but apparently that name is unrelated. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the image again. The link is extremely tenuous, and mostly original research. The name and Jodie foster aren't related, or Jodie would be the name we are talking about. Bookworms should probably let someone else make edits to the page Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question about consensus

Hello! I've been involved in several discussions about moves or mergers over the years where it seems that a lone dissenting voice causes the discussion to end in "no consensus", which is as good as saying the result is "oppose": i.e., nothing changes. Is this a general rule? I know it's not exactly a vote or numbers game, but if say two people support with arguments and one person opposes with arguments (and I'm not even getting into the realm of flawed or simplistic arguments!), does this generally yield "no consensus", thus killing whatever the proposal is? Is there something more technical the closing editor/administrator looks at than this? (I admit that it has been frustrating to me personally, and I'm just looking for some clarity. In more than one case, an editor has "opposed" one time and then never participated in the discussion ever again; this seems to be an easy way for any editor to kill thoughtful proposals: oppose and then ghost). Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Wolfdog and welcome to the teahouse. A few thoughts from me:
  • "no consensus" may effectively look as "oppose" in result, but what it really means is to "keep the status quo".
  • if say two people support with arguments and one person opposes with arguments: I think Wikipedia expects those who participate in the discussion to engage in debate and conversation as a way to build consensus. If people just "vote" and not engage with each other, then no consensus is generated.
  • an editor has "opposed" one time and then never participated in the discussion ever again: I agree that is very frustrating. I personally would not care much from the opposition. Provide your rationale in full would add more credit to you when the clerk closes the discussion.
Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wolfdog Achieving consensus is an important Wikipedia policy as described at WP:Consensus. It would be unusual in my experience for a single dissenting voice to prevent good arguments from winning through and we would almost never delete articles via WP:AfD if that were the case, since someone almost always wants retention. Discussions about moves are more likely to end in a decision to retain the status quo because one solution is just to create a WP:Redirect at the alternative title. If you have specific cases where you think the result was ridiculous, then the policy page describes how that can be challenged. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for both of your responses. I think the feeling is more frustration than ridiculousness. It's more the "ghosting" that irritates me -- I'm always up for continuing the conversation (though I can think of one recent time when I was infoloaded or "TLDR'd" out of all energy to continue participating!). Obviously I feel the results of certain discussions were not for the best, but that goes without saying whenever I've been the nominator. Sometimes that lone opponent gets ya! Wolfdog (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfdog, It's definitely something that's played (and ultimately, sometimes misplayed) by ear—but there's a certain point where everyone has made their respective points and no one has been particularly swayed or outmoded among the interlocutors or audience, and at that point it's often best to close as no consensus. Usually, I think closers are pretty okay at sensing when one interlocutor was just wordier as opposed to having a better point or having more agreement, but it's certainly frustrating when that's not the case. Remsense留 03:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting

How do I make a draft about something? Tailscraft (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. The easiest way is to use the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have already made a draft, so perhaps I misunderstood your question? 331dot (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tailscraft The issue with your Draft:HShop is that it ignores a key pillar of Wikipedia, namely that we insist articles are about topics which reach a threshold of wikinotability. That means that drafts must include evidence from sources that are independent of the topic and meet other criteria summarised here. Your draft only had citations to the website of HShop themselves, which is not enough. Please read WP:YFA. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

add sources to "Education" and "Events and exhibitions" sections

How  to add sources to "Education" and "Events and exhibitions" sections in article? where I can upload diplomas and certificates Khanlar Asadullayev (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Khanlar Asadullayev Welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this is about Draft:KHanlar Asadullayev which appears to be your attempt at an autobiography. Writing your autobiography is strongly discouraged for the reasons mentioned at the link. You have run into exactly one of the problems. You would like to cite evidence that you have had a particular education and held various exhibitions BUT you lack published sources that say you do. You are writing your draft backwards and need to read that linked essay to see why that won't work. I'm afraid that it is highly unlikely that any acceptable autobiography will result and you may not like the outcome in the long term if it did. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.... incidentally, by uploading a very high-resolution copy of your painting to Commons at File:Melburn by Khanlar A..jpg you have given permission to anyone to use that image for any purpose, including commercially, for example as a greeting card, provided they cite the source. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTIONS ABOUT WRITTEN ARTICLES

