Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cordless Larry, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help

Wikipedia

Using the excerpt template but changing the header level

Is there a way to change the header level of transcluded content when using Template:Excerpt? This seems like a common enough use case— when you want to nest an excerpt that has headers within it at a different root heading level than in the original article— but I can't seem to find any documentation about it. If this template doesn't support it, what are the recommended alternatives or workarounds? Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Brusquedandelion, I presume you are excerpting a section with all its subsections? If so, switch to just excerpting one section at a time (you will need multiple {{Excerpt}}s, one for each) and supply whatever heading or subheading you want just above each individual {{Excerpt}}. Mathglot (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot that solution occurred to me, but is painful and tedious if there are many subsections, and would require editing of the article embedding the excerpted text every time the sectioning of the excerpt changed, which partially defeats one of the reasons for excerpting... was wondering if there was a better way, but if not, it is what it is, of course. Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Brusquedandelion, if you use {{Excerpt}} in in-line mode, that is to say, with |inline=yes then the output is a string not a block, and you can pass it to another template or Module for further processing. I have done this before, and it works fine although is a bit less friendly with the string manipulation involved; see for example, Ships of ancient Rome#Black Sea. You could do something like that to demote (or promote) subsections using Module:String with function replace and a regular expression (have done that, too, but not in Excerpt context) but that would be even less friendly. What I would do instead, is create a new template, {{Heading level change}} with a parameter |shift=, such that |shift=1 adds 1 equal sign left and right of every header section, 2 adds 2 equal signs, and when negative (e.g., |shift=-1), it substracts them. Embed the Module:String invocation and the regular expression there. Then transclude your excerpt like this:

{{Hlc|shift=1| {{excerpt|PageTitle|SectionTitle|inline=yes|hat=no}} }}

That should work fine, but you need to create the {{Hlc}} template first for that. Mathglot (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Mathglot, yeah I was essentially wondering if a template like {{Hlc}} as you described it already existed. I know I can create it, but given my inexperience with template creation, and the (apparent) complexity of this one, I was hoping someone already had a solution on hand... well, thanks, at any rate. Brusquedandelion (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Brusquedandelion, I could create it, but I am kinda busy right now. Why don't you try to create it, and I can answer questions, or point you to the right place if you're getting stuck. Probably best to create it first in Draft space, e.g., {{Draft:Hlc}} (can be renamed to a longer name when it's ready). How are you with creating match patterns for regular expressions? Your new template will probably have a line in it somewhere like this:

{{#invoke:String|replace|source_str|pattern|replace_string|plain=false}}

which does the actual modification. Starting points to check out are template {{Replace}} and Module:String. Lua patterns are weaker than standard regex engines, in particular, no alternation (pipe character), and a few different metacharacters: details at mw:Extension:Scribunto/Lua_reference_manual#Patterns. Ping me from the draft template Talk page if you get stuck. Mathglot (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Avoiding indiscriminate listings in "Persecution of..." or bigotry/oppression-related pages

Can someone point me in the direction of any guidelines (should they exist) on how to write and structure an article on the persecution or oppression of the members of an ethnicity/religion/political persuasion/sexuality etc. without producing a WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of every time someone did anything bad to a member of the given group ever? Are there any concrete policies on this, or litmus tests for when a specific piece of content should be included in such articles? Some example articles, which range in quality, with some clearly leaning towards the indiscriminate end of things and others not so much:

• Persecution of Hindus
• Persecution of Christians
• Antisemitism
• Islamophobia
• Violence against LGBT people
• Anti-communism

You get the idea. Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Brusquedandelion, you are talking about a very specific and very small set. So, I think no, there's unlikely to be specific guidance on article structure beyond the general MOS:LAYOUT. The best advice I can give you is, follow the sources. Our articles appear to mostly be chronological lists of events; it's mostly history. I would imagine sources talk about more than history. So, you'd have to refer to sources to find how much WP:WEIGHT sources give to various aspects. Consider WP:SCOPE and WP:BALASP. These are all top level articles on the subject of persecution of these specific groups. They need to cover society, culture, history, politics, economics going back thousands of years. And the upper limit on article size is around 10,000 words of prose; ideally, you should aim for 6,000 words. You will have to read the most important literature on the topic and summarise what you learned. Off the top of my head, things that had long-lasting impact would be more important than things that are recorded but don't standout among every other incident. Systematic oppression stories may be more important than isolated incidents or bigotry in general. Things that still have impact today would be important. For the general case of what's indiscriminate, for example, if you end up listing the various incidents of persecution, refer to WP:LISTCRIT. I hope this helps to get you started. Good luck! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Person not listening to me

User:Elvisisalive95 keeps reverting my edits without any summary; they also deleted my comment when I asked them about it. Can someone help? 2605:B40:13E7:F600:40FE:7B6D:17E8:D289 (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello IP 2605:B40:13E7:F600:40FE:7B6D:17E8:D289, I see two sides to this question. The editor is not talking to you. It is on them. They need to do better. But this sort of thing has happened to me too, at Songs 2 (Rich Mullins album), for example. The editor had reverted multiple attempts at redirection. So, I posted to their talk page. They didn't revert my message, but the reverted at the article again. So, I nominated the article for deletion. So, the second facet, what you can do next, comes down to WP:BLAR. As an IP, it would be cumbersome to create an AFD, so perhaps you might opt for WP:MERGE requests instead. Merge discussions are even worse-attended than deletion discussions but the final outcome that you seek would be the same, conversion of that article to redirect. I will ask the editor why they are not communicating with you, in the meanwhile. Regards! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool This IP is blanking pages prior to consensus, they had previously done the same to Metal-Head & then got blocked for edit warring. Now they’re back doing the same exact thing with another account. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Elvisisalive95, if I have this correct, they were blocked for one week in February, and they've been blocked again today. But they were not blocked in between when the recent incident occured. Honestly I am more sympathetic to the IP in the February incident. They were explaining themselves in the edit summaries and even started a discussion on the talk page. You breached WP:3RR without even using edit summaries. You were even warned by an admin to do better and you promised you would but here you failed to do so again. At no point, I see that the IP was told that policies required them to go to AFD once reverted in a WP:BLAR attempt. If someone had, then the case for disruptive editing would be much stronger. Please talk to editors who are not blocked, especially when they initiate conversations. WP:BLAR is not vandalism. Please stop characterising it as such, moving forward. As a recent changes patroller, it is paramount that you be precise about the reasons and the warnings that you use, since you are using automated warnings which say very specific things, which if they don't apply, the people who get warned are liable to think it was a mistake and just ignore it.
IP, you are blocked again, for one month, this time. You really need to stop edit-warring. That never gets you your object. Especially as an IP editor, you are easier to block and forget about than mentor. Please either make an unblock request or wait out your block. When you get back, only ever blank and redirect an article once. If that does not stick, initiate formal deletion procedures. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

First of all i want to thank you for taking your time to go through this entire matter. As for this matter, failure to go through the proper channels & blanking pages prior to consensus is vandalism. That’s why they got blocked for the 2nd time. I had already explained that to them the last time and they came back doing the same thing. Template warnings were sufficient for this specific case in my opinion. Again, thank you for what you do, you’re appreciated here. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Elvisisalive95, please refer to WP:VANDALISM. The word has a specific and narrow meaning on Wikipedia, and abusing it is considered a personal attack which is prohibited by our behavioural policies. Whether you use an automated message or write your own, you are responsible for its content. Templated warnings are sufficient when they say what is reasonable to say in a given situation. Regardless, you don't get to drop warnings and completely refuse to talk with them further, communication is still required. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you my friend. Bottom line is no one can blank a page prior to consensus, which is why the IP got blocked. I hope you have an awesome week! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Elvisisalive95, no that is not the bottomline at all. Did you read WP:BLAR? Did you read about the differences between legitimate and illegitimate blanking at WP:VAND? I see you've just been granted rollback by Fastily, so please take your time to figure out what vandalism is, because you are not allowed to revert non-vandalism with rollback. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, again thank you for taking your time to look into this situation. I appreciate what you do. I can safely say @Fastily has carefully examined my contributions & has trust I will use rollback correctly. My suggestion for you is to get in touch with who originally blocked the IP, or even who reviewed his unblock request to raise your concerns with them. All the best my friend. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Is RYM reliable?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is the genre section of Rate Your Music reliable to add as a genre on Wikipedia? Spencer524 (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

No. See WP:RYM.
It's always a good idea to check WP:RSP for questions about source reliability. CodeTalker (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

If RSP doesn't have the thing your looking for, WP:RSN is another good place to ask NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 15:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

yeah I checked, RYM isn't reliable, if you are an administrator, you might want to check Another Day in Paradise by Phil Collins page. Spencer524 (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Spencer524, and welcome to the Teahouse. If an article is citing an unreliable source, anybody may remove the citation - it doesn't require an admin.

The best action always is to find a reliable source, and substitute it; or if a reliable source cannot be found, remove the citation and the information which depends on it.

But editors being busy people and working on what they choose, often people will just add a tag: probably {{unreliable source}}. ColinFine (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How to make it neutral tone, or improve.

I am currently revising an article about an Austrian artist(painter), and the article requires a neutral tone. I have made my best effort to ensure the text is neutral, but I would greatly appreciate the assistance of experienced editors in reviewing and improving the content. Your expertise will help ensure that the article maintains a balanced and unbiased perspective.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Wikiasd (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I would generally refer to WP:PUFFERY, which has more tips and examples.

