Wikipedia:Teahouse

GoingBatty, 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

Extended confirmed pages

I've almost edited 300 pages so far with my account! After I reach the 500 mark will I instantly be able to edit level 3 security extended confirmed articles or is there more to activating that privilege? Hgh1985 (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, once you reach 500 edits and have had your account for 30 days, you will gain extended confirmed user rights allowing them to edit those articles. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 01:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hgh1985, accuracy is really important here on Wikipedia. You have 240 edits, not almost 300 edits. Plus, you have been vandalizing in recent days. If you do not stop vandalizing forever right now, you will never receive extended confirmed status. I hope you take this warning seriously. Cullen328 (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I will stop the "test" edits right now, but with all due respect I still feel like this is a threat, the way you wrote this message. Hgh1985 (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hgh1985, you can try to call your vandalism "tests" all you want but that does not change the fact that you repeatedly tried to damage the encyclopedia, just for the fun of it. Similarly, you can call my entirely legitimate warnings "threats" all you want. None of that changes the fact that I am an administrator, that you have been engaging in disruption, and that I will block you if I see any more bad behavior from you. Is that clear? Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright Jim, if I stop the disruptive editing permanently and immediately, can you forgive me on a personal level as well? Yes or no Hgh1985 (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Time will tell. Cullen328 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Hgh1985 Why were you making disruptive edits? What was the purpose? David10244 (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Hgh1985 You admit the edits were disruptive here. On your Talk page, you dismissed them as accidental (you "could've swore" you undid each of them). Sonething doesn't add up. David10244 (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

User:David10244 - In view of the fact that this thread is about obtaining extended confirmed status, they were probably making the disruptive edits in order to game extended confirmed status. It does add up, because they are trying to get their edits to add up to 500. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon True... David10244 (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

wow, nice constructive way to engage someone, sable rattling threats on blocks, and parading your administrator badge @Cullen328, sadly finding this attitude more and more often on wikipedia nice way to welcome newcomers, in the end this trend will wind up into 10-20 guys controlling the whole project Juanriveranava (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Juanriveranava. I guess that you think that an administrator should just refrain from commenting when an editor with a very recent history of overt vandalism asks about advanced permissions. Despite your speculative observations, Wikipedia remains a top ten website worldwide, because of its clearly productive policies and guidelines. Also, there are about 450 active administrators, not 10 to 20. And there are far more active, highly productive editors than that who provide input on issues like this. If we turn Wikipedia over to vandals, it will rapidly devolve into a steaming pile of crap. I will then resign, and you can become an administrator of garbage. Cullen328 (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Juanriveranava - Some editors read the guideline not to bite the new editors a little too expansively, and that appears to be what you have done. It means not to bite new good-faith editors, but User:Cullen328 was biting a new editor who had made some bad-faith edits. I am aware that reasonable editors can disagree as to how severely editors who engage in irresponsible play should be warned. I thought that the warning was appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Cullen328 - I think that you lost your temper in biting a newbie, but I mean User:Juanriveranava. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Don't even hint that actions like theirs would leave them in charge, and you not here...

I wish they would respond to my "why" question but I suppose there is no way to explain that. I believe @Robert McClenon is right, but I wanted to hear something from Hgh1985. He or she hasn't posted since their question at your Talk page (Cullen) on the 28th. Maybe they left. David10244 (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

User:David10244 - They have probably abandoned that account and are trying to game extended-confirmed status with a different account. Maybe they have already been working three or four accounts. When you say that there may be no way to explain it, you mean that there may be no good-faith explanation. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Yes, that's what I meant. David10244 (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Holy shit this was just a question my bad, I didn't realize I would cause such a huge controversy Hgh1985 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

No @Cullen328, sorry but now you're overstating me, and making speculative observations (speaking of) , what I meant is if you're so upset with said editor behaviour or because you spilled your coffee on the way back home does not grant you the right to mistreat anybody like that even if you co-founded the project or own the servers, being such a seasoned productive administrator I would expect more restraint and a didactic and assistance focused response, but thank you for showing me what kind of things to expect from the more veteran editors like you, I'll glady preside over crap if that means being able to engage in constructive dialogue, @Robert McClenon, I understand the guideline, but I tend to believe vandals usually don't ask for permission or guidance from administrators, if that doesn't shows a hint of good faith, then well I can have nothing else to say. @Cullen328 response wasn't called for, but hey you're free to excercise your almighty banning powers on me if that makes you feel better. 240 edits for non retirees, people like me with a day job that doesn't have much time to spare shows a little commitment at least, what's the whole point of allowing anyone to participate on editions if not, that response is counterintuitive to said policies and guidlines, and the defensive stance is counter productive. Juanriveranava (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Juanriveranava - You wrote: I understand the guideline, but I tend to believe vandals usually don't ask for permission or guidance from administrators, if that doesn't shows a hint of good faith, then well I can have nothing else to say. There are various types of vandals. If they ask for guidance from administrators, it may be because they are acting like good-faith editors in order to be mistaken for good-faith editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you @Robert McClenon I understand and appreciate the pointer, I'll try to balance what you said with this part of the policy; Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious might be from ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you are 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good Internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they are not. Remember that the apparent test editors have the potential to be tomorrow's editors. By giving a polite, honest and noncondemning answer to newcomers, you have the opportunity to teach them Wikipedia policy. By being calm, interested, and respectful, you do credit to your dignity, and to our project. cheers. Juanriveranava (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Warning an editor who has been vandalizing is not mistreatment. I have no reason to block you, Juanriveranava. Feel free to insult me all you want. I have thick skin. I do not block people to feel better. I block people only to protect the encyclopedia from disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

if you feel insulted by my comment, just think how yours seem to a newcomer entering the teahouse. there might be 1 or 2 things you might need to work on yourself Jim, one of them is resilience to critique, now you're showing a non productive behaviour and I won't engage in this with you anymore, I made my point clear. have a nice day. Juanriveranava (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Suspicious Quesions

I have known that when an editor asks about when an article that they have created will show up on Google searches, they are almost certainly a conflict of interest editor who is trying to game the system of reviewing and indexing and New Page Patrol. I think that we have identified another area of questions that should be cause for concern, that if a new editor asks about extended-confirmed status, they are likely to be trying to game extended-confirmed status. I think that experienced editors should be aware that we do not need to assume good faith in these cases. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

How to make the links vanish in the final.

I have to quote a lot of hyper links, I give the links, it appears on the page with an icon which when clicked gives the image. I need only the icon. The link can vanish. For that what to do? Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Regarding the draft in your sandbox, you should not be including hyperlinks to images. Before you do anything else please read and understand WP:COI, WP:RS, and Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons which tells you how to embed a Wikimedia Commons image into an article. I also strongly suggest you remove the picture of your identiy card from your talk page. It proves absolutely nothing and enables anyone in the world to use it for their own purpose. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, pinging @Sreejit TK Ramchand, you should REMOVE the image of your identity card from your Talk page as Shantavira recommends. Should one of us editors do that for safety? David10244 (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You do it for me. Thanks a lot. I am an old fellow aged 91. I have my own limitations. Further I do not know how to remove it. thanks. Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I request some one to come forward to create the article BHARATHI, The New Script. I am not boasting myself. It is a real fact that BHARATHI is a ery good script. Once you go through its details you will understand it. What I want to see is that it should not be lost to the world. It is for that I am trying to create this article. My age 91 is not permitting me to toil too much for that. Will kindly someone come forward to take up the job. I shall supply all the details and all the images. The images are already uploaded to Wikimedia. I shall give all the links too. Kindly contact me who can do the job. Thanking you in anticipation. Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

As you were told when you asked this question last week, There has been a Wikipedia article about the script since October this year. It is at Bharati Script and of course you can add information there provided you can cite reliable sources for it. ColinFine (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I have moved that article to Bharati script, and added it to the disambiguation page Bharati. ColinFine (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Dear MR. Colin,

That one Bharati Script is entirely different. The one I am indulged is Bharathi Script. Kindly notice the Difference in spelling. There is proof for the fact that Bharathi script was there in 1995. But Bharati script was created only in 2017. Bharati is a constructed script in their words. But, Bharathi Script in an invented script.

Thanking you:

Sincerely yours,

Ramchand Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sreejit TK Ramchand It seems that I was confused because of the similarity of names and purposes of these scripts. You want to describe Bharathi script and have started a draft about it at User:Sreejit TK Ramchand/sandbox, declaring on your User page that you have a conflict of interest since you invented the script. I have to point out that Wikipedia cannot be used to describe things that have not already been featured in reliable sources and as far as I can ascertain there is no published material on your script except what you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. IF you can provide references to externally published descriptions of the script and independent commentary about it then there could perhaps be an article written based on those sources. Otherwise you are wasting your time as Wikipedia cannot host such material. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

My Dear Mike Turnbull,

Thank you for writing. I am not interested saying anything about me. Even I shall avoid my name coming anywhere in the article. My aim is only to save the script from extinction. I am not boasting myself when I say it is a very good script, with a lot of unique features. Once you go through it you will be convinced. I am just trying to do something to save it, so that the world may not loss such a good script. It is in detail available at more than nine sites including Internet archive. You kindly go through its features you will be convinced. I aged 91 is toiling to save it. You kindly help me in whatever ways you can to save it. The script and Font are free for all. Thanking you very much for taking the pain to write to me. Ramchand. Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sreejit TK Ramchand At your request, I have removed the image of your ID card from your Talk page. Wikipedia editors are allowed to remain anonymous if they wish. Even if you use your real name, which is fine to do, you should not post a phone number, your email address, your home address, or any forms of ID here. I know it takes a while to learn all of WP's policies, but this is for your own safety. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Non-inclusion

Hi all - I have edited my draft, "Jimmy Ryan (guitarist)," several times and yet it keeps being rejected as non-relevant or not of interest, or not famous enough to merit a Wiki article. I’ve searched Wikipedia and seen many articles about musicians with far less relevance and far less article support that are up on Wikipedia. I don’t understand. I have a discography that’s almost three pages long. I have a book out with a solid five-star rating with 84 reviews. I have a history of being in a rock group with three top forty records (The Critters), which actually has it’s own Wiki page and the same references that I used! I have been credited with six platinum records. I just performed at the 2022 Rock & Roll Hall of Fame inductions with three-time Grammy winner, Olivia Rodrigo. As Paul McCartney once said when being not let into a party, “How VIP do I have to be to get in?” Two of my band members have Wiki pages, Don Ciccone, and Lee Shapiro. My page is only different in that it has a lot more references. What to do?? Jrslam01 (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Jrslam01 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I can say quickly that other stuff exists is a poor argument to make. It could be that these other articles(not "pages") are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is a possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and I understand about articles slipping through unnoticed. Is it possible that they were simply posted, not run through the draft/approval system? Is that even possible? In any case, I feel my credits are noteworthy (of course I do!) after six decades of helping superstars become famous, and all the other credits I listed in the above note. It would be very helpful if someone could explain why those credits are not noteworthy. I’m not bitter or angry. I’m fine. I just simply don’t understand what’s missing, and the vague notice is not detailed enough to help me solve the problem, if in fact it is solvable. Jrslam01 (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's entirely possible. Standards have become much stricter as the English Wikipedia has grown to over 6 million articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Please read the autobiography policy. If I'm reading the draft right,(I may not be) your career seems to mostly be as part of bands- you would only merit a standalone article if there is significant coverage of a solo career. The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejection would mean resubmission is not possible. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jrslam01 Writing acceptable Wikipedia articles is hard, as you are discovering. Part of the problem here is that (I assume) you are trying to write an autobiography without learning about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, one of which is that every fact in a biography must be cited to a reliable source. The section on "Early life" cites no sources and should therefore be removed. You have added many external links in the main text: these are not appropriate and where they can't be converted into citations should also be removed. Discogs is unacceptable as a source as it is user-generated: see WP:RSDISCOGS. Some of the sources you use correctly in Draft:Jimmy Ryan (Guitarist) are based on interviews you gave, which do not establish that you are independently notable as Wikipedia defines this. Paradoxically, the draft might be much better if stripped back to a limited summary of what reliable secondary sources say, provided these are independent and provide significant coverage. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Mike. Now I have a clear picture of what’s wrong. As I said to the other person who responded, I’m fine with any response whether it is a decline or rejection, as long as I know what’s wrong. I’ll have another go with your comments in mind. One thing to consider. All those discog.com references? I’m not sure how else you would list the credits short of adding a photo of the record jackets themselves. I would appreciate any suggestions you might have regarding this. Jrslam01 (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Jrslam01, a person is considered notable and therefore eligible for a Wikipedia article when multiple reliable published sources that are independent of the person devote significant coverage to the person. There are three factors that must be present: "reliable", "independent" and "significant coverage". Having "a lot more references" is not a persuasive argument. The quality of the references is vastly more important than the quantity of the references. Think of it this way: Would you rather have three genuine gold coins or fifty pennies? So, identify whichever of your sources have those three essential elements, and point them out to the reviewer in a note at the top of the draft. Another problem is the issue of Verifiability, which is a core content policy. For example, the "Early Life" section is entirely unreferenced and is probably based on your memories of your life experiences. That violates another core content policy, No original research. Unless you can find a published reliable source that verifies that content, it must be removed. This is the biggest problem that people run into who try to write a Wikipedia autobiography. When someone writes an autobiographical book, they are encouraged to add personal anecdotes, but that is not permitted when writing a Wikipedia biography. So, go through your draft, sentence by sentence, and remove every single assertion that is not verified by a published, reliable source other than your own book. There are also stylistic problems. The draft lacks a lead section. Add one. You refer to yourself as "Jimmy" throughout, which is contrary to the Manual of style. We give the full name in the first sentence and then refer to people by their surnames thereafter, at least for most people in English speaking countries. So, "Ryan" not "Jimmy". You have a large number of external links in the body of the draft. This is not permitted. Either remove them or convert them to references. Linking to the Amazon page that sells your book is considered spam. Remove that. Reviewers hate name dropping. Your well-documented role in Carly Simon's early work is fine to mention, but the unreferenced lists of famous musicians that you worked with fleetingly hurts your goal, instead of helping you achieve it. I hope that this helps. Cullen328 (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

