Wikipedia:Teahouse

Melecie, 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.

ns12

ns4

Translating foreign film/television titles to English

Hi Teahouse, I've recently encountered an editor who has taken it upon themselves to translate a large number of foreign-named film and television titles. While I've looked at WP:COMMONNAME and the MOS section on titles, in order to ascertain whether or not this is justified or recommended, as most of the titles in question aren't very common, I'm unsure how to proceed, especially as the editor in question has been somewhat reticent on the topic. I'm wondering if I should just leave it, or if this type of mass translation is frowned upon and further action should be taken. Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: Are they actually moving the pages to a new title? Or just adding the translation to the lead? – Joe (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear: the editor in question is moving pages to an English title. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Without knowing the specifics, that does sound problematic to me then. Especially if they're doing the translating themselves rather than taking it from sources. If they're not responding to requests to stop (which should be enough to stop making the moves unilaterally, per WP:BOLDMOVE), I'd escalate it to ANI. – Joe (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, according to them, they are using sourced, or "official" translations, so that particular point doesn't seem problematic. My main area of concern around this issue is that I'm not sure what the protocol is, or if it is recommended to translate all, or most, foreign titles to English (unless the productions are specifically known by their foreign title rather than a translated one). Any thoughts on this? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The general rule (not just for films) is that we use the name most commonly used in reliable, English sources. If the foreign term is the one most commonly used in English ("Mein Kampf", not "My Struggle"; "Das Kapital", not "Capital (Marx)") then we use the foreign term. If the English term is most common, then we use that: "The 400 Blows" (not: "Les quatre cents coups "); Seven Samurai (not: "Shichinin no Samurai", or "七人の侍"). Mathglot (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to ping User:Revirvlkodlaku. Mathglot (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand that last point; that's what I meant when I wrote "unless the productions are specifically known by their foreign title rather than a translated one". My question is, if the titles are not well known, is it preferable to leave them in their original language, or is the English name preferred? Is there a guiding principle around this? In other words, is it a problem that this user is changing the names of a whole bunch of titles to English? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Joe, @Mathglot, I'm still hoping to get to the bottom of this issue. Do you have any additional thoughts that could help me figure out how to proceed? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: I don't understand this part of your question: "if the titles are not well known". What do you mean by that: 1) if the English title is not well known; 2) the foreign one; 3) or if the film itself is unknown under any name? The general rule for a topic (film, or not) which exists in a foreign language, is to follow WP:COMMONNAME. One of the examples given in that section is to use: "Sailor Moon (character) (not: Usagi Tsukino)" If there isn't agreement among editors about what constitutes the common name in English sources (which might be English, or not, as we have seen above), then the next step is for editors to discuss the name at the article Talk page, using the five criteria for a title. If there are a lot of articles affected, and it's impractical to start discussions at multiple article Talk pages, you could raise the discussion at a wikiproject talk page, such as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. List the articles you are concerned with there (or indicate them somehow, if the list is really long), and ask for |feedback about the retitling there, in order to gain consensus. Another possible venue would be WT:Article titles (pick just one page for the discussion, but you can point to the discussion with a brief, neutral notification at the other one). I'm not sure if this answers your question, because I'm not sure I understood it. Mathglot (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot, you're pretty much spot on, actually, and that is good advice. Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot I stumbled across a few of these on IMDB around the same time you wrote this post.

A 2019 British series, with 6 English episode titles, where 4 of them had been given German titles by an IMDB contributor, so I corrected them.

If the on-screen titles for the episodes in the UK were in German, then fair enough, but they weren't.

At this moment in time, IMDB doesn't let you add alternative titles for TV/web episodes, which is stupid imo, as there are 100s of 1000s episodes I've stumbled across over the years which have 2 or 3 different titles in English alone, never mind in another language.

Usually it's when the original TV networks themselves give an episode a different title on it's programme page, than what actually appears on-screen, which following IMDB guidelines, on-screen titles should always be the priority title.

There was even a massive blockbuster film which came out a couple of years ago, which has an on-screen title which contains a subtitle, yet it's advertised everywhere, including on the official posters, without that subtitle. Danstarr69 (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Danstarr69, Thanks, that's interesting to know about how iMDB contributors work. iMDB content and iMDB guidelines have no effect on what happens at Wikipedia and in particular the title. If iMDB contributors also edit here, then just like anyone else they are subject to our policies and guidelines, and if they are naming things incorrectly and you're following the guidelines, then that will presumably be seen and upheld by consensus. The key point being, we wouldn't revert them *because* they are supposedly an iMDB editor (or copying what iMDB editors do), but rather because they're editing against *our* policy.

This discussion is getting longish for a Help page, but hasn't had much response from others, and if you, or Revirvlkodlaku feel that a satisfactory result hasn't crystallized yet, then probably it's time to move this either to WT:WikiProject Film, or to Wikipedia talk:Article titles, to solicit fresh eyes and further feedback. If either of you want to do that, be my guest, or upon request, I will do it for you. See Template:Moved discussion to if you're interested. Mathglot (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot I meant to reply to @Revirvlkodlaku...

However, out of interest, with Wikipedia's rules on episode titles, if the BBC for example advertised an episode on its episode page with one title, but on-screen it had a different title, which title should we use?

Or is it another case of the ambiguous "whatever is the most common." Danstarr69 (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Danstarr69 I don't think I've considered that question before, and I believe it would turn on how other editors (i.e. consensus) viewed "on-screen" with respect to "publication", as our title policy requires published sources; I'm not even sure myself where I stand on that issue. I think these aren't elementary questions anymore, and would benefit from a change of venue. P.S., it seemed like you were replying to me due to indentation; see WP:THREAD for more on that. Mathglot (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot, I thought I had wrapped up the conversation earlier, when I thanked you for your advice. I have also started a discussion at WikiProject Film, so it's all good. Thanks again! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film § Mass move/translation of foreign-language titles to English.

Place marking an edit in progress

I started editing a page, but had to stop part way through because of other time comitments. How do I return to the that page and the place I left off? Telerana (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to Catholic University of the Most Holy Conception, you need only to revisit the page and edit it as you did the first time. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Telerana, kindly let me know if I got this right or not. I am interpreting what you said as in "you start to type things in the visual editor / source code, but had to stop part way through, and you wonder if your editing progress in the editor can be saved".

If that is the case, I suggest that you make small-stepped edits in your sandbox. Hit "save" / "publish" every time you do it. When you think you've accumulated a cohesive paragraph / sentence, copy-paste it to the article.

Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm new at this and didn't think of using the sandbox. Telerana (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

No worries! Welcome to the community. -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Telerana Another thing that you could do is copy-paste your current draft into a Google Doc or a Microsoft Word document or something like that, and the next time you want to edit your article, just copy-paste what you have in the document or Word back into the Wikipedia editor. You might have a bit of a problem with your citations with copy and pasting, though, so just be careful with those and save the websites or books or articles (or something) somewhere as well. It just seems to be a bit more convenient this way. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 05:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Very helpful. I joined to edit Wikipedia because a couple of articles within my area of expertise have several assertions based on out-of-date research. I think it's important to correct those errors. Telerana (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Telerana This is unrelated, but have you considered joining the related WikiPedia Projects of the articles you mention? Maybe some other editors would be happy to join your efforts. TheLonelyPather (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Telerana Relativity Or save it privately on Blogger, like I do with every piece of text that I think I might need in future.

I've got random lists, large comments I write a lot on social media, and even a few incomplete Wikipedia articles I started years ago, but haven't created yet somewhere on 1 of my 5 or 6 private Blogs. Danstarr69 (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Danstarr69, hey, you do you. That works. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 02:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Telerana! I would recommend using your sandbox for edits like the one you just described. Davest3r08 (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

IN or ON

Is there a concise explanation of "in" or "on" when it comes to grammar between British and American English? The explanations I used to use are no longer available to me and i tried the internet explanations. Thank you.2603:8000:D300:3650:4416:2712:8134:A62B (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Is it a Wikipedia article that you used to use but is no longer available? The closest I can find is this, but possibly you are referring to a resource outside of Wikipedia? Podstawko (talk) 06:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Does Comparison of American and British English help? I fear that a concise explanation of "in" or "on" when it comes to grammar between British and American English is something that does not and cannot exist. While I'm sure there are places where BrE and AmE differ in their use of these two prepositions, I doubt that there is a systematic difference, as opposed to a list of phrases and constructions where they differ. ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Something I used to see a lot on Quora before they ruined it, were Indians using "on" and "in" incorrectly, usually in relation to films and TV shows.

Someone can work "in film/TV" or "on film/TV" and either of them are acceptable, as they would work "in (the) film/TV (industry)" or "on film/TV (shows)."

Indians however would say things like "I watched this actor in TV", when what they actually should have said is "I watched this actor on TV." Danstarr69 (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Adam Broomberg

Hi there, I may seem uninformed but how can I lift my article out into the open for people to review, add, interact with it? I hope this can be brought online ! Thank you all ! MarvDjEng (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

MarkDjEng, I have moved the article to Draft:Adam Broomberg, and now you can submit the draft for review. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! MarvDjEng (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I've done some copy-editing. I suggest you replace your home-made infobox by a regular one. Maproom (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It is amazing now, thank you so much! MarvDjEng (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

MarvDjEng, Broomberg is best known for his work with Chanarin. Material about this work is best treated in the existing (though currently feeble) article about the pair. After all, little seems to be said about which of them contributed what to it. Material about Broomberg's other work is what should constitute the bulk of an article about him alone. 2A00:23C8:1D03:9B01:DFE:46D8:3AC1:A180 (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Yup you are right and finding sources is difficult. Though I think through his political activism that was visible in the German newspaper and considering we know even less about Chanrin maybe we should fold it the other way round... Thank you for your insight! MarvDjEng (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

2nd article in sandbox

I have an article pending publication in my sandbox. I would like to start a new article in the sandbox. What should I do? Accelerator-physicist (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

You can start the new one in the Wikipedia:Article wizard instead, and save the draft without publishing. Then publish when you're ready. Note that anyone can edit your draft before you publish. Podstawko (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

To avoid some possible confusion the Publish button is the Save button. I think Podstawko is referring to submitting the draft for review. RudolfRed (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Accelerator-physicist You have left a WP:REDIRECT in your sandbox (User:Accelerator-physicist/sandbox) to the draft at Draft:Aharon Mordechai Freiman. You could remove the redirect and start adding new content there, too, if you wish.

You are not confined to one sandbox. So you could create User:Accelerator-physicist/sandbox2, User:Accelerator-physicist/sandbox3 and so on, if you wished. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, much appreciated. I created a 2nd sandbox, I have yet to understand the WP:REDIRECT mechanism. I did not apply it, it just appeared there. I am a noob in WP, learning as I go along. Accelerator-physicist (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Drafts that may meet WP:NBASIC

I have some drafts that have been circulating in my watchlist for a bit. I'd like further opinions on these. If they don't meet WP:NACTOR, could WP:NBASIC still apply?

