Wikipedia:Teahouse

Eman235, 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

Merge pages

Hi. I don't edit WP much these days, so I forgot where to post this. Loop (education) and Looping (education) look like the same thing and should be merged. Shall I just make one a redirect of the other, and smush all the content into it? Phacromallus (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

First of all, welcome back! - Secondly: One of the articles seems to be about teachers teaching the same class or not, and the other about students that skip a grade ahead. So, while unfortunately named, these are indeed different articles. JackTheSecond (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

JackTheSecond, which one do you think is about skipping a grade? Seems to me, they're both about the same thing. Maproom (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Unbelievable... 'my own biases' seems to be the answer to your question. Looking at it again, yes they absolutely should be merged. JackTheSecond (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I merged them, which was quite satisfying. I guess I did something wrong though, and imagine I'll be reverted soon. I believe Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log is the place to get other merge jobs. Phacromallus (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Phacromallus Nope, you're fine. The editor who reverted your move self-reverted themselves shortly after, and your merge stands. FeRDNYC (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Help Regarding Wikipedia Page Export

Hi. I am fine tuning an LLM and for that I need some wikipedia page texts. Basically, that is going to be an environmentalist type of LLM, having expert knowledge on environment and environment conservation. I exported pages from certain categories from Special:Export. But, it came as an XML file, and doesn't contain only the page title and the page text, which is as I want as the dataset for fine tuning. I would be highly elated if someone could help me out in this. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 07:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Itcouldbepossible. Can you use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example_(album)?useskin=apioutput? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunterThanks for your help sir. But how can I extract the page text, like automatically, and for a number of pages? Since the categories I have choosen has quite a large number of pages inside them. Should I use Wikipedia API for parsing the pages? But I don't find a way to get the page text and put it into a dataset for training. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 09:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: I was merely asking whether you had tools to use a link of that form. I guess the answer is no. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Umm..actually the answer is no. I was thinking about how can I make a way through to get the text out of the API. Maybe, I need to go for asking ChatGPT Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 04:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you can, and should, use the API to retrieve page text from the site in a programmatic fashion. Quoting from mw:API:Get the contents of a page:

There are three main methods for retrieving page content via the API:

1. Get the contents of a page using the Revisions API (as wikitext).
2. Get the contents of a page using the Parse API (as HTML or wikitext).
3. Get plain text or limited HTML extracts of a page using the API of the TextExtracts extension.

Additional detail is found on the rest of that page. The API allows you to specify the format of any results it returns to you, per-request. The default response format is json which tends to be appropriate for most purposes. FeRDNYC (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

API requests are very comprehensible, BTW, Itcouldbepossible. For example, the "Parse" API request URL for the content of Pet door (the standard example article used in the documentation, #ForSomeReason) is simply this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=parse&format=json&page=Pet%20door&formatversion=2

And a formatted dump of the JSON object returned by that query can be seen by loading it into the API Sandbox, like so. The value of parse.text is a string containing the article's parsed-and-rendered HTML. (Just the article, no site chrome.) FeRDNYC (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, be sure to read mw:API:Etiquette before undertaking any meaningful use of the API. (There isn't really much etiquette that applies when screwing around with one-off sandbox queries.) FeRDNYC (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

MEDIUM.com

Is Medium not a reliable source? LarryKaz (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

No. It's a blogging platform, and user-generated platforms are not considered reliable. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDIUM. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 19:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. LarryKaz (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Rio Grande 223 Editing Advice

Hi, another editor and I have had a disagreement over the editing direction for the Rio Grande 223 article; and a recent user on the talk page suggested we come to the Teahouse to request guidance in the matter. We have had a pretty lengthy debate on the talk page, but to summarize it we have very different ideas on what belongs in the article and have so far failed to reach consensus. Any guidance would be appreciate. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I will start off by summarizing a question that I usually ask when two or more editors at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard have an article content dispute. The purpose of any discussion of article content is to improve the encyclopedia. So I will usually ask each editor what specifically they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Identifying exactly what you want to change can be constructive.

Second, having taken one look at the article, which was not a detailed review, it is my initial opinion that some of the material, about the importance of railroads in the economic development of the Western United States, should be in the encyclopedia, but should not be in the article on the Rio Grande 223. I didn't review it in sufficient depth to have a recommendation as to where it should be discussed, or whether it is discussed. So there is an issue of off-topic content.

Third, you might try asking for an additional view at the talk page of an appropriate WikiProject. I haven't yet looked to see which one would be most likely to help. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

That concern over the economic history of the railroad being off topic is my primary concern with the article, particularly since I also have doubts about the historical accuracy of many of the sources used. I also feel like the photographs of similar (but not the same) locomotives is similarly off topic. I would point to my last revision as to how I expressed my ideas on the article more fully. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rio_Grande_223&oldid=1213584305 Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Xboxtravis7992 There have already been two dispute resolution attempts. I doubt a third will achieve anything. Neither of you appear right or wrong from my perspective. Frankly, I feel whichever of you decides to let this go first is the real winner here. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Xboxtravis7992, I disagree with MaxnaCarta's "both sides" assessment and agree with much of what Robert McClenon has to say. As the main author of a comparable article about an individual locomotive, Sierra No. 3, I have opinions on the dispute that are rooted in Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines, and have offered my assessment at Talk: Rio Grande 223. I agree with several other editors who have offered similar assessments there. Cullen328 (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I will certainly be delighted to have this matter resolved. Xboxtravis7992 and I have a fundamental disagreement, that we have debated at length on the talk page. We have reached an impasse.

He has erased the ENTIRE section on the engine's historical significance 5 times now (February 16, February 28, March 9, March 13, and now again on March 20), using one spurious pretext or another.

For example, he questions the accuracy of a couple sources, such as Lucius Beebe, then erases the whole section. This, despite the fact that the section has multiple sources, and most of the text is widely accepted historical fact that shouldn't need citations to begin with. The historical significance section is only six short paragraphs long, but has 48 citations!

I would like to think that is adequate.

Xboxtravis7992 doesn't even challenge the accuracy of the text. He just attacks a couple sources, then erases the whole section.

This is not good-faith editing.

Xboxtravis7992 says that the section describing the engine's historical significance is "fluff," "extraneous," "bloat" and "trivial." I disagree.

The engine IS historically significant. That’s why it deserves an article in Wikipedia.

D&RG 223 was built in 1881, and represents the most important period in D&RG history. This was the time of the D&RG’s explosive growth, and this dramatically transformed the region’s economy and dramatically increased its population. The railroad placed its largest order for locomotives ever (Class 60, C-16), and this was also the largest order for three-foot-gauge engines that Baldwin Locomotive Works had ever received. D&RG 223 was one of this huge class of engines (Class 60, C-16), and is one of only three of them still surviving. D&RG 223 is the embodiment of what author Robert Le Massena called the D&RG’s time of “glory.”

Is that not significant? Is that not relevant to the article?

The bottom line is this: Xboxtravis7992 doesn't want the "Rio Grande 223" article to contain a section on the historical significance of the engine. I do.

By his reasoning, the Wikipedia article on the "Titanic" should only contain information on its mechanical features and the route it took, and nothing about its historical significance.

That is the issue - should this article contain a section on the historical significance of the engine, or not? I hope that neutral editors/administrators will review the article and read the comments about it on the Talk page. DTParker1000 (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@DTParker1000, I will note that five other editors have commented on the article talk page, besides you and Xboxtravis7992. The fact that you are still framing this as a disagreement between the two of you and asking for "neutral editors" to review suggests that you have not read or understood the comments of the other editors. As I read it, five neutral editors have already commented, and none agree with what you want to add to the article. I suggest that you review the other editors' comments and continue the discussion on the talk page. CodeTalker (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I have made several modifications to the text, and shortened the length of the section, in response to the comments from the other editors.

I have also made changes in response to Xboxtravis7992's comments.

The other editors seem satisfied. Only Xboxtravis7992 is not.

Xboxtravis7992 wishes to eliminate the section on the engine's historic significance. I do not.

DTParker1000 (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User:DTParker1000 - One of the rules for content mediation is "Comment on content, not contributors". It is also restated as "Discuss edits, not editors". Sometimes I state it in both forms because it often needs repeating. You are mostly talking about another editor. It shouldn't be necessary to identify the editor with whom you disagree if your disagreement is about content, and it appears that it is about content, but that you are personalizing it unnecessarily. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The key issues I have with the continued edits is primarily an issue of WP:Scope. I am insistent on removing the segment on "The Period of the D&RGW 223's Greatest Significance" for it broadening the scope of the article beyond 223. In my opinion it adds nothing to the history of the engine, and distracts from the subject at hand and fails to meet the WP:Concise guidelines.