It helps a lot. Thank you! Looks like this is going to be a small article!! Last question. I’d like to spend a few days (or weeks) working on this to solve its problems. The draft help page is a little confusing to me. If I take out the submit code at the top and click publish, will it simply save the draft for future editing, rather than submit it prematurely for review? Jrslam01 (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. "Publish" means "save" - it was changed in order to emphasise the fact that absolutely everything on Wikipedia - drafts, sandboxes, user pages - is public and can be read by anybody. But drafts are not indexed by external search engines, and so should not be seen unless somebody goes looking for them within Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Colin. That answers my question! Jrslam01 (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jrslam01 I don't think anyone answered your question about "how to list credits without using Discogs". I don't know the answer, but maybe someone else does. Good luck. David10244 (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jrslam01 See WP:DISCOGRAPHY and links on that page. In general, if there is a Wikipedia article about the song or album, which is mainly the case here, we just Wikilink that article and don't need a separate source. There is even a specific project for discographies where you could seek help, see WP:WikiProject Discographies Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Thanks, now I know too. David10244 (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding pictures and links

Sorry, but I really want to know how to add pictures because when I try it always just says the name of the pictures link but never shows it.

Also how do I add links as when I do even if it's a real page that exists it says do you want to make a draft on it or not a real page yet. Thanks. Imadethis123 (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Imadethis123! Welcome to The Teahouse. You sound like you have a number of questions. I think taking the tutorial will answer most of them. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Imadethis123 (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Imadethis123 Almost all of your edits to date have been reverted because they do not follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have just reverted this example where you marked as a "minor" edit an addition of your personal views on history. All Wikipedia content must be cited to a published reliable source. Please take time to read the linked pages here and on your User Page about what it is acceptable to add. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Imadethis123 Your edit that Mike T linked above also made a very large number of changes to spacing around double vertical bars or || symbols. I don't see any "textual" reason for those dozens of changes. If you perhaps did any global search and replace, there is rarely any reason to do that. Mike Turnbull's revert has put all of those changes back to the way they were before your edit. Your intentions were good, judging from your edit summary, but the linked guidelines in the other replies will help. Good luck. David10244 (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

thanks Imadethis123 (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd like help formatting columns on a page I'm putting together

I'd like to be able to split my page into two columns. Maybe 2/3 of the space for text entries and historical information and the 1/3 on the right for pictures, infoboxes, maps, chronologies, etc...

Draft:Sidney P. Marland Jr. PI 71 5280 2021 (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

However, I'd persuade you don't split them into two columns, this against WP:MOS Lemonaka (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@PI 71 5280 2021 I helped you improve this article a little. Lemonaka (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

WAY TOO MUCH about his military service and FAR TOO LITTLE about his federal service in education field, as that is what makes him notable. David notMD (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed on the education work. That's my next round of adds - and there will be a bunch of that. PI 71 5280 2021 (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Articles are displayed differently on different-sized screens. You don't want to force something like that for mobile phone displays, for example. David10244 (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

What can be done?

In Ann Rutledge, in the section "Historical criticism of alleged Lincoln-Rutledge relationship, I just inserted in this sentence: "In his Lincoln the President, historian James G. Randall wrote a chapter entitled "Sifting the Ann Rutledge Evidence" which cast doubt on the nature of her and Lincoln's relationship." I did this because Lincoln the President has four volumes. I tried to put "volume number needed," but was not allowed to because there is no template for that. That would be more helpful than "citation needed." What can be done? Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnushello, welcome to the teahouse. Why not have a try for {{Citation needed|reason=Your explanation here|date=December 2022}} Lemonaka (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lemonaka Thanks; it worked. There is so much for Wikipedia editors to learn! Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, everyone has a lot of things to learn on Wikipedia. We are all climbing the learning curve Lemonaka (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus and @Lemonaka, there is actually a template for this: {{volume needed}}. There's a list you can check at for others like {{page needed}} too. If you can't find a specific one, {{full citation needed}} is the generic application for "a citation is present but incomplete". XAM2175 ^(T) 13:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Teahouse!

Someone can revert me like I said last time, but I just wanted to tell all of you that 2022 (in UTC) has officially passed, and we have entered the fresh new year of 2023! Thank you for your contributions; all of you!
Happy New Year! — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 00:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@3PPYB6 Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm so excited to best wishes to you and everyone with a new 2023 is very happy. I hope this 2023 to see with everything of your fantastic work this fourthcoming year and you making an Wikipedian.
Happy New Year! 2402:800:63B0:81F6:BD40:A76:26A7:55BA (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

This brings to mind my recent block for wishing a 'Happy New Year' to so many, so quickly. I'd like to continue if I can get support for that. See my post below, and the context here. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Can inline citation-related templates be used in templates?

In a template, I consider the addition of a newly added item lacking support from reliable sources, so I used the inline template {{citation needed span}} on the item. But the editor who added the item removed the inline template and claimed that "We don't use citations in templates."

Is his removal of the inline citation-related template appropriate? If yes, how do we mark something in a template as lacking support from reliable sources? --Matt Smith (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Matt Smith, it's not clear why you felt that particular footer entry needed a citation, as nothing else in the Template:Alt-right footer has one. Footer entries are put there on the basis of logic and consensus only, and a citation that Truth social is part of Alt-tech isn't called for. If you strongly feel that TS is not in a category with Gab and Parler, please discuss it on the talk page of the footer.-- Quisqualis (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I see. So {{citation needed span}} shouldn't be used in that template. Thank you. Matt Smith (talk) 07:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Matt Smith Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. A discussion has been taken on the related talk page, please continue the discussion to get a consensus. Lemonaka (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. Yes, a discussion has been in progress. Meanwhile, I'm seeking for an inline template which can be used to indicate that the newly added item is in dispute. Can {{Disputed inline}} or {{Under discussion inline}} be used in this case? Matt Smith (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

We seldom use {{citation needed span}} on template, For pages other than articles, we don't use {{Disputed inline}}, instead, we use {{Under discussion inline}}. Did I make it clear? Lemonaka (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks! Matt Smith (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I was kind of surprised that nobody made an issue of putting a warning about the template itself wihin a template, i.e. it's perfectly fine for the template to generate a warning when it is used in a questionable or erroneous manner. Putting in a {{citation needed}} in this manner would give the impression that the template itself is being used incorrectly. The result is that existing correct uses of the template would get the warning, which would be inappropriate. Fabrickator (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Change a title

(1) I have started a draft and want to refer to an existing article. The existing article is titled John Murray (judge), but his name is actually Sir John Murray Murray. I want to use his full name (JMM) in my draft but can't because the title is different (I assume). How can I (or an experienced editor) change the title? [I am JMM's granddaughter so am knowledgeable about this.]

(2) I added two sentences in the middle of JMM's article - statements about his marriage and children. The only citation I could provide is the Murray Family Register, a PDF that traces the family members from 1822 forward. Would it be appropriate to put this in Commons? Then I could refer to it.

Thanks for your help.

Slim8029 (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

1. You can refer to an article by any (reasonable) term you wish, by using a piped link. Click on the blue text to read about it.
2. I have reverted your changes to John Murray (judge) because you did not provide a source. Read WP:RS for information about what sources are considered reliable. A PDF with no provenance is useless as a source, because anyone can create a PDF and write anything they wish in it. You need to find published sources, as explained in WP:RS. CodeTalker (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I fixed you problem #1 and added section heads as a replacement for you bold headings.

You need to transfer all the references that are on your user page to the draft article. Read WP:REF for how to format inline references. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

As Ariconte points out, all that content on your User page needs to be moved to a draft that you can start by using WP:YFA. Also, at John Murray (judge) it appears that you contributed a photograph to Commons, claiming it as your own work. That term applies only to photographs you yourself have taken. Hence removed from the article, and I expect, soon to be removed from Commons. David notMD (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the section heads and the updated link..

Side question - I assume you've decided the Michael Shapiro topic is "notable" enough to include in Wikipedia??

Re item 2.

Well, there are a couple of published sources that contain the information I added to John Murray Murray's entry.

THE MURRAY FAMILY REGISTER 1794 -1977 by Caroline Murray - shows up on a google search

Murray-Stamregister 1794-1954 by Emma Horn shows up on biblio.com.

I don't have copies of these books so could not upload them to Commons. Can I nevertheless use one of them as a citation?

The current version of the Family Register is 300 pages long and is privately issued but has an ISBN number.

Re the photo.

I think this was taken by my mother (now deceased). So am I permitted to upload it? I have other photos of lesser quality taken by either my mother or me. I assume I could upload one or more of them?

Re references

Yes, I plan on adding the other references to the Michael Shapiro document. But I now gather I can't refer to casual information I've gathered. For instance, Beverley Hooper has been most helpful with her comments about earlier Word drafts. But her remarks are not published, obviously, so can't be referenced, I assume?

Re a specific reference.

One of the documents I have is "Speech at the Memorial Meeting for Michael Shapiro, October 21, 1986, Xinhua News Agency". I would like to add this to Commons since it has relevant details in it. But I am not its creator. I think it was prepared by Michael's wife and sons (all now deceased or incapacitated), possibly with input from Michael's Xinhua colleagues. What can I do with this document?

Your help is appreciated.

Sallie Slim8029 (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I will copy the above questions to the draft article's talk page Draft_talk:Michael_Shapiro and try to answer them there. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

khandayat article

The khandayat caste page is looking like a propaganda. I am from odisha. I studies many caste and people related books like HH risely's tribe and caste of odisha and Bengal, lk mohapatra's many book, Japanese writer akio tanabe's reserch article,prasant Pradhans article, also odisha district gazetteer by many ias officers. They all written correct information and that also match with reality of odisha society. Khandayat is a martial caste and chasa is a sub caste of khandayat. We can find it in every khandayat article and books. But a editor trying to relate gouda caste to khandayat caste by misusing a books information. Sir,There is no connection of khandayat caste with goudas. This is propaganda. Pls reserch on this. Sekharblack123 (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The proper place for discusion about Khandayat (caste) is the Talk page of that article, where I see you have already made a comment.. David notMD (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

And please be mindful that not all Wikipedia volunteers are men. "Sir" is not a well-chosen salutation. Thanks. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess English isn't your first language, or that you are used to a particular dialect, so may find the previous comment confusing.

It is considered good manners to use both male and female forms of address in anything written for a general audience in English.

However, this is a matter of totally natural confusion, as it deals with a recent change of use. "Sir" used to be regarded as an acceptable form of written address to any unknown person in the UK, well within living memory: I would guess it is still regarded as entirely gender-inclusive in some geographical areas.

In case it helps: in this context in modern English, it is (more) correct not to use a salutation at all. If "Sir" should be used, we would usually write "Sir/Madam" in the UK. ("Sir/Madam" is usually only used in formal paper letters to an unknown recipient). I don't know if other countries have different conventions! We all welcome your contribution to improving the project. FloweringOctopus (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Except your initial post was not written to anyone, it was simply a statement of opinion. If anything your use of the word "Sir" in that context is not only a bad saultation in modern English, it's not even gramatically correct in that context. Sir/Madam are just bizaarly formal in such a context. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 08:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@FishandChipper and @FloweringOctopus: It was used as an abbreviated salutation in certain forms of English until quite recently, though it is unquestionably viewed as archaic now. I used to see it used in letters to the editor in some Australian newspapers even into the early 2000s, for example. It's possible that the original poster here is addressing their communication in the assumption that we have some form of official role in managing Wikipedia's content. XAM2175 ^(T) 13:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Sekharblack123 welcome to the teahouse. I'm so sorry but I cannot understand your English, could you make it clear? Lemonaka (talk) 08:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

hi all, I have invited them to come to hindi wikipedia. Lemonaka (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Sekharblack123 The issue appears to be a disagreement with the last sentence of the Lead at Khandayat (caste): "Historically they originated from Oda & Gauda castes." Again, proper place to reach consensus is Talk page of that article. David notMD (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

To the language police - in my opinion, the use of "Sir" late in what Sekharnblack123 wrote was not intended as a salutation, but rather as derogatory intent, as in "Sir (you idiot), there is no connection of khandayat caste with goudas." David notMD (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

A native speaker would probably mean to be insulting, but I'd have thought that understanding when words like "please" and "Sir" are insulting rather than polite, and choosing an appropriate level of formality, are quite high up on the fluency scale! For example, I used to struggle with the formal and informal forms of "you" in German: for one teenage girl to use the formal form to another - which I did by accident - seems to have been about the equivalent of addressing a classmate, in all seriousness, as, "O, Miss Sirname."