• Draft:Caroline Amiguet
• Draft:Lizet Benrey
• Draft:Shaw Jones
• Draft:Suzana Norberg

Filmforme (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Filmforme: If I understand your question correctly, there is no requirement to use a subject specific notability guide. If the subject meets WP:NBASIC or WP:GNG then that works fine. RudolfRed (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@RudolfRed Correct. I am asking if any of these drafts are ready for article space, however they may meet WP:GNG, or if they should continue to incubate. They’ve all been declined from WP:AFC, but I have had doubts about that process for some topics and the queue line has been sluggish. Filmforme (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Filmforme: None of the linked drafts are submitted for review. If you think the reviewer's comments have been addressed, you may resubmit them for review. RudolfRed (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@RudolfRed Some of the reviewers have been very detailed with their responses and others not at all. Either way, it seems like WP:NBASIC is overlooked too often at WP:AFC. Even when using WP:THREE, I find that articles get declined more than they should. I’m able to move drafts to article space, but I’d like to have other opinions on each one for better judgement. I’d rather not clutter the AfC queue line with drafts that have been previously declined, unless I get further pushback for certain drafts. Filmforme (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Filmforme: I don't quite understand your objective in raising this here. Two of these drafts were declined months ago. You've since done further work on them, but haven't resubmitted; instead you're here asking for "other opinions". You would get that from a reviewer if you resubmitted. Or are you saying you specifically want an opinion from someone who isn't an AfC reviewer? If so, why?

The other two have been declined quite recently, and you've done no work on them since, yet are asking for "other opinions" – meaning, for someone to check whether the review was done correctly?

If you have concerns or complaints about the AfC system in general, you may want to raise them at that project's talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Don't get me wrong, I think AfC is great. I almost always start with that. But it just seems like WP:NBASIC isn't considered enough. I should bring it up over there. It's a long queue and I prefer not to resubmit if I already have. Sometimes I'll get the same reviewer on the same page, not allowing another user to review. Or one that is not specific enough. I'm not looking to target non-reviewers, just anyone here, reviewers or not, who want to give it a quick glance. At least until the queue wait time can get back weeks instead of months. If that is not allowed here, I apologize, I did not know. I'm happy to move articles to mainspace myself, but I prefer to have more opinions if I am unsure, especially when AfC has given me doubts about certain ones that have been declined. Filmforme (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Filmforme: I can quite confidently say that I for one always consider GNG/BASIC, because that, after all, applies in the vast majority of cases. If I'm guilty of something, it's probably the opposite, rather: I might on occasion only consider GNG, and overlook the possibility that one of the special notability criteria could apply instead. In saying this, I can only speak for myself, of course, but I have a feeling the same may be true of many other reviewers, too.

I'd also suggest that drafts are very seldom declined on GNG basis incorrectly, ie. where the sources would genuinely establish notability but the reviewer doesn't see this. Of course, that doesn't stop the author claiming incorrect declining: quite often the author's and reviewer's interpretations differ markedly on whether a particular source meets the standard.

It's worth bearing in mind also that, important as notability is, it isn't the only reason why a draft may be declined. Therefore it sometimes happens that notability (GNG or otherwise) is there, but the draft fails on another hurdle, say copyvio or inadequately referenced BLP. This could lead the author to question why their draft has been declined although notability has been demonstrated.

But having said all of that, there are a couple of thousand users with the AfC review permission (either explicitly or implicitly), and try as we might, we will never be able to guarantee a perfectly correct and consistent service 100% of the time. Some reviewers are new, some more experienced. Some have a higher acceptance threshold, some are more 'generous'. Some probably do the job simply better than others. And, let's face it, even the best reviewers do get things wrong, every now and then. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Thanks, you’ve reviewed a few drafts for films I’ve submitted in the past. Do you review WP:BLP too? Though I’ve gotten better at knowing what’s accepted, these can be hit or miss with me. Filmforme (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Pour les pocheux prémen partou

¹je sit just vetiter 2001:56B:9FF2:CA14:0:5E:6EA7:EF01 (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Google translate is not helping me understand this. If this is about the English Wikipedia, Please post in English. French Wikipedia Teahhouse is at fr:Wikipédia:Forum_des_nouveaux RudolfRed (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I think this is French gibberish. I'm reasonably competent in French, and can't make head or tail of it. None of the apparent content words (pocheux, prémen, partou, or vetiter) is in Wiktionary, and neither "sit" nor "just" has a French entry there. ColinFine (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Not the headline, but the "je sit just vetiter" is being translated as coming from Albanian as "it's just your own site". Lectonar (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that Google is talking through its rear end. "Je" means "you are", "sit" does seem to mean "site" (in the architectural or archaeological sense, but not for a website), and "vetite" seems to mean "property" in the sense of "characteristic". I may be wrong though. ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I am a native French speaker and this is definitely not French, gibberish or otherwise.

"Partou" is Antillean Creole for the (metropolitan) French "partout" (English: "everywhere"), and the rest of the title kind-of sounds Creole when read aloud. However, "prémen" or "pocheux" are not found in any Creole dictionary I found, and a basic online search yields no hits. I am going to assume gibberish. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Donation

I Have Donated to Wikipedia! Are you going to ask for a donation every time I use the service, now? Storyboat (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. With your account, you can turn off the donation requests in your account preferences. 331dot (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Storyboat, and welcome to the Teahouse. Donations are made to, and handled by, the Wikimedia Foundation, which is the proprietor of Wikipedia. But nobody in Wikipedia and (as far as I know) nothing in the Wikipedia software or database has any knowledge of donors or any way of linking donation to any account. As 331dot says, you can turn off the requests. ColinFine (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Refrences

Sir/Madam could you tell me some pages which have Very few citations related to the Vedic And Tamil literature I can add citations to them. Sastri676 (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Why don’t you just look for them yourself? Buckrune (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Buckrune, how might such a search be formulated? Is there a way to search within particular categories for certain maintenance tags? Folly Mox (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Folly Mox A good source for suggestions is the WikiProject Cleanup Listings which is a weekly dump of various tags associated with articles in groups: there's a group for religion-related articles, for example. The idea is that you should download the parts of interest to you into a spreadsheet. See User:CleanupWorklistBot. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you; that's helpful. So User:Sastri676 could start their search at the WikiProject Indian history dump of articles with referencing issues and see if any of them are appropriate for using Vedic or Tamil literature as a source, or maybe begin at the similar listing for WikiProject Tamil Nadu? Folly Mox (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance Sastri676 (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok sir, Thank you for guiding me Sastri676 (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Before your hunt, you might want to read WP:REF, WP:OR, and WP:V. ✶Mitch199811✶ 02:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok sir thank you for the guidance Sastri676 (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

school

are you allowed to make a Wikipedia article for your school if your school doesn't have one, just wondering, because every now and then I for some reason get the random urge to make a wiki article for my high school Coke101 egg (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@coke101 egg: only, and i do mean only, if you can find at least three reliable, independent sources that cover your school significantly. ltbdl (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Wow. Can I delete every school article that doesn't satisfy that criterion? HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@hilo48: what is this about? ltbdl (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm in Australia. I suspect hundreds of Australian school articles exist that don't meet that criterion. HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

well, sure, go ahead then. ltbdl (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ltbdl: While I'm sure you meant well, this is actually bad advice and perhaps you should become more familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines youself before trying to answer questions here at the Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Since only Wikipedia administrators can delete articles and other Wikipedia pages, it's technically impossible for you do so. Moreover, any attempt at WP:PAGEBLANKING lots of school articles is almost certainly going to be seen as WP:DISRUPTIVE and run the risk of either a formal warning or sanction from a Wikipedia administrator. So, don't follow the advice given above by ltbdl. If you have genuine concerns about a particular article and think that it should be deleted per WP:DELETION, the first thing I suggest you do is ask about the article at Wikipedia talk:Schools or Wikipedia talk:Australian Wikipedians' notice board to give more experienced editors a chance to assess things. The notability guidelines for schools (particularly at the high school level) were changed a few years ago and assessing such articles has become a bit more complicated as Tollens has pointed out below. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Trust me. I had no intention of WP:PAGEBLANKING or any other disruptive action. Perhaps my Australian bluntness gave a false impression. But there simply ARE hundreds of Australian school articles that don't meet our standards, often in several ways. As someone who edits in this area, it bothers me more than a little bit. I don't know how to tackle the issue. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

​Prior to the RFC mentioned below, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES was primarily used as the standard for assessing articles about high schools (secondary schools) and pretty much just existing was considered sufficient for establishing Wikipedia notability. So, there were lots of articles added about such schools worldwide (not just for Australia) that probably wouldn't be considered to meet the post-RFC criteria for inclusion. Anyway, if there are just a few examples that are truly bothering you, you can simply follow the normal deletion process by proposing, tagging or otherwise nominate them from deletion/speedy deletion. You should, however, try and do a WP:BEFORE check first since it tends to start things off on the wrong foot when you nominate an article for deletion only to have others start posting links to all kinds of significant coverage that most likely would've been found with a cursory Google search. On the other hand, if you're looking for more of a project-wide culling of non-notable school articles, you might want to broach the subject on the talk page of some relevant WikiProjects first. It's possible the others have already been contemplating a way to deal with these articles and would appreciate additional input on the best way to go about doing that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Sort of. The notability criteria for schools were clarified in 2017 through an RFC to require that they meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP, whereas they (in a way) didn't before, so there are unsurprisingly numerous articles that don't meet the criteria. The same RFC notes that it is common for the sources that would demonstrate notability to be print-only, so a WP:BEFORE needs to be more in-depth than usual. Additionally, the RFC asks that editors refrain from making indiscriminate or excessive nominations. Tollens (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikitrivia

So this question popped up in my head recently. I know there's a list of notable people who've edited Wikipedia, but...

...how many Wikipedians are celebrities and are active today, other than Jason Moore?

A few notes:

• I define celebrity as a person who has a Wikipedia article and has been in the news at least once.
• I'm really not sure if there's a list of celebrity Wikipedians.
• If an editor did something a few days ago, I'll count it as active.

Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 04:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Improving the articles here would be a far better use of one's time. 2A00:23C8:1D03:9B01:DFE:46D8:3AC1:A180 (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Tarantula^TM many Wikipedia editors have a user name that does not reveal their actual name, so there is no way to know how many celebrities may be editing articles on a regular basis. Karenthewriter (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

TrademarkedTarantula I know of two musical brothers or half-brothers who grew up less than a mile West of me.

They were part of a group with their late brother, then when that brother died, they became solo artists, yet one of them kept using the groups name, a bit like UB40.

I noticed sometime in the last few years, they were having an edit war on here on the article about the group.