As I and User:Cullen328 both pointed out on the talk page, the citations in "The Period of the D&RGW 223's Greatest Significance" fail to pass criteria for WP:Reliable Sources. The title of the segment itself is a violation of WP:PG "Content" for it's use of opinion and platitudes. The title of the section is also a logical fallacy as the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad would exist until the 1920's meaning that during the period described in the section 223 would not have been "D&RGW" 223.

The additions to the page also violate the rule for WP:No Original Research particular with the claims of how 223 should be restored visually to represent it's as built appearance. The revised edit made by DTParker1000 replaced this with WP:CREEP, instructing the reader on how Ogden needs to "chose a proper appearance for 223 when restored." This ties into the author's comments elsewhere on social media such as on the Facebook group "Save Ogden Union Station!" and "Railroads of the San Juan Mountains" where he further espouses the opinion of restoring 223 to it's as built appearance to be the best choice for restoration of the locomotive. Ultimately I believe the author is repeatedly editing Wikipedia articles to support his claims on railroad history on other social media sites, a clear violation of WP:NPOV rules.

I am passionate about this page, and it is why I have been so bold to remove "The Period of D&RGW 223's Greatest Significance" again and again. I think of this quote from WP:CIR requirements, "a mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up" I feel sums up this whole matter and even if intended to be in good faith, the repeated edits to the 223 page a mess they have made. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it worth changing this citation format?

In the article The King and the Beggar-maid there are several inline citations. I have the information to change the Agatha Christie entry to a <ref> </ref> footnote for a different edition of the book listed. I believe that this would be the favored style. I do not as of yet have enough information to confidently change the other inline citations. Is this piecemeal work encouraged or should it wait until all the references can be updated? Oldsilenus (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Oldsilenus: You should use the citation style already in the article. See WP:CITEVAR RudolfRed (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I thank you and will leave this alone. It is interesting that someone else responded that it SHOULD be changed. I believe the page that you cited has priority. Alas, when I first read the article while reading Christie's book, I did not notice that multiple works were cited using the same style. As usual "Haste makes waste." Oldsilenus (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Oldsilenus Thing is, though, that article already uses a mix of various citation styles, which complicates the following of that simple advice. So as an addendum to what @RudolfRed wrote above, your other source was correct that you SHOULD change parenthetical references (which some of the cites in that article are) to a footnoted format. Wikipedia no longer uses parenthetical references, and they're no longer a valid "existing citation style" to continue emulating in any article. FeRDNYC (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and to respond specifically to your question, if you have information to convert one parenthetical reference to a citation template <ref>...</ref> tag, then convert that one reference. Any and all work to migrate away from parenthetical references, even piecemeal, is appreciated and encouraged. FeRDNYC (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Notability

What if a notable person from old time like 60s, 80s era doesn't have online references such as news articles or media reports and have only Offline nwespaper references, then what should i cite on wiki articles? TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome TheSlumPanda. Sources do not need to be online; if a source is not online, you need to provide enough information for someone to be able to locate it in order to verify its content. WP:OFFLINE provides some information about this. Please also see Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

If you can get access, try newspaper archives like ProQuest. archive.org may be of help:[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend checking out WP:LIBRARY where you can get free access to online newspaper archives. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

That's about 6 months away though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

But some old Indian newspapers are not archived like Dainik Bhaskar and patrika, what about those ? TheSlumPanda (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Read the pages that 331dot linked for you above. As long as the newspaper name, publication date, page number, article title and the article writer's name where credited are known, it can be used – if you don't have these details, how can you be sure what it says in the first place?

An online link to an archive copy is 'nice to have', but not a requirement. As long as some copy exists somewhere, perhaps in the National Library of India or the British Library, that in theory a reader could visit and consult, the source is usable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

User Preferences - 12 Hour Time Format

Hi everyone, I was changing some settings for my account under the appearance section and set my preferred date/time format. All the options are only in a 24 hour format however, and I personally like the 12 hour format. Does wikipedia have an option for this? Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering Haris00911 (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Haris00911: I suggest you asking the question on WP:Village Pump (Technical), maybe they can help. Teahouse is more about asking questions related to editing on English Wikipedia. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 09:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me in the right direction, appreciate it:) Haris00911 (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe Wikipedia does have any 12-hour time format options in its preferences; all times referenced on-wiki (edit timestamps, etc.) should always be in UTC time, which is 24-hour. But, activating the "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time" tool (in Gadgets > Appearance) will cause converted local times to be displayed in 12-hour format, if your timezone is in a 12-hour-clock locale. FeRDNYC (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

viewing full width of graphics

Hey folks. I'm frustrated that I'm not able to see the full width of certain graphics, such as List of English monarchs#Timeline. Such graphics are often cut off on the right side, and I haven't been able to figure out how to see the whole thing. I've tried going into my preferences and trying different skins, but I can't find a view mode that solves the problem. Is there a way I can see such graphics at full width?

Thanks. Yesthatbruce (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Yesthatbruce: You haven't said what device and software you are using to view Wikipedia. On the article you mentioned above, I can scroll the image left and right in my Chrome desktop browser to view hidden parts of it; I can also right-click the timeline image and open it in a new tab, where I can magnify or reduce it as I need. I can't do the same on the Wikipedia app on my phone, though. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and very helpful reply. I hadn't tried the right-click/open in new tab trick; that seems to do the trick. Cheers. Yesthatbruce (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Yesthatbruce: You still haven't named your browser or device. In all four tested Windows browsers I see a working horizontal scrollbar right below the box with graphics (not at the bottom of the window). If I click the heading to the grahpics or the narrow whitespace right above or below the box then I can also use keyboard arrows to scroll in all four. In three of them I can also click the graphic itself but not in Firefox. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I want to show my photographs around here

I want to show my photographies here 41.121.49.46 (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

That's great! If you'd like, you could upload some of your photos to Wikimedia Commons (see WP:COMMONS for more info) CanonNi (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

This depends on what you mean- if you have photographs pertinent to articles, yes, please upload them if you are willing to release them for use for any purpose with attribution. If you just want to display your photography somewhere, that's not what Wikipedia is for. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

IP editor. Note that while the English Wikipedia allows editing without an account, you must create an account to upload to Commons. See c:Commons:First_steps/Uploading_files Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Can #Redirect be used (intelligently!) with templates

I was trying to add a talk header template Template:WikiProject Arabic to talk page of a relevant article, but to my surprise that template doesn't exist. Suppressing the shoot-first reaction to just create the template (because there is a WP:WikiProject Arabic), I thought maybe I should investigate further. And yes, there is a relevant header template: Template:WikiProject Arab World (which I have added to the talk page in question). WP:WikiProject Arabic is a sub-project of WP:WikiProject Arab World.

Which leads to my question: could I (should I!) create a Template:WikiProject Arabic that contains only a #Redirect to Template:WikiProject Arab World. Would that work and would it create more or less problems than it solves? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Technical note: the actual template is Template:WikiProject Arab world not Template:WikiProject Arab World (note underlined capitalization difference. A redirect to a template usually works seemlessly as usual for redirects and for templates, but a redirect to a redirect (a "double redirect") does not ever work (see Wikipedia:Double redirects). DMacks (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Note also that a merge of WP:WikiProject Arabic and WP:WikiProject Arab World is flagged as having been proposed, though weirdly the merge banner notice only appears on one of the two pages. (The merge proposal didn't generate much discussion, but nobody was opposed to it...) FeRDNYC (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

While technically creating a template redirect would work, it would be kind of pointless because the template content would still be the same. Which means you could use the real template name to transclude it. Unlike with encyclopedia terms, there's no real advantage to being able to type {{WikiProject Arabic}} instead of {{WikiProject Arab world}}, when they'll both label a page as being "within the scope of WikiProject Arab world". That's just likely to create confusion. Unless there's unique template content there, it's probably better to template projects by their real name. (This is different from redirects to create convenience aliases, like {{tqb}} which redirects to {{talk quote box}}.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeRDNYC (talk • contribs) 19:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Well first I did actually use a lower-case ⟨w⟩ at Talk:Arabic typography, though more by good luck than positive choice, I suspect.