I thought Sekharnblack123 was owed an explanation of Julietdeltalima's comment, which seemed potentially unintelligible to anyone who isn't familiar with the last fifty years of arguments about gender-specific language use in Western English-speaking countries. I'd argue that telling someone that using particular language is incorrect is problematic, as what they need to know in order to do differently is what is correct! FloweringOctopus (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC) FloweringOctopus (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It's all well and good to know different levels of formality but choosing the incorrect one looks very "unfluent". All the examples you have given are absurdly high levels of formality for a forum discussion. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 17:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there anyway to combine RTRC and popup?

Hello everyone, I found that RTRC tool has provide us with ORES and CVN scores, may help us identify bad edits in a short time, but it's a little hard to use for me. While popup give me a lot of help when patrolling, but it doesn't have a score for all the edits. Is there any way or any tools to combine them together Lemonaka (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

How to delete my created pages ?

plz tell e how can vanished/delete my article pages Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Ajrun Amir'za-da. Every single time that you make any edit to Wikipedia, you agree to legal language that says, By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. "Irrevocably" means that you have given up your right to change your mind. There may be other valid reasons to remove the content that you wrote. What are those reasons? Cullen328 (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Be specific. Your history includes two created articles, four or more either Speedy deleted or redirected, two existing drafts, and several drafts that were deleted for no activity for six months. If you mean existing drafts, abandon them, and in time will be deleted. If you mean your successfully created articles, I suppose you could start the Articles for deletion process, giving cause for deletion. David notMD (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ajrun Amir'za-da: can I just clarify: is the problem (1) that articles you wrote have been deleted, and you don't know how that happened, or (2) is the problem that some articles you wrote have not been deleted, but you'd like them to be deleted? Elemimele (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Username change

Hi Wikipedians

Yesterday, I changed my name on Wikimedia Commons from something to Axadem. The problem is that, this change also affected my profile in Wikipedia.

Is it possible to keep my old name in Wikipedia but "Axadem" in Wikimedia Commons? Axadem (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Axadem: Hi. In short, it is not possible because of WP:SUL. If you wish you can create another account (including your previous username), and use different accounts on different projects (enwiki, commons). But you should declare all of your accounts per WP:SOCKLEGIT. Let me know if you have any doubts, or queries. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Notability

would an article about charlemagne's water clock be notable in wikipedia standard? Time Up King (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Please read Wikipedia:Notability and then determine whether the subject meets those requirements by finding significant coverage in independent WP:reliable sources. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

First glance, there appear to be several mentions of Charlemagne receiving the gift of a water clock. Consider adding referenced content about this to the Water clock article rather than a separate article. David notMD (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Usage of ChatGPT

See also: Wikipedia:Village_pump (policy) § Wikipedia response to chatbot-generated content

Hi! Can I use some parts of a chatGPT result in my wikipedia article? Thanks! Tiagorangel2011 (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but that might be original research, which is not accepted on Wikipedia. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 12:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT has a informational database up to 2021. It doesn't know what happened after that (maybe they've updated it). The bot also relies on primary/secondary/reliable sources. Even if the bot's output is neutral, and reliable, I don't know what is copyright status of content provided by the bot. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

hi @Tiagorangel2011 and welcome to the Teahouse! while I haven't tested chatgpt yet (i feel like i'm overdue to try it out given i'm interested in ai technology but i'm too lazy to get an account in openai) it may not really be usable for Wikipedia. there's a thread in the help desk regarding this (link: Am I permitted to use ChatGPT to help me contribute to Wikipedia?) where the general consensus seems to be that it may not exactly be accurate (yet). perhaps once the tech advances more perhaps and it's trained more? in theory (I haven't tested it out yet), you can ask it about something and require it to back up its claims with sources, but since you're going to have to verify its output first, you might as well just feed that question to your local search engines. happy editing!

on an unrelated note, I'm now interested if and when we get an AI dedicated to writing Wikipedia articles afted being trained on information in the internet + Wikipedia articles, what will happen and what'll it be like? 💜  melecie  talk - 13:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah ChatGPT, it's not suited for Wikipedia as far as my personal experience playing with it. While, the bot does give you average writing output result based on what you have asked it however it doesn't provide any form of citations in its output, and if you were to asked for "where is the citations?" after it gave you the writing output, it simply response something like this "sorry ... I'm a language model bot ... and doesn't has access to external sources" (quote isn't a exact word-by-word of the output given but rewritten to something along the line; as I'm unsure what's the copyright, ChatGPT is using ... maybe it's written somewhere but I'm lazy) of which it also tells you that Wikipedia's articles requires citations. So, unless you want your article to be deleted or sent to draftspace or your edits to be reverted, you shouldn't be using ChatGPT for Wikipedia purposes. — 🎄🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎄 (🔔 • 📝) 14:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a more extended discussion on this at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia_response_to_chatbot-generated_content. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

how to de-orphan articles if your editing privileges are limited?

I have two articles (Business Ethics (film) and The Song Spinner (film)) that I want to de-orphan by linking the cast/crew of the films back to their respective Wikipedia articles, e.g. mention Business Ethics in Larenz Tate's page/filmography, but a few months ago, my ability to edit Wikipedia articles about living people was revoked by another Wikipedia user, as far as I can remember, so basically I can still make/edit pages for media like these films, but I can't de-orphan them. PetSematary182 (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@PetSematary182: Your topic ban about editing or discussing living persons is there on your talk page. Proposing a link on a talk page seems harmless enough. @Tamzin: since you seem to be the person enforcing this topic ban (based on what I see on PetSemetary182's talk page) do you have any objection to posting edit requests on BLP talk pages? Or even wikilinking a word in an existing BLP article? Adding wikilinks seems like gnomish maintenance work, not affecting BLP content. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll wait to hear @Tamzin 's ruling on this one, just to be on the safe side. PetSematary182 (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Thanks for the ping. @PetSematary182: You know, I'll be honest, the scope of this TBAN is one of my greater regrets as an admin. I was going to do just the "BLP controversy" half, but someone advised me that that would be hard to enforce, and so I added the "BLP article/section" half, which has just proven harder to enforce. At the same time, I've blocked you twice, including for sockpuppetry, which has kind of tied my hands in terms of walking the sanction back. How about this: You can make edit requests on BLP talk pages, as long as they don't pertain to controversies (broadly construed). If after two months of active editing no further BLP or sockpuppetry issues have come up, we can have a talk about further loosening that part of the restriction. (I don't currently have plans to loosen the "BLP-related controversy" half.) Does that work for you? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin yes, that sounds fine. As for the two movie pages I mentioned, as far as I know there are no BLP controversies associated with any cast/crew of either movie, and so I don't think there would be any issue there... there is a bit of contention among fans of the film The Song Spinner over its lack of a non-VHS media release, but that has nothing to do with any BLP figure in the article and isn't really even relevant to it, so I don't think it would ever even come up. That's more of a corporate issue anyway having to do with licensing rights, not any one living person. PetSematary182 (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@PetSematary182: Alrighty then. Look good to you? Like please, ask away; I would rather answer 100 questions about a sanction's scope than block someone over a misunderstanding. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin, would this be acceptable? I've got this screenshot of the preview talk page post, but I haven't posted it yet and won't if it's unacceptable:

To be aided answers of 4 Questions

Hello everyone, Hope you're good and we're enjoying 2023. I have few (literally many and long) questions here I need guidance from you;

• How do I move a page without leaving a redirect, All of my pages (mainspace) were created as drafts at first but whenever I wanted to move them I don't see the option to whether leave/dont leave a redirect. That caused some problems.
• 2 of the 9 reviewed and patrolled pages I created have (disambiguation), unlike the other reviewed (without) which were indexed right away by search engines (some seconds to be precisely), but these two are forever uni-indexed. Do they need more time or they've got some problems? I asked the reviewer who told me everything was normal but insisted me to ask here too.
• Can two articles of the same names be enough to create a disambiguation category? e.g; (Lava Lava (disambiguation) with Lava Lava and Lava Lava (singer)?
• Is it normal for Talk pages to be Indexed by search engines? I saw that from one of the articles I created and one from Talk:Joe Young (horse). All Pages I created are on My userpage for refs ANU^writes 16:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Afyaniuhai: My answers:

• I don't know of anything that prevents the "move without leaving a redirect" checkbox from appearing, but maybe you need extended confirmed status first. Most drafts that are moved to article space leave a redirect behind, as standard practice.
• We have no control over how fast something is indexed, but generally a page patroller needs to patrol a page before indexing can happen. It happens when it happens.
• See WP:TWODABS. With just two articles it's sufficient to put a hatnote in each one, linking to the other, especially if neither one can be considered the "primary" topic.
• It depends on the search engine. If talk pages are indexed at all, they would not be ranked highly in the search results.

Vague answers, to be sure. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, ANU, and a happy 2023 to you.

Only pagemovers can move pages without leaving redirects. You'll either need to request the move via WP:RM, or do the move yourself and then delete the redirect (for the use case you are talking about, you can use WP:R2).

And Talk pages are normally set up as noindex, so well-behaved search engines will not index them.ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Anachronist: and @ColinFine: I think I got the answers I was looking for, as for the talk pages, I thought they had a noidex code on them too but Talk:Joseph Marwa (actor) and Talk:Joe Young (horse) has appeared to almost all big search engines (Google, bing, Yandex, Startpage & duckduck go) sometimes as the first pages but that was only a question to end my curiosity, the big deal/problem was about page moving which I guess I'll have to wait another 18 days to have extended confirmed status or ask page movers. ANU^writes 17:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended confirmed won't do it, ANU: you need Page mover, which has to be granted explicitly.

Talk:Joseph Marwa (actor) has got noindex, so if a search engine is indexing it, it's being naughty.. ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

hi

What if you see a mistake in a writing but do not know how to edit it? I have tried and tried to find a guide to see but I cannot find one. IGotHacked12 (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, IGotHacked12, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's hard to answer when you don't tell us the specific article and what the problem is. You should be able to edit most articles, but if there's one you can't edit, you can usually put an edit request on the article's talk page. ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@IGotHacked12 You can edit almost all articles by clicking the "edit" button at the top. If there are no "edit button", it means that it is only editable by editors with more edits. If that happens, you can put a edit request like ColinFine told you to. Carpimaps (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Saving a Draft Article

I created a long draft article over several hours, then needed to stop. I looked for a save draft button but did not find one. Now I came back to continue editing, and the draft article has zero content. Empty. Did I lose those hours of work? How do I save a draft before it's ready to publish? BlueChippy (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

BlueChippy, to save a draft that's not ready to publish (in the sentence of "make into an article"), you click "Publish changes". This confusing label on the button is recommended by our lawyers, as anything you save in Wikipedia, including drafts and sandboxes, is legally published. You are not the first, nor the thousandth, person to have been misled by this. Maproom (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I did lose the article so had to restart, but lots of learning! Agree, it is not obvious that hitting "publish" creates a draft. Now I know! It has now been submitted for review. BlueChippy (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello BlueChippy (talk)! You can save an article you are working on creating by copying it & pasting into a notepad (do make sure to then save the notepad contents). As long as you are not using the Visual Editor at the time of copying your text, you'll be able to copy the wiki markup included in your article. With the wiki markup intact, when you paste the text back into Wikipedia things like inline citations & other coded features will be retained. You can use "Show Preview" button to see how the article is working without the need to prematurely publish. I just recently created an article & used this method to ensure I could get everything right before posting & also safely take breaks without fear of losing everything. I actually do this for anything of any length I write on a computer. Copy/pasting frequently to a text document in this way protects against crashes or power cuts which always have a habit of happening at the most inconvenient times, like when a draft is almost complete. Hope this is of help to you! Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I did have to recreate it from my Word draft - most of the rework was re-inserting 40 citations! I learned that I must Publish (this is not obvious) and do repeatedly for changes within each section. The article has now been submitted for review. BlueChippy (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Getting a Wikipedia page

Hello I’m a music producer who has produced for several major artists. Including Stitches which I produced most of his biggest songs including brick in yo face, Molly Cyrus, kilos in my bag etc I wanted to add I was the one behind the production on his Wikipedia and find a way to make my self one since I have worked with several other artists like Kevin gates, Mistah fab, Travis barker etc if anyone can instruct me on how I should do this it would be great please and thank you. 2600:1700:1E7E:6810:C427:7341:CF63:224A (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which collates information about notable topics. This means things, people, concepts or places that have been written about by multiple reliably-published sources, independent of the subject. If you can show us at least three such sources that talk about you in detail and in depth, then you may well qualify for an article. See WP:NBIO for our notability criteria. From what you say, you might well meet those critieria - I've no idea. But if independently published sources don't exist, then no article can be created.