Looking at your first few sentences:

Franz Brandner is an Austrian artist renowned for his vibrant works that often reflect his experiences in South Korea.

Right out of the gate, renowned for his vibrant works is unacceptable editorializing. Try known for his works inspired by his experiences in South Korea.

Brandner showed an early affinity for the arts. His passion led him to pursue a formal education in art, culminating in his graduation from Art College. During his college years, Brandner was exposed to a wide range of artistic styles and mediums, which would later influence his diverse body of work.

Once more, showed an early affinity is not empirical—if a source relates this, that source should be attributed, phrases like this should not be written in wikivoice. Moreover, this likely shouldn't be here at all unless it's particularly relevant to what reliable sources say about the subject. I would rewrite this as Brandner was exposed to a variety of aesthetic influences while attending art college, which would later influence much of his work.

Also, it would be nice to hear what the influences are proportional to their attestation in sources so it rests on the substance of the topic.

To reemphasize, terms like vivid and significant role in fostering cultural exchange through his art should almost never be used in Wikipedia's own voice. If they are due at all, they should be attributed. If you end up with too many quotes after that, that means you're still trying to puff the subject up. Once again, check WP:PUFFERY. Cheers! Remsense诉 09:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is suffused with windy nothings. "Brandner’s professional journey began with the establishment of his art studio in Innsbruck" means, I think, "Brandner set up his studio in Innsbruck". "[P]romoting mutual understanding and appreciation between the two nations" is a staple of the most somniferous of speeches, delivered to people yawning, nodding off, or fiddling with their phones. -- Hoary (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Another example of 'content' not supported by a reference: "His work has attracted the attention of art enthusiasts and dignitaries alike..." And throughout, I agree there is so much vague laudatory wording. The root of the problem is that you - the creator - moved this from your Sandbox to mainspace without submitting it to Article for Creation for a review, which would have resulted in it being Declined. It is possible that a New Pages Patrol reviewer will convert it to Draft status, or even Speedy deleted it as unacceptable. David notMD (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikiasd On a different note, I strongly suspect you created your account to conduct undeclared paid editing. You created a Sandbox draft of this article on 28 Feb, then on 9 March added word hyperlinks to a dozen random articles (all since reverted), so as to qualify for creating an article in mainspace - and then moved your Sandbox to mainspace on the same day. Please reply. David notMD (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

How do I get review from the sandbox draft? Wikiasd (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Franz Brandner has been deleted by an Administrator. You have an early version at your Sandbox. You can work on that - avoiding all wording that is not neutral point of view - and submit it for AfC review when you believe it is ready. Before that, I strongly recommend that if yours is a paid or personal connection to Brandner, you use the instructions at WP:PAID or WP:COI to describe your connection. David notMD (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Mobile page creation

Can pages that don’t exist be viewed and new pages be created on the (IOS) app? 2600:100A:B1E1:6558:82D:BE41:7B6C:7CF7 (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but pages that don't exist cannot be viewed on any app, neither can they be created on the iPhone app. For more information please see mw:Wikimedia Apps/iOS FAQ Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

But you might find User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing helpful, IP user. ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Preview mode is not working

It only displays the edit window. Other features that depend on the Preview Mode, like What links here? are not working either. deisenbe (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This is on an iPad using the Safari browser. deisenbe (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I installed the Duck Duck Go browser and it runs fine. Something I could do is erase and reinstall Safari. In fact I should do a hard close on it. deisenbe (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hard close solved nothing. It is impossible to un-install Safari, the system prohibits it. deisenbe (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The inability to uninstall one browser doesn't prevent you from installing an additional browser, as an alternative. 1.33.56.248 (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Kernow

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, why do Palestinians get to be from Palestine, but Cornish people from Kernow are forced to be "English" on Wikipedia? Do you only listen to what the colonial oppressor says about their prize or not? 86.3.208.127 (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

honestly i have thought about that too...british empire yk. india also faced this but we fought back (no political or religious issue here, just historical) General Phoenix (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. It's imperialism! So it's particularly galling, as a colonised minority, to be trying to correct this on English-language Wikipedia and having the editors here tell me I'm "vandalising" because they are upholding English imperialism. 86.3.208.127 (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I fixed the Richard Carew article my 'ansome. 😁  Tewdar  17:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You are a gentleman and a scholar, thank you. Kernow bys vykken, pard. --86.3.208.127 (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Meur ras dhis, yma an wiasva ma er agan pynn, soweth...  Tewdar  20:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Gwir an ger. Gwikor Frank (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I fixed the Kitty Jenner article, sos. If they call that vandalism, they're high. --Gwikor Frank (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

An ughella, yns...  Tewdar  21:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

IP editor, Wikipedia operates on consensus, so you will have to convince other editors interested in these articles to accept the changes you want to make. There is frequent disagreement about terms like "British" as opposed to "English" for example, and it gets worse from there. A line of argument that compares Cornish people to Palestinians is unlikely to be persuasive, in my view. The bottom line is that you cannot force your changes through, and must persuade those who disagree with you, using arguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

So, how, precisely, do you expect a national minority, one that has been oppressed for centuries, to convince the national majority that colonises it to agree to respect their identity? Numerically, this seems doomed from the start. 86.3.208.127 (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much yes, see WP:RGW. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

But the problem is, you are not recording accurately. There is no record of a legal rejoinder of Kernow to England. Legally, Cornwall is not part of England. Indeed, sources cite it as being separate from England throughout history. Wikipedia is choosing false information that does not exist over true information that does. 86.3.208.127 (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

And you wonder why Wikipedia editors are mostly straight white dudes from the global majority. --Gwikor Frank (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure we have at least an essay on "Should they be called British or whatever", but haven't found it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Might you be thinking of WP:UKNATIONALS? Shaws username . talk . 18:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it! The WP:UKCHANGE part seems on-topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

So, if sources support it, nationality = Cornish would be acceptable in the lead and infobox, correct? 🤔  Tewdar  19:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

In the lead I think so (although some people might disagree) but I don't think so for the infobox since legally speaking they are/were British nationals. However MOS:INFONAT does say that there's no reason for nationality to be in the infobox when it can be inferred from birthplace. So, from my interpretation, there's no reason to have the infobox give either as a nationality when it also has a birthplace. Shaws username . talk . 19:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

So it seems like what you're telling me is that it would NOT be considered vandalism to list a Cornish person as "a Cornish [author or whatever]" in an article on English Wikipedia? And yet, every time I do so, I am told I am vandalising. 86.3.208.127 (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources, like I did on the Richard Carew article.  Tewdar  20:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Whilst I get while you're coming from, I'm not sure I should have to cite that Kernow isn't in England any more than I should have to cite that Tibet isn't. --86.3.208.127 (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

It's the only way to win around here, like it or not.  Tewdar  20:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat Stop reverting my CITED edits that are in line with what was discussed here. Hey @Tewdar, you need to see this. Gwikor Frank (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No. Stop with the ridiculous regionalist edits. Feel free to take me to ANI if you don't like it: you will soon find out the views of the general community towards pseudo-nationalist-driven editing. - SchroCat (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not nationalist, it's literally using CITED sources, everyone here agrees that's OK and Cornish IS a nationality! What's wrong with you? Gwikor Frank (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps that is a good suggestion. Reverting well-sourced material, and calling this ridiculous regionalist edits, is certainly not a very good look. I notice you did not revert my changes to Richard Carew (antiquary).  Tewdar  15:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat: - this is me asking you nicely to stop removing sourced material. Why would you want to go to ANI? The consensus and sources do not seem to agree with your interpretation.  Tewdar  15:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I have spent literally all day carefully sourcing my edits and this 'fellow' has reverted them all because, apparently, Cornish is "Not a Nationality". I assume he knows something about MY nationality that the COUNCIL OF EUROPE does not. Gwikor Frank (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

i strongly support you General Phoenix (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. If you have the time to say so here that would be much appreciated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_from_Gwikor_Frank Gwikor Frank (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP, the other thing is that you're an IP editor, sorry to say. You'll find people will be less twitchy on the vandalism reversions if you stick around for a while on a named account. -- asilvering (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I checked some of yesterdays edits, didn't see anyone use the word "vandalism", so "every time" is wrong. Some reverts had no WP:ES, but so did the original edits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's right here, don't gaslight me. 86.3.208.127 (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Still not "every time", but yes, there it is. @The Herald, do you think WP:VANDALISM was right in context? WP:NOTVAND applies to automated messages as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

There are four sources that describe Carew as Cornish (and several more for a CITEBOMB if necessary), and zero sources that describe him as British or English (that I could find). Incidentally, I have found Wikipedia's treatment of Cornish people, language, and culture to be, in several cases I have been unfortunately involved in, utterly disgusting.  Tewdar  19:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree with you re: our treatment here. I'm an administrator over on Kernewek Wikipedia, but I never come here any more because of the way this Wiki treats us. Gwikor Frank (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

"I never come here any more." But here you are. 1.33.56.248 (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