Why two of my written historical articles edited todays do not appeared in wikipedia? Pirro2023 (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit history indicates that the only edit you made other than the above is this edit, and it wasn't to an article. Which articles did you edit? 331dot (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You did make several attempts to edit your user page that were blocked by edit filters as spam. Your user page is not article space, but a place for you to tell about yourself as an editor or user. New accounts cannot directly create articles and must use the article wizard to create and submit a draft- but creating a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it is highly recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles, to get an idea of what we are looking for- and to use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bot advice

Hi, I would like to know whether a bot would be able to do this particular task or not. The task is to replace the existing format with the template like I did here on my sandbox to explain it better: [2]

The following articles: 2004 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly election and 2009 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly election require these template changes. Since I am finding this monotonous task quite difficult to do it myself, I am looking for help probably a bot might help I believe? Any info or help is appreciated. Thank you 456legend (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 456legend, Welcome to the Teahouse. I think this will be better answered at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Cheers <3 Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you 456legend (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What to do when multiple reliable sources publish misleading information?

In regards to Dave the Diver - Wikipedia this article. An administrator previously threatened to block a user for trying to edit the article to state that the game was not an indie game, when in fact it was. The admin's reasoning was due to reliable sources stating the game was "indie". Even though the incident appears to be resolved it makes me curious about how a similar incident would be solved for posterity 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamowebbed WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gamowebbed WP:DR might be of interest. When there's dispute about whether a source is reliable or not for any particular piece of information, and editors politely but persistently disagree, that tends to go to WP:DRN or WP:3O and maybe eventually WP:RFC. If someone is a dick about it or otherwise disrupts that process, that's when admins tend to step in. An admin shouldn't be using the threat of blocks to enforce a content issue like "what do the sources say". -- asilvering (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting my host

meeting my hosts is so proud to meet them and one-day I might also meet them and I want to meet my hosts 41.114.206.54 (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, this is a help location for editors who are using Wikipedia. Do you have a question about Wikipedia? Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

help (again)

a random IP has sent a weird talk page message on my talk page, about meeting some host. idk what the host is, but they gave me what I assume to be a phone-number. help, I'm so confused, why does everyone go to ME first?? Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me!) (Stone Free) 13:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Babysharkboss2 The same IP placed a message here at the Teahouse just above your comment. I've no idea what they want but suggest you ignore them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
im so confused, about why i'm the only person they talked to on theirr talk page, and why they would post something private like a phone-number, but i'll ignore them and wait for it to archive, thanks! Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Wrld) 13:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Babysharkboss2: The top of this page says "Meet your hosts". It's linked to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts which lists official Teahouse hosts but a user may not notice the link. Then it would be natural for the user to assume that anyone answering questions here is a host they can meet, and you have answered questions. If it was a common occurrence then we could consider a redesign but I haven't heard of a non-host being contacted in this way before so I think we should just ignore it. At least you have an explanation now. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so like, they want to meet the Teahouse hosts? Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Wrld) 14:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Babysharkboss2: Yes, but only after misunderstanding something. They apparently thought "Meet your hosts" at top of the page meant "You can meet users who answer questions here." It only means "Click this link to see a list of Teahouse hosts." PrimeHunter (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Babysharkboss2: You are allowed to remove the post by WP:REMOVED. I have removed the apparent contact information above. I suggest you do the same if you don't remove the whole post. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i removed the persons phone number from my talk page, and i'll wait for my bottom archive it. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Wrld) 14:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no CLUE what you'll have to do ! 84Swagahh (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a terribly helpful comment, @84Swagahh. Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? 57.140.16.39 (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
they don't, check my talk page. 84Swagahh has been talking about unrelated stuff on a old thread. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Wrld) 16:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Babysharkboss2 They clearly know a lot about editing as they used piping in their 7th edit. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
well, doing something like piping isn't unique to Wikipedia, so it could be that they know editing source, but not much about Wikipedia itself. I only know piping from editing in Fandom, so like, some things can be learned anywhere. But yeah, I don't think they are truly new to wikipedia. but hey, have faith, I guess. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Wrld) 18:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look on my talk page, the other person asked about that and I explained it to him ! 😂🤣84Swagahh🤣😂 18:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i know, it was two people in fact, and I have your talkpage on my watchlist. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me) (Waif Me!) 18:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok, well also, I clicked on the piping link from your reply and I didn't realize it was something complicated. I used the visual editor and I selected the text I wanted, clicked the link icon and clicked the article I needed the link to. Next , I just clicked on my newly added link to change the actual text. 😂🤣84Swagahh🤣😂 18:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page Approval