If a merge is on the cards, I'll stand back and let it happen when it does, as my interest is in typography and typefaces rather than Arabic. Thank you all. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@JMF: If a merge is on the cards I mean, that's not how I'd phrase it. A merge was proposed something like three years ago, discussed very briefly between roughly two Wikipedians, and then never brought up again. "Stalled" seems like an inadequate term for the current state of said proposed merge. FeRDNYC (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I oppose the redirect as long as the WikiProjects are not merged and Wikipedia:WikiProject Arabic is active (not closed). Template:WikiProject Arabic is a perfect name match to Wikipedia:WikiProject Arabic so users will expect the template to be for that WikiProject. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter pretty much sums up my view as well. If there's going to be a template at that name, it shouldn't be [a redirect to] some other template for something else. FeRDNYC (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Replace picture

I was trying to edit a wiki page by removing a picture and replacing it with another one and all I seem to have done is remove the picture. I am having trouble replacing the picture with the new one. Can someone help me, possibly step by step to do this? Sandyiego23 (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sandyiego23 Your edit history doesn't show any recent saved edits, so I assume you realised your mistake on preview. help is to be found at H:PICTURES but if that isn't enough, please come back with more details, including the name of the article you are trying to edit and the filename you want to swap to. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Sandyiego23, and welcome to the Teahouse. What I suspect you may be trying to do is to add a picture directly from outside Wikipedia.

You cannot do that: you must first upload the picture either to Wikipedia or (preferably) to Wikimedia commons, and then add it to any article. But note that you must make sure that you are not infringing copyright - which is more tricky than most people realise. ColinFine (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

It must have saved something since the incorrect picture is now missing. I would like to add the picture that I uploaded to Wikipedia commons. The website is Jose Aniceto Iznaga Borrell and the picture is of my great, great grandfather who died in 1860. The file name of the picture is Jose_Aniceto_Iznaga or Jose_Aniceto_Iznaga.jpeg

I am sorry for the multiple messages.

Thank you for your help. Sandyiego23 (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah. You edited Spanish Wikipedia: es:José Aniceto Iznaga Borrell. This is the Teahouse for the English Wikipedia, which is entirely separate. The picture you removed was File:José Aniceto Iznaga Borrell.jpg. I can't find a picture called 'Jose_Aniceto_Iznaga.jpeg' but there is File:Jose Aniceto Iznaga.jpg (note the different file extension) that you uploaded. I presume that was what you were trying to replace it with. ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is the file. I'm really making a muddle of this.  :>) Can you direct me to the right department to edit Spanish Wikipedia? Thank you Sandyiego23 (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sandyiego23, the Spanish Wikipedia's help desk seems to be here, if that's what you're looking for. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. Unfortunately it is in Spanish and I can't read it. Since I only want to replace, well now it's add, a picture, wouldn't it be the same as it would be in English? Can you give me a hint on what I am doing wrong? Sandyiego23 (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sandyiego23 Go to the article in the Spanish Wikipedia and use the source editor. You'll see a line saying | imagen = Jose Aniceto Iznaga.jpeg. Edit out the current filename and put in the new name (i.e. Jose Aniceto Iznaga.jpg). The only difference is that your file is a .jpg, not a .jpeg. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I just did it and it worked. Can't begin to tell you how grateful I am. Thank you. THANK YOU  !! Sandyiego23 (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sandyiego23: You didn't do quite as suggested. I have done it now.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the link to the picture. Since it had previously been there with the incorrect picture, I thought it belonged there. It looks so much better. Again, thank you. Sandyiego23 (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Can I use Apple Music as a source for discography?

Or is it essential to find a link for the original label? Rosuacamus (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

For entries in a discography, it's often sufficient to cite the works themselves as (primary) sources — meaning, the album/single/etc. releases. That they're obtained through Apple Music, or any other service, is as irrelevant as citing Virgin Records because you bought a CD there. But web links are not the only type of valid citation. (See {{Cite AV media}}, {{Cite AV media notes}}, and friends.)

OTOH, if you want to just copy an artist's entire discography wholesale from Apple Music, that probably isn't a reliable source, considering the selection of works they have available is completely arbitrary and sales-driven, rather than data-driven. FeRDNYC (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Is this okay?

Kim, Julian (2019). Italiana (Full Album). Julian Jootaek Kim, Youngmin Lee, Jongho Park. Korea: Decca Records, Universal Music Group. Registered No 776.

By 'full album', I meant a CD album with 15 songs. Rosuacamus (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rosuacamus It's a good start. The documentation of all the Citation Style 1 templates (of which {{Cite AV media notes}} is one) is very comprehensive, if a bit overwhelming at times — it's worth referring to when filling out those templates. (That previous link in this comment leads to the template's docs page.) Heck, I'm doing it when writing this response — not like I can remember all of those details, myself.

So, as I said, it's a start, but could use some adjustments. Specifically:

• The |others= value should only be wikilinked (surrounded by [[...]]) if there is or is soon likely to be a corresponding article with that title. We have an article for The Beatles, so they get entered as [[The Beatles]]. But there will never be an article titled "Julian Jootaek Kim, Youngmin Lee, Jongho Park" (maybe three separate articles, but not one with that entire title), so that shouldn't be in brackets. Just |others=Julian Jootaek Kim, Youngmin Lee, Jongho Park
• Speaking of |others=, since Julian Jootaek Kim is being listed as the author (using |first= and |last=, there's no reason to duplicate his name in the |others= list.
• |first= and |last= both support multiple words, BTW. If the artist's name is Julian Jootaek Kim, there's no reason to force it down to "Julian Kim" in the author fields. I'd go with |first=Julian Jootaek |last=Kim personally.
• The page you linked to only seems to support |publisher=Decca Records. Universal may be involved (perhaps as a distributor?), but as that's not supported by the citation better to leave it out. Also, since we do have a Decca Records article, that publisher field can even be |publisher=[[Decca Records]] and it'll link to that article.
• The |type= field is for the type of media being referenced — meaning, if you're using {{Cite AV media notes}}, the type of notes, not the type of recording/release. The examples in the documentation are all |type=booklet, but |type=none is documented as supported too. |type=Full Album wouldn't be appropriate because (a) the template docs say Format in sentence case, meaning it'd be |type=Full album, and (b) if you're citing the album itself (not its notes), then you'd want to be using {{Cite AV media}} instead.
  Point is, Defaults to Media notes., which sounds perfectly appropriate for your use. Personally I'd leave it blank (|type=) or else fill in |type=none explicitly.
• That |id= field gives me pause, somewhat. Like |type= it's not really a free-form field, as it's intended to hold the publisher's catalog number for the work. It's entirely possible |id=Registered No 776 is 100% correct; that would hardly be the strangest catalog number I've ever seen. It's also possible it should be just |id=776.Guess I'm just suggesting a double-check on what's there, but it's not critical or even very important, really.

FeRDNYC (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Goodness, you are the GREATEST!

Kim, Julian Jootaek (2019). Italiana (CD) (in Korean and Italian). Korea: Decca Records.

Would this be good enough? Thanks a million! Rosuacamus (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Rosuacamus! And if anything needs tweaking, other editors are likely to notice and pitch in. Getting the information into the article at all is far more important than getting the formatting precisely correct. The best thing about available data is, it's the only type that can be improved upon after-the-fact. FeRDNYC (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I am awfully grateful! I think I know how things are going. After collecting all the references, I will post a draft. I see a lot of articles that do not seem to meet the Wikipedia standards. It's better to be thorough! Rosuacamus (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I see a lot of articles that do not seem to meet the Wikipedia standards. In general, yes. There are two primary reasons for that:

1. Just as a general concept, "Wikipedia standards" have been on a constant upward trajectory. Many, many of the older articles would be considered severely lacking, by today's standards.
2. That's OK because, while there are some minimal standards of acceptance (like the General Notability Guideline for determining whether a subject is sufficient to merit an article at all), the majority of Wikipedia's standards are standards of excellence — lofty ideals to strive towards, not minimum criteria to meet

.

It's expected that the vast majority of articles will come up short of our highest standards, and much of the community's work is performed in the service of inching, article by article, ever so slightly nearer to meeting them. (The articles that get within spitting distance, we laud as Good Articles or even Featured Articles. Even those aren't perfect, they're just minimally im-perfect relative to everything else.)