What a helpful comment. You're quite right, though, I have newfound zeal for English Wikipedia editing thanks to the excellent example of shown by Tewdar. Gwikor Frank (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I read a comment the other day on here that claimed Cornish people are mostly descended from 18th century immigrant miners from the Midlands and their families. Can you imagine anyone making such ridiculous claims about other ethnic groups not getting INSTA-PERMABANNED?  Tewdar  11:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Responding due to the courtesy ping Like Cullen328 said, Wikipedia operates on consensus. If your edits are being reverted everytime as test edits or vandalism, then you must approach an alternate method. I agree it might be in hindsight that the automated warnings termed them as vandalism, but they were constituting to disruption since your edits were not supported by references from reliable sources. Cornish or British, you have to back up your claim, else it will be defaulted to British per the already established consensus. You may start discussion in respective talk pages or even an RfC if you are interested genuinely in changing the 'wrong'. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  So, to clarify, you do not think that being born in Cornwall makes one Cornish? The facts speak for themselves! Gwikor Frank (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Most of the time, there are literally zero sources supporting claims that people born in Cornwall are 'British' or 'English', but somehow nobody ever asks for any sources for that. Hmm. Sounds a little bit one sided. I'd say the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim in these cases would be that the individuals are British or English, myself. Where can I read the 'already established consensus'?  Tewdar  11:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Are you claiming that people born in Cornwall are not 'British' or 'English'? Legally Cornwall is part of both England and of the United Kingdom. So that seems like a bit of a "blue sky" claim? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Who, me? I just follow the sources, me. If they say Cornish, that's what I say. If they say British or English, that's what I say. If they say nothing, I follow the relevant Wikipedia default recommendation.  Tewdar  16:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding the Council of Europe determination, described at Cornish National Minority, does giving Cornish people the same status as the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish, create a nation of Cornwall? Or does it just protect them as a minority within England or the UK? That source is not clear. And is it meant to apply retrospectively, to all people who have ever been born in Cornwall, or does it just apply going forward? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  It would be pretty weird if it didn't apply retrospectively, as someone famous for being Cornish, for work for the Cornish language or Cornish culture or whatever, would then be English one day and then Cornish the next. Commonsense says that for example, when Daphne du Maurier helped found Mebyon Kernow, the nationalist party in Cornwall, that she didn't feel English but Cornish. That should be something that wikipedia was able to express. Brwynog (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Afaict, on WP, Cornish is an ethnicity and Cornwall is a county in England (views on this exists). MOS:ETHNICITY states "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." Going by that, it's not a one-size-fits-all situation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  In other words, if a person is notably Cornish and references can establish that, it can be used, but should not necessarily be used just because someone was born there. Is that what you are saying? Brwynog (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editing with vpn

Aside from my phone, my only way of editing would be on my school laptop. The issue is the school uses Securly which led to a friend of mine getting her account blocked. If I sign in on my laptop will my account get blocked? Is there any way to get around this issue? (Hope this is the right place for this)Flaming Hot Mess of Confusion (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Flaming Hot Mess of Confusion Welcome to Wikipedia! If you don't get good reply here at the Teahouse, you can try Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). But give it a day. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Flaming Hot Mess of Confusion According to [1], Securly uses a proxy server, which means that anyone using a proxy to edit can be blocked on sight according to WP:Open proxies. If your personal laptop does not use a proxy, then you should be able to edit with it just fine. Happy editing! ‍ Relativity 04:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess you have to log in or use an IP. Cwater1 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Skye Terrier: - Statue - Tartan - Name Day

I would like to offer Wikipedia information on the Skye Terrier. Such as: the Life-sized statue on the Isle Of Skye unveiled by HRH Princess Anne; The Skye Terrier Tartan; and 'Skye Terrier Day' being 21 February. I have document items I will happily email to Wikipedia so as to ensure that the information is correct. Bruce Wylie (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia @Bruce Wylie! If you could provide reliable sources (see this), someone could definitely add the information to the page. Happy editing! Kline • talk to me! • contribs 19:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Bruce Wylie. You could discuss this at Talk:Skye Terrier, but that talk page has been dormant since 2009. Cullen328 (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's elaborate a little, Bruce Wylie. If you could specify one or more of what Wikipedia classes as reliable sources for each of these claims, then you'd be welcome to do either of two things with the claim. You could post the claim/suggestion, of course with its reliable source(s), to Talk:Skye Terrier, in the hope that somebody else will add the material to the article. Or you could edit Skye Terrier yourself, adding the claim with its reference(s). Yes, the talk page has long been dormant, but no matter. If there's no response there after a couple of days, post a message to the foot of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs, inviting people to respond on Talk:Skye Terrier. Whichever your choice, it won't be necessary to send any email. (I do wonder, however, what the significance might be of "XYZ Day" being such-sand-such a day of the year.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Renaming an article

Hello! I came across this article and noticed that Kofax was renamed to Tungsten Automation. I see in the talk pages that there is a request to make the changes too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kofax

I don't mind making the changes, but I don't know how to change the article name and redirect it. Could anyone explain to me how and/or link me to an article about the process?

Thanks so much. LaesaMajestas (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@LaesaMajestas, you can change the name of an article by moving it to a different title, but I think in this case you have to discuss it in the talk page and get the approval. You can find the info at WP:MOVE. Excellenc1 (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Excellenc1, thank you for your help. I went ahead and moved it - it seems such a clear-cut case that I hate to delay the project and use editor bandwidth discussing the obvious. I appreciate you sending me to the relevant articles on it. LaesaMajestas (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of an article due to WP:1S

This article contains only one sentence so I draftified it. Should it also be speedy deleted? (I didn't find any criteria that it satisfies). Excellenc1 (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The draft shouldn't be deleted as it is well.. a draft but I tagged the redirect per CSD criteria R2. Hope that helps! Kline • talk to me! • contribs 20:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion drafitfying was appropriate. If the creating editor was new to Wikipedia, perhaps some time could have been allowed to add to the 'article', but considered a long but mixed editing history of editing, making it a draft feels valid. You did the courtesy of notifying the creating editor that it was now a draft. David notMD (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Antoneta Alamat Kusijanovic

I wrote an article on Antoneta Alamat Kusijanovic that wasn't approved based on notoriety. Can someone let me know why the French version of this is approved? See at link: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoneta_Alamat_Kusijanović Thank you! 2AMUser (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the fr wiki has their own notability guidelines, the ones here on en wiki are different. You can see them at WP:NOTABILITY Shaws username . talk . 23:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

2AMUser, Draft:Antoneta Alamat Kusijanovic is not an article but a draft. (I suspect that the surname is misspelled, for Kusijanović.) The draft sounds strangely matey, referring to her has "Antoneta". (En:Wikipedia uses surnames -- other than for Vietnamese, Icelandic, and perhaps some other peoples.) We read that MURINA continued to garner critical acclaim as one of the Best Films of 2022 by The Hollywood Reporter, Associated Press, Vogue, Vulture, The Atlantic, The A.V. Club and The Daily Beast. Why "Best Films" and not "best films"? Why MURINA and not Murina? Why is this major claim sourced simply to "Variety", a link which, when I click on it, confirms none of this? -- Hoary (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Merged articles

I was merging articles a few days ago and forgot to apply the discussion closed template. Should I apply it now? OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

OrdinaryGiraffe, can you say where? The answer is almost certainly yes, but it's better to be specific and make sure. Regards! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Southwest Transitway (Winnipeg) and Winnipeg Rapid Transit OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

OrdinaryGiraffe, are you talking about the notes you left on the talk pages proposing merging? They are not so much a discussion, so they don't need to be closed. Since no one else voiced their opinion, the consensus derives from WP:SILENCE. You may as well call it a WP:BOLD merge. It should suffice to make a follow-up post saying that you've gone ahead and done the merge since no one objected. What you should do now is step 4 of WP:PROMERGE. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I already merged, just forgot Step 4. I wanted to confirm to do Step 4 now. OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Should books on a page be classified under 'Further Reading' or 'In Popular Culture'?

I need some clarification on the best way to classify books on a page: under Further reading or In popular culture? Does this classification differ between BLP and Non-BLP pages? Charlie (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, CharlieMehta. You can read Wikipedia:Further reading and Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content for additional guidance. Here is an example: If a respected historian writes a widely reviewed new book about Harry Truman, then that may belong in a "Further reading" section. If an author writes a best selling novel with Truman as a major character, then that may belong in an "In popular culture" section. Cullen328 (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The only other factor is that BLP pages require extra care and caution. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Thanks for the clarity. The example you gave clears much of the doubt I had. Charlie (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Small arrow pointing to the left

Hello,

While editing, I have seen this symbol in the VisualEditor. I don't know what it means, and it cannot be copied to my clipboard. Can someone explain what that is?

Thank you. EatingCarBatteries (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@EatingCarBatteries: Those are carriage return symbols. They should correspond to single new lines made in source editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Help please

Two editors have a history of wholesale replacement of the article about the book The Wonder Weeks. I sure would appreciate an experienced editor helping to resolve the matter.

It was reverted to a stub most recently in December 2023. In February, I started revising that version. I built carefully, step by step, correcting factually wrong information and adding relevant information. Today MVoltz reverted the entirety to her version of December 2023, without notice on the Talk page. I had previously documented each substantial point on the Talk page. It is my perception that their rejoinders there either failed to recognize those points or were unresponsive to them, but you can judge that for yourself.

One editor, Pizzaman, has demonstrated on the Talk page that he is importing material from the Dutch Wikipedia community. Apparently, according to the article on the Dutch Wikipedia, this sort of edit warring is kind of the norm there. He and MVoltz seem to be upholding somebody's ill feelings about a controversy involving one author of the book which took place in that country 26 years ago. You can read what I think is an NPOV account of that controversy in my recently reverted February version. The current version (reverted to 2023) is one-sided by omission, and IMO verges on the scurrilous.