Hello,

There is a company mentioned on this page called 'Zego' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unicorn_startup_companies

They are one of the few companies on this list without a page, despite having more notability type mentions, the proposed page keeps getting refused, I was wondering if anyone could give me any suggestions. Ive told more notable mentions, but I believe it already meets those requirement's and there isn't any more mentions to add. Here is the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zego_Insurance 2A02:C7C:6E04:A700:709C:CBA1:BC1F:2985 (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the reviewer left a note asking you to see WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCOMPANY. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Wrld) 13:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gromphadorhina picea

I can't find any reliable sources for this, its a hissing cockroach that is commonly mistaken for other hissing cockroaches which is why there is little to no information about it, do you guys have any information about it? Username but name (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Username but name, try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Username but name I asked Bing's new AI-driven search engine and it gave me this source as well as a summary of other sources. Whether that's reliable or not is debatable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, this seems pretty reliable as i've seen some things on this site before and they have all been true. Username but name (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new entry

How do I create a new entry? Dancetheater (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by new entry[?]? Would you like to know how to make a page? Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Wrld) 16:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I’m not sure of the terminology but the inclusion of a biographical profile of someone not currently included. Dancetheater (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to make a new page about a person? You just gotta go to (or, I recommend) the ALL MIGHT WIZARD and make a page. but If it's about a person, make sure it follows WP:BLP and has good sources Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Wrld) 16:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
crap, wrong Rc. Make sure it has reliable sources, not recent changes, lol. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Wrld) 16:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
whats a new entry? 😂🤣84Swagahh🤣😂 16:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Help:Your first article Cwater1 (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia prefers the term "article" to "page", as the latter can be taken to imply that Wikipedia is social media. Articles are articles, but the associated Talk pages are pages. David notMD (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused on what he was talking about when he said entry, so I replied asking what it meant. 😂🤣84Swagahh🤣😂 18:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines

Where do I find notability guidelines? Dancetheater (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability for general guidelines, is there a specific category of article you're interested in? microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 16:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The types of persons whose biographical information could be included in Wikipedia Dancetheater (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you could make a page on someone, but that must be notable. If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual...[1] Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Wrld) 16:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The overall guidelines may be found at WP:N; that page will also link to narrower guidelines for certain areas(for example, notable organizations). 331dot (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if the person in question is alive or recently deceased, you need to take into account the special stipulations at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.32 (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notable_topics_have_attracted_attention_over_a_sufficiently_significant_period_of_time

Is this song notable enough for an article?

I was thinking about creating an article for Die For Me by Post Malone featuring Future and Halsey from Hollywood's Bleeding and I wanted to know if it could be created into an article. The reasons that I have that constitute its creation are its popularity (one of the the most popular on the album, as well as the high charts and certifications) and Halsey's solo version which adds two new verses. Thanks! Rockboy1009 (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whether there are enough reliable sources for the song in particular, and not just about the album! Cheers, good luck! Remsense留 21:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are few sources about the original song by itself, but it is gone over in the many articles of Halsey's solo version. Would the solo version constitute its own article by itself? Rockboy1009 (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rockboy1009, usually if they are considered the same song, they are included in one article. See examples such as "The House of the Rising Sun", "Billie Jean", or "Old Town Road". Cheers! Remsense留 22:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So with those sources would the song be ok for an article? Rockboy1009 (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rockboy1009, yes, as long as you make the existence of a remix clear, I've edited my response above to include some examples you can compare with. Remsense留 22:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Length