The perfect article does not exist (contrary to that article's claims), but that's OK because perfection is not required. FeRDNYC (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It's better than nothing, I suppose. I will strive to meet the current standards. As a scientist, references are crucial for people like myself. Thank you so much! Rosuacamus (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Need help

I had created a draft article named Draft:Sandeep Anand and I need help with editing this draft article to make it into main article. Anybody can help me in editing this article. Please edit this article and make it into main article. KungfuPanda2008 (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The Times of India is not considered to be a reliable independent source. See WP:TOI. Theroadislong (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

KungfuPanda2008, according to Reliable sources/Perennial sources, the Times of India is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage. This is especially true of their coverage of Bollywood and the entertainment industry in India more broadly. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

In addition to not using Times of India, 7 of the 8 refs confirm he was in one TV show. What you need is references to published content about him. David notMD (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @KungfuPanda2008, as noted Times of India is not a reliable source, and thus cannot establish notability. Maybe you can use it for basic, factual information but nothing contentious. I would suggest looking for some better sources, WP:RSP could help you out. David notMD also gave good advice. TLA^tlak 09:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop a good place to request transit maps?

Is Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop a good place to request transit maps? I'm in need of a better map for the article on this cancelled rail project in Montreal. I've just found out about the map workshop, which seems perfect except I see no transit maps being requested there. I'm wondering if there's another workshop specifically for transit maps that I'm missing. WikiFouf (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@WikiFouf: Yes, it is good for that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I need help validating this page about a Central American cultural magazine.

I need help. We've added all the references from the articles and the website, but we are still not validated.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/(Casi)_literal 2803:D100:9918:ED:4B1:788F:DF7:FF53 (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

That link is to an article on the Spanish Wikipedia. We here are the English Wikipedia, and have no specific information about or influence over what happens on that other site. You'll have to ask there for assistance. DMacks (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Question about talk page

On Germany–Kurdistan Region relations I want to start a talk in the talk page, but I’m iPhone and don’t see the option to do so, there are no subjects in the talk page and I’m guessing that’s why I don’t have a option to start one? So if there’s no button to start a talk as usual then how do I do it if I’m on iPhone? Bobisland (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Bobisland, Talk:Germany–Kurdistan Region relations already exists, although nobody has yet written any text on it. I know next to nothing about using a phone for editing Wikipedia and therefore can't comment on the elusiveness of the talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

On my phone there is no blue add topic button which is usually there, but for other talk pages with topics the blue button is there Bobisland (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I assume you're working in the iPhone app - I'm seeing the blue add topic button in mine. Might need an update or refresh. Have you tried opening it in your phone browser and editing the source from there? Wow Mollu (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I have the same issue when editing in mobile view (through a mobile browser, not the iPhone app). It's also happening at Talk:1st Cavalry Division (Wehrmacht). I tried adding a talk page header but that didn't affect it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeing a way to add a topic in the mobile browser as well. Across the top, right under "Talk:Germany–Kurdistan Region relations" I see a row of tab-like options: Article, Talk, Read, Edit, Add topic, View history, Tools. Are you seeing any of that? Wow Mollu (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

No I’m just using the browser I can just wait until I have access to a pc if no one knows as I don’t know how to start a topic without the blue button Bobisland (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you see the row directly under "Talk:Germany–Kurdistan Region relations"? Article, Talk, Read, Edit, Add topic, View history, Tools. If you click Add topic, if will allow you to add one. Wow Mollu (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

No but I found out how on my phone there is a text that says to learn more about the page and when I press it a pop up box with info and the option to start a new topic shows up thanks for the help Bobisland (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

How

How do you add a note Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

What eo you mean by a note? (and which article). The Talk page (see tab at upper left) is a place to start a discussion if you disagree with something in the article and want to leave a note. David notMD (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a footnote is What í meant Blackmamba31248 (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Á note like after a refrence Blackmamba31248 (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Á note like after a refrence Blackmamba31248 (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Or do you perhaps mean a reference (looking rather like a footnote)? Or an actual ("content") footnote (as opposed to a regular reference)? -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request service – no requests

Hello! I signed my name on a few sections of the Wikipedia:Feedback request service, maybe 6ish months ago, can't recall. I haven't gotten a single request yet, which seems very odd based on the talk pages of others on the lists, who all have a few recent ones. Am I missing something obvious? I just wanna give feedback! Thanks for any help. Wow Mollu (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wow Mollu signed my name on a few sections Nope. Exactly two, "Language and linguistics" and "Media, the arts, and architecture".

Regardless, discussion at User talk:Naypta#Yapperbot_RfC_messages indicates that Yapperbot, the service responsible for making the Feedback Request System "go", is currently not functioning, and was delivering only a small fraction of "requested requests" throughout the parts of 2023 when it was functioning. Additional threads there and at Wikipedia talk:Feedback request service may provide additional info. But, long and short: "It's not just you". FeRDNYC (talk) 07:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for those leads! I asked Naypta, too, just to see. Yes, I did see the issues about Yapperbot being down for a while, but seems to be up and pretty active since Feb 20. Everybody else I’ve poked into on my two lists has gotten 2-3 talk page notifications from the bot since then, when I haven’t received any, even before it went down in Dec, or since. If it was on-and-off, I’d figure it’s that bot malfunction, but it’s always completely dead for me, which makes me think I have an additional issue (mistake or bug). Wow Mollu (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Citing noticeboard

Hi, I noticed that Merrion Street Gardens cites an image of a noticeboard which is on display in the gardens. I imagine that is decent as a primary source but what is the proper way to format that citation? -- D'n'B-t -- 07:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, DandelionAndBurdock. I suggest Template:Cite sign, but I also recommend that you try to find more conventional sources to cite as well. Many editors would doubt the notability of a topic referenced only to a sign. Cullen328 (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply Cullen328, that looks just like what I was looking for. And I will certainly seek out more sources when I get round to improving that article (for time being I've tagged it as been one-sourced). ---- D'n'B-t -- 08:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

DandelionAndBurdock, happy to be of assistance. Cullen328 (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

How to get my pages to be accepted on Wikipedia

Hi everyone,

I kindly request assistance with publishing the draft Wikipedia page for EBC Financial Group at Draft:EBC Financial Group. Currently, the page is in draft status, and my Wikipedia username is Mitsubishi2. I'm uncertain about which specific Wikipedia rules I may be violating with this draft. Your help in identifying and rectifying any issues would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you. Mitsubishi2 (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I would first ask you if you work for this company or are otherwise associated with it. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

This is my first article. I am using a Forex trading platform and attempting to publish it. Mitsubishi2 (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Mitsubishi2, it might be worth taking a look at similar pages (other social trading platforms or investment companies) to make sure your tone is fine for Wikipedia, because right now it is written too promotionally. However, the feedback reviewer DoubleGrazing gave seems to be useful. It is also worth taking a look at the concerns addresses in the decline reason. TLA^tlak 09:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Tupac page edit request

Hi, I would like to edit Tupac's page because I have many professional sources, I won't vandalize it. David Tornheim send me Pier1999 (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Previous Response copied from: Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse#Tupac_page_edit_request (permalink) at 10:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

START

I did indeed. Pier1999 indeed has shown an interesting in improving Tupac Shakur by providing WP:RS ([3], [4], [5], [6]) that s/he thinks should be used to justify adding content. I agree that most, if not all, the WP:RS is relevant and that the content is appropriate--although I do not know yet about any specific proposed edit(s). I would like to give this editor an opportunity for a WP:BOLD edit following WP:BRD, which I explained on the talk page. Is there a way to enable editing privs for that page for this editor? --David Tornheim (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Pier1999 It looks like the page protection for editing for Tupak Shakur is "Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access (no expiry set)". If I read WP:AUTOCONFIRM all you need is 10 edits and 4 days of editing. So you may not need any special privs to make changes once you have reached those two requirements. But maybe an admin with authorize you before that.

To anyone responding: Is this the right place to request? --David Tornheim (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

END
--David Tornheim (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

All that is needed is patience. User:Pier1999's first edit was on 19 March, so meets the 4 days requirement to edit semi-protected articles late Saturday or Sunday. Pier1999 has already participated in a discussion of what is intended to edit at Talk:Tupac Shakur. The next step - BOLD - is to add text and reliable source references to the article and find out if other editors agree or disagree with the addition. David notMD (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Ought wholesale copy-paste from page to page be undone?

Eg Fakhr al-Din al-Razi#Hypothetical concept of multiple universes seems to have been almost wholesale duplicated onto Cosmology in medieval Islam#Possible worlds. What is to be done now? FatalSubjectivities (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

FatalSubjectivities, the standard advice is at WP:RIA. In this case, it does not matter because the text was added to both articles by the same editor. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Bio box

Hello. Yknow those boxes on the about section in your profile that says what you like and what you don't like? Yeah, how to I get that? Thanks regardless. Usernamejustbecause (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Usernamejustbecause, welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:Userboxes and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Draft?