That said, we still very strongly advise everyone not to attempt to create an article about themselves here - it's a huge Conflict of Interest and best left to other, unconnected people to write about any such notable person. See also WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, for reasons why it isn't always a good idea to even try.

You'd be welcome to upload a selfie of yourself to Wikimedia Commons, which could be associated with any such article, now or n the future which may be created. But bear in mind that if the community here doesn't deem someone notable, then any attempt is doomed to failure. Submitting any draft to Articles for Creation is the best way for all new editors to avoid disappointment and gain feedback and guidance.

Finally, as a music producer, it might well be appropriate to add your name to an artist's page or to a music track in its WP:INFOBOX, but only if supported by a reference to a Reliable Source which clearly names you as that producer. Minor names (sound engineers, etc) would not be OK to add as this would amount to WP:TRIVIA, which we try to avoid. I can't offer much more advice as I know nothing about the music industry, but I hope this helps you a bit. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for all the information ! Attaching an article from a press run https://www.wwlp.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/608945456/rising-music-executive-luxury-living-kirb-launches-luxury-living-music-featuring-songs-from-stitches/ as far as other links I can provide YouTube links with major artists that have produced by my company in the description. One of our songs was also placed in Comedy Centrals South Park. I haven’t been in many article but I do have alot of well known music out. As far as adding produced by to the songs I produced how should I go about doing that ? My producer tag is on all the songs and on YouTube almost all of them say produced by in the description. 2600:1700:1E7E:6810:3419:7F64:618F:F7A4 (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Please note that YouTube is not considered to be a reliable source, unless it is the official YouTube account of a major news organization. Most YouTube videos are self-published and lack editorial review, making them unreliable sources. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

What would be a more reliable source that’s usually used  ? Would genius work? If not the copyrights with the library of congress maybe ? 2600:1700:1E7E:6810:0:0:0:1B (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Also note that press releases, like the one you linked to on wwlp, are not considered reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability. You should read the Reliable Source link that @Nick Moyes linked to above to understand what are considered reliable sources here on Wikipedia. The number of your songs, how well-known they are, or where they have been featured isn't really relevant; the only important thing is that reliable independent sources have published information about you. CodeTalker (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

How do I find a talk page for a project

Sorry if this is a silly question but wikipedia suggested I go to the talk page for a wikiproject to discuss edits/etc but I can't find the talk page for a project. Is there a URL? I'm specifically looking for the Talk page for this project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Disability Catchant (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Catchant: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you look near the top of the page there's a "Talk" link that will bring you to the page's associated talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Catchant. You'll find it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability. In 'desktop view' there's a tab just to the right of the Project page. Are you using a mobile, in which case finding the talk page is slightly less evident, but the link it still there for you. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I was looking on the right side of the screen (since that's where it is for articles) but I get it nw! Catchant (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Question about leaving feedback for more suited editors.

Hello! I was looking over the article for the 2022 Kazakh presidential election after finding it listed in Category:All articles needing copy edit and I find that article needs some work such as a through copy edit and also a shortening of the opening segment but I do not find myself adequately versed in the subject at hand to do such myself. Is there a way one could note for a future editor of the page, who is more capable in the subject matter, what they feel the article is in need of? Would that just go in the talk page? Thank you for your time.

P.S I apologize if anything here breaks some sort of social convention here that I am not aware of or seems like something very obvious. Planetberaure (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Planetberaure, as detailed on the documentation page, you can use the |for= parameter to say what the problem is specifically. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 03:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Sungodtemple I may have misstated. For clarity I am asking if a Template such as Template:Lead too long would be alright to add in this situation. My confusion stems from template saying to "Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page", thus making me unsure if I need to discuss the issue in the article's talk page before adding the template, despite the lead currently having more then the 3 or 4 paragraphs stated as appropriate for it's length in MOS:LEADLENGTH. I am also unsure if an article is allowed to have more than one template at a time. Planetberaure (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Planetberaure, it's fine on both accounts. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! Planetberaure (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Linking articles quickly

Hello, I just created a new article that I transferred from Simple Wikipedia and removed the redirect, Lisa M. Montgomery. There are lots of pages that have her name in them and it will take a long time to link all of them to the Lisa page. Is there a tool I can use to speed the process? Another thing, the new article is not shown on the new pages feed or any other system or this, Is there a reason? Thanks!`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@HelpingWorld, see https://edwardbetts.com/find_link/Lisa_M._Montgomery — Qwerfjkltalk 07:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Need help to carrect the causes of an artcle decline

Vinegarymass911 Thanks a lot, and I appreciate your concern and the short note attached to my article where you mentioned the cause of decline! I am learning with time. I will definitely edit the area where 'Blogs, Amazon, and articles written by him' is used. Can you enlighten me a bit more about this part, Should i absolutely avoid his own articles and other's 'blog post' in the entire article, or just the part that deals with 'notability"? i mean, can i cite from his own article to describe his opinion about something? regards. Morshedul Alam Talukdar (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Morshedul Alam Talukdar Welcome to Teahouse! Wikipedia is not interested in what a subject has to say about themselves (including their own blog posts), because Wikipedia is interested in WP:SECONDARY sourcing, meaning, what do other people say about him? Additionally I noticed you are WP:OVERCITING in your draft random words, that link to WP:DISAMBIGUATION articles instead of actually relevant links. E.g. Modern is so broad of a term, it doesn't enhance the draft. Also link to Draft:Rifat Hasan next time, so people know what draft you are referring to. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The Ajuran Empire was not shared in Somali History

The Ajuran Sultanate (Empire) was not shared in Somali history. The Ajuran Empire (Sultanate) ruled East Africa (Large Part of Somalia) from 13th Century to 18th century. The editor limits their history as that of middle ages. It is obvious that the Ajuran Sultanate existed three hundred years past the middle ages. Their Trump card is they defeated the Portuguese and saved East African from certain exploitations of their people. Also saved the Islamic world as the Portuguese would have used Somalia as stepping stone to conquer the Arabian peninsula from the South. I am requesting permission to add such important Somali Empire that had navy to add the History of Somalis. Let not ignorance or tribal minded historian undermine such powerful empire as they may have a narrow minded tribal limited ambitions and deny such powerful part of Somali history. A history that every Somali and African should be proud of knowing the Somali Armada of Ships attacking the Portuguese Navy in 16th century. Yes, the Ajuran Empire denied the Portuguese ambition of conquering East Africa by limiting their colony to Mozambique. Sofala (go plow in Somali) in Mozambique was the Ajuran Empire sentinel was located to watch any Portuguese movement north from there. SomaliAmerican1 (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Ajuran Sultanate   Maproom (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, SomaliAmerican1, and welcome to the Teahouse. You do not need permission to add anything to an article, but you do need to cite reliable published sources. I think you may have some difficulties with English (I have no idea what you mean by "was not shared"), so it would probably be best if you start a discussion on Talk:Ajuran Sultanate, explaining what you would like to change in the article, and what are your published sources. It may be that not many people follow that talk page, so you might also put a note on Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Somalia pointing to the talk page discussion that you have started. ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia, strong learner, looking for a mentor

Hi everyone, nice to meet y'all! I hope everyone around the world had a great new year. Let me introduce myself, I am PlainCroissant. I am new to Wikipedia, despite this account being created in April 2022. I aspire to become a Wikipedian as I believe an individual can learn a lot by editing an encyclopedia, as per the saying "knowledge is power". Going forward, I wish to create articles about living people as per BLP policy, edit articles, and improve articles. My niche of interest is music, sports, and comedy. Furthermore, I am looking for a mentor to help me along the way, so I have somebody to provide me clarification regarding any doubts. Kindly ping me by replying here or posting a message on my talk page if you're interested. I am looking forward to meeting you. PlainCroissant (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@PlainCroissant Welcome to Teahouse and English Wikipedia! You can find a list of volunteers willing to mentor at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey Shushugah: Thanks for your reply, sincerely appreciate it. I'll post the same message there and hopefully I will find someone soon! Take care and have a good day ahead, PlainCroissant (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Advice, often repeated here at Teahouse, is put in months attempting to improve existing articles - as part of the learning curve - before attempting to to create articles. Formatting references is non-obvious, so practice getting that right in your Sandbox. Welcome. David notMD (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey David notMD, thanks for your reply, I will take note of that. PlainCroissant (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Need help with rejected article reasoning

Hi! I am new to entertainment journalism and my first article was on Filmmaker Melicka Jamshidabadi but it got rejected. Are you able to help me fix the article and learn more about how to write my future articles on other notable public figures? The link to my article is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Melicka_Jamshidabadi Ashley Andersons (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It hasn't been rejected, Ashley Andersons, it has merely been declined. I've tinkered with it a little but I haven't made it more likely to be accepted. From what I read in the draft, Jamshidabadi seems to be what's often called an "emerging" artist. Better to wait till such artists have emerged. Still, if you hope to press ahead, then please link here to three online sources that you believe both (1) are reliable and (2) treat Jamshidabadi and/or her work in depth. -- Hoary (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Scientists who already passed away

Currently I try to write about armenian scientists,who already passed away. They have been leaving in Era where was no internet,and all publications are paper. How can I cite their works,if they are no online. 147.92.91.224 (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello 147, and welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:OFFLINE. Basically, you include the the info you have in your citation, like title of book/article, publication, pagenumber, ISBN, DOI, author etc, but you don't add a weblink. WP:TUTORIAL has the basics on how to add references properly, and if you want to make edits on WP that can "stick", This is ESSENTIAL. If you haven't checked WP:N and WP:YFA you probably should. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Citing their science publications, while useful to articles about scientists, does not contribute to what Wikipedia calls notability. What is essential is finding references to content in newspapers, etc. written about them. David notMD (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

If they're a scientist who worked in academia, a University, you should check WP:NPROF. If they meet any of the criteria there, it is possible to create a Wikipedia article for them. Broadly, the most likely ways to qualify are holding an endowed or named chair, having published a large number of highly-cited works, or being author of a widely-used textbook, winning a major award, or being an elected member of a particularly prestigious learned society. If they have already died, you may be able to find an obituary for them, perhaps published as an editorial by a journal in the field in which they worked. But the academic community tends to be more forgiving of not-quite-independent sources than most of Wikipedia, so even if all you can find is an obituary published by the academic's own university, it can probably be included. We trust Uni professors to be honest about facts. And yes, offline sources are fine; a lot of exciting things happened before the internet, which will remain unknown to 99.9% of the population unless someone goes reading real paper. Good luck! Elemimele (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Clarity on reliability issues before re-submitting

Hey there ! Last year I tried to transfer a biographical article from the German-language Wiki to the English one – and I learned that self-referencing is not appropriate and some sources were not viewed as reliable. Now, I want to learn how to get it right. First, I will shorten the article to basics and make it about facts mostly. Still, some questions popped up. May I ask where the right place or who the right person/group is to ask them? Thank you and have a good start into the year, Jens JensOhle PS I read already the relevant help pages and have three more specific questions. (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@JensOhle Guten Rutsch! welcome to Teahouse! This is the right place to ask general/policy questions, as you did. If your questions are super specific to German articles, e.g conventions for citing German legislation/area names, you can also ask on WP:GERMANY. Happy editing/translating! I'm editing from Berlin myself by the way ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply and greetings from Sweden ;-) ... no, not specific to DE ... may be I just ask them here and we look what will/can resolve?

A) Birthdate – I assume that there is no totally reliable source for that, e.g. nobody checked on Robert de Niro’s driver license or passport. It’s just believed when he stated it to an editor at some point. In my case, when the birthdate of “my” person is known to me by announcements on social media or direct involvement (e.g. having been at a birthday party) and it is stated on de.wikipedia.org for 12 months and not disputed, can I use it then?

B) Facts in artist/band website – After reading through the Wiki article on Reliable Sources, I understood that the primary artist's website contain information about and from "themselves" and are viewed most likely as self-published and questionable sources. My question: When a post is about factual information (a fact that can be verified easily), can it be used? E.g. in my case, the artist becomes part of the band (again).

C) Factual statements by the artist – Same type of question: If an artist states that s/he uses equipment A and B in an interview or podcast, can this be used?