How long should a new article be before being published? LouieLumber (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is not really any length requirements, but you should make sure that the article could be expanded beyond a single paragraph. i.e. there is enough info published in reliable sources to make a whole article about it. Ca talk to me! 00:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That - "you should make sure that the article could be expanded beyond a single paragraph" - is poor - which is to say wrong, invented, unhelpful - advice from User:Ca. There is no policy on length, beyond that an article must convey context, avoid being nonsense. Article subjects must be notable, and notability should be evidenced by reliable sources. That's it. A draft like Draft:Dave Nayak is perfectly long enough, but sadly the subject is not supported by reliable sources. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An article that cannot be expanded beyond a single paragraph is unlikely to be notable. Ca talk to me! 01:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! LouieLumber (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LouieLumber, there is another angle on this, which is that some topics which are notable, just don't have that much information out about them, so are unlikely to expand much. These could either be left as permastubs, or WP:NOPAGE may apply, which is to say, it might not make sense to have a small stand-alone page for it, but might make more sense to group it with other, small articles about related niche topics, and make a collective article about the group topic that covers all of the related, smaller subtopics on one page. Mathglot (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can be short, yet convey salient facts and are referenced. Wikipedia has a rating of "Stub" for articles that are accepted but short, with the hope that other editors will add more content. David notMD (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit History

Why when I look at the edit history of some pages, some revisions are crossed out? Subariba (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REVDEL. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile table of contents inaccuracy

The first item in the table of contents that appears on mobile for the article Photographic print toning is “Sepia tone,” which I assume was maybe a previous title before a move. I’m having trouble finding how to correct this. It only seems apparent on mobile — on desktop the article title does not appear in the table of contents, it just starts with the first section header. Thank you! Wow Mollu (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_print_toning
@Wow Mollu: That mobile view is showing the same table of contents as the desktop version, using a browser. Are you using a browser or one of the Wikipedia apps to view the article? RudolfRed (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right! Now that I reload it, it shows the article title. I came to this article from the disambiguation page for Sepia. On that page, under Color, the link for Sepia tone redirects to a section within Photographic print toning. When it does, the first item in the mobile app table of contents displays as “Sepia tone” instead of the article title. This seems a bit confusing, no? Since the Sepia tone section is way down the page, nowhere near the top. And tapping on that item brings you to the top of the article, which is not about sepia. Wow Mollu (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wow Mollu, you're being correctly redirected. There isn't a separate article for sepia tone, it's just part of the article on photographic print toning, so the link takes you right to the part that has the relevant information, rather than landing you at the top so you wonder why on earth you got there. I can't explain why tapping on the item brings you to the top of the article, though. That doesn't happen to me, so I wonder if it's something strange about your mobile browser. -- asilvering (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I’m not explaining very clearly. Yes, the redirect works great! It brings me to the right section. I guess what realizing is it’s more of an issue (IMO) with how the mobile interface is populated. Normally in the mobile app, the top item in the TOC is the article title. When I use the redirect link Sepia tone, it brings me to the correct section of the article called “Sepia toning”, however when I open up the TOC panel, the first item in the TOC reads Sepia tone (the name of the redirect) not Photographic print toning, the actual name of the article. So using the redirect link in the mobile app, the TOC reads: Sepia tone, Chemical toning, Selenium toning, Sepia toning, Metal replacement… etc. This happens with other redirects too, I now see! All this to say, this is probably not a question for teahouse, it seems to have more to do with the way the mobile app is set up. I just find it confusing that the title of the article is changed in the table of contents when you get to an article from a redirect. Wow Mollu (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hm, now I understand, and I'm not sure where to send you for a better chance at finding someone with a solution. MW:Wikimedia Apps? -- asilvering (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot reproduce this on Android using the app. I suggest you post it on mw:Talk:Wikimedia Apps, and include details of your phone OS, app version, etc. I have had helpful responses from there. -- Verbarson  talkedits 18:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page Numbers