If an article has a link to a not yet an existing page but has a draft, should I redirect the link to the draft or wait until the draft is published as an article? CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine. Articles should never link to drafts and most drafts are never accepted. Valid options include to keep a link to a non-existing article, remove the link, change the link to point to an article mentioning the subject, or create a redirect to such an article and link the redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Need help with my signature

For some reason my signature has defaulted to normal. This is the code: TLA^tlak

But in the signature change section of the preferences, I'm getting a message saying:

Your signature contains invalid or deprecated HTML syntax: ⧼linterror-night-mode-unaware-background-color⧽:

I am no expert in HTML so I'm not sure what's wrong, could anyone help? Thanks. I'm tla (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @I'm tla, make sure that every opening tags has a closing tag for example

(<span> must end with </span>) even the self closing tag (<br>) shouldn't be written that way but this way instead (<br/>) ensure to follow this rule else you will keep getting the same error message by the preference, html may be sometime dynamic and may allows some mistakes which will be fixed by the browser, but your wiki-preference allows no mistake, hence every syntax must be accurate.

I hope this helps you, and if you got more question then I'm here to assist you.
Thisasia  (Talk)
17:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thank you. For some reason it just fixed itself, but I'm going to save this down in case I need it in the future. TLA^tlak 12:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@I'm tla: You also need to make sure your signature complies with WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Your username is I'm TLA, but your signature suggests it's simply TLA, which is incorrect. Bazza 7 (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

An RFC [7] was closed in 2021 with consensus that signatures don't have to match usernames in their entirety. WP:CUSTOMSIG/P only states that "It is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents." Unless consensus has changed since then, and there's another RfC that I'm unaware of, their current signature is fine. miranda ^:3 18:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern Bazza, but I'm pretty sure there are some admins who don't have their signature reflect their exact username so I'm assuming it's fine, also according to what miranda noted. TLA^tlak 12:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@I'm tla: Your case may be a little different but see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Signature error. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems to have fixed itself, but noted, thanks. TLA^tlak 12:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Help with page

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu.

Hi, how do I fix my page? I don’t know what I did wrong Springfaerie (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Springfaerie: Welcome to the Teahouse. It seems you have already asked about Draft:Jackie Ho at the Articles for Creation help desk. Please wait for a response there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Need some help to new articles

Hello I have just had two new articles about footballers refused - Marius Kryger Lindh and Bjarki Nielsen - and I can not understand why. The references should be valid. RonTho (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @RonTho your message aren't very clear, but if you are having difficulties adding the reference on your project by the Auto citation, then i have addressed this issue @ line 47 of this page, but if this wasn't the problem you are talking about, then please try to elaborate more for readers better understanding.
Thisasia  (Talk) 18:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I got this message, and can not understand what and where the problem is.

Declining submission: athlete - Submission is about an athlete not yet shown to meet notability guidelines (AFCH) RonTho (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@KylieTastic, care to comment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@RonTho in general articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). In both cases your sources merely show that the subjects exist and are footballers. Each has a worldfootball.net basic stats listing, and a faroesoccer.com also basic stats listing that is also blocked from the UK and the US. As a person they can be shown to be notable by passing WP:NBASIC also see Wikipedia:Notability (sports) as listed from the decline notice, however we no longer have special criteria for football players. If any reliable sources have significant coverage on them please add and re-submit. Note, the sources do not have to be in English - Faroese and Danish articles are just as valid. Thanks for the ping Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Broken references

I want to edit information in a paragraph of an article. That paragraph contains links to broken references. Should I do anything with those references? I am unable to even ascertain what they contain. Mensch57 (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Which article? Broken like ? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Shelby Mustang

See paragraph starting with "Total production for 1966 was 1,373 fastbacks"

The end of that paragraph has references 10, 11 and 12. The links for 11 and 12 are broken. The magazines for 10 and 11 are available used and I have ordered them. But reference 12 is online only it appears. Mensch57 (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, the links are broken. Here's the process:

1. Go to the Wayback Machine and search for the URL. If the page hasn't been archived there, add {{dead link}} after the reference and mutter unhappily for a little while.
2. If the URL is there, add it to the reference in the parameter "archive URL" (archive-url), and the date it was archived in "archive date" (archive-date)

🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed it, but it's useful to know the steps for future reference. Here are the changes I made. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Deciding whether to nominate articles for deletion

I'm debating whether I should nominate these two articles for deletion: U.S. economic performance by presidential party and Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms. I have read WP:BEFORE and found the summary to be too succinct with a bunch of links to look at. If it had everything I need to know on one page, I feel I would be better informed on what to do about articles. I looked at the sources for each article and while I'm leaning towards not nominating these articles for deletion because a lot of reliable sources cover the economic performance of Democratic and Republican presidents and the jobs created by US presidents, but I am not sure that having an article comparing the economic performance of all Democratic and all Republican presidents is necessary. I am asking this because I am looking for a second opinion on what I should do. Interstellarity (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Interstellarity, I have not looked at either of these articles. However, some comments: (i) If a Wikipedia "project page" about something as complex as nomination for deletion had everything anybody would need to know, people would either complain about its length or just ignore it. (ii) I am not sure that having articles about, say, Star Wars trivia is necessary. No, that's too polite: I'm sure that it's not necessary. Ditto for articles about individual, forgettable albums about forgettable bands, as well as oodles more Wikipedia articles. (iii) Although you are of course under no obligation to specify your deletion rationale here, I note that you don't specify it. (I don't believe that "not necessary" is a reason for deletion.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

While article longevity is not a measure of merit, the fact that the first dates to 2020 and the second to 2004, each with many editors contributing, suggests that other editors believe there is value in these articles existing. Both also get more than 100 views per day. David notMD (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Sock puppet

Hello. I’m sorry if this is the wrong place to signal this, I’m not that familiar with en.wiki yet, sadly. I just want to signal that user:Magonz and user:DTMGO, mainly active on controversial subjects like genocide of indigenous peoples, in a trolling manner, are the same user (positive check user), did some horrible translations from en.wiki to fr.wiki (they probably do not speak French), and edited the same pages. Cheers.

PS: oh I’m an idiot. Just should have looked at the inter wikis, but I guess I’m too lazy… Sorry. Here you have it. Encyclopédisme (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Bonjour Encyclopédisme, et bienvenue à en-wiki. Normally the place to report suspected sockpuppets would be W:SPI; but if a Checkuser has already confirmed on another version, I would think you should go straight to WP:ANI. ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Links in boldface in the first sentence

Some Wikipedia articles, such as the Writers Guild of America Awards articles, may include links placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the first sentence of a lead that violate MOS:BOLDLINK. Is it right to remove each link from each boldface reiteration, or is it right to keep it as is? Abigbagel (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Abigbagel: The bold part of the lede in that article is not a link, so it is following the MOS MOS:BOLDTITLE RudolfRed (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I meant the 1st Writers Guild of America Awards article and the 2nd Writers Guild of America Awards and so on. These articles and the following articles each violate MOS:BOLDLINK. Abigbagel (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Abigbagel: I've removed the links on those two articles, with [[MOS:BOLDLINK]] in the edit summaries. Feel free to do so yourself for any other instances. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That is a good style-guide detail. But simply removing the link means readers lose the ability to find the parent-topic article. The "1st" and "2nd" editions of the awards should absolutely link to the awards article itself. The same guideline specifically tells us that. DMacks (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@DMacks, @Abigbagel: I've continued this discussion at Talk:1st Writers Guild of America Awards § Links in lead because it involved a specific article's content. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Some instances, such as this one, violate MOS:BOLDLINK in each succeeding article (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th...), so would it be better to edit all succeeding articles to fit with MOS:BOLDLINK? Abigbagel (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Consistency among the series of articles is a good goal. Please join us at the talkpage Bazza_7 mentioned, where we are hashing out the wording. DMacks (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

BLP Charles Haywood – citing the subjects own writing just to mention he wrote for them?