I emailed one of them to find out what their actual full names are, as sometimes they're credited with 3 names, and sometimes they're credited with 2 names, so I have no idea which of the 2 last names or whether both of the 2 last names belong to them all.

They're also constantly credited with misspelt names, abbreviated names, misspelt abbreviated names, along with their stage names, just to add to the confusion. Danstarr69 (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Your definition of celebrity is too broad; the term is derived from 'celebrate' and many people with Wikipedia articles are not celebrated. You may be interested to read Wikipedia:Notable people who have edited Wikipedia Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

What is 4x4?

4x4 is a drivetrain for vehicles 27.111.75.214 (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks like you've answered your own question - do you need help with something? Tollens (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

4X4 is another name for the Bassline (music genre), along with Niche, although Niche is actually just the name of the nightclub where it started. Danstarr69 (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

There are really many things which are four by four! Podstawko (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Word Definition Question

What is exclusively? 202.80.218.115 (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It means the same thing as 'only'. For future definition questions, please use Wiktionary or a search engine, as this page is only (or exclusively!) for questions about editing or using Wikipedia. Tollens (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a word which Americans who work at companies like Amazon don't understand, as shown by their Amazon Prime Exclusive Series', which are still available on the original non-American channels/networks who actually own, produced and/or broadcast them first.

The same goes for American companies like Netflix and HBO who claim that non-American shows are Originals, even though again, they're still available on the original non-American channels/networks who actually own, produced and/or broadcast them first. Danstarr69 (talk) 08:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Danstarr69 In my opinion your reply here (and in earlier query about celebrity) went beyond what was asked by providing detailed, off-topic content. And to 202.80.218.115, you are on the verge of being blocked for vandalism for changing correctly spelled words - including 'exclusively' - to incorrect spelling. David notMD (talk) 08:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Question about publishing EN translation

Hello there to everyone. I would like to publish an EN translation of an already existing Greek and Gender article. I know that I am not qualified for publishing the translation. I have created my draft page and I would like to know if a qualified admin can publish the translation for my team.

The arcticle is In Greek is here: https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A7%CF%81%CF%85%CF%83%CF%8C%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%82_%CE%9C%CE%B1%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B6%CE%B1%CE%B2%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%82

And the German translation is here:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysostomos_Mantzavinos

Thank you in advance. Chryssa Chryssa.Stavridou (talk) 09:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Chryssa, and welcome to the Teahouse. The guide to doing this is at Translation.

While you are welcome to take a Greek or German article as your starting point, any transated article you make must meet English Wikipedia's criteria for notability and neutrality, which the originals won't necessarily do. Your draft will be reviewed on its own terms, with no reference to the original that you translated.

At present, User:Chryssa.Stavridou/Chrysostomos Mantzavinos has no chance of being accepted into English Wikipedia, because it has no inline references at all, and therefore does nothing to establish that Mantzavinos meets English Wikipedia's criteriaa for notability.

Note that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. Please read WP:REFB for how to cite references. ColinFine (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

What should I do not to be accused when creating new articles?

I have created 2 pages so far! Which I think they fulfill the WP:GNG for an inclusion to encyclopedia. And also I have many projects in mind to include to the encyclopedia. But, the problem is I was accused 2 times by Admin as I could may have COI in my articles! And it is really irritating to be accused of what you do not have done for real! In articles I created I maintained to be neutral and mentioned all the negatives and posetives equally ... But, I get accused of it! So it is frustrating me if it is continuing like that if I am about to stay here! I really want to know what to do to be trusted? ... I got Wikipedia really interesting place to stay! And I really do not want to give up soon! If any tips on how to be trusted editor ... you welcome! Thabk you Worldviewfrom (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Worldviewfrom I looked at one of the articles affected by the possible issue. It was not acceptable in its current form, and the editor was correct in sending it to Draft, where you may work on it unhindered. My error. I looked at the wrong one. I will look at the right one next.

Another editor asked you a direct question about COI and you gave a direct answer. All editors can expect to have questions like this asked. Simple answers are all that is required.

Instead of being concerned, build up a track record by use of WP:AFC, availing yourself of the review process. Please return to this thread with any additional questions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Worldviewfrom I looked at Leocenis Garcia, and can see why an editor might have wondered about COI. If you look at this rather large diff from your last edit to the current version, you will see large additions and subtractions. The need for these often raises the question "Does this editor have a COI?" though only the editor who asked can say with precision why they asked.

Editing Wikipedia requires the hide of a rhinoceros. It takes time to acquire that. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks you for your kind review of my articles and your response! Worldviewfrom (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Any time a relatively new editor creates drafts or moves drafts to articles without AfC processing, it is almost standard to ask if the editor has a COI or is undeclared paid. A simple statement on your Talk page that no COI/PAID exists is sufficient. Which it appears you have already done so. David notMD (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Ohh Okay, Great! Thanks you! Worldviewfrom (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Request for Wikipedia Article on Eberbach Corporation

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I am writing to request the creation of a Wikipedia article for the Eberbach Corporation, a company with a significant history and contribution to the scientific community. Eberbach Corporation's legacy spans over 175 years, making it an institution of note within the field of scientific equipment manufacturing.

Historical Background: The Eberbach Corporation's journey in the realm of science began in 1843 when Christian Eberbach opened a pharmacy and initiated a laboratory supply business to cater to the needs of local hospitals and universities. Over time, the company evolved, and 36 years later, it embarked on the manufacturing of laboratory equipment, marking the commencement of a rich history in producing sample and material preparation equipment for scientific endeavors. Eberbach's commitment to scientific excellence led to its pioneering membership in the Laboratory Products Association in 1918, showcasing its dedication to advancing laboratory technology.

Present-Day Eberbach Corporation: Today, the Eberbach Corporation is an established engineering and manufacturing company headquartered in Belleville, Michigan. Eberbach Corporation specializes in the design, construction, and distribution of equipment essential for sample preparation. Their product range includes an array of critical laboratory equipment such as Shakers, Mixers, Blenders, Stirrers, and more. These products play a vital role in a diverse spectrum of research and commercial applications, spanning fields like biochemistry, petrochemistry, environmental science, food technology, beverages, and pharmaceuticals.

ISO Certification: Eberbach Corporation proudly holds ISO certification, a testament to their commitment to maintaining the highest standards in engineering and manufacturing.

Given the extensive history, contributions, and continued relevance of the Eberbach Corporation to the scientific community, I believe that the company merits a dedicated Wikipedia article. The company's legacy and impact on laboratory technology, both historically and in the contemporary context, make it a suitable subject for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

I am prepared to provide further information and references to support the notability of the Eberbach Corporation and assist in the creation of the proposed Wikipedia article. I kindly request the Wikipedia community's consideration of this request and look forward to your guidance on the next steps in this process.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

Keaton Feil 2600:1700:8461:8F10:3572:AACD:6DBA:CC2D (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is entirely a volunteer project, and the only way to get people to help with an article is to find somebody interested in the subject, or inspire somebody to be interested in the subject. There is a place to request articles (requested articles, but in all honesty, the take-up there is extremely low.

Generally, if you want there to be an article on a subject, your best chance is to create it yourself; but that is also a difficult task for inexperienced editors. So my general advice would be to create an account (not essential but it makes communication easier), put Eberbach to one side for a few weeks or months while you acquire experience in editing Wikipedia and learn how it works; and then at some point read your first article, and have a go.

One thing to note is that absolutely nothing the company has done, been, or created is relevant unless it has been written about by wholly independent commentators (and published in reliable sources, unconnected with the company). Notable has a special meaning in Wikipedialand, a little different from its usual meaning, and articles are accepted only on subjects which are notable in that sense.

Your task, if you decide to write an article about Eberbach, is in the first instance to ignore absolutely everything written, published, or commissioned by Eberbach or its associates (including anything based on press releases or interviews), and collect independent sources about it. If you can find enough such sources with enough content to base a non-trivial article on, then it may be worth creating a draft (see AFC) and writing it based entirely on what those independent sources say. ColinFine (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Keaton. All Wikipedia articles must be based on sources which meet these golden rules and together show that the topic is notable in the specific way Wikipedia defines this. If you can (here, in this thread) provide about three independent such sources, someone may take up the challenge of writing a draft. A brief Google search doesn't give me much to work on but you may be aware of some good sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

... and note that a previous attempt at an article was deleted in 2011. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

... though that attempt consisted of only three sentences and was sourced only to the company's Web site. Deor (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Here's something on Christian Eberbach[1], but not the company. This looks promising:[2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It may be useful for you to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If a Wikipedia article on Eberbach Corporation is published the article won’t belong to the business, and anyone who can find a good reference can edit the article. If there have ever been events Eberback would prefer not to have mentioned (lawsuits, poor publicity, etc.) that may end up being added.

Also Wikipedia articles do not use promotional language; articles should keep a neutral tone. Instead of saying “it embarked on the manufacturing” write “ it began manufacturing equipment.” Instead of “These products play a vital role in a diverse spectrum of research” eliminate the promotional words and state “it does research on XYZ.” Do not write “Their product range includes an array of critical laboratory equipment,” instead edit it down to “they make lab equipment.”

Wikipedia is made up of volunteers, so be cautious if anyone contacts you offering to write an article for a fee. You can pay to have a draft article written, but that won’t guarantee the article will meet Wikipedia standards and be accepted. I hope these suggestions are of help to you. Karenthewriter (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Deleted Submission and will re create it

Hi Editors,

I am also new here. Can you help me check if my draft will be about to approve if i submit it for approval. Any suggestion and help will be much appreciated. Iamjep1987 (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The article has been rejected and will not be considered further, so I suggest you stop wasting time on it. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. NotAGenious (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy to Teahouse Hosts: Draft currently at User:Iamjep1987/sandbox. An earlier draft about Tomi Arayomi was deleted for G11 reasons. David notMD (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Category:Draft articles

Half the categories are named "Draft articles on" and the other half is named "Drafts about X". Is there a reason for this inconsistency? And what is the difference between Drafts about music and Draft articles on music even supposed to be? It feels like a complete mess to navigate--Trade (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been created by thousands of random editors over many years and is full of inconsistencies. As long as the meaning is clear, I don't think it much matters, but you are welcome to attempt to clean it up. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Public domain image for article.

Praise be to Jesus and Mary! I am having difficulty finding a public domain image for my draft: Draft:Gordon J. MacRae I am wondering if his mug-shot would be a public image I could use on wiki. Thank you and May God bless you. ServantofGod2 (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Please see WP:MUGSHOT for guidance in this area. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, ServantofGod2, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest you don't worry about pictures until you have sorted out much more important matters, such as the fact that most of your sources are Primary sources, and your citations are not properly formatted (see WP:REFB). ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

In addition to what @331dot and @ColinFine said, the draft is suffering from Wikipedia:Too much detail. Podstawko (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

How do you create a Wikipedia?