I am at a loss how to engage these two editors in good faith discussion. I am reluctant to take it to the admin noticeboard. I think it would be much better for one or more other editors to take a look and help establish a factually accurate, NPOV article. I will try to be attentive but I have an extended family funeral gathering coming up, and Wikipedia has a small part in my life. I would be most happy to have other eyes looking to the accuracy and NPOV of this article. Bn (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bn: The article talk page is hard to follow. Current discussions seems to be intermingled with older discussions, and many posts are very long and detailed. Since it seems you cannot get consensus through discussion on the talk page, look at WP:DR for guidance on how to resolve the dispute. Do not engage in an edit war. RudolfRed (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Bn, I'm afraid I think the shorter version is considerably clearer. I agree that there is a clear bias in the article against the content of the book; this is pretty normal on wikipedia for topics that are considered "fringe" - see WP:FRINGE. I do think it would be helpful if the article were expanded, but at a skim through the different versions of the article, it looks to me like most of what's in the current version should stay. I do think people have been pretty rude to you in the course of the talk page discussions, but you also appear to have baselessly accused another editor of having a COI, which isn't very kind either. If you would like to open a formal process that isn't ANI, you could try WP:DR. There's also WP:3O but I'm not sure it's exactly in scope, since the dispute at times involves more than two editors.

Werdna gave you very good advice, at the bottom of the article's talk page. If you can't see why statements like "it gives parents practical guidance to help their baby's cognitive development" or "This book derives from almost five decades of research" are not neutral statements of fact in this case, I think it's time for you to step away from the article. -- asilvering (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

[Edit clash] Bn, I've removed your email address from your message above. You're free to set up your account here in such a way as to allow people to email you. If they take this option, then when mailing you for the first time (via Wikipedia) they won't be shown your address. (This is good, as a small but significant minority of the small number who email me appear to be unhinged, and when I, very deliberately, don't respond, they give up. It's not a good idea to divulge your email address in any other way here, especially when you're in a content dispute. ¶ This page is not the right place for discussing content disputes, but anyway I took a quick look at Talk:The Wonder Weeks and sampled from the wall of text that I encountered there. The arguments appeared to be over content; I didn't notice any name-calling or other childishness. If you added a lot of substantive points, arguing for each, but got what has seemed to you to be an uncomprehending, unthinking or otherwise seriously defective response, I suggest that you repeat yourself, but to do so only one point at a time, acknowledging that you have made the same point earlier and briefly explaining why you're saying it a second time. Perhaps (i) Proposal; (ii) Position in the discussion above where you made the proposal before; (iv) Reasoning for the proposal; (v) Arguments against any arguments already posted against. When this first (re)proposal has been digested, and not before, set off on the second one. Et cetera. ¶ I note that you say that the article in its current state "verges on the scurrilous", and that the author of the book that's the subject of the article is described as still alive. You may wish to bring up the matter on WP:BLPN. Whether you take the matter there or to a different noticeboard, please don't take it to more than one, and please say here where you have taken it. -- Hoary (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, your replies are helpful in different ways. I very much appreciate your responding, even though as you say @Hoary this is not the appropriate place. I do confess to feeling intemperate, at the very late end of a long work day, to find my good faith revision (22 separate edits) supplanted apparently on the assumption that I was doing the same thing as she, copying and pasting an earlier revision over the current one. I should think the appropriate thing would have been to edit it.

 

@Hoary, your suggestion is best, negotiating one point at a time on the Talk page. There is a long list of points of agreement and disagreement that I posted in Talk in 2021 under Toward NPOV Consensus. There was no reply to any of them. One at a time may fare better.

 

Aside from what's unsupported by or contradicted in RS, the highest priority is to represent both sides of the controversy. This has several aspects, including:

 

• Refutation vs. failure to replicate
• Fired vs. resigned near end of contract
• Unscientific vs. an episode within a century-long scientific controversy still ongoing

 

I'll nibble at it when I have time.

  Bn (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Second efn won't work

Guys, I feel stupid because I used {{efn}} twice in an article and the second one gives a bogus error. It doesn't do that in any other example article I see and recall editing. Please double check here! Thanks! — Smuckola(talk) 04:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Smuckola: The second one has = in it, which requires special handling. See the note at the top of {{efn}} RudolfRed (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Awesome. I googled this, and I was reading a Talk page comment about the cite errors, which talked about equals signs, but I didn't realize this. ;) Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 05:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Submit Article means it is about to be published, what about the article that still work in progress?

Submit Article means it is about to be published, what about the article that still work in progress?

Can I receive feedback while still working on it, even better, Wikipedia is an open source so anyone can contribute right? So, How do I "submit for feedback" not "submit for publishing" as I know it is not ready since it is work in progress, and not having article deletion all the time. Unsteadyflyingfish (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Clicking on "Submit article" means calling for a reviewer to decided whether it should be published. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "Wikipedia is an open source", but yes, any editor (or more strictly any editor who isn't blocked, etc) can contribute to a draft. There's nothing in particular that you need to do in order to get feedback. Here's my feedback. First, Draft:Vasanta Group (Real Estate) is pretty close to Draft:Vasanta Group (already deleted twice in November '23 as clearly promotional). The newer draft:

Vasanta Group, a prominent Indonesian real estate and lifestyle development company headquartered in Tangerang, Banten, has made significant contributions to the nation's real estate landscape. Established in 2015 by a group of visionary founders, namely Tri Ramadi, Agnus Suryadi, Erick Wihardja, Nicholas Hum, and Denny Asalim, the company's growth has been characterized by innovation, a commitment to quality, and ethical business practices.

The older one:

Vasanta Group is an Indonesian real estate and lifestyle development company headquartered in Tangerang, Banten. Founded in 2015, The company has been active in Indonesia's real estate sector. Its founders, including Tri Ramadi, Agnus Suryadi, Erick Wihardja, Nicholas Hum, and Denny Asalim, have diverse backgrounds and experience s in the real estate industry.

You have succeeded in turning down the promotionalism, however. Still, your new draft is closer still to Draft:Vasanta Group (Real Estate) as created by you and deleted in January '24:

Vasanta Group is an Indonesian real estate and lifestyle development company headquartered in Tangerang, Banten. Founded in 2015, the company has played a significant role in Indonesia's real estate sector. Its founders, including Tri Ramadi, Agnus Suryadi, Erick Wihardja, Nicholas Hum, and Denny Asalim, have diverse backgrounds and extensive experience in the real estate industry.

And a question: Are you perhaps an employee of the Vasanta Group? -- Hoary (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Archiving references

Most references here are archived on archive.org, but is it okay to use archive.is? Kk.urban (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Kk.urban, you will probably find the info at WP:ARCHIVEIS helpful. It contains some comparisons between Archive.today (the main site accessible through archive.is) and other arching sites including Wayback. Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 07:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Naming a tweet

How should I name a twitter post? Abigbagel (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Please see Template:Cite tweet/doc. -- Hoary (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Citing a YouTube video

I'm looking to contribute to a page on Lorentz force with a bit on popular culture (a game called Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance), but since I can't directly cite the game, I'm trying to cite one of the trailers for the game. However, when I was trying this out on my sandbox page, I got a message telling me the YouTube citation was blacklisted. How should I proceed? Should I look for some other source to cite?

Thanks. ThatThing1911 (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@ThatThing1911 Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Assuming you mean Lorentz force. In short, do not add pop-cult stuff just because it exists. What you need is a an independent WP:RS that noticed the game had Lorentz force in it and bothered to comment on it. And even if you do have that, someone might think including it fails WP:PROPORTION. I remember adding this [2], but it was removed at some point, and that's not unreasonable.

See Metatron#In_popular_culture or Tardigrade#In_popular_culture for an example of the kind of sources that may be acceptable. Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@ThatThing1911: It's because YouTube short links with "youtu.be" are blacklisted. Use youtube.com links instead. Also check WP:RSPYOUTUBE. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 13:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

And Gråbergs Gråa Sång is right, too. "In popular culture" content should be usually cited to reliable sources independent of the game "that establish its significance to the article's subject". ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 13:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Abortions

WTH is Trump dictating ban to abortions when abortion is needed to save women's life? This is a decision made by a women and then her doctor! My first pregnancy was a result of forced sex, aka rape. It was in London, England and if the abortion was not performed it would have resulted in my death and thus death of unborn child. Tell Republicans that decision to abort has to be made between a women and her doctor! Tell them to STOP! Gzubicka (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a question about using Wikipedia, Gzubicka? (That's what this page is for.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I remember a similar post... Last week maybe? It's not from the same user looking in their contribs. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

OP blocked as NOTHERE, after looking at their edits. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Advocacy explains why this type of impassioned commentary is not appropriate on Wikipedia, although it is welcomed on many other websites. Cullen328 (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

How to upload this picture

Hi there i wanted to ask how could i upload this Picture Ali Jinnah Inspecting Guard Honour Baloch regiment, which i wanted to use in the article. How can i upload this on Wikicommons without any copyright? Rahim231 (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. That likely depends on copyright law regarding images in Pakistan, depending on when an image enters the public domain. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

See c:Com:Pakistan. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Changes to articles

what are the stipulations required for changes to be accepted? 2603:6080:ADF0:95A0:4A1:CDAE:63DA:7039 (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We can give you a better answer if you tell what sort of change you wish to make. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for the welcome! I was wondering just in general once an entry is made, how do you go about editing it in the future? 2603:6080:ADF0:95A0:4A1:CDAE:63DA:7039 (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not much clearer. Is WP:OWN what you're after? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It depends on the situation. Start with reading WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Article review for over 2 Month ...

hello, i have an article that has not been checked or released for two months. what can i do? (User: Don-miguel-de) Draft:CIVIS Media Foundation Don-miguel-de (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It was declined today. Drafts are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers, working on what they want when they choose to. There is no way to guarantee a speedy review. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Editing a text further before the second review? (and bullet lists in the reference list)

Hi to everyone,

I created my first Wikipedia page a few months ago. The first review rejected it because I did not add enough sources and the text was not encyclopaedic enough. About ten days ago I made improvements and pressed the "publish" button again. As far as I understand, the text should now be sent for review again. As I now realised, an editor made substantial edits to the text in these past days. They shortened it, removed several contents, and included many new references. While those edits improved the text, they made me see I could add other edits to improve it even further with more sources and specific contents.