Some part of the rejection last year was around the source for the catalogue of work and I found a confirming source under “WikiProject Albums/Sources”. With clarity on the above, I’d be comfortable to submit a re-newed and shorter article quickly. Thank you. JensOhle (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@JensOhle, as far as your first question goes, an announcement on a verified social media account is usually sufficient; direct involvement is not, and appearing on de.wiki is not (see WP:SOCIALMEDIA). Your other questions involve using self-published or primary sources. These are generally fine for uncontroversial statements of fact, but articles should not start to rely on them for their information. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Source code

C# Abdullahzebari (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Abdullahzebari: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid that Your post above is not clear enough on what your question is, but perhaps start reading our article about C#. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

John CaMPBELL page leftists vandalism

 Courtesy link: John Campbell (YouTuber)

there is a bit of confusion around about some editings on john campbell page... somebody used as source this:

"Campbell says in the video that the National Institute of Health and the Wuhan Institute of Virology were conducting experiments with monkeypox prior to the outbreak and misleadingly suggests viewers may “draw some parallels” between the origins of the monkeypox outbreak and the origins of SARS-CoV-2."

to modify the wiki page to make him appear like a conspiracy supporter... if you watch the video saying “draw some parallels” he clearly didn't meant the same origin for both viruses...

My question is: how is possible that this source passed like "truth" to the extend to destroy the reputation of a person that always showed respect for scientific methodslike John Campbell...

I say "leftists" because the page used as source ask in popoups to support far left organizations. The very same author of the article is clearly a person in paranoia anti-anti-vaxxers and clearly a Trump hater https://twitter.com/gorskon/status/1378718911831638020 95.157.71.108 (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

If you have a suggestion for the article John Campbell (YouTuber), please make the suggestion at the foot of Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber). Be sure to make it concise, precise, and backed up by reliable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Deleted draft

Hello, there is a draft I cannot find. How do I restore a draft please? thank you, BarI2021 (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

BarI2021 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It depends on the draft and why it was deleted, but WP:REFUND is probably a good place to start. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure but I assume it's due to the fact it wasnt written good nor actions for the last months. BarI2021 (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

If this was about Draft:Michal Alberstein, it appears that your request for undeletion of a draft that had timed out due to inactivity was approved. David notMD (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

and/or

Some interprising admin should create a WP:and/or article for guidance that corresponds to the and/or article so that editors can cite it to support otherwise excising that awkwardly ambiguous Janus-faced monstrosity from Wikepedia. Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kent Dominic Welcome to Teahouse! this is not something an Admin has special rights over. You can create the grammar essay if you're inclined. It would fit well within MOS:And/Or namespace or something similar. That said, this could also be WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP. A comparable essay (not official policy) is Wikipedia:Comprised of. Be bold and make your case if you wish! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy corrected wikilink: MOS#And/or. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195) 51.194.245.235 (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello 51.194.245.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), MOS would be the wrong target, because that's a Disambiguation page in the Article namespace, whereas the original poster wanted something in the Wikipedia:Project namespace cite/reference in editing discussions. MOS: is a shortcut for Wikipedia:Manual of Style, e.g Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility is different from Accessibility. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

True dat. I appreciate the earlier recommendation to create the grammar essay myself. The essay isn't the daunting part, but the tools & templates for making the correct links and formatting protocols are outside my present kit. Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kent Dominic Feel free to ping me once your essay is in a good enough state, and I'd be happy to help you link/categorize it accordingly. I have the opposite problem, very comfortable navigating the Wiki bureaucracy, less so comfortable navigating linguistic bureaucracy. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit registration?

I have registered a username Ricaltman about twelve years ago with an email address I no longer have. I can no longer log on, having lost my password. How would I edit my account? 24.75.161.96 (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, if you no longer have access to the email address associated with your old account, it is not possible to regain access unless you are able to remember the password. You will need to create a new account and identify it as a successor to your old one("I am User5678, I was previously User1234 but lost access") 331dot (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@24.75.161.96. Welcomed to the teahouse, if you want to edit in a new account, you need to follow Wikipedia:LEGITSOCK Lemonaka (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Martial arts infobox for Robert Downey Jr.

Hi, I have been adding a small martial arts info box to a page but they delete it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Downey_Jr.#Martial_Arts_infobox why can't it stay? I find editors on this page don't allow regular users to make changes. The info box is constructive, in one day viewers have opened it and clicked on Eric Oram's page his stats show a jump from 59 views in a day to 118 just cause of the box. The are over a dozen quality references stating Downey trains Wing Chun he even went on Oprah to discuss it and show where he trains and with who. The photo in the info box show three notable persons so it is relevant. I don't understand what the problem is cause the info box is small and collapsible doesn't take up space but very interesting to fans. Australianblackbelt (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Australianblackbelt, you might misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is foremost an encyclopedia, so content should not be oriented towards fans or getting more page views. The martial arts infobox portrays Robert Downey Jr. as a martial artist, which is true, but not important enough to include in detail. He is *mostly* an actor. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Australianblackbelt: there was also a referencing issue. Although you've given citations, which is good, one of them contains a url to facebook, which is almost never a reliable source to anything. The reference claims to be to a Spanish newspaper, which would be a good source. I'm guessing the fb url is either a photo of the newspaper, or someone saying the newspaper says it. If the latter, it's not a reliable source. If the former, it's a real problem because the fb page would almost certainly be a breach of copyright, and we never link to breaches of copyright. It would have been better to cite the newspaper without giving a url, assuming you are utterly sure the newspaper supports the fact. But given that he's primarily an actor and producer, an info-box as a martial artist is probably a step too far, so the point is moot. Elemimele (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The photo is more appropriate where you put it after your three (!) attempts at a second infobox were reverted. David notMD (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

recent edits

I recently made edits. One was pointed out needing a better reference. My changes have been deleted. Is there someone to talk with or can I get a number of questions answered? Thanks.Speaker Tom Murphy Migliare (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Courtesy link: Tom Murphy (Georgia politician) 331dot (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Migliare Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are welcome to ask your questions here, or you may ask the user who removed your edits directly on their own user talk page, or the article talk page(Talk:Tom Murphy (Georgia politician). I think that the main issue is that you provided no source for your edits. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Migliare We welcome new editors like yourself but there can be a steep learning curve. You need to read some of the links provided on your own Talk Page, especially the one about our process of being bold but discussing reverts on the Talk Page of articles. Wikipedia content evolves based on consensus but all substantive additions need references to reliable sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Rather than making so many changes as one large edit, break into pieces. That way, some changes may have merit and will remain, while other will be challenged and needed to be taking to the Talk page to reach consensus. David notMD (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

English

life science 41.114.147.243 (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, do you have a question to ask regarding editing? Blanchey (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you looking for our List of life sciences? Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Years Greetings

I would like to send out several hundred more 'Happy New Years' greetings. I planned on making this a once a year tradition, as I have only had my account since February of 2022 or so, but have made 13,000+ edits, mostly reverting vandalism. I found this activity to be helpful in getting to see other editors talk pages, as well as spreading joy and love to the most productive editors (by edit count) on the encyclopedia. These people work tirelessly to improve the encyclopedia and thus deserve some thanks in my view. That said, I was recently blocked for doing this by user RoySmith and then promptly unblocked. As you can see, many editors see this as a harmless and helpful activity. I would like to see about gaining WP:Consensus though BEFORE continuing to send any more 'Happy New Years' messages of love, so that I do not violate the terms of my (very brief) block. See the details on the block and block discussion here, and if this is NOT the place to try and seek feedback on this block, or more appropriately, the consensus on terms that would allow for me to proceed with sending holiday love, then please just direct me to where best to send this message. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• I've commented at AN as well, but what I'll say to the question here is that the best way to send out these messages is to send them to editors with whom you've already interacted in the course of day-to-day editing, and not on the basis of being in the top number of edits-by-account. Think of it as quality rather than quantity. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I have never interacted with Moops before, and I appreciated his New Year Wishes on my Talk page. In my opinion, it wasn't disruptive, but made my day brighter. — hike395 (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• I really don't see any problem with sending a bit of New Year cheer. You're not spamming it indiscrimately, but choosing people you think deserve it (and seeing as I got one, your judgment is obviously good ;-). I might suggest slowing down a bit, though, in case any other trigger-happy bot hunters are lying in wait. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Moops @Hike395 @Boing! said Zebedee This is a related focus of WP:WikiProject Editor Retention, which Teahouse is closely part of. While Wikipedia is WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA, it is nice to acknowledge the humans (and dogs) behind the screens. Full encouragement from my end too! Thank you! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Instead of "only people you interact with", may I suggest that Moops can give New Year's wishes on User Talk pages that don't already have New Year's wishes? I can see adding a second (or subsequent) New Years greeting could be annoying and considered spam, but the first one seemed nice (to me, at least). — hike395 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, these two criteria are not mutually exclusive (by which I mean "in addition to", rather than "instead of"). These things are matters of subjective judgment, rather than an algorithm. I just don't think that everyone-with-more-than-a-certain-number-of-edits is a good way to choose recipients, especially when Moops is being careful not to attract unwelcome attention. But I think you make a good point about avoiding people who already have a similar message. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Let me make another suggestion. If you are going to do this, make a user subpage or something explaining what you're doing, and include a link to it in the edit comment. Then the next time some admin comes along and thinks they're looking at an unauthorized bot, they'll be able to figure out what's going on. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

That is a great suggestion RoySmith, but I have never created one before. Can you help with that please? And then I might reword it or edit it to suit what I am trying to do? I am sure you can agree that this misunderstanding (of me looking like a bot) caused a lot of wasted time and unnecessary distress for those involved. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 23:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I just don't know what a "user sub-page" really is, to be clear of my ask. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 23:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Moops is your User page, while a subpage would be something like User:Moops/New Years Eve Greetings. I have some example subpages like User:Shushugah/Mistakes. You can read more at WP:SUBPAGES ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Shushugah, Does this look right for what I am trying to do? User:Moops/New Years Eve Greetings. I just tried making one. How is this @RoySmith:. I will be careful and I do NOT want to incur another block EVER again! TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moops Yup it does! I took liberty of editing your template to link to it, and also simplified {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} using Template:Tls a close sibling of {{tl}} ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 03:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Awesome. Teamwork, it does indeed seem, makes the dream work! TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

That principle - avoiding those who already have a similar message - will be especially valuable if a dozen editors follow Moops's example next year. NebY (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

That is a fair and entirely valid point NebY. TY for sharing your input. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

RoySmith, Shushugah, Tryptofish, hike395 Well then if no one else objects... I am about to start back up again, though with a bit slowed pace and with more care for various factors, also, I now will try and include the subpage in my edit summary as suggested by RoySmith (which I think is a good suggestion, and something had I known about it up front, might have stopped this calamity from taking place and absorbing many hours of effort today from me instead of just sending these out).

Unless there are any further objections, in which case, please voice them now. I may not really kick this off until tomorrow anyway—I am exhausted! I really appreciate all the input of everyone on this so that I may learn and not step on any admin toes going forward. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is the subpage link if anyone would like to anything or take anything away, or if anyone thinks my wording is dishonest, inaccurate, or otherwise incomplete or omits anything. User:Moops/New Years Eve Greetings. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• I, for one, do not want my WP user page to be cluttered up with New Year Greetings. Just forget about it. Do not do it. --Bduke (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  I will be careful to ensure you do not receive one from me. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Bduke. Sorry to sound like a wet blanket but this is not social media. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I will also ensure that you go un-greeted into the new year. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moops: although some will like receiving your New Year messages, some will not. Even a small percentage of thousands can equate to many editors who are not pleased, may even be annoyed, and may think of you as a spammer. Also, as others have noted, your messages clutter up the watchlists of everyone who has many high-volume editors on their list (bot edits can be excluded from watchlists but yours can't). Sure, you have received some thanks but I would guess that the vast majority of your recipients haven't thanked you. After all, it's one thing to receive a greeting from people with whom we've conversed and directly collaborated, quite another to receive a mass-mailing from a stranger who's been sending multiple messages a minute. Rather than simply removing objectors from your list as if it's something we have to opt out of, why not take their objections on board, accept anyway that the time for saying Happy New Year in 2023 has passed, and consider carefully whether it might be inappropriate to repeat the exercise in 2024? NebY (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I was doing this on the first, but then a kerfuffle emerged. See my talk page. Also, I'd say that upwards of 80% thank in some way. See my talk page for more at a glance. Also, isn't it January 3rd today? — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

As in still very much near the new year (all my greetings would have been on the 1st and second FYI if it weren't for yesterdays mess). :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moops, it will be the New Year until January 1st of next year, but I agree with the above that it's a bit late at this point to continue, and that you should probably keep WP:NOTSOCIAL a little more in mind. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I see the spamming has started up again, including at least one user who has not made an edit in five years due to being blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Add more location details to an infobox

How can I add things like:

• County
• Post Town
• Postcode Area
• Postcode District etc

To a template like Template:Infobox building? Danstarr69 (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Danstarr69 Hello, because the page is protected, you’d have to get a template editor to make the edits on your behalf, and for that to happen, you’d need to get consensus for those sections to be added. Blanchey (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Blanchey and how do I do that?

I've only started using the building infobox recently, as it's a better template for buildings, however the extra location details I've suggested I would have thought should have been added in the first place, as the specific location is the most important thing about a building in my opinion. Danstarr69 (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

You would have to start a discussion on the templates talk page. Hope this helps, Blanchey (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Danstarr69 from a technical point of view, address/location data is rather complex, which is why I see the longitude/latitude coordinates being preferable, because they can automatically render a map/location. That said, if changing the template doesn't work, you can always embedd another template inside. E.g.