I’m not sure how to create one but I’m very keen my mind is bursting with new facts after doing a research project. The.OR.fan (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Please see our help page for making your first article. This page will simply explain our core content policies. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 17:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

One does not "create a Wikipedia", one creates a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is the name of this entire website, not its individual parts, which are called articles.

Wikipedia does not host original research. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

If you mean creating your first page, please follow our page creation guide 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Deleted images

Hi, is there a way to see an image that has been deleted from Wikipedia for being an "unused unfree copyrighted image", or it is forever gone? ButterCashier (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@ButterCashier: Only admins and researchers are able to view deleted pages, including files. Jimbo's global group can view deleted files and File talk: pages, but not deleted non-files. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 17:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

why are people on my messages saying my edits werent constructive???

i dont understand i just wanna edit and have fun

YouAreGoingToSweden (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@YouAreGoingToSweden - Your edits were not adding quality information to the articles. I would never expect to see comments from a user about their favorite notebook in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Please save those for social media. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

okay evergreendummy!

>:) YouAreGoingToSweden (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

also what is a encolypedia YouAreGoingToSweden (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

OP blocked. 57.140.16.29 (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Why are you not allowed to use multiple accounts to contribute to the same article to suggest that they are multiple people?

Hello there, I’m an anon editor. I noticed on sockpuppet policy that “Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people.” But can you please give more explanation and elaborate on why can not use more than one account to edit the same page? Why are you not allowed to use several accounts to look more than one person? I define that an account presents you as an individual as the guideline and pillar stated. But why it is still forbidden to use multiple accounts to pose as separate people? And why do you need to identify and link alt accounts if you create them? I’m just curious about why it is prohibited to pretend to be different people by creating multiple accounts. How though? Why can not you create a false impression of multiple users? Also, what happens if you use more than one account to edit the same article in order to suggest that they are multiple distinct individuals or editors? Thank you Wikipedians. 2600:1010:B102:2431:9933:D99F:8249:88AF (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You can read the full policy on sockpuppetry. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Examples and scenarios? 2600:1010:B102:2431:9933:D99F:8249:88AF (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of examples are given in the policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

We won't give you too many specific examples as that would only help people who will see this discussion and then use those examples. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Operation Orangemoody, Wiki-PR Wikipedia editing scandal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

What are these activities I can do?

Hey, I’m a new editor on Wikipedia. I wanted to contribute to community. What should I do now? MidChigaco062 (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I've left you some standard info links on your talk page. Those should help you get started. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Article and source

I was wondering when we find a reliable source, how do we able to spot the right informations to extract and write into the article? And i noticed that some actors who dont have a Wikipedia page are still added to the cast and some actors who still dont have a Wikipedia page cannot be added to the cast until they have a Wikipedia page. Why some can be added and some cannot be added? Veganpurplefox (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Veganpurplefox. There is no simple answer to your questions. The decision of what to put into an article is usually a matter of discretion, and different editors may disagree - that is why we have the policy of BRD.

If some information cannot be cited to a reliable source, then it certainly shouldn't go into an article; but not everything that can be cited should go in. Some information is trivial, for example, some information about living people should be omitted for reasons of privacy, and too much detail is a mistake. But as I say, one editor may feel that certain information is appropriate and another may disagree.

As for cast lists, again there is a level of discretion. Those playing major parts should normally be included whether or not there is an article about them; but those in minor roles may or may not be. Perhaps some people think that if an actor who is the subject of an article was in a show, in however small a role, they should be included in the article; others may feel that this is not appropriate. ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I think my problem is that i add too much information and i find it hard to find what is meaningful to add to the article.

For the cast is ive tried a couple times as well as seen another editor tried to add the name of Edward Hayter into the reccuring cast of Will (TV series) but get removed everytime and said to be promotional. I tried to take it to the talk page but no answers. So i was wondering why cant i add him? Or if any more experienced Wikipedia users could add his name. Or explain to me why his draft has to be approved first to then add him Veganpurplefox (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. You didn't WP:ping the editors who reverted your addition when you raised it on the talk page, so it's possible that they haven't even seen it. (You can add a ping now, but note that a ping only works if you sign your post in the same edit as you make the ping).

What I do notice, looking through your edits to that article, is that almost every one has a grammatical error, often omitting an article, or getting a verb form wrong. ColinFine (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I talked to the one who removed it but has erased their talk page of the suject. About grammatical error, i do my best because english is not my original language and others are there to correct if theres something not well written. I try to correct as much as i see but i do not know all grammar English Veganpurplefox (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox I think your account here is too inactive for experienced editors to see your edits as helpful. Don't take it personally, but the grammar and tone on your edits could be worded better. Because of that, some editors will assume you are committing sockpuppetry for promo. There are guidelines for what wikipedia is not and how to cite reliable sources. IMDb and TV Guide are not reliable, but those can be used at the bottom of a subject's page in the external links. Rotten Tomatoes is reliable but usually only for citing some information related to the opinions of critics. You may have better luck using that source after you've made more edits throughout several pages, but you have to commit to editing here frequently before other editors take contributions seriously. Filmforme (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

What does being inactive means in my case? Ive been editing for almost a year now in different articles. There is this site that seams to be reliable that a reviewer added to the actors draft. I knew about imdb not be reliable but if tvguide isnt reliable why does it say its reliable in the perinal sources of reliable sources? I understand for rotten tomatoes http://bufvc.ac.uk/shakespeare/index.php/title/av77850 . And how can i word and write article better then? Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox Sorry, I looked in the wrong area. You've made a lot of contributions in a short time. In my days here, I have not seen TV Guide used as a source, but you are correct, it is listed as reliable. I'm seeing your history and it looks like a few drafts are where most of your edits are. I suggest rewording anything that reads like a resume or cv. Once they pass AfC, you can try adding them to cast lists again with wikilinks. Filmforme (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

okay thank you, how can I reword these ? Is there a specific ones? Or a website that can help fix mistakes or word it better? Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Veganpurplefox, regarding English not being your first language, you might want to add a Babel box to your userpage. Info at WP:BBL. I have one on my user page, if you want to see what they look like "in the wild". -- asilvering (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

thank you I just added it Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Anyone got any articles I can edit?

Hi! I'm a fairly new Wikipedian. I made this account a while back, some of you might remember me as Chompshark. I almost entirely forgot how to use this site, but I'm trying to find some quick edits I can make to get autoconfirmed. Leave the articles on my Talk page! Sharkoii (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sharkoii, I think going through maintenance tags is a really good way to do some basic edits and get used to the site. Are you interested in any particular wikiproject's scope? This is the maintenance list for WP:BOOKS, for example. Not all are newbie-friendly, but some are quite easy - "dead link" for example is very easy to fix if you have something like this Chrome extension for the Wayback Machine: [3]. -- asilvering (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

For more general maintenance lists, you can check out WP:TASK. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sharkoii, I left a message on your talk page. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Should the article "Konstantinos Staikos" be deleted for lack of notability?

I was going through some maintenance tags and stumbled across this article. It's not very transparent and I'm not sure if it meets the nobalility requirements to have it's own article. Should this article be removed? If this is the wrong place, you can move it. Sharkoii (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Konstantinos Staikos - 57.140.16.29 (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Before nominating an article for deletion you should go through the investigations in before. If you are satisfied that the subject is not notable (in Wikipedia's sense), by all means nominate it for deletion: see deletion policy.

If you are going to be making deletion nominations, I suggest creating an account and enabling Twinkle, as this makes the mechanics of the process very much easier. (It doesn't absolve you from doing the necessary checks first, though!) ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Haha, @Sharkoii, I too have wondered about this article. Here's why I haven't nominated it or removed the tag:

1. the sources are in Greek, so it will take some additional effort for me to muddle through them

2. he's written several books, so it is quite likely that he meets WP:NAUTHOR's guidelines

3. if our own articles can be believed, his library was considered important enough that it was bought by a major scholarly funding organization

So, I think he's pretty likely to be notable (and thus, to be eligible for an article). But I'm not so sure, because I haven't done the work muddling through the Greek, that I've removed the tag and cleaned up the article myself. -- asilvering (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Major Richard Winters

When was major Richard Winters assigned to Fort Dix 32.219.47.42 (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. If you can't find an answer at Richard Winters or one of its sources, you could ask at one of the reference desks - WP:RDH would probably be best. Or, if you just want to suggest that such information be added to the article, you could make a post at Talk:Richard Winters. 57.140.16.29 (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP editor, and looking from the article it looks like it was in June of 1951. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 02:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

famous bird

I have a famous bird, he is a rook. he played in a movie and was invited to tv shows and was on the national news many times. can i do a wikipedia page for him? 86.123.125.241 (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

If your rook meets WP:N, yes. But just "being on national news" doesn't necessarily mean someone (or somebird) is notable. There needs to be secondary coverage of significant length and depth. If you provide some links to what you think are the best sources, someone here can have a look. Please just give the best 2-4 links. -- asilvering (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

he can talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utzHgsHfJto , he was in talk shows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7scsbhR1HSA&t=50s , the pet collective show: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=230007892065123 , he felt the Earthquakes from roamania from February 2023: https://observatornews.ro/eveniment/peste-600-de-replici-dupa-cutremurul-din-gorj-un-nou-seism-de-magnitudine-mica-sa-inregistrat-azi-in-oltenia-512015.html , and he played in this movie: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12981538/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_cl_sm, you can check the trailer 01.22( just a second) or the movie on netflix( more then a second :) ) this is just a few links. I have lots with him. 86.123.125.241 (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

No, you should not make a wikipedia article on this bird. -- asilvering (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of those sources establish notability for the bird. Yous houdl take a look at the simplified guidance listed at WP:42. Videos that you took yourself are not considered "independent", as well as simple interviews where the subject does most of the talking. IMdB and Facebook are not reliable sources since anyone can post stuff there. In Wikipedia, notability has a very specific meaning that is quite different from normal usage of the term. This is not to say your bird is not worthy of notice - he is a very talented bird! Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Bibliography template

I uploaded a PDF on the Internet Archive and endeavoured to add the linkage to extant citation on the Seventeen tantras page but made a botched hack of it. As I will be adding many electronic sources along with bibliographic details to articles, I would appreciate assistance to do this according to best practice and policy on Wikipedia. B9Joker108 (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You had square brackets around the URL in |url=, removing them fixed the formatting issue, but I'm more concerned with I uploaded a PDF on the Internet Archive. You uploaded a book © Oxford University Press 2014, per WP:LINKVIO Wikipedia cannot link to websites which violate copyright... this is different from what the Internet Archive legally does for copyrighted books, namely, for books it physically has a copy of, it can digitally lend them out, to one person at a time, for one hour at a time, and the book cannot be downloaded by a user. But anyone can easily download the entirety of Hatchell's copyrighted 2014 book published by OUP via this Archive.org link, so I'm worried you're violating copyright here. Umimmak (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I found it on the Internet so I thought I would archive it for people interested like me. I also placed it there in case anyone would like to use the reference to edit the Wikipedia article. I note your concern and I will take it on-board.B9Joker108 (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Where did my sandbox article go?