My questions is: should/can I go ahead and add my edits on top of those made by the Wikipedia editor, or should I hold off my edits until the article goes through review?

I also would like to know how I can include a bullet list in the list of references.

Thanks so much for your help!

Best wishes, Simonescoffier (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to keep improving it as the review is pending; currently there are many many drafts pending review, so the more improvements you make, the better chances are of it getting improved.

The list of references is properly formatted, you don't need to edit it.

Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Template for WikiProject requested move notifications

What template do people use to issue notifications on WikiProjects of the creation of a requested move that might be relevant to the WikiProject? I see Template:RM notice, but this doesn't seem to produce the same text that I most commonly see actually used on WikiProject pages, which looks something like this:

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Some Page#Requested move 12 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.

By contrast, Template:RM notice produces the following:

An editor has requested that Some Page be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.

This later format, while communicating more or less the same thing, isn't what I actually see people using. So what's the template that produces the former (and why do people prefer it)? Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Brusquedandelion it looks like it's wording used in the user script rmCloser User:TheTVExpert/rmCloser. Nthep (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The review process

In a discussion I had with a reviewer of an article I have drafted, the reviewer mentioned what "another reviewer" might do. This leads me to ask: Will there be "another reviewer"? How many reviews should I expect? Who would have the final say on whether to accept this article?

I'm afraid I'm finding Wikipedia's review process a bit opaque, and I would greatly appreciate clarification of this. Thanks. Johsebb (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. If you resubmit your draft, another reviewer will review it. As long as the draft is not rejected(only declined) you may keep resubmitting it for reviews- though it will be expected that you make progress towards resolving the concerns of the reviewers. There is no particular individual who will "have the final say"; any reviewer that feels the draft is acceptable will accept it. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Johsebb (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Johsebb! The AFC system puts all submissions into a pile. You have not currently submitted your draft, but it was done twice previously and each time reviewed by different reviewers. You are expected to take the feedback from previous reviews and submit again when you feel you've addressed the issues. Provided you are not disruptive about it, there is no limit as to how many times you may resubmit. As long as the draft is among the submissions, it's likely to be looked at by multiple reviewers, this being a volunteer project. Most may skip, some may comment, finally someone will click the accept or decline buttons and you're back to looking at the feedback and improving the draft for another attempt. Here's what's important: You need to bring evidence that the topic you are writing about meets WP:GNG. Since you are writing about a topic in mathematics, it should be sufficient if you can show that it has been investigated and published about by multiple independent mathematicians (either the mathematicians should be reputable or the publication needs to be). Better still if someone has summarised the state of developments in the field in an independent review work or textbook. Once you have a notable topic, only the most egregious content problems may result in the draft getting declined. Your draft should not contain copyright violations or violations of the policy on biography of living persons. And your draft needs to adhere to the core content policies, verifiability, no original research and a neutral point of view, to the extent that is reasonable to expect from new editors. You may refer to MOS:MATH for some advice about writing better articles, but take the gist of it, you need not attempt to follow every advice as though it were a rule. Regards! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the detail. Johsebb (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Dealing with copyright infringement from 2007

What's the best way to deal with copyright infringement that happened June 1, 2007 [3]? The vast majority of the content is taken verbatim from Murderpedia.org (currently blacklisted here, though I can post the full link if needed). Over 100 edits later, I'm not sure how you would identify which ones need redacting. In the meantime, I've just deleted the offending material from the article. Thanks. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Willondon. Are you sure that Wikipedia copied Murderpedia, and not vice versa? The Murderpedia entry for Hein uses Wikipedia as a citation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking at Earwig, there's actually a far more pressing matter, shown here. I don't believe Murderpedia even gets a passing mention due to the level of dilution almost 20 years will bring.

While it's understandable that the rating is high due to the massive quote, it's less understandable in regards to the amount of red outside of it. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 19:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. When I was checking what was and wasn't copied, I got to the end of the MP article to see "Wikipedia.org". What a mess. In the original post (cited above), the first part is almost completely unsourced, save for the official Appeals Court documents. Well at least there's not the hassle of dealing with a copyright infringement. I'm guessing the best approach is just to get rid of everything that isn't sourced. Not sure what use to make of the Copyvio Detector results. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Willondon While much of the article is not referenced, it dates back to at least 2007. A more conservative approach to massive deletion would be to tag the article at the top as needing references. David notMD (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that would normally be my first approach, except the content has been challenged by user MaxamillionWeatherby, on the grounds that it is incorrect and/or obsolete and harmful to the living person the article is about. They've also mentioned an inability to bring the article up to date because sources haven't given coverage to the story developments some twenty+ years later. Anyway, I continue to discuss it on their talk page. So I'm satisfied with the conclusion of this thread here. Thanks again for all your insights. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@CommissarDoggo, I was also worried seeing that but it looks like court records in the USA are explicitly not under copyright [4]. So definitely good news from a copyvio point of view! StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Definitely, and good to know for the future. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 10:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Need help with formatting my user page

I just created my user page, but i would like to catogorize it and make it special, could someone expirenced help me with it? Lolzer3000 (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Lolzer3000 Welcome to the Teahouse. You may find some useful self-help resources at Wikipedia:User page design guide. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Mass changes needed for retirement of Drug Information Portal

The National Library of Medicine's Drug Information Portal has been retired, with all information moved to the Library's PubChem database. I think all the links to the Drug Information Portal should be updated to the corresponding article in PubChem. I suspect that someone can set up a bot to do this, but I don't know how. Perhaps someone can point me to instructions to do this or turn this over to someone who already knows how? — HowardBGolden (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@HowardBGolden: You can ask at WP:BOTREQ. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

How do you cite a book?

What is the template Blackmamba31248 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Blackmamba31248, you can find the template for citing books here: Template:Cite book. You can also cite books quite easy in visual editing mode by clicking the citation button (it looks like this: " ), then selecting 'Manual' and then 'Book'. Hope this helps! Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 21:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Blackmamba31248 Just to add that you can find guidance on adding citations from books and other sources using our Source Editor at this shortcut: WP:REFBEGIN.

Alternately, if you prefer using our Visual Editor, see WP:REFBEGINVE. Hope you find reading either (or both) of these of some help. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Please fix this error

The won template for the Bulletin Awards is not working

The Little Mermaid (2023 film) - Wikipedia Rincemermaid (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Rincemermaid. Fixed by [5]. See "Important" at Template:Won. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

How can I change an AFD nom to a RFD?

I nominated an article called Battle of Sangrana for deletion. I now realize, after an editor pointed it out on the deletion discussion page, that it should have been a redirect. Is there any way to cancel the AFD nom and replace it with an RFD? Thanks in advance. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Suthasianhistorian8 you can either wait until the AfD closes, at which the closing administrator will redirect it, or withdraw the AfD nomination and blank and redirect. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

How can I withdraw the AFD nom? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Never mind; I think this explains it-[6]. I apologize for any inconvenience I caused. I will go ahead and add the "withdrawn by nominator" statement on the discussion page. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyone on here intrested in Nauran history?

For context, i have made a page on the Kingdom of Naura, and there is lots of holes in the internet when comes to teh kingdoms History. So, does anyone here know any third party websites or Books i chould use? Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You're asking about the article, and subject, Kingdom of Nauru. Currently this cites three sources, of which one is Wikiwand, which is based on Wikipedia and therefore not a reliable source. It's a curious article, because its infobox describes the kingdom as lasting from 1888 to 1921, but the text really says nothing about this period. (It's instead about the period 1878 to 1888.) Perhaps the article would be better draftified. -- Hoary (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. I’m trying to Find more info on that period. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Now at Draft:Kingdom of Nauru. It wasn't ready for article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately WP:WikiProject Nauru seems more or less moribund, but you could try asking at WT:WikiProject Nauru. (While you're about it, you might say where/how you've already looked.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You could also try asking the folks over at Reference desk, they might be able to dig something up vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 04:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You're not yet eligible to use the "Wikipedia Library" (WL), but you could tinker with the draft a little every now and again to prevent its deletion, and join/use WL when you do become eligible. -- Hoary (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Blackmamba31248 Neither the Wikipedia Library nor Google Scholar (title search) have any meaningful results for the combination "kingdom" and "nauru", so I think that decent academic sources are completely missing. You may be better working on something else. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Recent Article

Good day, I have recently wrote something that went against Wikipedia's terms of use and it seems like my profile was suspended. How do I go about reinstating my profile. Nkgoeng Matome (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You do not reinstate it. It seems that you hope to advertise yourself and Montsho Investment Group. Wikipedia does not host advertising. -- Hoary (talk) 09:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nkgoeng Matome, your userpage has been deleted because it looked like you were trying to advertise. That is not allowed. You can make your userpage again, but you can't put any advertising on it - so don't put anything that was already there back again.