{{Infobox building
| name =
| <!-- etc. -->
| embedded = 
  {{Infobox ABC
  | embed = yes <!-- or child=yes or subbox=yes-->
  | <!-- etc. -->
  }}
}}

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Shushugah addresses are simple, for me at least, but not so simple for most of the world clearly, and that includes organisations some of which can't even get their own addresses correct, like one I saw yesterday which used a non-specific countryside area (some mountain or hill) as part of their address, rather than the actual post town.

In the UK they should go...

Building Name/Number > Street > Neighbourhood/Village/Small Town > Larger Town/City > Ceremonial County

Obviously as Royal Mail can't be bothered to correct the post towns as they claim it would be too expensive, there's post towns which are 49 years out of date (58 years out of date in Greater London's case), but there's no getting away from that fact.

All of the above address examples should be easy to find for every location in the UK, apart from maybe the Neighbourhood/Village/Small Town as they get contradicted a lot, even by the same sources.

For example, yesterday Google contradicted itself by saying a location I was looking for was in one neighbourhood underneath the map on the main page, but when you actually clicked on the map, it said it was in a different neighbourhood. So I searched for the first neighbourhood to see where exactly it was, and found that it was a few miles North, and nowhere near the location of the place. The correct neighbourhood was the one on the map itself. Where did Google get that first neighbourhood from? I have no idea, as even the various estate agent websites didn't have the street listed in that neighbourhood.

Basically locations can have names and/or numbers.

Those names/numbers correspond to the street/road/lane/avenue/square etc.

The streets will be in a neighbourhood, which could also be a village or a small town.

Those neighbourhoods will be part of a bigger town/city/borough.

Those bigger towns/cities/boroughs will be in a ceremonial county.

Next comes the 9 regions of England, or the entire country regions of Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland. Danstarr69 (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

:*Please note that the discussion needs to take place here Template talk:Infobox person. Also be aware that fields like that were deprecated through WP:CONSENSUS quite some time ago. It was at least 9 or 10 years ago but the discussions are still in the archives. MarnetteD|Talk 00:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• MarnetteD What? This is about place locations, not people.

  Eg.

  Address - 123 Street Road, Wikipediaville

  Town or City - Wikipediatown

  County - County of Wikipedia

  Post Town - Wikipediatown

  Postcode Area - WK

  Postcode District - WK1 Danstarr69 (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

D'oh. My apologies Danstarr69. Zoom - that was yet one more thing going over my head :-P I have struck my comment.. MarnetteD|Talk 03:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Clean My Talk Pages

can i just for clean delete my all talk pages? or, something else. Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Ajrun Amir'za-da Hello, talk pages are usually not deleted as discussions are really important and are usually kept for reference. If you want to clean your talk page, you can always blank it, I would be happy to do that for you if you don’t know how to. Blanchey (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ajrun Amir'za-da Do you want your talk page content to disappear completely? It is still visible under the "view history" tab. If you want the talk page history completely "rev-deleted", you'll need to ask if that is possible. David10244 (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure i would be happy if you do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk • contribs)

That’s done for you. If any other editor has an issue with me doing this, feel free to revert me. Blanchey (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ajrun Amir'za-da @Blanchey Welcome to Teahouse! In most cases, you're allowed to blank your own User Talk page. See WP:BLANKING for further clarifications. Happy editing and blanking! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Shushugah Hi, thanks for clarifying, and pointing out that essay. Happy editing! Blanchey (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Drafting vs publishing

At what point does an article get published? I began an article in my sandbox, to make sure I really understood what I was doing. At some point all of a sudden it was apparently visible to all and got deleted because it was considered to have violated copyright. I wanted to keep correcting the content but couldn't because it had been removed. How to keep an article in the sandbox until it is really ready? Km4water (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

As soon as you save content anywhere on Wikipedia it is published and is viewable by anybody. Your draft was an unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/water-overview/protecting-freshwater/canada-water-agency-stakeholder-public-engagement-what-we-heard.html, https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2021/0812/Canada-gets-serious-about-water-woes.-Will-Indigenous-voices-be-heard, and other sources, so was speedy deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

My question is: does the content created in the Sandbox get shared right away? If not, at what point? Km4water (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Km4water. While the draft you started in your sandbox was moved to what is called "draftspace", that had no bearing on its visibility or deletion. Every page on Wikipedia is visible to other editors/readers as soon as it's saved. Sandbox pages need to comply with copyright rules as much as "published" articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

All edits to every page and article on Wikipedia appear in the Recent Changes feed, which is usually monitored by many editors, even if the page itself is not otherwise highly visible. If you don't want people to see what you are doing, don't put it on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

OK so it is safer to draft offline and then upload it. I know that the whole point is to allow editing right away so that content gets improved, but there is a big risk of discouraging would-be editors if everything they have worked on is quickly deleted. Copyright infringement is serious but perhaps the best way of dealing with it is with an edit of the offending section. That way the originator learns what is OK and can go about replacing what has been deleted with something better. Currently, the experience feels more like a thuggish 'seek and punish' operation rather than a collaboration. Km4water (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Km4water You are welcome to write a draft here if it is not a copyright violation. We must take those seriously as they potentially put this project in legal jeopardy if they are allowed. Preferably, an article should be original content that summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Km4water: Unfortunately, every revision is public when changes are saved and published, so even if you tweak the content, the original infringing material is still viewable from the article's history until an admin scrubs it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you -- that is useful to know. Wikipedia says that the sandbox is a "testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article". Somewhat misleading, as one assumes that only published encyclopedia articles are available to view.

If someone other than the originator goes in to edit a published article and infringes copyright, will the entire article be deleted or just the edited section? Km4water (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Generally if an earlier revision exists where copyright isn't infringed, changes get rolled back to that one and all the offending diffs become inaccessible from the article's history. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense -- thank you. Km4water (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Km4water I've only created 2 articles (as far as I remember. It's possible I've created a few more that I've forgotten about), while the rest of my edits have been to improve existing articles.

However what I would do if I was you, would be to do what I've done with an article I started years ago, but haven't touched in years so isn't published yet...

What did I do? I saved it on one of my private Blogger blogs, just like I do with practically every piece of useful information I find, or list that I write, so that I can update/share/publish it at a later date. Danstarr69 (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that tip. It is easy to see how uncertainty/fear prevents more engagement with this resource. I am thinking that the best approach, if you think something is important enough to include in Wikipedia, may be to create a stub, wait for edits, and then slowly add in more content. Km4water (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The BEST approach is not to copy and paste anything on Wkipedia, it's quite simple. Theroadislong (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is clear. I wonder what impact the use of AI summarizers will have. Km4water (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Km4water I think AI writing tools are going to become a nightmare for many people, and internet at large. I was involved in testing some unreleased AI software tools for blog-writing recently. My feedback to them included my views that I find the idea of half-writing a blog post and letting the software finish the job by searching for other content on the internet and then creating new sub-topics and sections, all artificially, to be utterly horrendous in the extreme. Not only does it take away creativity and fact-checking, it will mean that, eventually, a vast amount of content on the web will be written by AI, based predominantly on other AI-written content which, in turn, was partly written by other AI tools. I don't mind tools offering to rewrite a sentence or paragraph, but to vomit out AI blog posts in this way will fill the internet with more and more banal mush. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by, "Thanks for that tip." 98.97.116.80 (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP editor - I have joined your question into the thread above, as it clearly related to it. "Thanks for that tip" is another way of saying "thank you for making a good suggestion" - namely, to save certain content away from Wikipedia on a private website or personal computer file until you're ready to share it on Wikipedia. Hope that clears things up for you if English isn't your primary language. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! 71.17.29.195 (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedia.com has an entry for Nolan Davis 1942

Is he eligible for a Wikipedia page? https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/davis-nolan-1942 2600:8802:3A12:E700:65F6:ED00:6F05:B184 (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP user, the mere existence of an Encyclopedia.com entry does not connote notability, nor verifiability in secondary sources, because Encyclopedia.com (like Wikipedia) is a WP:TERTIARY source. Sometimes it cites notable WP:SECONDARY sources and sometimes it doesn't. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_279#Encyclopedia.com for discussion on the Publisher. Regarding David Nolan specifically, can you find 2-3 secondary and independent WP:SIGCOV sources? Happy editing and citation researching! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the information

https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/davis-nolan-1942

https://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n85301213/

https://bbip.ku.edu/1970-1972

Ebony

https://books.google.com/books?id=YHZ2VMzAqpkC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=nolan+davis+six+black+horses&source=bl&ots=RvdiZQhUz6&sig=ACfU3U1VY_-3TuntUPTc3AE4FfdT1qOv_g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwizib2k_Kn8AhWAEEQIHWNjDlc4HhDoAXoECAIQAw#v=onepage&q=nolan%20davis%20six%20black%20horses&f=false

Newsweek

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Newsweek/JvHjAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=nolan+davis+six+black+horses&dq=nolan+davis+six+black+horses&printsec=frontcover

And on Newspaper.com I found three write-ups on his book. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:CCA3:3F83:6AF5:C0F1 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/7569120/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/385576226/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/99105353/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/438045088/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/359907814/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/625439292/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/675979185/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/853540502/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/816460432/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1 2600:8802:3A12:E700:CCA3:3F83:6AF5:C0F1 (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Noting here that Encyclopedia.com is a kind of aggregator site. The actual publisher in this case seems to be "Contemporary Black Biography". I see no glaring reason why this shouldn't count towards WP:N. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you allow newspaper.com links? 2600:8802:3A12:E700:CCA3:3F83:6AF5:C0F1 (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yup! They're even promoted and provided for free in the WP:Wikipedia Library subscription for eligible users. Newspaper.com is a publisher, while The Olathe News is the publication in some of your linked examples. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I had no idea Encyclopedia.com was so poorly thought of. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:CCA3:3F83:6AF5:C0F1 (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing! I encourage you to start a draft at Draft:Nolan Davis ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! 2600:8802:3A12:E700:CCA3:3F83:6AF5:C0F1 (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's poorly thought of but should be used correctly. Compare WP:BRITANNICA and perhaps WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Yahoo_News. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

merlene ottey

love always 207.204.77.75 (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Do you have a genuine question about the Merlene Ottey article that we can help you with? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Recent articles have not been appearing in search engine.

What's good y'all.

I've noticed that since my article on Émile Reutlinger, some of the article's I have created have not been showing up in seach results (unless you type in its exact name). This also applies to the articles for Johann Eustach von Westernach, Johann Kaspar von Stadion, and Death and funeral of Pope Benedict XVI. All of them are articles that I have made that fail to appear in search results even when linking to them in other articles. There doesn't seem to be an corelary between any of them, besides that I made them and all of them, with the exception of the article on Johann Eustach von Westernach, had the under construction template on them. Is this a known issue and what can I do to combat this? Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Knightoftheswords281 Do you mean they're not showing up in Wikipedia's search results, or not appearing on Google (other browsers exist) results pages? All the links you gave are to incredibly new articles, so I am wondering if your expectations are greater than the reality of indexing. I've found similar issues with new articles I've written. Maybe patience is all that's needed? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Knightoftheswords281. A new article is not indexed by search engines unless one of two things happens: Either the article has been reviewed by a New pages patroller, or the article is more than 90 days old. Please read Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing for more information. Cullen328 (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Nick Moyes and @Cullen328. I actually just realized that I should of specified (after reading this section). I mean that they don't appear on Wikipedia. I've known since my first article that it takes time to index pages on search engines. What I mean is that they aren't appearing on Wikipedia's internal search engine. Ironically enough they all appear on search engines like Google. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Knightoftheswords281: They all show up in my searches. Are you using the normal search box on pages here at en.wikipedia.org? What are your search terms? Always be specific when you report an issue. Does the search results page say "(Article)" at "Search in:"? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It does say (article) and I used every type of search box (the one at wikipedia.org, the one at the top of every article, and the dedicated search page).

Interestingly enough however, I checked on my phone to see if the articles would show up, and they did. It seems to be an issue with my computer (I searched incognito and it didn't appear either). Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Knightoftheswords281 I can confirm I'm finding the same as you using the Edge browser on my PC. Using the standard Wikipedia search box at the top of the page here I can start typing e m i l e... (without the spaces, obviously, just put in to imply I'm looking out for the titles offered below the search box). Once I get to "emile reutl" all that is offered is Emile Reuter. However, if I continue and type the whole "emile reutlinger" followed by a carriage-return, I go straight to the article Émile Reutlinger (without being notified of any redirect). At first I assumed this was an issue about the article title having a leading e-acute but exactly the same is true for Johann Eustach von Westernach. By the time I've typed "johann eustac", there are no suggestions left below the search box, yet continuing to the full title as "johann eustach von westernach" followed by carriage-return gets me right to Johann Eustach von Westernach. It seems that the searching tool has something against your authorship! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you all using Edge? Do other browsers suffer from the same problem? My impression is that every time Edge actually gets something right, Microsoft quickly release a very large windows update to get things back to normal. Elemimele (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull I remember having a similar problem with an accented 'E' when I created Émile Rey. I got around it by making a WP:REDIRECT from Emile Rey, which does show up as you type their name in Wikipedia's search box. (Knightoftheswords281 could do the same by making a redirect from Emile Reutlinger. But that doesn't actually address the root cause of the problem being reported here. I guess it comes down to not very advanced search algorithms being deployed here on Wikipedia, or something technical like that that I'm never going to fully comprehend.