I created a sandbox article stub on Gita (literature) in Sanatana Dharma as there isn't such an article and there really should be - as there are circa 64 individual Gitas and they are all notable works. I can't find my sandbox, where did it go? B9Joker108 (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi B9Joker108. If you scroll to the top of your browser, you should see a link to your "Contributions". If you click on that, it will show you all of the still existing Wikipedia pages you've made edits to since registering your account. One of these page is Draft:Gita (literature) in the Sanatana Dharma and I'm guessing that's the "sandbox" you're looking for. Technically, that page, however, is a WP:DRAFTS and not a WP:USERSANDBOX; your user sandbox can be found at User:B9Joker108/sandbox (but you haven't created it yet) and there's a link to it at the top of your browser in the same place as the aforementioned "Contributions" link. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Is this a valid article

Jonathan Senchyne was submitted as draft and has just been approved. I believe this article was written by Senchyne. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Moses_Horton&diff=prev&oldid=1176985727 I could write a similar article about myself, but haven't. deisenbe (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Autobiographies are discouraged strongly but not prohibitted. The article going through AFC was the correct process for the author to follow, due to COI. RudolfRed (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Deisenbe. There's no Wikipedia policies that prohibit someone from trying to create an article about themselves. It's something that is highly discouraged because of Wikipedia:COI and the tendency for people to be unable to detach themselves enough to write in a WP:NPOV manner, but they are free to try and do so as long as they follow relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Generally, such persons are encouraged to work on a draft first and then submit it to WP:AFC for review. An AFC reviewer will assess that draft in terms of WP:N and decide whether the subject is Wikipedia notable. In this case, the AFC reviewer who assessed the draft felt Senchyne did meet WP:BIO (or WP:NACADEMIC) and approved the draft. Of course, this is only the start of the process and hopefully the article will continued to be improved over time. So, if you feel you're Wikipedia notable, you're free to try and do the same. Similarly, if you feel the article about Senchyne needs improvement, you can try and do so. If, on the other hand, you feel it shouldn't exist per WP:DELETE, you can nominate it for deletion. However, simply nominating an article for deletion simply because you suspect it was created by its subject is not usually considered a valid reason on its own absent any other exteuating circumstances. Finally, please be very careful about trying to connect Wikipedia accounts to real world people for the reasons explained in WP:OUTING; unless an account holder clearly identifies themselves as being some real world person, you shouldn't really be posting guesses as to who you think they might be on any Wikipedia page. If you have serious concerns that their behavior is somehow inappropriate, you should seek administrator assistance at WP:AN and askto discuss your concerns via email. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

courtesy un-redlink: WP:NACADEMIC, Notability (academics) 💜  melecie  talk - 03:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked from editing an article with a lock

Hi, I found out yesterday or today that I was indefinitely blocked from editing an article which now has a lock on it and was wondering how do I do an edit request if I want a piece edited? How do I get unblocked from editing unreliable sources, and poorly sourced articles? I got indefinitely blocked from editing Earhardt’s page, and now they decline my request to be unblocked 2 times bc I didn’t explain why I want to be unblocked. I’ve been making a few editing suggestions on my account from topics that I choose from that is really easy, and sometimes hard but I try to fix what the article wants. I have given up on editing Earhardt’s article of BLP:DOB since I couldn’t find reliable sources stating her saying she’s _____ this age. But other sources that I have found has her birth year, and date. I stopped editing her page bc I got indefinitely blocked now, and was wondering since I’m blocked from editing her page if I can request an edit but have someone find reliable sources? I have been practicing editing other articles, and have did better so far. I look up the articles, and then I copy the link in the button that says website copy. So far the admin likes some of the edits I did. I only do the copy editing ones since it’s easier for me, and a lot understandable. I’m still a little new to Wikipedia, and editing. Thank u, and will continue editing some more to get better by each article. Dandielayla (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

No you can't request an edit and have someone find reliable sources for you. You'd have to find them yourself and present them in your edit request. You do not have any realistic chance of being unblocked from editing that page. I recommend leaving that article alone for now and moving on. Pecopteris (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

You can find websites there which states which sources are reliable or aren't. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#perennial_sources but even if rotten tomatoes and tv guide are listed reliable they are not so dont use them Veganpurplefox (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

OP now indef blocked from all editing. David notMD (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction

I posted on the talk page about access issues and tagged the page. Other than the very rude reply I got, I couldn't quite see in what way to improve the page. I have a problem with the table and it's very annoying to scroll across on a MacBook, let alone on an iPad or mobile. I wasn't sure how to go about improving the article. It would be nice to have a few other people look at the tables there, or think of a way to improve it. Much appreciated, Govvy (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

You have already started a discussion at the article talk page. That is the correct place to discuss the issue. However, the talk page is for suggested improvements, and you haven't suggested a way to improve it. It is true that large tables are not very mobile friendly; they are not designed to be consulted on a mobile, but large tables are common in Wikipedia. Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Writing about a defunct but still registered non-profit

Hello! Came across the page for the so-called Entertainment Consumers Association. It's a page which has a bunch of issues frankly. It reads a bit like an advertisement, is quite dependant on primary sources, and I'm a bit suspicious of the organization's spin as a consumer advocates organization, when it clearly lobbies for industry interests. The main issue though, is that the organization appears to be defunct. The last year I can find press on it is 2014, and checking the IRS filings, the total reported annual revenue from membership dues dropped to 2$ as of 2018. Its safe to say that while it continues to be a registered non-profit, it is no longer actively working.

This seems like a really obvious question (and maybe I'm just on the sleepy side), but what kind of sourcing do I need to start moving everything in the article into the past tense, as they've obviously wound down their active operating? Is there a way to write that they are not actively operating without it being OR? Handpigdad (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Handpigdad: I don't know if this is the right, let alone the only right, answer, but here's what I'd do. I'd populate the |dissolved = field in the infobox with the dissolution date, and cite a reliable source against it. After that you can presumably turn it all into past tense, based on that. If you can't find such a source or have other hard evidence that the association has been dissolved, then perhaps start a discussion on the talk page? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @DoubleGrazing. This is helpful. I have already started a discussion on the talk page. The issue I'm having is that they aren't dissolved. They dutifully file taxes each year, they've just stopped doing anything public and their expenses are purely administrative. Do you think I could cite their publically available tax return showing no revenues as an indicator that they are defunct? It seems rather unlikely that a better source would come along, but also is clearly innacurate for our article to discuss their various operations in the present tense. Handpigdad (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Handpigdad: sorry, I seem to have confused defunct and dissolved. The Template:Infobox organization also has a |defunct = parameter, which could/should be used instead. Again, you'd need to cite a solid source, and it seems to me that filing effectively nil tax returns might not quite amount to that. But maybe the talk page discussion will shed some light on this, good luck! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Notability questioned for Ostap Korkuna

It appears that @Robert McClenon would like additional eyes on the notability of Ostap Korkuna. Hopefully someone can take a look - IMHO, there are more than enough references in this article, including deep coverage by Voice of America (in Ukrainain), Central News Agency (Taiwan) (in Chinese), Helsingin Sanomat (in Finnish), as well as San Francisco Chronicle, Fox KTVU (local news), and some coverage on KQED, an NPR affiliate. Also, a fresh award from President Volodymyr Zelensky. Thx for looking into this. Qq8 (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Qq8, the first sentence of the article has seven references, for a seemingly uncontroversial statement. This will make readers suspect something fishy. Anyway – which three of the sources cited, in your opinion, do most to establish that Korkuna is notable? The San Francisco Chronicle source doesn't help, as it reports what Korkuna said, and so isn't an independent source. Please not that references are judged on quality, not quantity. Maproom (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Qq8, I lived for 50 years in the San Francisco Bay Area, so I evaluated the sources that I am most familiar with. The San Francisco Chronicle coverage is based largely on what Korkuna told a reporter, and is therefore not independent. The KTVU coverage consists of direct quotations of Korkuna, and is therefore not independent. The KQED source consists of just three sentences, one of which paraphrases Korkuna's opinion. This is not significant coverage. What is required are references to reliable sourced that are entirely independent of Korkuna, and that devote significant coverage to Korkuna. If your other sources are of comparable quality, then Robert McClenon is probably correct. Cullen328 (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Then, I noticed that two of your references are to Medium, which is a self-publishing and blogging platform, and which is not a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Should those two be deleted? Qq8 (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Qq8. Having any obviously unreliable sources in the article is a bad idea. Having any mediocre sources in the article at all is a bad idea, when your goal is to establish notability. As Maproom pointed out above, the quality of sources is vastly more important than the quantity of sources. High quality sources are like solid gold. Mediocre sources are like sand and gravel. Cullen328 (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Qq8 (talk) 09:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328, the Taiwanese source looks stronger, you can open it and translate the page in your browser (if your browser supports that). The Finnish source - also, although it is occasionally behind the paywall. Hopefully, a state award helps too - it's more selective than coverage in the media. Qq8 (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The Helsingin Sanomat article doesn't even mention Korkuna, or feature a picture of him as claimed. Therefore the two statements against which that source is cited are not verified by it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing - you may be looking at the top paragraph and not seeing the entire article. I'll check Qq8 (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Qq8, I cannot read the Finnish source due to a paywall. The Taiwanese source is an interview of Korkuna, and is therefore not independent. There is also a PR Newswire source. They just regurgitate press releases for money, so that is pretty much the opposite of an independent source. Cullen328 (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Qq8: really? Can you tell me where, exactly? I am looking at the entire article (I'm a HS subscriber, as it happens), and I still can't see it. I also searched the text for both 'Ostap' and 'Korkuna', in case my eyes were failing me, but nothing came up. In fact, I searched the entire HS archive, and there was no mention of him. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, apologies. I think I saved an image. Let me check. Qq8 (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, I see six images, and indeed none of them matches Korkuna's image. Let me scan the text - (I don't read Finnish) Qq8 (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems like you are right. It's good to have language expertise handy. Qq8 (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Qq8. I'm not sure that tagging the editor who added the notability tag on this teahouse question is particularly good form. On the subject of your notability request, I would just add that an Order of Merit III degree does not by itself confer much notability. It was awarded alongside dozens of others. Handpigdad (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The thought was that maybe the editor can chime in, but I can accept your point. As for the Order ref, wouldn't it add to other sources? And why being awarded alongside others is a detriment? This happens once per year, much less frequently than, say New York Times articles that you would accept as good references. Thx Qq8 (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Qq8, awards are completely different from reliable news media coverage. An award contributes to notability only to the extent that independent, reliable sources report on the specific award. A Ukrainian government announcement of a Ukrainian government award is not an independent source. Cullen328 (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Got it. But hopefully that's still worth leaving in the article (aside from notability). Qq8 (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328@DoubleGrazing - thank you for detailed explanations and insights. I wasn't sure if it was a good idea to start removing clearly unreliable or irrelevant sources in the middle of the discussion, but can certainly remove the Medium and Helsingin Sanomat. The Taiwanese source seems worth keeping as it covers street rallies and Korkuna's participation.