You can tell people about what you're interested in that is related to Wikipedia - some people list articles they have written or made a big difference to, some people talk about categories they are interested in, some people have links to useful Wikipedia tools. Try clicking on people's names to see what's on their userpage for some ideas, and when you want to remake your own, make sure you look at the userpage guidelines to be sure you don't put anything there that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Your draft was deleted for the same reason: promotional/advertising. People associated with companies can declare that connection on their user page (see WP:PAID for how to) and create/submit a draft, but all content must be written in a neutral point of view and verified by references that are independent from the company (see WP:NCORP and WP:42). David notMD (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you David, Much appreciated... 41.13.8.11 (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Book sourcing / ISBN?

Hello! I was looking to edit Ryō Ramiya's page, since I have physical copies of two of her books, Lunarium and Artemis, and I've now noticed that the publishing dates on her page are incorrect. Lunarium was first published in 1992, and Artemis in 1990, while her page says 1993 for both of them. However, I'm extremely confused at how ISBN works... The ISBN numbers on my copies are different to the ones on the page, however those ones look correct too since the scans online for Lunarium has the same ISBN. From what little information I can gather it seems like they're different for different editions, however nothing between the editions of the book is different aside from publishing date/ISBN. I think my copy of Artemis is a first edition, however as I don't speak Japanese and had to use online translation, I can't be 100% sure. I haven't seen a first edition of Lunarium online, and the one listed seems to be a second edition. Should I just edit the dates, and leave the ISBNs alone? Or should I edit those as well? Any answers or even just a simple explanation of how ISBN works would be greatly appreciated!! Illudens (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

For a simple explanation of how ISBN works ... you might try the article ISBN. In particular, for every 10-digit ISBN there is a 13-digit ISBN; and although I'm too lazy to reread the article now, I think that for every 13-digit ISBN there may still be a 10-digit ISBN (until recently, there certainly was). It's rare but possible that two "editions" (impressions, printings), differing only in publishing date, have different ISBNs: after all, if a publisher pays for an additional ISBN that you or I might think unnecessary, they get it. However, this ISBN matter is minor. I know nothing about Ramiya (or indeed about manga), and for all I know she may be very notable; but as the article stands, it utterly fails to demonstrate notability. What has been said about her or her work in reliable sources? -- Hoary (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I read the article but was still a bit confused. I wonder if maybe the older date + the fact it was published in Japan has something to do with it. The reason I ask about ISBN is because I'd specifically like to correct the false publishing dates, and currently on the page it shows the ISBN beside each book, so I was unsure if the ISBNs would also need to be corrected alongside the dates. Even if she isn't that notable I still think that the page should have correct info, and since I have reliable sources, physical copies of her books with the original publishing date noted in them, I wanted to contribute and fix up the page. However I will be looking into more sources about her as well, its unfortunately a little hard due to the language barrier. I currently don't have sources on hand for her work but there should be a link on her page, its a bit hard to navigate and its in Japanese but as far as I know it has a list of almost everything. Illudens (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

#invoke:sports results table and #invoke:Sports table

Good day! I'm looking at adding two tables to my recent edit and the tables names at #invoke:Sports table and #invoke:Sports results found on this page [[2023–24 Women's Super League]]. When I type these two on the template page using visual editing I'm not able to find the templates. Does anyone know how to add these templates? Mcwamcwa (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mcwamcwa Your contributions don't include any to 2023–24 Women's Super League and I would strongly advise you to use the source editor for that sort of alteration. In source editor, Ctrl-F in my browser finds the template (within an "onlyinclude") at the top of the League table section of the article and again at the top of the Results section. There are also hidden comments that can only be seen in the source editor which help describe how to update. If you try to edit in the visual editor, then hovering over the "onlyinclude" points out in a tooltip that this part can only be edited in source mode. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mcwamcwa: Code with #invoke: does not add templates but modules. {{#invoke:Sports table|...}} adds Module:Sports table. There is no Template:Sports table. I don't think VisualEditor can add modules. There is no mention of modules in Help:VisualEditor. Use the source editor for that. See Wikipedia:Lua#Running a module. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Common names

Do I need a specific source to add common names to some animal pages? Like European marten and Iranian leopard. Firekong1 (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Why ever not? -- Hoary (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You should stop edit warring and instead provide reliable sources for your assertions. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Firekong1: Yes. See WP:V. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

A quick Google search shows there are sources for the names you are trying to edit the article to include, so maybe try actually incorporating them instead of engaging in a frivolous edit war. Brusquedandelion (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Brusquedandelion My view is this vague name is not needed in the lede as it is not a name used (except in relatively poorly-researched sources), and simply serves to confuse the introductory statement, wherein 'pine marten' should be the second-listed name, as that's what's used by non-biologists needing to differentiate this taxon from others, whilst European pine marten is used in the literature. Whilst clearly made in good faith, I have reverted @Firekong1's edit, and am happy to defend that situation on the article talk page if required. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nick MoyesThank you kindly, I was not attempting to start a conflict, I was simply acting in good faith. But now that you left a proper explanation in your removal, I understand the issue better now. However, if the rules for adding common names changes on Wikipedia, please let me know. Firekong1 (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You have a very long history of being an active editor on many topics, but within last day or so got into a tiff about animal names. The disagreements have not progressed to the levle of edit warring, and for the pine marten, have been properly taken up on the article's Talk page. Carry on. David notMD (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@David notMD I believe I found a few sources, I will try sharing them with you, so please let me know if they are allowed to be sourced on Wikipedia.

@Brusquedandelion @Shantavira As for the animal name issue, I was not edit warring, I was adding them back because they are justified in having those common names on their respective pages. Firekong1 (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I see that you and BhagyaMani had a discussion back in 2021 at the Talk page of Panthera pardus tulliana on whether a common name "Iranian leopard" could be added to the list shown in the Lead. Perhaps start fresh on the Talk page? Or abandon the effort if reverted again. David notMD (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course, I’d like that. Unlike European marten, Iranian leopard could be used as a suitable common name due to the specifics of the name and not being redundant like “European marten”. Firekong1 (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Firekong1 Just to explain that my concern only related to the Pine Marten, not any other taxon. Obviously, species have many names in many languages, so it's important not to drown out significant names by a plethora of obscure and rarely used names that might have been scraped off general sites which haven't even addressed the issue of the main names properly. Discussion is always good, of course. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

When a talk page discussion is relevant to multiple pages

Are there any (official or unofficial) guidance on what to do if a talk page discussion is relevant to multiple pages? Obviously one could post the discussion to one page, and then just informally post notification to the other related pages' talk pages, but is there a better way? Ideally what I want is a means by which the exact same discussion can appear on multiple pages, and if someone replies to it on any of the pages, the reply will be synchronized across all occurrences of the discussion on all pages. So, basically transclusion that updates with replies in the described fashion. (I could be wrong, but I don't think normally transclusion works this way— right?) Brusquedandelion (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Brusquedandelion I don't think there is any transclution for this. Basically, I WP:APPNOTE and hope for the best. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is possible with simple transclusion, but it is not conventional and might get some pushback. A few Wikipedia housekeeping processes do this to group subtopics; WP:AFD is one of these, which group articles up for deletion on a common summary log page, but which actually live on an individual page. See for example, the entry for § Correspondences (journal) on today's Afd log; if you click the [edit source] link, it takes you to a different page to edit the content, and is also visible there. Not quite exactly what you are talking about, but the main piece of it.

For the purpose you want, a standard {{Excerpt}} from several Talk pages which all targeted the same source page section, perhaps a WikiProject discussion, would do what you want. (Another would be selective transclusion with the accommpanying seltrans edit notice.) The default hatnote created by Excerpt would include an [edit] link, similar to the one at the Afd log, so that wherever an editor happened to see the discussion, clicking the edit link would open editing on the one page actually containing the discussion. There might be opposition to this, likely would be imho, as by convention this is not the way it has been done previously, and might be unfamiliar or confusing to some users. One downside, is that there would still be an [edit] link for the page itself, and clicking that would lead the viewer to see only the Excerpt template wikicode, instead of the discussion they were expecting; that would be confusing, and possibly discourage or stifle contributions to the discussion, the opposite of what we would wish. Another downside might be, that when they are finished editing and save their entry, they won't be on the same page where they clicked the [edit] button, and there is no obvious way to get back there; that can be confusing as well. But chiefly, in my opinion, it would face opposition because there are procedures like WP:APPNOTE already in place and very commonly used which offer guidance on how to achieve what you want, and it works fine. Is there any reason you wish to have it appear on multiple pages, rather than follow existing practice? Mathglot (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to ping. Mathglot (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Dates

How do I write the dates? Is it like March 8, 2014 or 8 March 2014 or does it even matter? CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine If you mean in article text, try to keep it consistent within an article, and see MOS:DATE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I generally tend to use 8 March 2014/March 8 2014, but as long as the use of dates is consistent throughout the article you should be fine. Additionally, for articles with strong national ties you should use the date format of that country. So for... I dunno, Top Gear you would use DMY and for United States Army you would use MDY. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I generally tend to use 8 March 2014/March 8 2014

Please note that "March 8 2014" (with no comma) is not an acceptable date format. See MOS:BADDATE. CodeTalker (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