I note one can search for 'emile reutlinge' (with the last letter intentionally left off) and Google offers me your article on Émile Reutlinger as its second option (see here). Meanwhile Wikipedia fails to show anything remotely close, offering instead nearest matches to 'emily reutlingen' (see here). Searching for 'emile reut*' does get your article offered in a list of search results. The asterisk was the old way of saying 'any character or characters from this point on'. So perhaps Google has made us come to expect too much from search algorithms. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Promoting National Military Appreciation Month from a C to a B

I have done extensive work on the article I have created and I think it deserves a B review now, well sourced and has a lot of information. Is there a place where I can request it? Thanks! `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 01:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@HelpingWorld Welcome to Teahouse! The WP:MILHIST WikiProject currently rates it C level. You can learn about their review process at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment. Most other WikiProjects are much less formal, and you can directly change the assessments yourself following Wikipedia:Content assessment. Have fun improving Wikipedia! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shushugah, I read the criteria for B level, and it meets all of it. Can I change it myself and how would I do that?`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 02:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@HelpingWorld Any individual (including author) can change for B ratings and below. For WP:GA there is the WP:GAN process. For your case, you can change it directly at Talk:National Military Appreciation Month. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

HelpingWorld, I recommend against promoting to B class. The article says with the president commemorating the observance with a ceremonial speech and proclamation but that assertion is not verified by the reference that follows. The date format is not consistent, with both month-day-year formats being used alongside day-month-year formats. The article should be checked over carefully. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Cullen328, could you elobarate in the date format is not consistent, with both month-day-year formats being used alongside day-month-year formats? I can fix the first one but the second one has no issue.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

HelpingWorld, look at the "History" section. At one point it says February 9, 1999 and at another point it says 30 May 1999. Those are incompatible date formats. Date formatting should be standardized within each individual article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328, one says February 9, 1999 and the other says may 30,1999 should I format it like 30 May 1999 and 9 February 1999 ? Most articles do it the way I did.

HelpingWorld, you need to take a very careful look at every single date in that article. The second sentence of the "History " section uses a date format inconsistent with the first sentence of the same section. The lead section says 1st day of May to the 31st of May, which not anything close to standard date formatting. Please check all of your dates, and standardize them. Added at 06:53, 3 January 2023 by Cullen328

HelpingWorld, the article is about a subject that's specific to the US. So Wikipedia practice, backed up by a MoS page that I can't be bothered to look for right now, is to write primarily for readers expecting American practice. This includes "American" spelling, antique units of measurement, and a date format that changes direction in the middle. Thus "May 30, 1999" and similar. -- Hoary (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328 and Hoary. I fixed the format, Now it says May 1st and may 31st.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 07:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

HelpingWorld, I am sorry but you have not yet fixed the date problems. WP:MOSDATES says Do not use ordinals (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) and yet you are using ordinals in the lead section. Plus, the first sentence of the "History" section still has date formatting incompatible with the date formatting in the second sentence. You have multiple date formats mixed together in one article. Please standardize the dates. Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I was so confused what you meant but I forgot to check the 2nd sentence. I finally finished correcting it, I would of never known, thanks!`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 07:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@HelpingWorld The first two sentences of the "History" section say the same thing, I think. And the first sentence would be much better as two sentences; it is almost a run-on sentence. David10244 (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The observance was designated by the US Congress, but it's "not a nationally recognized month". How is this possible? (Or what does "designation" mean?) Also I'd never call May a "date". And that's just in the one-paragraph "History" section, which is so convoluted that I had trouble following it. (Tip: Try reading it out loud.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to edit the article myself and just insert the picture into the article. Would that be okay?

Hi, I'm a paid contributor but I am only a beginner here in wikipedia so I submitted a draft of a politician's biography for review and it was already assessed thanks to the editors who helped me improve the article. Since there was an issue with the picture when I submitted the article for review... it was removed while I was trying to settle the issue. Now that it is resolved and is back in wkicommons, I wanted to edit the article myself and just insert the picture into the article. Would that be okay? I'm just scared of violating the policies. Madona Jace (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Madona Jace Welcomne to Teahouse and thank you for asking instead of doing it first. No, you should make an edit request using Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard.  Courtesy link: Anthony Golez ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 03:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Madona Jace (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Madona Jace I've added back the image, since the licensing on Commons is now correct and it is an appropriate picture. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi I need to upload a biography of someone in Science, can you please help me?

We can't upload our own biography since it's discourages by wikipedia. Someone else has to do it. Scarbajo (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Scarbajo. When you write We can't upload our own biography, you seem to be saying that this is an autobiography of several people or that your account is controlled by several people. This is potentially a major problem. Each Wikipedia account is for one person and one person only. Please clarify. Added by Cullen328 at 06:41, 3 January 2023

Alternatively, Scarbajo, perhaps you meant to say "We individuals who want to upload our respective autobiographies". You can write a draft, if you really want to. If, for example, you're a physicist named Jo Bloggs, you can do it at Draft:Jo Bloggs (physicist). Make sure that everything in is backed up by specific reliable sources. But my advice is not to bother. If, unlike the huge majority of people, you're genuinely notable, then skilled and experienced Wikipedia editors will want to create an article about you, without any need of nudging by you. While they slave away at your article, you can devote your valuable time to the pursuit of whatever it is that makes you notable. -- Hoary (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are here to provide advice, but not to be authors or co-authors of articles. The guideline WP:YFA explains how to create and submit a draft. The guideline Wikipedia:Notability (academics) explains how to determine if an academic scientist could be considered notable. The careers of the great majority of scientists do not qualify. David notMD (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Unusual behavior of Infobox in Santali Wikipedia

Hi, for more than 3 months I have seen something unusual with the infobox in Santali Wikipedia. Compare infobox in English - Narendra Modi (Normal info) and Santali - ᱱᱚᱨᱮᱱᱫᱽᱨᱚ ᱢᱳᱫᱤ (infobox widened in desktop mode). But, it seems to work normal in mobile minerva theme (mobile view). Can anyone point me to the solution to this problem. It would be a great help. Rocky 734 (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rocky 734: Hi. I haven't clicked on the links you provided, but from what you've described, it seems to be a technical issue for Santali Wikipedia, which is beyond the scope/understanding/user privileges of English Wikipedia, and their users. The best venue for you to get your answer is meta:Tech. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the link @Usernamekiran . I'm going to ask there. Rocky 734 (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rocky 734: my pleasure :-) 13:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Entertainer Notability Understanding

Hello, I am trying to understand guideline Wikipedia:NACTOR. If an actor has a significant role in a TV Based notable show, buy that show was super hit and then again they create the 2nd season of it. Then that actor will be consider notable or not? As now he is acting in multiple shows but the show is same, just a new season. Will we consider it as multiple show or one?

Thanks Lordofhunter (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Lordofhunter. Special notability guidelines like WP:NACTOR function as a quick assessment tool and do not guarantee that an article will be accepted. In other words, it might be reasonable to assume that an actor who has a significant role (what precisely does "significant" mean?) is likely to be notable. But what really counts is whether or not the actor has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are entirely independent of the actor, his management, his PR team and the PR teams of any production he has been a part of. The presumption is that an actor with a "significant role" in what you call a "super hit" (how do you quantify that?) will have received such coverage. So, you need to furnish the evidence of such coverage in the form of references. Cullen328 (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328 I guess, you are referring to WP:GNG, but what I believe is as per point 1 of WP:NACTOR it clearly says if a person had significant roles in multiple television shows, he is considered as notable. This guideline has nothing to do with PR material here etc because he/she has shown credibility and merit. That's why I asked if a person who is an actor in 2 series, can he or she consider notable.

Cullen328 I am just reading old random AFd to understand notability. In this AFD also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franklin Prestage once people got reliable sources then he was considered as notable instead of finding significant coverage and checking if it is independent or not etc. Lordofhunter (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Lordofhunter. You are missing the import of the paragraph "Additional criteria" further up the page, which says People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.. ColinFine (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lordofhunter: To answer what I think was your original question, I don't think having a role in two seasons of a single TV show counts as having roles in multiple shows. Deor (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank You Cullen328, Deor for your valuable time. Lordofhunter (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Why my edits are reverted back ?

User:RPSkokie, have reverted my edits from Divya Gokulnath. If (ASU + GSV Summit 2019 Power of Women Award) is non notable, then why it is here on Cindy Mi's wiki article? and why RPSkokie has removed this. Please note i am not an employee of Byju's, not a paid editor or not a family of Divya Gokulnath. I'm just trying to understand out whether Wikipedia's policy is not same for all entries.Gaargi Puri (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Gaargi Puri Hello, and welcome! The reason for the change was explained in the summary, the source you used was not reliable and possibly promotional. I also see that the editor suspected you were being paid, although if you claim that you are not, I don’t see any reason why you wouldn’t be believed. Blanchey (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Blanchey, I am still trying to understand whether Wikipedia's policy is not same for adding the same entry on different articles. i have no complaint from removing my edits but i didn't get the answer of my question. Gaargi Puri (talk) 09:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Gaarga Puri, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is that Wikipedia's policy is the same, but it has not historically always been applied. We have many thousands of articles which were created before we were as careful as we are today, and which would not be accepted if they were submitted today. Unfortunately, as this is a volunteer endeavour, it is nobody's "job" to go through those thousands and thousands of articles improving or deleting them, so it doesn't happen very much. If you find an article which is not up to today's standards, you are quite welcome to work on it, to improve it if possible, or to nominate it for deletion if the subject is not notable or the article of such low quality that it cannot be saved. Please see Other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read my conversation on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RPSkokie#You_removed_an_award . Gaargi Puri (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Gaargi Puri when you say entry I take it you mean source? If so, no, I don’t think so, although an experienced Wikipedian might want to explain this better. What I think you should do going forward is to make sure that all additions to the article are backed up by reliable sources and if you are unsure about anything, take it to the talk page and see what other editors think, to stop any possible disruption to the article. I hope this helps. Blanchey (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Unsuccessful article change

I have recently re-written a Wikipedia article that contained inaccuracies and missed many crucial pieces of information. Having made the changes and clicked 'publish' I checked and confirmed that the new entry was online. But I now find that the old article has re-appeared and my new one is nowhere to be seen. Is there a delay between re-submitting a new article or should it be instantly available and the old one superceded? Hayneman (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hayneman Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not clear on which article you are referring to; your recent edits to Harry Pitch to add an image were removed, I think because you are claiming the image as your own work, though it seems professionally taken and Mr. Pitch is deceased. Did you take the image? 331dot (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know my late father bought the rights to the photo. But I could remove it if it's still a problem. Otherwise all the information is correct and far more detailed than the earlier anonymous version. Also, are all new submissions peer-reviewed before final permanent addition to Wikipedia? Hayneman (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks like you also removed a "[circa]" and as well as removing the category tags from the article. Your edits were reverted. UtherSRG (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Hayneman, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm guessing that you made some edits to Harry Pitch as an unregistered user, and then created your account in case that was why they were undone, yes?

It is perfectly acceptable to edit without an account, but it is helpful for communication to have an account and use it, so thank you for creating your account.

It looks to me as if your edits were quite substantial, and at least some of them were not constructive, in that you removed cited information, and added unsourced information. It is a core policy of Wikipedia that all information in articles be sourced from published sources: unpublished information is never acceptable.

It is usually best to make multiple small edits rather than one huge one, so that if somebody thinks some of your work is not appropriate, they can revert that part without reverting the whole lot. If you look at the history of the article, you can see who the editors were who reverted your changes, and what their edit summaries were.