I see half a dozen additional sources online - mostly local TV and radio coverage of Korkuna and his woring Qq8 (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Qq8: another question that we should ask is, how did this article come about? There exists an earlier draft, Draft:Ostap Korkuna, which has been twice declined at AfC, which you didn't create but have been involved in editing. I haven't done a text comparison, but a quick glance suggests the article in the mainspace may be a copypaste move – is that so? In which case, please don't do that, as it loses the edit history, which must be retained for legal reasons. (And a histmerge is probably now needed.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Some copying was involved, but I worked on it in my sandbox to add material and see how it looks. Didn't know about histmerge and legal reasons(in this case?) Qq8 (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The first version in your sandbox is 100% identical to the AfC draft as it stood at the time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328@DoubleGrazing - I removed The Medium, HS and the press-release refs. Unrelated, doesn't Korkuna meet notability under WP:ACADEMIC through Ref 6? "2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." A gold medal at ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest fits the criterion. Qq8 (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Two Copies

Thank you, User:Cullen328, User:DoubleGrazing - I didn't do a detailed source analysis, but will explain two of the reasons why I had notability concerns. First, the reason why I didn't do a detailed source analysis was that the article had been reference-bombed. There is a myth among some would-be submitters to Wikipedia that, because sources are necessary, adding more sources is the way to ensure that an article is kept. That is a myth, but it is a widely held myth, and so some authors reference-bomb their articles. Some reviewers look at an article that has been reference-bombed, and think that maybe the author was trying to discourage a source analysis by making it long and hard. So the excessive number of references made me wary. Second, there was already a draft, and the draft had been declined. The draft was then copied into article space. This makes reviewers very concerned. Why did you submit the draft for review if you did not plan to continue to use the review process? Why did you run around the review after it was declined? Creating both a draft and an article is a common practice of paid editors, or other editors who are not in good faith. It has the "advantage" that the article cannot be moved back into draft space by one of those difficult reviewers, because there is already a draft. So, the combination of too many references, making it hard to assess them individually, and both a draft and an article are hallmarks of paid editing or other conflict of interest editing. I don't like seeing both a draft and an article created at the same time. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

High Quality images

Hey, i'm a new wikipedia editor, to get a feel for editing i figured i could try replacing low quality/low resolution images with higher quality images that depict the same thing, mostly on articles for video games since many of those have small, low resolution JPEGS. Just wondering if this would be OK Powder9157 (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Powder9157. Copyrighted images uploaded to the English Wikipedia under the stringent terms of Non-free content - images are required by policy to be low resolution, for reasons related to copyright law and infringement on commercial opportunities. On the other hand, freely licensed and public domain images can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons at the highest practical resolution. Feel free to work with those types of images. Cullen328 (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Linking different languages articles

Hello would it be possible to link the english article to the french article of Edward Hayter https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Hayter Veganpurplefox (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done at Wikidata here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Veganpurplefox (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

AI

Has Wikipedia considered it's own AI? The quality of Wikipedia information could make it a gem. 24.222.250.175 (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Your suggestion is unclear. Numerous virtual assistants already obtain much of their information from Wikipedia. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Somewhat related: Wikimedia(the group that runs Wikipedia) released a plugin for ChatGPT. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

reference in this article

I want to put the the reference in this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimosa_tenuiflora

Because this article says that refernece need.My anchor text is mimosa hostilis. kindly let me know where i can put the reference? Hamisaeed (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Please see WP:REFB. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Hamisaeed: Where to put the reference depends upon which fact(s) it supports. I suggest you create a new post at Talk:Mimosa tenuiflora where you share the reference and ask the other editors interested in this topic for their recommendations. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

My edits in Psychedelic drug. Why they have been removed if Psychedelic therapy poses risks and we know the history of it?

why did my edits in Psychedelic drug page got removed. Psychedelic therapy is not safe. And it poses some risks and we need to talk about that. There were cases where people in Psychedelic therapy have mental health worse and even psychologists are now criticising It. We know where it went in 60s and I don't want society full of esoterics who believe Mind over body. Or people that their mental health got worse after going through it. Risks should never be hidden and underestimated, we should openly talk about them Matejstein12 (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The information you added was completely unreferenced. All information in Wikipedia must be reliably sourced. Please see WP:42. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Just going to add that articles about medical matters tend to be even more highly scrutinized and require even stronger sourcing as explained here that perhaps is required for other types of articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

but Will be there some balanced information about this therapy, because psychedelic drugs are still unpredictable. If I cannot add that, will you? Because people need to have information why yes and Why no. If there is no balanced info, it Feels like they want turn us into mystics so we can be more easily manipulated. So there should definitely be balanced information about psychedelics and therapy part Matejstein12 (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

We're very much in favour of balanced information. Per WP:42 you simply need to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

but someone really should add risks associated with psychedelic therapy. No one can't be just silent about that like if they didn't exist. If there are professional editors than they should add benefits and risks. Matejstein12 (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Matejstein12: Too often new editors think that "balanced information" means "equal weight to all sides". No, it doesn't. That's WP:FALSEBALANCE. We don't "balance" our article on Earth to include the views of flat-earth adherants, for example. Information in the article should be presented according to the weight given by reliable sources. As a consequence, WP:FRINGE views typically don't get presented in articles. If you want to add something to an article, you need to find a reliable source that covers it. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

but psychedelic therapy has a risks. This is supposed to talk about it, not being silent about it. There must be Open minded information about benefits and risks. So if Someone can do that, Then he or she should. Matejstein12 (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Once you have appropriate sources, you may do so. Not before. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

As someone who's had some incredibly powerful psychedelic experiences, both positive and (potentially) negative, I'm sympathetic to OP's concern, even though he's not a Wikilawyer.

I also believe that there are situations where important and valuable information falls through the cracks due to Wikipedia's idiosyncratic sourcing requirements. This could be an example. The statement "taking psychedelics is risky" is not even in the same universe as "the earth is flat", so I reject that analogy and reject the invocation of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Go take 1000ug of LSD and then tell me that concerns about psychological safety are "fringe". Psychedelics do, indeed, have the capacity to be very dangerous, and anyone who's experimented with them at high doses knows this for a fact, whether or not any "RS" says it - which, if they don't, is very negligent and irresponsible of them.

Over the years, I've been a trip sitter many, many times. If someone asked me for advice about tripping, and I painted a picture as rosy as the one the Wikipedia article paints, that would be recklessly irresponsible of me. It would be a shame if someone took psychedelics unwisely because of an overly-cheery Wikipedia article about the topic, and I'd be almost tempted to invoke WP:IAR if there was no mention of the dangers of psychedelics in the "psychedelic drug" article.

Passages like this one in the lede are of particular concern: " Research has been conducted, however, and studies show that psychedelics are physiologically safe and rarely lead to addiction." - physiologically safe, sure, but this makes no mention of the fact that you may be psychologically devastated for weeks, months, or years if you take these things improperly.

However, the "psychedelic therapy" subsection of the psychedelic drug page does include the following passage: "As of 2022, the body of high-quality evidence on psychedelic therapy remains relatively small and more, larger studies are needed to reliably show the effectiveness and safety of psychedelic therapy's various forms and applications."

This is, at least, an acknowledgement that there are unresolved safety concerns that necessitate further scientific study. Also, there is an entire section called "adverse effects" here.

I think a concrete improvement that can be made to the article to address OP's well-founded concerns is to include a mention of the "Adverse effects" section in the lede, rather than only presenting positive information in the lede. These adverse effects would ideally be mentioned directly after the passage that states "psychedelics are physiologically safe. Pecopteris (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pecopteris, feel free to start working on such improvements at the article, or at least to start a talk page discussion about making such improvements (as opposed to carrying on such a discussion here at the Teahouse, where interested parties are less likely to take notice, and to avoid splitting discussion across multiple pages). 57.140.16.29 (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Can someone kindly help review my draft; I was told it has no sources

Hello House, I'd be most appreciative if someone much more experienced can kindly look through my draft for me. I had apparently posted it prematurely and it was then reviewed and sent back to drafts with the note that it has no sources. This was confusing for me as over 15 sources had been cited in the article. Thanks in advance. FlawlessTouch (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I assume this is about Draft:Kolade Shasi. That message looks incorrect. The article does have sources, as specified. I'm not really familiar with the subject or the sources, but I think the best way of getting the draft to be accepted would be to focus on his appearance at the Cannes Film Festival. That should have appeared in multiple international magazines or news outlets, particularly if he's won an award. That should show most people that the subject had achieved international importance in multiple respected sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you, if he had stated that there weren’t enough reliable sources then that would have helped but he just stated that there were no sources, which is confusing. Your suggestions are helpful. Thanks again. FlawlessTouch (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@FlawlessTouch: it is true, as Ritchie333 says, that the article/draft does have sources, however... five of them are not considered reliable, one source (cited three times) doesn't work, at least two are interviews, and some may be based on publicity materials; therefore WP:GNG notability is unlikely to have been fully established. Also, there is quite a lot of biographical detail which is unreferenced, directly contravening the WP:BLP rules. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Aaah, I see, thanks for the clarification, this is certainly more helpful as the original reviewer just stated that there were no sources and as such, that was confusing. Can you be kind enough to point out which source doesn’t work and maybe why it doesn’t work also. Thank you FlawlessTouch (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@FlawlessTouch: the script (MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft) that can be used to draftify articles preselects by default the 'no sources' option, and unless the draftifying editor deselects that option, it gets given as a reason. Probably what happened here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The theustimes.com source (refs #9, 10, 20) returns a 'site cannot be reached' error; I've no idea why.

BellaNaija.com (cited four times) and Linda Ikeji's Blog are not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Can't put a clickable button in navbox!

I was working on my user page and i was thinking: "Hmm, can I put a clickable button in the navbox to make it look speldin'?" So I did, but instead of a button that I could click, it only has shown the text it stored. I used {{Clickable button|TEXT}} template. Please help me! Anton2038 (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it will only show that text. You haven't said what you were expecting it to do. If you want it to take you somewhere you need to add the name of that page. See the documentation at Template:Clickable button Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see the template on your user page now. It would be easier to diagnose the problem if we could see how you're using it. Also note that {{Clickable button}} is merging with {{Clickable button 2}} - see the messages on those template pages. GoingBatty (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

OK! Thanks :)

Press for a cookie ;) Anton2038 (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have special rules about biographies of dead people?

We have WP:BLP. How about dead people? Aredoros87 (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello Aredoros87 and welcome to the Teahouse.

Recently deceased persons are still covered by the polices at BLP.