Regarding Charles Haywood, a user has continued to insert a paragraph of the subject's own writing for a few outlets, which reads: "Haywood has also published articles in a variety of conservative publications, including American Affairs, Chronicles Magazine,and The American Conservative" – and used these outlets as the citation. The sources are not being used to explain any of his views. It feels a bit WP:SOAPBOX-y to me... isn't it best to only mention he has written for outlets when a secondary source mentions it? E.g. in this Guardian piece it mentions he has written for the Claremont Institute, thus it seems more worthy of mention. I could be wrong, but what is best practice? Zenomonoz (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

isn't it best to only mention...when a secondary source mentions it? Yes, to avoid original research. WP:ABOUTSELF covers when a subject's own statements can be cited, but I doubt this situation is one of them. As for best practice, avoiding edit warring and opening a discussion on the article talk is probably wise. If that fails to produce an agreement, the steps at WP:DR are probably next. @Zenomonoz Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

adding new section to page

Hi, I'm been trying to decide if it'll be suitable to add a 'Looted Art' to the Yale University Art Gallery's to document when some of their South Asian objects were confiscated by Homeland Security in 2022, as well as its history of the having coins stolen from it in 1964. This idea is inspired by the Looted Art section in the page about the Met. Nefariousflyfly (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That seems suitable enough. Both the sources you linked to seem to be WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY, and WP:INDEPENDENT. Though I'd recommend finding at least a few more sources before adding anything substantial. (Also maybe add this archive link to the NYT article citation so people who don't have an account can read it.) — Toast for Teddy (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Formatting error help

On the article for Libs of TikTok, I tried to reformat how a citation was bundled, akin to how citations have been bundled in § Notes, but it seems to not have worked. It says it's missing a closing "</ref>", but I can't see where it's missing. Could someone please show me where I've messed up? — Toast for Teddy (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, fixed it. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Maps and places

If I were to make good 'building' article on wikipedia, what qualifies it? Another question is how do you add the the google maps thing when pinpointing the location? Thanks very much :) PeepeeDino (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @PeepeeDino, could you specify what you mean by a 'building article'? For your second question, you are probably referring to the OpenStreetMaps you see in articles, which can be made using templates in Wikipedia:Maplink. CanonNi (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

If you're wondering what would make a specific building worthy of an article, see Wikipedia:Notability. If you're looking specifically for advice on (or examples of) how to write a good-quality article about a notable building, I'd recommend consulting WikiProject Architecture. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Paragraph Formatting

Hello, all. I just wanted to ask a question about paragraph formatting. How do you exactly format a paragraph, and are there any exceptions? If these questions could be answered, that would be great. Wiki-wiki-waka-waka-1249 (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Wiki-wiki-waka-waka-1249, you can see MOS:PARA for details on how paragraphs are formatted on the English Wikipedia. CanonNi (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Working on a new concept - a new term

Hello Wikipedians!

I am working on a new concept, a new term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Syndicated_Development - as this is living and breathing new concept & old concept, I would welcome all of you to think how such a thinking would succeed in the future. So please let's revise this concept as we all see fit. This is just a seed. Anyone interested to get involved in evolving such concept? At some stage for sure I would like to arrive at a book, a crowsourced thinking, a crowdplan, but I am not a writer or have a huge following base :). I have researched this topic also with Claude 3 Opus, but he didn't find anything close to what I am thinking... Have a great day! Liviuolos (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Liviuolos: I know this is certainly not what you are hoping to hear, but that draft has no chance of being published on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's goal is simply to summarize what other sources have already said – it is not a platform which hosts new ideas. For an article about your concept to be published, other people would need to write about your concept themselves (without input from you), then the article would need to contain only material that could be found in those works, in summary style (not in essay form as the article currently is). I would suggest that spending any more effort on this draft will be a waste of your time, unfortunately. Tollens (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Tollens, what would you suggest to create such a collaborative effort? Which would be the right collaborative ideation platform? I have to start from somewhere :). Suggestions? Thanks! Liviuolos (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any collaborative non-fiction book-writing platforms. You might want to see if you can contact people who have written similar things (though I have no idea who those people might be). Tollens (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You might try contacting publishing companies that have published books on similar/related subjects to see if they might be interested in publishing a book by you on this concept. Your draft might, suitably restructured, form the basis of an outline for the book. Writing such a book would, of course, be a major undertaking for you. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.39.117 (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Your draft is original research and totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to be original research, only now it is original, but I want it to be collaborative research. :). A crowdsourced plan. Liviuolos (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Liviuolos Judging by your username and the name of the author of the "forthcoming book" mentioned in your draft, you are trying to use Wikipedia for promotion, which is forbidden by policy. After a time, when the book has been published and reviewed it may become wikinotable and someone may choose to write an article here about it: that should preferably not be you, the author. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

And I suspect that content in your draft is taken directly from your (copyright protected) book. Putting content in a Wikipedia article would mean that you surrender the use of your written work to everyone, for any use. I advise asking for deletion of the draft by putting Db-author inside double curly brackets {{ }} at the top. David notMD (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Nothing copyrighted as this is something I am working on, I am trying to promote a concept that is dynamic, to be changed by many people, so exactly, it doesn't have to be by myself, or my own opinion at the end. A concept that is developed by many is more valuable than something developed by someone. I would rather give this to the world and evolve it into something good :). It's not for me to make money, it's not for me to make myself known. My name can be removed after all. I want just to start an idea. Anyone interested can join in and change it. That is the beauty of an evolving concept.

I actually thought that Wikipedia is the place to do it because of this debating and liberty to change things by the others. Maybe I am wrong... Liviuolos (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Liviuolos: I'm afraid that you are wrong in that respect, as others have said above. Wikipedia is neither for debating nor for publishing new ideas (Please see WP:NOT).

As for copyright: whenever you publish material in Wikipedia, you are explicitly agreeing to license it under a licence that will allow anybody to freely reproduce, reuse, or alter it, as long as they attribute it and (if they change it) release it under a compatible licence. You are of course free to publish it subsequently in a book; but you will not then be able to revoke the licence you have already granted on the material.

That might be what you intend; but if for example you are intending to get your work published by a commercial publisher, they may not be happy that you and they will have no control over the copyright. ColinFine (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not interested in copyright, I am more thinking in a open source way. It's not about me. I am not interested so much in publishing, more in seeding a new idea, and like a tree it could grow into something really interesting, like a CrowdPlan, Crowd ideation platform, I have no clue.. Regarding a commercial publisher, maybe that's not the right approach. I would rather be a seeder than an author. So like in opensource, some projects start with an initial author, but end up in huge projects, some still stay with the original author forever. Liviuolos (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Liviuolos, I would think a blog would be an excellent way to expose your ideas and get collaborative comments from the public. Try Wordpress, Blogger, Medium, Tumblr, Drupal, or Joomla. More, at Category:Blog hosting services. Mathglot (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Mathglot (nice name BTW). Unfortunately it would take years to have reach. I don't have followers. Also, this would mean for me to adjust my thinking according to others. Instead I would like them to debate and establish the future thinking in a collaborative way. But you actually point out an important problem. We need something like Wikipedia, but for a new thinking, establishing the way of the future. So WikiFuture, WikiPlan or something similar, an ideation platform. Anyone knows an ideation global platform? Where things are done collaboratively? CrowdFuture / CrowdThinking ... thinking out loud...what about CrowdPlan? Liviuolos (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Liviuolos I don't think there are many "ideation global platforms," but I know a few like InnoCentive and OpenIDEO. You might want to check them out. Also, Wikipedia might not be the best place for this kind of information. Leoneix _(talk) 04:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Experienced Teahouse hosts have made clear that your draft has no potential to become a Wikipedia article. I again recommend you delete the draft and look toward social media and the publication (self publication?) of your book to promote your concept. I see you have posted the same content on your LinkedIn account. David notMD (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Policy on sources in linked article

Someone deleted text due to no source. However sources were in a linked article. Does wikipedia have a policy for this please? Hewer7 (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hewer7 Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Could you specify which page the deletion happened on? For general Wikipedia policy on sources, see WP:SOURCE. CanonNi (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The deletion was in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology on the section on Shockwave Cosmology. It was suggested that I should link the shockwave cosmology article to that page. I believe that page should mainly summarise a variety of non-standard cosmologies and that, where there is a linked page with sources, sources should not be needed on the non-standard cosmology page. I couldn't readily find a mention of such circumstances in WP:SOURCE. Hewer7 (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

A source needs to be present on all pages. If you wish to include a summary of Shockwave cosmology on Non-standard_cosmology, you can use {{main}}. CanonNi (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

where do you see the policy stating that sources are needed on every page. From the policy I see :"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." So this only states that material (not pages) must have sources - it does not state where the inline citations need to be placed. I believe that requiring sources on every page brings a number of problems: 1) it is onerous and inefficient and discourages linking relevant articles to pages: 2) the relevant article may include more sources, mentions of the article might only include one; 3) in a rapidly moving field such as cosmology sources may be updated in an article but be missed on linked pages. In any case it is easy for anyone to click on the link to see the article with all relevant sources. Hewer7 (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

"Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." in the section Responsibility for providing citations has made the issue very clear. CanonNi (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

How to try to change wikipedia policy

I wish to seek to change the wikipedia policy WP:SOURCE. Currently this states "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." in the section Responsibility for providing citations. I propose amending this with the additional sentence "Sources may be contained in a linked article."