The best approach for you now is to follow WP:BRD and open discussions on the article's talk page Talk:Harry Pitch. ColinFine (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions Colin. It's difficult to make 'many small changes to the original' text because it is one continuous chunk of writing and I think my new version tells a much better story by breaking my father's career into separate, more logical sections. If I keep all the original references and remove the photo, do yuou think that my new version will be acceptable? Hayneman (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hayneman As made clear on your Talk page, Harry Pitch being your father is absolutely a conflict of interest in the Wikipedia use of the term (see WP:COI). As such declare that connection on your User page if you have not already. Wat you know to be true cannot be included unless verified by reliable source references. Also, and this will be annoying, because of the COI, you are prohibited from directly editing the article. Instead, you are limited to proposing changes on the Talk page, so that a not-connected editor can decide to incorporate or not. David notMD (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Another option: User:Ghmyrtle created the article in December, and also reverted your rewrite. You could contact Ghmyrtle on that editor's Talk page, describe what is not correct and what can be added, in all instances providing properly formated references to reliable sources in support of your proposed changes. G, as an editor without COI, can edit the article directly. David notMD (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for having this discussion. The article I put together drew on a number of published sources, and obviously some may have contained inaccuracies of which I was not aware, and the process of rewriting may have introduced more inaccuracies. If any were of my doing, I apologise - it's of course also possible that any errors were in the original sources. What concerned me more, however, when I saw Hayneman's edits, was that a great deal - it may have been the entire text, I'm not sure - seemed to be a blatant copyright infringement, by lifting whole sections (and the image) directly from the Daily Telegraph obituary here. Obviously that cannot be allowed. There was also a good deal of peacock wording, promoting a person's uniqueness, etc., which may be appropriate for an obituary but not for a purely factual encyclopedia article. What Hayneman needs to do - as I've already suggested - is to explain on the article talk page exactly what the errors are. If they can be corrected without diverging too much from what the sources say, they can and will be corrected. But, it is inappropriate for a family member (or friend) to edit the article themselves - conflict of interest. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Rahemur Rahman

Hello everyone! I just submitted my first wikipedia article yesturday and would love some feedback for its next review. Any feedback is much appreciated. Sustainablequeen (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Sustainablequeen Hello and welcome. You have already submitted the draft for a review; when it is reviewed, the reviewer will give you feedback. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

331dot, thank you. If you do have any feedback on the draft, I'd love to hear and amend before it it reviewed again. Sustainablequeen (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Sustainablequeen, there's a lot of "Rahman said [such and such]" in your draft. But Wikipedia isn't much interested in what the subjects of articles have said about themselves. What have sources independent of Rahman said about him or his work? -- Hoary (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you - I shall amend these. Sustainablequeen (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Sustainablequeen, and welcome to the Teahouse. Reviewers choose which drafts they look at in their own time (which is why we cannot predict how long a review will take). But I am reasonably confident that the long list of bare URLs in the reference section of your draft will be a turn-off for a reviewer. Please look at referencing for beginners, and work on making your references more informative. The important part of a reference is to see the author, publisher, title, date: this enables a reviewer to make a quick initial assessment of how valuable a resource it is likely to be. For example, it is important to know whether a source is independent of the subject: if it originates from the subject, or from their associates, employers, agents, or producers, it contributes nothing towards establishing notability, and is limited in what information it may be used to support. ColinFine (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey Colin,

This is great advice, thank you so much. I'll read through and make the references more informative. Sustainablequeen (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

PROBLEMS IN LAYOUT-ING

Hello again! Hope you're fine, I have a problem with WP:LAYOUT especially a statement, Infobox goes before the introduction. One of the editor had to come and recorrect all of the articles I created and I really feel bad to burden him/her/them/it.

• The editor puts infobox (which I alway place after introduction) right after description/on top then introduction follows but when an article is reviewed/saved, an introduction starts then infobox follows, when I tried to put infobox before the introduction on the new draft I'm working on Draft:Meddy (singer), infobox remains on top introduction lays low when reviewed/saved. Is there any additional stuff?

ANU^writes 13:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

afyaniuhai, I don't know how an article such as this benefits from an infobox. In your place, I wouldn't have created an infobox; but its position looks OK to me. What's a lot more important is that the draft has unsourced personal information about the man, e.g. the name of his wife. In view of this, I for one would decline the draft. -- Hoary (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary for a reply, I though submitted drafts/articles can be declined as not enough for an article since the editor submitted them as completed but that's still in maintainance, but it's alright. I only had the problem with Infobox (I've also cited all those regions with 5 refs, And I'll add them up to 10, I'll kindly notify you to see the article when finished. ANU^writes 13:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Help with notice

Why was this notice about copyediting put on the article? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 14:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vortex3427. I think the answer lies int he fact that you have made a lot of detailed edits to this article since November, and another editor has not unreasonably highlighted that the style or writing could be made to fit in better with Wikipedi's encyclopaedic voice. There are some quite long sentences full of clauses, and a fair bit of trivia. They felt that the article would benefit from being trimmed back with some relatively minor editing to make it more readable - hence the notice.

Here's one example the editor might have been a bit thinking about: "As a child, Stovall had severe asthma and visited Hendrick Medical Center over a dozen times, although it has since grown milder with age. He also spent three months at the National Jewish Hospital. A large hospital, it had an onsite kindergarten and field trips. Stovall first visited an arcade on one such field trip and played Night Driver (1976). He lived in Abilene, Texas, where he attended Alta Vista Elementary School and Cooper High School." It's rather full of trivia, and the subjects of the sentences do jump around a bit, nor is it in the most logical order. So, some copy editing would be welcome to polish it a bit further. But I also know from experience that, having worked hard on researching and writing a whole load of text over many weeks, it can often be easier for a fresh pair of eyes to do that final work. Don't be offended by this - it actually a way of saying this is interesting, but it could be made to flow better with a little more work. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Generally, I'd say, Ask the editor who added the tag. In this case, I see it was an IP editor, and that was their only edit from that IP address. You could still put a question on that IP user's talk page, but there's no guarantee they would see it.

If you consider the text carefully, and decide that the tag is not appropriate, you can remove it - make sure you explain in the edit summary what you're doing. If the IP user (or anybody else) disagrees, they can open a discussion. ColinFine (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Manfred_Doss Draft publish

Hi there. I've written an Article for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Manfred_Doss . Unfortunately i cannot publish it or move it to the namespace due to the missing "more"-Button? What am I doing wrong? Username: User:AnnaZwei

AnnaZwei (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AnnaZwei. Another editor (and one experienced in article reviewing) has now added a 'submit for review' button to your draft. (Brand new users here cannot move drafts into mainspace until they have a few more edits than you do).

That editor (Theroadislong) has left a note on the draft, which needs addressing before you submit it again. In essence, there's an awful lot of factual statements, but none are directly supported by inline citations. You need to address this, linking each statement to a source. Just a link to a website at the end is not sufficient. If you are connected with the person (i.e. you worked with him or knew him), you should declare any such connection on your userpage. See WP:COI for guidance on that. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Archiving talk page

I am LordVoldemort728 and I am here to know that how to archive my talk page in different archive numbers? I am able to archive my talk page at User talk:LordVoldemort728/Archive 1 but I want to archive 5 messages to User talk:LordVoldemort728/Archive 2, 5 messages to User talk:LordVoldemort728/Archive 3, 5 messages to User talk:LordVoldemort728/Archive 4 ....... But I don't know how to do like this pattern via a user script so can anyone tell me that how to archive messages of talk page to different archive page numbers. Thanks. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, once the archive 1 reaches a certain size, lowercase sigmabot will automatically start archiving to archive 2, then 3 and so on. The reason for this is so that they are in chronological order. Hope this helps. Blanchey (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blanchey Can I change the certain size. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@LordVoldemort728: Hi. In the archive settings at the top of your talkpage, there is parameter maxarchivesize, currently it is set in raw format as 100000, this works. But you can set it as 100k as well. 100000 is the standard, and recommended value for the size of archive page. 80k would be very small, and that value will generate a lot of archive pages. I recommend you to stick to your current settings. When the current page (User talk:LordVoldemort728/Archive 1) gets to the size of 100k, the bot will automatically create /Archive 2. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@LordVoldemort728: oh I just understood your question. Having only 5 threads/messages per archive page will also spawn a lot of pages. You can try 75k as the size, but you shouldn't go any lower than that. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@LordVoldemort728 In addition to advising you to keep your archives reasonably lengthy (or else it will be hard to find stuff again), I would also suggest your current setting of having just a 24 hour period before allowing the archive bot to archive the oldest of your four threads is also extremely unwise and unhelpful to everyone who engages with you. It will constantly be clearing out what you've told it are old messages, yet 24 hours or more is quite often the length of time between receiving replies to a thread.

Unless you have things you want hidden away from view and put immediately into an archive (and that tends to make people like me somewhat suspicious) my advice would be to keep at least the last 30 days of discussions (and at least the latest 10 to 20 threads) visible on your user talk page, and keep the archive files pretty large so you don't end up with myriads of them. Expecting someone who wants to engage with you to hunt through old archives after you've tidied them away is not really that helpful. You will also find it easier to keep track of recent interactions with others.

I admit that I could be seen as taking things to extremes, but I like to keep my own talk messages visible for about 6 months, and to have fewer, reasonably lengthy archives, too. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@LordVoldemort728: I hadn't realised the 24 hours setting. I mistook it for 24 days. I agree with Nick. I strongly recommend at least a week, and the longest for a month. 14 to 20 days is a good amount. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@LordVoldemort728: You can also look at what others do. For example, I archive my talk pages by year, not by size threshold, and I keep six months (180d) of history on my talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Difficulty Switching From Source To Visual Editor

Sometimes when I'm in the source editor the button to switch to the visual editor is not visible or not apparent. I have observed this on different computers with different browsers. Is there something I'm missing? What's the simplest, most consistent and reliable way to switch from the source to the visual editor? Iguana0000 (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Iguana0000, welcome to the Teahouse. There may be a bug, or you may simply be noticing that the Visual Editor is (by design) not available in some places on the site, such as talk pages. You can go into your personal preferences and check the box titled something like "Always use VE when available" - more detailed instructions are at top left of WP:VE, under the heading Enable VisualEditor. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious, after becoming comfortable with the source editor, why anybody would want to switch to the visual editor? I never use the visual editor myself. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I barely ever use visual editor, but there are some things it is useful for – if you want to swap columns about in a table, for instance, editing the wikitext directly is a giant pain. You can do it – if the wikitext is laid out nicely and your text editor supports column selection it might not be too bad – but for the everyday user it's no fun at all. And just parsing the wikitext for complicated tables, even to make simple edits, is pretty high-overhead unless you are very used to it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I primarily use the visual editor because I copyedit. I don't need to see every single template and citation expanded into code when I'm adjusting for grammar and flow. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I think Teahouse Hosts could benefit from being familiar with both. Increasingly, new users are starting with Visual Editor, and we do need to know how things work so we can help them. I've been trying to force myself to use it more - especially as it's usually the de facto editor offered in formal training at many editathons. As well as working with tables, and avoiding all the code when copy editing, I also find it quite good for modifying existing references once I've used Source Editor to enter a 'ref name' (which WP:VE, frustratingly, still doesn't permit). Nick Moyes (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The visual editor allows citations to be reused, albeit with no option to choose a customised ref name. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Uploading a logo for my organization

Hello! Happy new year and thank you for the invite. I am currently making a page for the Indycar team I work for, Steinbrenner Racing. This is part of my job, I have photos and logos that they have asked me to use. I am having trouble uploading the logo without it being deleted. How should I go about it as far as selecting the correct license(s) for the logo and our other photos? They are all ours and I have been told to use them so there is no issue there. Thank you! Ajusc21 (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ajusc21 The logo won't make any difference to the review of your draft when you submit it to WP:AFC, so I'd not worry about it at present. Once the article is accepted (if it is) then please read WP:LOGO for the process. I doubt that your racing team really want the logo to be available for anyone to use for any purpose whatsoever, so it won't be appropriate for Commons but can go (at low resolution) here on the English Wikipedia, as explained at the page I linked. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Are these good sources to show notability ?

Brittanica WorldCat works entry Pulse News in Nigeria Google book paragraph about the person seeking a Wikipedia page. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:246A:5770:5E30:1A69 (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

When does a user page violate WP:NOTWEBHOST ?

Hi everyone, I mainly edit Motorsport pages and lately noticed a user cluttering his Userpage with fantasy championship entry lists and championship tables. As I rarely interact with other users apart from warning IP vandals here and there, I'm not too familiar if this behavior violates Wikipedia:NOTWEBHOST (because the user page I'm talking about is now almost 300k bytes large)?

And if it does, is there an automated system to notify admins of very large user pages, or does someone have to expicitly notify an admin of this? And at which noticeboard would one do this?

Thanks, and happy new year everyone! H4MCHTR (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

H4MCHTR the amount of storage is negligible. Any uploaded photo (such as on my User page) will instantly be more than that. If they have some decoration/personality on their profile, who cares as long as they are making constructive edits. Examples of blatant hosting violations include copyrighted content, treating user page as drafting space for articles, social media/blog posts unrelated to English Wikipedia etc… ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Right, thank you! How would you handle a user using his page as drafting space for articles? Maybe you could take a look at their page, the user is called RxxingAddict, and tell me your opinion? H4MCHTR (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

On the Attitude of Administrators and Seasoned Editors

Lately it has come to my attention the rude and unwelcoming manners of a certain number of administrators and seasoned editors, either in the teahouse or in the interactions on talk pages on different articles, even though I understand that disruptive/vandalizing behaviour is harmful for the project and must be addressed swiftly and that the administrator positions entails certain rights and prerogatives, i extend a cordial invitation on everyone here to adjust the attitude to reflect the expectations of welcoming, politeness and patience and even more keenly to those who have spent more time and effort on wikipedia to follow the guidelines and policies that they're so eager to enforce, lets continue building a better and more inclusive and welcoming project. Juanriveranava (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)