How do I add page numbers when citing books? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! In the {{Cite book}} template, you can specify one page with the |p= parameter, or a range of pages with the |pp= parameter. If you need help using these parameters in the Visual editor or otherwise would like clarification, let me know! Remsense留 04:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I use the template with an auto-generated citation? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! When you put in an ISBN or otherwise automatically generate a citation for a book, what it does is create a {{Cite book}} template under the hood. If you are using VisualEditor, do you see where you can specify page numbers? If not, check out Help:VisualEditor#Editing templates.
If you are not using VisualEditor, you should be able to add the parameter with all the others! Don't hesitate to ask me for more help if you still need it. :) Remsense留 04:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LeónGonsalvesofGoa, if a book is cited at all, it's typically cited more than once. Rather than having two or more fully written out REF tags, differing only in page numbers, consider using the combination of (A) named references -- <ref name="arbitrary_name">{{Cite book | [lots of bibliographical detail but no page number(s)]}}</ref> just once, <ref name="arbitrary_name" /> every other time -- and (B) Template:Rp. -- Hoary (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alt account

I am the alt account of User:TrademarkedTarantula, and I'm aware that sockpuppeting is a problem. How do I verify that I'm the same person? Thanks, TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: Hello! You should use the template {{User alternative account banner}} on your alt account and disclose that you operate that alt account on your main account's user page (the latter by using your main account). You may also find Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate uses pretty useful as it will tell you about legitimate uses for alternative accounts, as well as explaining inappropriate uses of alt accounts. Happy editing! – 64andtim (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a new style2 template for infobox?

I want to create a new color scheme for the Style2 part of an infobox, like the "M2 M6" on this page. I'm a bit dumbfounded. Thanks in advance! Eticangaaa (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Eticangaaa. I am frustrated by the fact that whoever made this system apparently neglected to document this, but the style2 options for Istanbul Metro seem to be defined at Module:Adjacent stations/Istanbul Metro. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! Apparently the style i was wishing to create has already been made :P Eticangaaa (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enough sources?

Subject is Maurice Novoa, are there enough sources here;

https://sifu.maurice.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/The-Latin-Australian-Times.pdf

https://sifu.maurice.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/El-Ecco.pdf

https://sifu.maurice.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Sunraysia-Daily.pdf

https://sifu.maurice.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Leader.pdf

https://sifu.maurice.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Advertiser.pdf

https://el-espanol.news/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/EE-23-04-04.P13-copia.pdf

https://el-espanol.news/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/EE-23-09-12.P03.pdf

https://el-espanol.news/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/EE-23-09-26.P05-copia.pdf

https://el-espanol.news/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/EE-23-10-17.P31-copia.pdf

https://el-espanol.news/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/EE-23-07-18.P16-copia.pdf

https://brimbanknorthwest.starweekly.com.au/news/business-fights-to-recover-from-pandemic/

https://brimbanknorthwest.starweekly.com.au/news/providing-an-outlet/

https://brimbanknorthwest.starweekly.com.au/news/local-legend-honoured/

https://era.id/lifestyle/116299/masih-ingat-dengan-bule-australia-di-sinetron-jadul-cewekku-jutek-begini-kabarnya-sekarang

https://brimbanknorthwest.starweekly.com.au/news/from-albanvale-to-jakarta/

https://www.beritabulukumba.com/sport/53057/wing-chun-di-mata-sifu-maurice-tak-sekadar-seni-bela-diri-ada-cinta-dan-berbagi

https://kutip.co/10602/read/sifu-maurice-bangga-felix-leong-masuk-hall-of-fame-seni-beladiri-australasian-2023

https://kutip.co/10479/read/kisah-sifu-maurice-dari-seni-bela-diri-ubah-kehidupan-murid-hingga-masuk-serial-tv