  RATIONAL FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE

I believe that requiring sources on every page brings a number of problems: 1) it is onerous and inefficient and discourages linking relevant articles to pages: 2) the relevant article may include more sources, mentions of the article might only include one, so anyone looking for useful information might not see it; 3) in a rapidly moving field sources may be updated in an article but that might be missed on linked pages. In any case it is easy for anyone to click on the link to see the article with all relevant sources. Hewer7 (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, you could take a look at WP:VPP. TLA^tlak 13:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

thanks Hewer7 (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Why was 2A02:C7C:9AFE:FE00:8883:EAE6:A711:9253 banned ??

can you please let me know what he did so I can avoid doing the same. 90.214.152.236 (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, you can check his contributions. Most, if not all, of his edits were nonsense and he was blocked from editing certain pages which he vandalized. CanonNi (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I see good that he was banned 90.214.152.236 (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Because article talk pages are only to be used for discussion of how to improve an article. See WP:TALK.Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Also why does the my singing monsters page not have an islands tab?? 90.214.152.236 (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by your "singing monsters page"? CanonNi (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It's the name of the game "my singing monsters" which I really enjoy 🤗🤗 90.214.152.236 (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Most likely because the topic doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. CanonNi (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

My Singing Monsters does meet notability and has a page. If it doesn't have a table of islands, that may just be because no one has added one (which the user could address) or because it is deemed trivial information. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok I will make sure I can help wherever possible 90.214.152.236 (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Technically, the range User:2A02:C7C:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google) (which 2A02:C7C:9AFE:FE00:8883:EAE6:A711:9253 belongs to) is (partially) blocked, not banned. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

personally I think he should be judging by his contributions page 90.214.152.236 (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Wait is he unmanned today?? 2A02:C7C:9AFE:FE00:482C:9ADF:B556:CFC2 (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

No, he's still partially blocked from editing certain pages. CanonNi (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Approved new page marked as needs additional citations

I created a page which was then approved by someone else, only after they felt there were enough sources for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shockwave_cosmology How do I challenge this, especially as they have not given any specific element needing more sources? Hewer7 (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hewer7, what exactly are you trying to 'challenge'? CanonNi (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That an article, already considered to have sufficient sources, has been marked as needing more or other sources for unspecified reason(s). Hewer7 (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There are a number of unsourced statements in Shockwave cosmology which certainly need to be sourced, there is nothing to challenge here? Article was accepted because the the topic is notable.Theroadislong (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Which elements do you consider to be unsourced? Hewer7 (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There are many unsourced sentences, it is easy to spot them. Theroadislong (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I see in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources that "Per WP:PAIC, citations should be placed at the end of the passage that they support. If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill." So presumably the issue may be more that I have included sources in one sentence which covers the whole paragraph, but I should instead move such references to the end of the paragraph? Hewer7 (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Correct. Theroadislong (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Changing donation account?

How do I change the donation account for my Wiki monthly donation? Wmcpa7905 (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wmcpa7905 Thank you for supporting all the work that the Wikimedia Foundation does (though note that none of it goes to the editors who create content here). As a result, we do not deal with financial matters such as donations. But you ought to be able to find the help you seek at this page: https://donate.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give Hoping this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is this article having an infobox debate?

Hi folks, I am pretty startled and would love some clarity:

I've been editing Wikipedia for over a decade now, and I have come across what (to me) feels like a situation I don't logically understand.

In the George Formby article, there is no infobox.

1) Why is it valid that there is no infobox on this page, if it will benefit the article? Doesn't the WP:MOS ask for articles to all be standardized? I believe infoboxes are a great way to see info at-a-glance, especially for 94% of readers who are presumably casual, and it doesn't seem logical to eschew an infobox if it is a facet of almost all famous persons. The one person last time who disagreed in 2022 wrote, "There is a summary already present (the first paragraph) that does a better job." To me this is the false dilemma fallacy (either the infobox is useful, or the first paragraph is useful). But can't we have both? ¿Por qué no los dos?

2) If not with a clear majority, how is consensus reached? Two years ago, there was a discussion wherein 7 of 8 editors agreed that the infobox should be added. When I tallied these 2022 votes and justified my bold infobox addition in Talk:George Formby, another user reverted my edits, writing, "Removed. Consensus is not gained by vote counting." Then how is consensus gained - when literally every single user agrees? This doesn't seem feasible, especially when circular reasoning and logical fallacies are used.

Sorry I am just so frustrated. I can't make sense of things, LOL! *furiously sips tea*

Thank you for reading. ~~~~ The Fonz (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The previous 2022 Talk page discussion is at Talk:George_Formby/Archive_1#Infobox. Only Nikkimaria argued against the Infobox; everybody else who commented was definitely in favour.

There was a previous, longer discussion back in 2014, at Talk:George_Formby/Archive_1#IB. That went back and forth without reaching a conclusion.

Then there was a further conclusion in 2014 at Talk:George_Formby/Archive_1#The_IB_trial,_continued, involving just four editors, which was closed saying "I think we have a consensus on this not to include an infobox on this page."

The 2022 conversation did not refer back to that decision, and I have to wonder whether ten years later it might not be reasonable to review it to see if that decision is still the consensus. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Evedawn99, there's no rule either way about including or excluding infoboxes. Casual readers may get the impression it's standard on Wikipedia however, just because so many articles have them. What makes consensus? I would suggest an WP:RFC on the topic. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

What is this article having an infobox debate 90.214.152.236 (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a discussion on Talk page of George Formby about merits of it having an Infobox. David notMD (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, since I am back here, George Formby is a featured article (FA). What may seem obvious or standard for much of the encyclopedia may become controversial when articles are taken through the rigorous process of making them into FAs. Editors weigh every aspect of an article during that process, taking nothing for granted. Now that it is an FA without an infobox, the editors who put in the hard work to get it that status get a little bit more leeway in trying to maintain the quality of the article. That usually means they get to ask for stronger or formal consensus for changes they disagree with, unlike what would be usual for most other articles. It's necessary because otherwise articles start to degrade really quickly and those editors would be helpless to stop it, in which case, editors would not want to do the hard work of making an FA in the first place. FA is an article made perfect as we can in a wiki; the tension comes from the antithetical nature of the two. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This has descended into edit warring at the article, and clearly not moving toward consensus on the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The edit-warring is in the past, as the editor has been indefinitely blocked for some egregious personal attacks. Consensus building on the talk page can continue, as long as it takes. I would caution to anyone diving in that some of the most passionate wars on Wikipedia have been fought over infoboxes, and it remains designated a contentious topic by the arbitration committee. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

When ref is a source quoting Wikipedia among other "sources"

What is the established procedure in such cases? Im specifically talking about this page in Mendelian inheritance. InternetowyGołąb (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@InternetowyGołąb These are generally disallowed per WP:CIRC Mach61 20:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I'm well aware of it, I specifically meant, what should we do next once we find such a reference? Is there an appropriate template or something? Assuming I cannot substitute it for verifiable source in resonable time. InternetowyGołąb (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

InternetowyGołąb. It seems to me that we need to look at each case carefully. An article that cites Wikipedia among other sources may be fine, as long as the information for which it is cited is derived from a source other than Wikipedia. (I haven't looked at this case carefully to see which).

Sometimes the tag {{circular reporting}} will be appropriate. ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

No, that’s completely wrong. ‘circular reporting’ is to flag up a problem source that has used WP’s content but is being used as a reliable source. The only way to solve CIRC is to look at the original source, verify the second articles reflects is adequately and use it as the source in the second article.

InternetowyGołąb, the best course is to follow my first paragraph. If there is no source there, delete the CIRC reference and add a citation needed tag. Alternatively, see Template:Better source needed for a useful template - and leave an appropriate note to explain. - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about "completely" wrong, though ColinFine did mistakenly name the wrong template. As the {{Circular reporting}} docs note:

If the source is clearly quoting or referencing Wikipedia, use {{Circular reference}} instead.

FeRDNYC (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

How to follow the active debate on Wikipedia bias?