Otherwise, content is subject to Wikipedia's normal polices on verifiability, notability, and so on. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for response. How do we define "recently"? For example, is 6 months can be considered as recent? Aredoros87 (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Aredoros87: see WP:BDP (part of BLP). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Aredoros87 As you are a new editor, I'd advise you to treat dead people the same as living ones. The over-riding policies are WP:V and WP:NPOV, which you should read. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Aredoros87 (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Aredoros87: "Recently" does seem to have some slop in it, doesn't it? Here's the way to think about it: Traditionally, Wikipedia has allowed to stand statements that seem true even if they are not cited or not cited to a viable source. At least, until someone objects. BLP applies an extra requirement: unsourced or poorly sourced statements must be removed. This tradition of allowing unsourced statements has largely faded away in newly added material, but we are not going back to aggressively police existing articles in this respect. Maybe we should, but there's a lot of work involved, since – properly done – it involves first finding possible sources rather than simply removing – think about why {{citation needed}} is used. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Aredoros87: BTW: the policy language says "indeterminate", but then clarifies with "six months, one year, two years at the outside". — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Cannot find a page I started but not published yet

Cannot find a page I started but not published yet

It is a bio for Bjarne Berg Wig

Many thanks Elsa Haagensen Karlsen (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Other than this page and the Help Desk(please do not use more than one forum for a question) your account has no edits. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

FYI

Answered at Help Desk. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

How to make little coloured boxed in user page

I got told how to make a babel box but how do we do a box with interests,and things that i noticed many people on Wikipedia have on their user page. Is it for everyone or just for reviewers? Veganpurplefox (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox You can certainly copy the style of other long-term editors on to your own user page. The general guidance is at WP:UPYES. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox: If you want to find already-created userboxes about interests and other topics (there are tons of them), you can look through Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries. Should you want to create a custom userbox for yourself, there are instructions at Wikipedia:Userboxes. Deor (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

How to remove Non Notable entry

how a non notable Wikipedia article is removed? Irbasdude (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Irbasdude, if a Wikipedia article is not notable under our current guidelines, it may be nominated for deletion via the articles for deletion process. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 16:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Do we use oxford comma or no?

I know it isn’t that big of a deal, but I feel like standardization should be good. Janlopi (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Janlopi: Either style can be used, but it needs to be consistent within an article. See the guidance at WP:SERIAL RudolfRed (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok thank you so much! Janlopi (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Reversing out of own mess

Help! I tried to alter a sidebar template, realised I was making a mess. (Template:John Cain Jr sidebar → Template:John Cain sidebar and Template talk:John Cain Jr sidebar → Template talk:John Cain sidebar) I wasn't too worried, thinking I could self-revert, but now when I try that, it says the edit has already been 'undone' [good], but does not actually appear to be so on my view [bad]. Can someone check it's okay and apply repairs as needed? (I'm suitably chastened and have already self-administered a slap for the over-confident meddling with templates. Sorry!) AukusRuckus (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [Added: I see I'm supposed to click "move" again (of course!), not undo. I do feel stupid, but I'm not going to try to fix this myself, in case I make a bigger mess. Updated: AukusRuckus (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)]

Looks like someone has already performed a rescue. Phew. AukusRuckus (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

How to get an experienced editor to review my article?

I’m currently working on an artticle, and I’m close to being finished. How can I get it reviewed by someone? Janlopi (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Janlopi: you can submit it for pre-publication review at WP:AFC. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Janlopi: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you're referring to a draft, then I agree with DoubleGrazing. If you're referring to an article, then it will be reviewed by the WP:New pages patrol. You can also have either one reviewed by adding the appropriate WikiProject templates to the talk page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

who

am i going to dye my hair 130.156.76.100 (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a help forum for asking about editing or using Wikipedia, not a general one about hair dyes. Qcne (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

guys i dont know if this is the right place for this, but on the simple english wikipedia fr33kman got his talk page griefed

the IP is 212.18.120.215

block it KeroppiKid (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Already blocked, in the future you can use simple:WP:AIV Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 19:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:GroupM

Hello! On behalf of GroupM, I've submitted a draft article for review at Draft:GroupM. However, the draft was rejected by an editor who said "Corporate notability is based on what independent reliable sources have written about the subject" and "Portions of this draft contain marketing buzzspeak". I am under the impression all of the sources I've included are appropriate for Wikipedia, and I've not been given any specific examples of "buzzspeak" to address.

Since I was invited here to ask for assistance, I would appreciate it if editors could identify any problematic sources or text on the Talk page. I look forward to working with editors to address any concerns. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

:Please explain "On behalf of GroupM" since you state on your user page that you are familiar with WP:PAID. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Ah, never mind, it is declared n the draft talk page 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent: (edit conflict) Sure! I've submitted the draft on behalf of GroupM as part of my work for Beutler Ink, as noted on my profile page (User:Inkian Jason) as well as the Talk pages for both WPP plc (Talk:WPP plc) and the draft (Draft talk:GroupM). I'm hoping for specific feedback about how the draft can be improved, and how I can demonstrate corporate notability for the largest media buying agency in the world. Of course, I would welcome direct improvements to the draft from editors, too. I hope this helps, thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason As you see, I struck my question, having worked it out. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, great! Let me know if you find anything in the draft worth discussing. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I didn't reject the draft. I declined it. Many submitters don't know that those are two different actions, and a decline permits the submitter, or someone else, to improve and resubmit the draft.

I will note that I, and at least some other reviewers, have a relatively high bar to establish separate corporate notability for a division or subsidiary of a parent company that is the subject of its own article, and will often recommend that information about a division or subsidiary be included in the parent article on the parent company, in this case, WPP plc. That was also taken into account in the previous deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I am working to further improve the draft based on editor feedback, and I hope to resubmit at AfC with support from others. GroupM is the world's largest media buying agency, and the business houses EssenceMediacom, which is the world's largest media agency network. Per CNMall41's request, I've shared sources which I believe demonstrate notability, but I would welcome your feedback if there are specific ways I can make corporate notability more clear. As far as I can tell, none of the content at Draft:GroupM duplicates WPP plc. The parent company has dozens of independently notable divisions and subsidiaries, so covering them all in one entry would be difficult. Inkian Jason (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I've made ten edits (a week ago) how do I contribute my own page? Thanks!

Hey, I'm trying to contribute two new pages, and went through ten edits. Am I missing something? Please advise. NAXman (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. You should be able to directly create articles, but it is highly recommended that unless you have prior experience getting articles accepted that you use the draft submission process to find any problems before your work is placed in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@NAXman: Help:Your first article is a wealth of information. GoingBatty (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"my own page" is problematic. Do you intend to create a draft about yourself? See WP:AUTO as to why this almost always fails. Wikipedia prefers the term "article" to "page", and states that there is no ownership - once an article exists, all editors are able to edit it as long as content is supported by reliable source references. David notMD (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

How do I cite an audio interview?

Also, is it possible to cite precise moments from an audio interview, rather than the entire thing? As always, thank you. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

General advice is in Citing - Audio and video sources, and more detailed advice on the use of templates, etc. — including the advice on "minutes in" which you're asking about — in AV media template details. Hope this helps!  Podstawko  ●talk  22:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

My first DYK nom

I nominated a new article for DYK. It was reviewed, and they said it checked all the boxes, except that there was a paragraph in the article with inadequate citations. I fixed the problem, and nothing has happened since. I notified the reviewer, but they haven’t gotten back to me for a couple days now. Could they be busy? Is there anything I need to do? Is there a deadline? Professor Penguino (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Professor Penguino, I'm not finding anywhere on the nomination page or the reviewer's talk page where you notified them, and it doesn't look like you mentioned them by name in your replies to the thread on your talk page, which they may not be watching. I may be missing an obvious venue, but you might want to try politely nudging them with the {{ping}} template on the nomination page. Folly Mox (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do that. Thanks. Professor Penguino (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Copied Draft

I have just noticed that an IP address user copied everything from my draft into Typhoon Saola (2023). What Should I do? Songda Talas 23:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

IP editors are restricted from creating new articles, so it should have been reverted, especially since the original draft was pending for review, but it's too late for that. Since the both pages now has substantial history, I recommend a WP:History merge to fix attribution issues and deleting the AfC template since it is now in mainspace. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"Latest stable version numbers" often out of date – how to edit?

Wikipedia pages for software almost always have an infobox at the top left, and, in turn, it usually contains the version numbers of the latest stable releases for popular platforms (Windows, iOS, etc.) These are often in fact NOT the latest numbers, but when I want to update them, and edit the infobox, the version numbers are not in any of the listed fields. I think they're instead pulled in from Wikidata pages, but I don't know hoe to find those pages in order to edit them. Also, when I edit the infoboxes using the visual editor, I can't see what part of the template generates the list of version numbers.

I've been editing Wikipedia for years, but I still find this and a number of other things hard. And Googling for help on them seems remarkable fruitless. Shouldn't there be more tutorial pages available to Wiki editors?

BTW, 95% of the time, I use the Visual Editor – though I'm not scared of editing markup. Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

hi @Spel-Punc-Gram and welcome to the Teahouse! I believe that what is displayed as the latest stable release in the infobox is the value of software version identifier currently considered preferred in the Wikidata item (for Visual Studio Code, it would be Q19841877). to edit it, you may add another value with the current version (as well as a version type of "stable version" and the date it was released as the publication date) and make it the preferred version, while making the other version normal ranked. wikidata is kinda complicated, so if you want to understand more about it, check out Wikidata Tours. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 01:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Spel-Punc-Gram It may be worth mentioning that the articles you are interested in should (in the default vector 22 skin) have a menu item on the right called "Wikidata item": which is a direct link to the correct page to make the alterations Melecie described. There should be no need to search Wikidata. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This section explains the mechanism for "Moving release data outside the article". @Spel-Punc-Gram: I agree that the documentation is not very accessible. My critique on the process can be found here (answers from supporters of the mechanism too). --Kallichore (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Question about the Georges Feydeau article

Before I say my query, if I posted this in the wrong article, please let me know.

My question was that my recent edit to an article faced opposition as someone reverted it, specifically removing an infobox that I had inserted. I am seeking clarification on the broader policy regarding the inclusion of infoboxes in Wikipedia articles – whether they are mandatory or discretionary. Furthermore, I am keen to gain insights into the rationale behind the removal of the infobox from this specific article. Notably, the article had garnered recognition by being featured as the 'Article of the Day,' which led me to anticipate the possibility of differing opinions concerning my edit.