When adding dates in citations, use the format 8 March 2024, not anything else or the template might return a 'date error' even though it looks correct. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Oh yeah? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing I was thinking more of dates like 8/3/2014 which I'm sure I've had problems with in the past. Happy to be further corrected or admonished, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Draft:Sterling Pharma Solutions

Hi,

Please could someone advise which of the sources in the following article do not satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines for being in-depth, reliable, secondary and strictly independent. Draft:Sterling Pharma Solutions

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

SamNCL SamNCL (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Please only use one forum at a time to seek assistance; you've discussed this at the AFC Help Desk. Thanks 331dot (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

SamNCL, I've checked the references currently numbered 1,2,4,5,6 (not 3 as I don't have access to the source). 1 and 6 lack discussion of the company. 2, 4 and 5 are based on statements by its CEO, and so aren't independent. I'm not going to check the rest for you; it's up to you to do the work. Maproom (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

First, address whether - per query on your Talk page - is your connection to the draft paid or coi. This is required. The long list of financial dealings under Acquisitions (much of which looks like press release content) and the minor (as in major awards are subjects of Wikipedia articles) awards section contribute nothing to establishing notability, and should be deleted before resubmitting the draft. David notMD (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

To your pointing out on your Talk page that articles exist about two other pharmaceutical companies despite flawed referencing, so why not Sterling, Cambrex Corporation has multiple tags at the top pointing out flaws, and in my thinking, should be nominated for deletion. Lonza Group has a long list of financial dealings that could be deleted. David notMD (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Some articles in Wikipedia, often created years ago when standards were laxer, or snuck past editorial assessment via direct creation, fail to meet Wikipedia's current standards, and/or violate its policies. When attention is drawn to them, they may be drastically edited, converted to Draft form, or deleted entirely. That they exist is not a justification for accepting something equally as poor. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.186.221 (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Diane Feinstein

I certainly do not wish to offer a contemporary comment upon Senator Feinstein's 'wiki' page, at the time of her Death. However: her page has a 'monstrous ERROR'; in my opinion.

To wit: the Soviet's built their nuclear reactors in 'chicken coops', in comparison to those built in the United States. I.e. without 'Containments'. In 1986, I believe, one of their reactors, a large one moderated not by water as are ours in the U.S., but by graphite, caught on fire, at Chernobyl. Around 200 brave men, heroes actually, incorrectly thinking, based upon a data-less guess by an American Nobelist, a guy named Rassmussen, at Lawrence Livermore Labs, that the loss to atmosphere of a huge amount of fission's inherently 'dirty' radionuclides, would imply the PREMATURE DEATHS of > 100,000 to a 1.3 million, innocent men & women. Winds that day were blowing out of the East, and towards Germany. [If I recall correctly, six young females, ate from cow's milk on the Russian side of the border with Poland, and subsequently DID die from a very fast (3 day, half-life) isotope of radioactive iodine; but, on the Polish side, iodine pills were distributed for ninety days, & 0 youngsters died, or were even sickened.] After 30 years, a team with about 100 'epidemiologists' was organized under the Supervision of the United Nations, to go into the areas affected by the Chernobyl fire; & to look at the statistics to see what the ACTUAL # of premature deaths turned out to be. It was 0! Rassmussen was incorrect! Hugely!

This finding means: that Jane Fonda's utterly ignorant jaw flapping about Rassmussen's incorrect guess, killed the American nuclear development in it's infancy. Michael Douglas, another Hollywood brat, or utterly untrained, child of a star, made a movie with her called The China Syndrome, which with God's help, came out weeks before the loss of coolant accident at Three Mile Island. About 100 N-plants were up & running and In the Rate Base, when 3 Mile occurred. Thousands of highly trained math & engineering experts who designed (i.e., folks who COULD do differential equations) those facilities; but 3 Mile ended, or greatly altered their careers! As difficult as it is to imagine how, we in America essentially Threw in the Towel on them--the smart guys. Favoring the imbeciles! 1986 + 30 = 2016; & 2016 - 1979 = 47. Nearly 1/2 Century later, we learned the sordid TRUTH! Our nuclear industry was inherently far, far safer than we had incorrectly guessed. We really DO NOT even NEED an NRC! Why is this important? Because, with Senator Feinstein's error on Global Warming, we have her work which your web page develops, and we are embarked upon an absolutely unnecessary set of initiatives to correct for a Problem, that Warming, which would not exist except we followed the alarming advice of those who guessed, and guessed wrong. The advent of Rush Limbaugh, in the late 1980's, also helped us to arrive at today's hideously inept result: Rush went on a Radio terror for 3 decades, incorrectly telling millions of America's truck drivers, that CO2 did not co-establish the Earth's thermal regime. It certainly does, 2nd only to water vapor!

When appropriate, Senator Feinstein's wiki page needs a correction, in my opinion. Thank you.

Cody / Dave 66.213.114.100 (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

As a person without a Wikipedia account, you are prohibited from editing the Diane Feinstein article directly. You are allowed to propose new content - with references - on the Talk page of the article, for an experienced editor to then either incorporate or decline to do so. Your posting the above at Teahouse has no purpose. David notMD (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dave. I haven't read through the above wall of words in detail, but any concerns about contents of an article should be made and a discussion held on the article's talk page, and certainly not here. Our Teahouse is to assist editors having trouble editing Wikipedia; not making changes ourselves. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Dave, if you do post to the article's talk page about this, you should explain clearly what changes you want and supply references to support your view. And if you want people to take notice of what you write there, you should keep it brief, avoid typing in capitals, and omit the invective. Maproom (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Her name was Dianne Feinstein with two "n"s. I was her constituent for decades. Cullen328 (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I´m so lost in here!

I can not find a place to answer wikipedia comments... I can not find the page I started... I tried to use an existing page as a model but keep receiving notifications critizing my contribution saying it´s the wronmg way to put information... Can someone help...please.. Li MaNaRui Limanarui33 (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Limanarui33 Are you talking about Draft:Changzhi Li? If so, it is available to edit. Note that you have to write the information on him in your own manner and not copy it from his CV. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 16:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

I´m a bit confuse... of course I have to put the professor CV... I can not put nothing else than the truth. Moreover it is clear and clearly referenced with the exact link.

I used another scientist page to create the exact same sections. Limanarui33 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If the only information you have of the individual is from the individual themselves it just doesn't meet notability guidelines or, more importantly, the notability guidelines for biographies.

You must use reliable, secondary sources. If you fail to do so, the article will never pass its review. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 16:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Limanarui33 This is an encyclopaedia, not LinkedIn. You cannot link to a CV in an anonymous Dropbox account. We have no idea whether this is genuine or not. A CV published by an esteemed university would be preferable, but you would need to trim out all the trivial achievements, and leave us with just key ones. Please fix that. Further information on notable scientists, of which he is probably one, can be read at WP:NPROF. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

As you can check in the references I put the CV is linked to the Texas Tech University: https://www.depts.ttu.edu/ece/faculty/changzhi_li/index.php Limanarui33 (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The CV is not a reliable secondary source. It is primary and can not be used to verify notability. --ARoseWolf 16:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

well, I sincerelly don´t understand your arguments but I accept whatever you said.

If it´s not possible to create a page in wikepedia for ordinary eventhought outstanding people, it´s not possible. You decide.

Thank you for the quick replies. Limanarui33 (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Limanarui33 As I advised you last week, you have a conflict of interest, since you are one of Li's students. As a result, you write sentences such as "With an unwavering passion for leveraging cutting-edge technology to address real-world challenges, Dr. Li continues to push the boundaries of Electrical and Computer Engineering, driving innovation in both research and education." which is at odds with Wikipedia's policy of providing a neutral point of view. It is clearly possible to write articles about outstanding people: we have hundreds of thousands of them. The problem is that you have no experience in doing so and I suggest you practice by making small contributions to existing articles until you have sufficient experience to draft a new article in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Limanarui33 I'm afraid some of what you've just added with this edit is just unsourced WP:PEACOCK wording. This is not the way an encyclopaedia speaks, but it is what someone paid to promote someone might say. "...deeply committed to nurturing the next generation of engineers and researchers. ...With an unwavering passion for leveraging cutting-edge technology to address real-world challenges, Dr. Li continues ..."

I repeat, that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia based upon what secondary sources (i.e. the world at large) have written about a person. I simply suggest you weed out the trivia and glowing wording about him; add key achievements as bullet points, each supported to secondary sources, not his own CV, and help a layman understand why he is notable by writing paragraphs cited to sources and less of the lists. There is no rush. You can do this by teasing out just his key achievements and accolades, and demonstrating that this scientist meets our criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. If you know (or even are) this person, please declare your conflict of interest as explained HERE.

Remember: 'less is more'. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Cleaned up some. Still needs work, per comments above. David notMD (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Limanarui33: Please don't be disheartened b the comments above. Your subject appears to be notable, and suitable for the subject of a Wikipedia article. Although you are their student, you may still wrote about them, through the AfC process, so long as you declare this. Take a little time to look at how similar articles are written, and read our guidelines. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Some questions on the image copyright guidelines

Hello,

With adding images to Wikipedia pages, it seems like if I took the picture myself, and it doesn't violate the privacy of people and such, I can pretty much use it.

What is really confusing for me is the part about finding images that don't run into any international copyright laws- how does one find images to use, what are the protocols, and is Getty Images an okay source (I'm guessing that the photographer receives credit somehow).