How can editors follow the active debate over alleged left-leaning bias[8] on wikipedia? What teams are working on it? Are there RFCs or projects helping to research, understand and assess? Specifically, who is addressing left-leaning bias that affects reporting on [9]over political issues like Communism, Far Right and how we associate biography pages with these political affiliations.

This question is more about understanding the process & people involved than finding a conclusion to whether Wikipedia is biased at all.

Some areas I’ve searched

• Talk:Communism
• Talk:Far Right
• Talk:Far Left Politics
• WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Mass killings under communist regimes
• WP:Requests for comment/History and geography

Are there projects or committees that are actively addressing this topic? I see lots of discussions on talk pages, but those can be chaotic, hard to follow , and don’t seem to lead to a conclusion or decision.

Tonymetz 💬  21:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Your question seems to have as a premise that Wikipedia has a left-wing bias. This is a strange notion.126.255.97.137 (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The allegations may be unfounded but they are certainly not strange. Greater critics than me have raised them and they are worth addressing even if they are wrong. Tonymetz 💬 23:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Here’s a good example discussion with no clear resolution

What I’m asking for is how editors can follow those types of discussions and understand any resolution. And who is responsible for those resolutions? Tonymetz 💬 00:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tonymetz I see lots of discussions on talk pages, but those can be chaotic, hard to follow , and don’t seem to lead to a conclusion or decision. That is, however, our process, so if you're looking for discussion of these issues on Wikipedia, that's where you're likely to find it.

In addition to what other editors have mentioned, your question seems also to be based on the premise that, because it has been claimed by outside commenters that Wikipedia has this or that bias, there must be some central authority that (a) takes that claim seriously, and (b) has the responsibility of formulating a response (either to the allegation, or to the bias).

None of those things are true. The content of any given Wikipedia article is the product and responsibility of the editors who contributed to that article. There is no editorial board overseeing their work, and there is no approval process for "publication" (other than some peer review, if an article under pending changes protection is edited by anonymous or inexperienced editors). In short, There is no cabal, not even the Cabal to Eliminate Political Bias.

Plenty of people discuss Wikipedia's purported systemic biases, often at great length and with furious passion. But it's rarely discussed on Wikipedia, because discussing anything in the context of "all of Wikipedia" is just too broad to be useful. Specific accusations of a particular instance of biased content would most appropriately be discussed on the Talk page of the article in question. Any discussion anywhere else would most likely be directed there. FeRDNYC (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Larry Sanger is deeply biased against Wikipedia and has been glaringly wrong about online encyclopedias for over 20 years. Nothing he says should be taken at face value or given much attention. Cullen328 (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes but it's a common allegation and often discussed . I'm asking how to follow the debate. Tonymetz 💬 02:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tonymetz: There's Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia, but that would just be discussing how to improve the article Ideological bias on Wikipedia. GoingBatty (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

That’s a great resource thanks. Do things ever resolve from the talk page? A decision or RFC ? I find the talk pages overwhelming. Tonymetz 💬 04:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Tonymetz, there is no index of places to watch; there is no committee working on it, for or against. Wikipedia is a volunteer project where nobody has more authority over content than anyone else. The bias, where they are there, are there 1. because the world itself has bias and Wikipedia is a tertiary source and/or 2. because of the makeup of the editorbase working on an article. It would not be an organised group of editors or an editorial committee in or outside of Wikipedia deliberately working to make it so.

People who come in with the notion that they're going to fix Wikipedia get into trouble very soon because there are no heroes and villains here. Wikipedia is just what happens when you build a wiki encyclopedia on the internet under the United States laws in the early 21st century. That said, to provide you the information you are looking for with the understanding that how you use it is your sole responsibility, you probably want to start by watching the reliable sources noticeboard and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law, perhaps WT:USA as well if you're an American. The first two pages will give a list of discussions most of which will get clear resolutions. The discussions are evaluated by editors who are not involved in those discussions, as explained at WP:CLOSE. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tonymetz You can try to search the talk-space for whatever:[10]. WP:SIGNPOST may have content you find interesting. Perhaps the archives at User talk:Jimbo Wales too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Youtube as a Music Source

I know that Youtube links are generally not accepted as sources for articles, but I was wondering if it would be appropriate to link to a music video posted by an artist's official account when discussing a specific notable song? I could imagine this applying to self-publishing rules, but I wanted to double-check.Rylee Amelia (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Rylee Amelia! It depends on the situation. Can you be more specific, please? —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 21:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I see you've created two drafts, one on a musician and another on a song. The official music video will not prove the subject meets criteria for a standalone article because it is not independent of the subject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you can cite the subject's (or associate's) official channel on YouTube, social media etc, but only as a self-published source. Having said that, I'm wondering what kind of information citing a song could confirm. ColinFine (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rylee Amelia: You could add a link to the official music video to {{Infobox song}} inside {{External music video}} with {{YouTube}}. See Be the One (Dua Lipa song) as an example. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Merge List article into its Comparison article

Hi, I would like to merge 2 articles, by copying the differences of List_of_desktop_publishing_software into Comparison_of_desktop_publishing_software and then delete List_of_desktop_publishing_software. Am I allowed to do this? Or what is the best way I go about it?

Why? ...For the following reasons:

• All of the details are already in the comparison article, apart from the list of discontinued products that can be easily moved.
• The grouping of products by free/proprietary, then by OS support is messy, these details are easier to view/sort in the comparison article.
• The grouping of products by OS support is inconsistent as there are more operating systems, but it only lists a couple of them, to add the others would be messy, and these details are already easier to view/sort in the comparison article.
• So there is no useful purpose of the list article, I imagine that it was created before the comparison article, when it would have made sense.

Planned steps, if it is agreed to proceed:

Merge differences into the comparison article. Update all articles that cite it by adding a cite to the comparison article. Update all articles that cite to it by removing the cite to the list (or would a bot do this?). Mark the article for deletion. Would any effort on my part need to be put into the translations of the articles effected? When this is sorted correctly to do the same for several other Lists of various software articles.12think (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @12think and welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:MERGE for details on the process of merging articles. CanonNi (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @CanonNi, thank you I'll follow the steps, I should have known that there would be a documented procedure for this :-) 12think (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

That's great! If you'd like, you can check out WP:INFOPAGES for a complete list of all procedure pages, like this one. CanonNi (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding some orders

Hello everyone, this article List of X-Men members is based on chronological order which is one of the format listed in Manual of Style/Comics. My question is what about those characters who joined in same issue but chronological order is not clear. For example X-Force and Phalanx invasion team members in Substitute teams section are in alphabetical order (another format listed in Manual of Style/Comics). Should I arrange those members who joined in same issue in alphabetical order for the sake of organisation as per above points? Sewnbegun (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Sewnbegin. If list entries do not fall into chronological order, as seems to be the case here, then I think that alphabetical order is the logical fallback method of structuring such a list. Cullen328 (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox usage: Civilian attack vs civil conflict for a massacre

Should the page Daxing Massacre use the civilian attack infobox as it stands right now or the civil conflict infobox, used in instances of other massacres? Where could I find usage tips/help on this? Artwhitemaster (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is any guidance in choosing between these (note that the title "civilian attack" or "civil conflict" don't appear in the displayed text, so a reader doesn't know which you have chosen. Choose the one whose arguments better fit what you want to display. ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Use of Infobox anthem on non-anthems?

Where can I find more info about the usage of Template:Infobox anthem on non-anthems like America the Beautiful? Is it allowed? Where would I find guidance on infobox usage when there isn't a talk page on the templates? Artwhitemaster (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I would say that is an anthem. The term can be used quite broadly. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello again, Artwhitemaster. As it happens, I think my answer to you in the previous section applies here too! --ColinFine (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I definitely don't see an issue with use of the infobox itself. My only quibble would be with |prefix=Patriotic in the template arguments. (What does that even mean?) |prefix=Unofficial or something similar would seem to be more accurate, since the |prefix= field is documented as being an "Additional description of the anthem", and defaults to "National". Still, given that the song is not claimed to be a National or any other type of official anthem, it seems fine to use the infobox.

(Dixie (song) also uses {{Infobox anthem}}, and there again I would probably quibble only with |prefix=Unofficial national. As a New Yorker I don't see how "Dixie" is even an unofficial US anthem, so |prefix=Unofficial regional might better express the reality of the situation.) FeRDNYC (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, also: Templates do of course have their own talk pages, the one for the infobox is Template talk:Infobox anthem. However, it's rarely useful to discuss anything other than technical issues in the Template talk space, and this is definitely not a technical issue. FeRDNYC (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)