https://www.elpais.com.uy/enlaces-patrocinados/mauricio-novoa-un-maestro-de-wing-chun-y-filantropo-destacado 159.196.225.157 (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What matters if not the number of sources, but the content within the sources.
The things to consider when making ana article is:
Are the sources reliable? Do they come from a third party? Do the sources altogether have enough information to write an article about a given subject?
Not much volunteers are willing to read all the linked articles. Instead try giving the best three sources. Ca talk to me! 14:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first few appear to be primary sources based on the URL. You can still use them in uncontroversal situations but they will not contribute to notability. ✶Mitch199811✶ 14:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awards that are themselves not notable, i.e., not Wikipedia articles, can be listed, but do not contribute to the recipient's notability. Example "American Martial Arts Alliance Foundation Legends Hall of Honors." David notMD (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Long-running AfD discussion

Hello! A few weeks ago, my new article Isaac Saul was nominated for deletion, and since then I have been trying to defend its notability. However, after the first few days, the discussion quickly dropped off. Now, it has already been relisted twice with no further discussion, and it will be relisted a third time tomorrow. I worry that this article has been buried under a pile of newer AfDs, and that it will remain in limbo indefinitely. Is there anything I can do to make this process move faster? Thanks, Mover of molehillsmove me 14:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting is an Administrator's option to solicit more comments. Most likely the same Admin is the one who will make the decision. And soon. David notMD (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tilderman Casteel

What or who is this? Elf clark (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no article on Tilderman Casteel and a web search draws a blank. Why are you asking? Shantavira|feed me 15:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Entry on Gilbert Stuart (artist)

The bibliography should include a major, original source on Gilbert Stuart (1999) which is first cited in footnote 14 and appears elsewhere. Would someone please make the change? I don't know how to do it. Thank you. DEvans2 (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DEvans2:  Done! GoingBatty (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, it's better to make these requests at the talk page of the article instead of at the Teahouse. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. DEvans2 (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem in writing articles in English

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/यादव_रामकृपाल

Can't write any article in English.Ramkripal YadvG (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what are you asking exactly? Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me) (Waif Me!) 17:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedias are available in many languages. Choose yours at List of Wikipedias. Shantavira|feed me 20:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 – User:96.30.183.2 Translated the message to English. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 17:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete all the

per "i added an image to this article and was then informed that that image might not have actually been the legal way to do it", can image deletion be handled here, as opposed to in commons? cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 19:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cogsan. Welcome to the Teahouse. You can undo the edit yourself by going to the article's 'view history' tab and clicking on the undo button in the latest entry. In the edit history, you can mention it as 'self-revert'. Hope this helps <3 Jeraxmoira (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is how you remove it from the article, but that doesn't delete the actual image file. @Cogsan: If the file is at Commons, you will need to follow Commons procedure, yes. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Ah! I think I misunderstood your question earlier. To address it properly now, I've tagged the image for speedy deletion, following your request. Jeraxmoira (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
guess that works lol
thanks cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 20:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
incidentally, wouldn't it have been a g11, as opposed to a g7? cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 20:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. You requested the deletion. G11 is promotional; this image was not promotional. It could have been filed as a G12, unambiguous copyvio. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes in entry on Gilbert Stuart (artist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Stuart

I've had a problem with the following note corrections (given in quotes). Would someone please help? I'd be very grateful.

Note 2, change Ireland to "London." At the end of the note, add this explanatory source for the name problem: "Evans, Dorinda, Gilbert Stuart and the Impact of Manic Depression, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2013, p. 127."

Note 35: "Quote from Jane Stuart in" Evans, 2013, p. 14.

Note 46: add missing pages at the end of the note: Evans 2013, pp. 18-19, "69-73, 82-84, 148."

Thanks so much for your attention. DEvans2 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DEvans2: I don't understand what you're asking, but for suggesting changes to an article, start a discussion on the talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or, better, be WP:BOLD and fix it. RudolfRed (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=1188806607"