I haven't added any images to pages because I don't want to violate any copyright laws, but I'm still curious about how they work.

Thank you in advance. Villaida (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Villaida You would be best to read the help pages at Wikimedia Commons where we host most images that are correctly licenced for wide use. They also have a help desk for detailed copyright questions. Getty images don't license their photos in a way we can use: if they did, they couldn't make money out of them! It is possible to do, for example, Google image searches and then use the Tools menu on the results to show only those with appropriate licences (often Creative Commons licenses). Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

With adding images to Wikipedia pages, it seems like if I took the picture myself, and it doesn't violate the privacy of people and such, I can pretty much use it.

Yes, you can use images you took yourself, as long as you licence it under a free licence, such as Creative Commons or public domain.

What is really confusing for me is the part about finding images that don't run into any international copyright laws- how does one find images to use, what are the protocols, and is Getty Images an okay source (I'm guessing that the photographer receives credit somehow).

Ideally, you should be able to use Commons to find images (as all of those are free to use). If you can't find something there, as long as the image you are trying to use is using a free licence, you should be fine. You can also use copyrighted images as long as its under fair use, as detailed here. vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 17:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Villaida, to clarify about images that you took yourself, you cannot use any photo you took that shows something that is itself copyrighted. For example, you cannot go to an art museum and take photos of contemporary art works and use them on Wikipedia. The copyright to those works of art belongs to the artist or their estate. The general guideline (though there are exceptions) is that works created over 95 years ago are now in the public domain and free of copyright. Cullen328 (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

that makes sense. Villaida (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

New-page approval pending for months, editorial process-help request from rejoined newby

I have a question about new-page approval. The French-language page for the Royal Society of Canada's president, Alain-G. Gagnon, is not adequately sourced, and so it flashes with warnings saying so: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain-G._Gagnon. There is no reason for a public figure with such a well established public profile, as for instance here (https://rsc-src.ca/en/governance-programmes/board-directors/alain-gagnon), not to have a functional Wiki page in any language. I therefore two months ago drafted a modest, meticulously sourced English-language page: Draft:Alain-G. Gagnon. It has been years since I have done any Wiki editing, so I do not have seniority, but I was careful to make the page uncontroversial, crafted to normal new-page conventions, and ready-to-go "as is." My plan was to let that one page go up before embarking on further Wikipedia edits as a rejoined member of the editorial community. Should I be editing a range of other pages credibly to improve the standing of my account so that I can draft new pages without so long an approval delay? I would respectfully request help from anyone who can guide me through the steps of contributing to the organization's fine work, and to keep whatever delays arise in public-facing posts to a minimum. Thanks for your time! Edits2024 (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello! The "standing of your account" has nothing to do with how drafts are approved: volunteers choose to review drafts and currently there's seemingly nothing to be done about the ever-growing backlog, unfortunately. Editors are not judged or prioritized by "seniority" or anything but the content of the draft.

To give a bit of critique on your draft, though not anything immediately jumps out at me as decline-worthy:

• Reading through, there are 22 sentences in thee article, and it seems like half of them either don't add much substance or repeat what has already been said.
• There is some puffery, but it seems easily fixable: I would simply remove clauses such as Gagnon has established himself as a prolific scholar and Gagnon is well known for institution-building in his fields of publication and study.
• Particularly illustrative of what I think you could work on is the sentence An autumn 2023 colloquium was organized in Montreal to recognize and take stock of the scope of Gagnon's influence. Great! What were its conclusions? What work of his did they examine to reach those conclusions? You could strip out most of the accreditations and lists of connections, and elaborate more on what he's actually said and done instead. Show, don't tell.

Cheers, and good luck! Remsense诉 18:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on process, and the feedback on substance. I'll do some tightening and hope for the best! Edits2024 (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Company sends email promoting new Wikipedia page, inappropriate?

I'm on the email list for Triad Transformers (announcing new products and such) and was surprised to get this (pertinent paragraph from email):

"We are excited to share that our company officially has a page on Wikipedia! Check out the page to learn more about our origins as the Triad Transformer Corporation and our history that's a part of early Hollywood films, the beginnings of Rock & Roll, and even the Apollo Mission."

The page in question: Triad_Transformers

There's nothing in the email suggesting the company in any way created or edited the article, but the article itself was only created in October of last year, and most edits were made by that creator. Might the creator/editor have some connection to the company? It seems suspicious to me, but I don't see an IP address for the creator and don't know how to answer that. For what it's worth, there's a disambiguation page for triad, and it does not have a link to Triad Transformers. Benbradley (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Ask the creator on that person's Talk page. David notMD (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This is now being discussed on the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Whoever wrote it, it's a dreadful article. I've tagged it for advert, primary sources, and (in two cases) for sources failing verification. ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding outdated information about members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly

I recently noticed some articles of members of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, but they are not updated after 2023 elections, some articles of lost candidate show them as incumbent members or officeholders. How do i correct them because they are in bulk ammount as there are 200 members in Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. While some articles does not have proper infoboxes. TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@TheSlumPanda: Given the size of the task, it would be a good idea to raise this at WT:WikiProject India, and/or WT:WikiProject Elections, where editors who have the relevant knowledge and tools congregate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Article topic

Hello. I have been a Wikipedia reader and donator for several years, and I love Wikipedia. I am writing to see if a new article needs to be created or perhaps you could direct me regarding the topic I am about to discuss. In my recent past I started sending more text based communication to various entities over the internet. These include government organizations and other various corporate organizations. Over the course of several years I was attempting to communicate with the FBI via their tip website. I never received a single return correspondence from them. I want to try and make sure that all the time I spent writing to then doesn't gonun-noticed. I started writing to them after I got arrested for the first time in Allen, TX. I was arrested for disorderly conduct. I felt taken advantage of because of that situation. APD has been the subject of investigation for killing a man named Edgar Veras close to where I used to live, and I identified with that families frustration with the police department. I had all sorts of police contact when I lived in Allen, and I don't think a single person that dialed 911 had a valid reason for what they did. I have written to governments all over the world mainly about tobacco sales,but also regarding psychiatric medication. I scored a 4.0 in behavioral neuroscience at UTD, and I think that large numbers of people need to know and would benefit from, what I am discussing. Shifting topics...I have a grievance with The UTD Mercury regarding their online behavior as well. Thank you!!! Richard George Ashton II Rickytexan1 (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing you can do on Wikipedia with this. You need to use your own blog or website. Theroadislong (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs. It seems that you have a conflict of interest as well. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Can someone please help fix this?

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visoki Dečani, the coding at the top of the page went awry, and I can't figure out how/where it happened. Any assistance in fixing it would be appreciated. Left guide (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I've done what I can; more eyes would be sensible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Help me

Please someone remove protection log from Sandeep Anand, because I want to create this page. KungfuPanda2008 (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The removal of protection may be requested at WP:RFPP. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Greetings, and welcome. As noted above, you are absolutely welcome to request unprotection, but I think it would greatly strengthen your case if you created a draft article at Draft:Sandeep Anand and submitted it through the Article for Creation process. If the draft were to be accepted by a reviewer, then I'm sure there would be no objection to removing the protection so that the draft could be moved to main article space. Hope this helps. --Finngall ^talk 20:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I thought (the red link notwithstanding) they were referring to page protection, not salting. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Question

Is Gulf News not a reliable source? I was going to use this (https://gulfnews.com/uae/video-authorities-investigate-alleged-dolphin-abuse-at-dubai-facility-1.65572512) as a source for Dubai Dolphinarium after I had researched into Dolphinariums out of curiosity, when I was going to publish my edit, it said I was using a deprecated source, so when I removed the Gulf arab reference I used, I was allowed to publish it freely, I couldn’t find it I’m the list of (un)reliable sources, I might have been flying across the list too quickly, but TL:DR: is Gulf Arab news a non-reliable source? Cometkeiko (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cometkeiko: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard would likely be a more appropriate place to post this query; you'll get better community input there for this particular matter. Left guide (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Cometkeiko. In 2015, it apparently was not: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_198#Gulf_News_Journal. It doesn't look as if things had got any better in 2021: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_341#UAE_news_outlets:_Gulf_News_and_thenationalnews.com. --ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Non-ECP user making a page subject to ECP restrictions

Hello - pardon me if this is the incorrect place. The 2024 Ma'ale Adumim attack page was recently created by a user who lacks ECP, however, the event appears significant and the article is referenced. I've fixed ref errors & map LUA errors on the page, though I'm not sure how to proceed further on this. Should the page be speedily deleted, PROD'd, or sent to AfD? Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 21:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant ECR, not ECP. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 21:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

NEVERMIND! Liz to the rescue. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 21:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Minor edits

What exactly qualifies (or doessn't) as a "minor edit" when editing an article? For example, if just one or two sentences are replaced in order to eliminate an unsourced conjecture, or a single citation is inserted to support an existing text, is that major or minor?

This arises because Wikipedia asks whether an edit is "minor". I don't know how this designation is used, or how crucial it is. Johsebb (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Johsebb WP:Minor edits would be a helpful page for you to look at. To sum it up, it's generally used for small changes such as typo correction, table fixes, or simple formatting. Edits to not be marked as a minor edit would be adding or removing content, or adding and removing templates. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 21:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Many editors never mark edits as minor unless they're semi-automated. Frankly, for other editors invested in an article, it's much more desirable to skim through 30 tiny edits they don't care about than miss one they did because it was marked as minor. Remsense诉 22:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)