I would like to know if infoboxes are required on ALL articles or some if they have a lot of information or disregarding the amount of info and just putting the infoboxes there automatically. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not compulsory. The guidelines (at WP:INFOBOXUSE) state “The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.” That article has never had an IB until someone tried to force it in today (probably without knowing that no article needs an IB). - SchroCat (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I've left a comment on at the Georges Feydeau article expressing my opinion and asking a question that will hopefully move the discussion forward. Pecopteris (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

A wise move. Being a rather scatter-brained and muddle-headed wombat of an editor, I do recall that there was some discussion about this in the past, but can't remember exactly where. Some articles have infoboxes (for example: Mandy Rice-Davies) and some articles don't (for example: Noël Coward). I guess you could say that sometimes Mandy Rice-Davies applies, and sometimes it doesn't.--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that, but i don’t think it’ll change anything about the consensus. In my view, I believe the consensus was unfair and should be challenged. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@TheAlienMan2002, the best way to do that would be an WP:RFC, either at the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes (depending on which consensus you want to challenge). 57.140.16.29 (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

57.140.16.29 Well, I already challenged it at the article. But I guess they already came to a conclusion. Very disapointed.TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Are {{checkuserblock-account}} blocks logged somewhere?

If yes, where are they? NM 01:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Northern Moonlight: All I know is to go to Special:BlockList, tick the boxes to hide range blocks, autoblocks, and single-IP blocks, and click Search. Then use your browser to find occurrences of the word "checkuser" in the list.

This searches only active blocks, not the history of blocks. Maybe someone else has a better answer. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Special:Log/block also shows now-inactive blocks, but I don't see a way to remove IPs or blocks placed by bots from the list. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 03:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I’ve phrased my question wrong, I can see the log, but it doesn’t really say what abuses the account had done. NM 04:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

That's because they're based on secret evidence. See Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser blocks. Folly Mox (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Articles for deletion

Recently I have nominated an article for deletion Veer Teja Vidhya Mandir School but still there are no any votes on weather to delete it or to keep it, why ? I think that the article is for promotional purposes. WikiAnchor10 (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Many nominations and not enough editors wishing to participate in the discussions? There were 67 other nominations on the same day. Give it a week. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 46.65.228.22 (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to use {{Copyvio-revdel}} on boards like WP:EFFPR?

I ask because of <this>, which appears to have been a copyright violation (it was definitely copied at any rate). – 2804:F14:80FB:2E01:4CA1:2349:2447:241C (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a manpage or several. To answer your question, the copyvio policy applies to all pages on the site. Backroom dealings like WP:EFFPR are not excepted. Folly Mox (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Folly Mox: My question is just if it's appropriate to use the template to summon a revdeling admin to said boards - it doesn't look like a particularly big template, and IPs don't even see it, but I'm just worried about it seeming disruptive for use in boards.

Not sure what the copyright of manpages is like, but the comparision page in the toolforge link in my summary (the right side) has a copyright section. – 2804:F14:80FB:2E01:4CA1:2349:2447:241C (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I've only ever placed that template once, months after I had reverted the copyvio, when I learnt it was required to revdel it as well. I don't think I've ever seen one live; they seem to be actioned very quickly (there are four transclusions to non-talk pages at the time of this edit).

So I'm certainly not an expert in how others feel about where it should be used. My apologies for the unclear communication above; I did mean that the template is appropriate for any page in any namespace, since it's the standard method to flag RD1 material in revision history, and the policy applies everywhere. My assumption is that since copyvio is taken so seriously, the template will be actioned and subsequently reverted before it can be perceived as disruptive.

As to the copyright status of the diff you reverted, I know equally little about that, but the Teahouse is slow this time of day. Linux manpages are certainly GFDL, but I'm unsure about other Unix genera, and the copypasted material could have a different source. Sorry I'm not a more authoritative source in this area. Folly Mox (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions for special cases has some alternative guidance around placing {{cv-unsure}} on a talkpage, which may feel more comfortable. Folly Mox (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Folly Mox: That is interesting to know that a template for when you're not sure what the source is even exists, shame there doesn't seem to be a way to put the ones where you do know in the talk page instead (I guess it would just add another layer of complication). I've requested with copyvio-revdel at EFFPR, since that was cleared, but thanks for the help anyways. – 2804:F14:80FB:2E01:4CA1:2349:2447:241C (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not disruptive. At least specifically for WP:EFFPR, users don't usually see the full page until they save their edit and create a new section. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef: Alrighty, I've <requested it>. Thanks. – 2804:F14:80FB:2E01:4CA1:2349:2447:241C (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Please assist. I am stuck in an edit war with the intent of the other party clearly showing malicious content with the aim of casting a bad light on a profile. Unfounded accusations are made in an attempt to cast shadows on a person. Can a profile be locked on request of the person in question so edits cannot be allowed? Regards Wisdommonitor (talk) 10:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly removing sourced content. Instead of edit warring you should discuss this on the talk page of the article. If you continue to edit war your account may be blocked. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

OP is a brazen COI account. They were warned about their edit-warring and COI status in 2021, but have returned to engage in the same behavior. Thenightaway (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This is about Tale Heydarov, and edit disputes do date back to 2021. The involved editors have not attempted to solve this on the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking for editor

hello, I'm looking for someone who can make an individual wikipedia profile Abdeljabbar Odeh (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not social media. We don't have profiles but articles on encyclopedic topics. You can request an article at WP:Requested articles but I suggest you first read WP:42 to appreciate what constitutes a Wikipedia article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject tags

Hello! I recently made and submitted a draft for an article about the band Macula Dog, and I added a tag I think I should remove. I added the alternative music tag thinking it was just generally about alternative music, but the tag that was added onto it seems to be more about alternative rock, and Macula Dog isn’t really a rock band. The thing is, I’m not sure how to remove it. I just don’t wanna get into any sorts of trouble for possibly tagging it wrong ) : Poppedcolonels (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Poppedcolonels close enough, the short description says 'experimental band' anyways. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 12:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Poppedcolonels! You should never get into trouble here for making an honest mistake, still less a judgement call that others may disagree with: everybody makes mistakes; it's how we all learned to edit here. If someone disagrees with an edit you "Boldly" make, they'll Revert it, and if you don't agree with the reason they (should) give (in their edit summary) you can Discuss it on their Talk page or that of the Article and come to an agreement – this is our standard procedure: see WP:BRD.

This applies to actual Articles, and even more so to a Draft, which is exactly where possible inclusions can be tried, thought about, and kept or discarded. When the Draft is Submitted for Review, it's part of the Reviewer's (and any other Commenters) task to think about such details and change them or ask the Drafter to.

I see your Draft has just been Declined, but with suggestions of how it can be improved so as to be acceptable. This is quite normal and a good sign – if the Reviewer thought it had no chance of becoming an Article, it would have instead been Rejected. Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.146.221.109 (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Meaning of the name Simon.

What is the meaning of the name Simon? 2600:4040:935B:2200:549E:4F59:AB63:E91B (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Is this what you are looking for, Simon (given name) Knitsey (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Making an edit

My article was rejected so I made an edit and I *think* I resubmitted it. How can I tell if I have resubmitted for review? Carolinemoncure (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

You didn't - click on "Resubmit" at the end of the boilerplate at Draft:Dario Wolos. NotAGenious (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Done! Carolinemoncure (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Carolinemoncure After the draft was declined, you removed some non-neutral wording but added nothing. In my opinion, if you re-submitted it now it would be declined again. Please read this policy and note that all facts must have inline citations to reliable sources. At present, several items do not have this. Note also MOS:SURNAME and the continuing use of non-neutral language like first hand experience of the passion etc. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Carolinemoncure (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Please update Bethel, Alaska article

Would someone please edit the Bethel, Alaska article to include Anthony (Tony) Vaska under Notable People: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel,_Alaska Here is his information: https://www.kyuk.org/politics/2021-10-15/remembering-tony-vaska-who-dedicated-his-life-in-service-of-the-y-k-delta Thank you 2601:603:5401:65D0:9130:FB8E:CE6A:3CDB (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Our policy on listing notable people can be found at WP:LISTPEOPLE. Since there is no existing Wikipedia article for Anthony Vaska his name should not be included in that list. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Would someone please create a biography page on Wikipedia about Anthony (Tony) Vaska from Alaska. He was a notable person from the Yukon-Kuskokwim region (Kalskag/Bethel) and contributed much to those communities and Alaska as a whole. Here is some information about him. https://obituaries.adn.com/adportal/listing/Anthony-Vaska/W0025560.html https://www.kyuk.org/politics/2021-10-15/remembering-tony-vaska-who-dedicated-his-life-in-service-of-the-y-k-delta 2601:603:5401:65D0:9130:FB8E:CE6A:3CDB (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. This isn't the proper forum to request an article- that is at Requested Articles, though that page is backlogged to the point of uselessness- the best way to see that an article is created is to do it yourself, though that is a difficult process. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Please don't create multiple sections about this topic. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Second opinions?

A draft I started was declined at AfC for not passing WP:NACTOR and WP:CITEKILL. I have removed some refs to comply with CK but I believe it passes WP:NACTOR, WP:NBASIC or WP:ANYBIO. Anyone think it is worth resubmitting or publishing as is? If not, would like further insight. – Filmforme (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't see this meeting either NACTOR and certainly not ANYBIO. I've no opinion on BASIC/GNG, haven't analysed the sources in any detail (but did have a quick look through, and didn't think they satisfied that in any obvious way). HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Thanks, I will see what else I can find before resubmitting. Filmforme (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Unblocks

I remember reading about this in someone's RFA, but can't remember. Is there a consensus to decline non-admins from marking unblock requests as declined (or reverting them), if it's uncontroversial cleanup, such as when the request is empty or when the user block has already expired? NotAGenious (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Links Not Approving

Hi, I've started an article about a song but when I added the links like YouTube links or external links the thing is it's not publishing which I have created as a draft on my sandbox. XERI MUSIC (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:XERI_MUSIC/sandbox TheLonelyPather (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@XERI MUSIC Hello and welcome to the teahouse. To clarify, do you mean to add external links as references to your draft article? Please be mindful that

• Your draft was declined because it shows no references. Read WP:CITE for this.
• I do not encourage you to use YouTube videos as references. See WP:YOUTUBE for why.
• I also do not encourage you to put external links in the body of the article.
• If I am mistaken and you wish to add external links, do this:

This is the link to [https://en.wikipedia.org English Wikipedia].

This will produce

This is the link to to English Wikipedia.

Kindly let us know if you have any questions. A final word: please check the notability of your subject. Articles on Wikipedia must pass a certain threshold of notability (see WP:NOTABILITY for this).

Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @XERI MUSIC. It's possible that the YouTube links you're trying to add have been run through a URL shortener. This is relatively common, but here on Wikipedia, most such sites are blacklisted - see this if you want to learn more. 57.140.16.29 (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

error publishing page

trying to create a page in wikipedia and publish it. but it got rejected saying it's not a place to put resume. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Waikhom_Vishwanath is the page i am trying to publish. can someone help guiding me through? MeiteiNupa (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The draft is not suitable to be published on Wikipedia. You have already received feedback at the draft but the most important thing to know is that everything on Wikipedia needs to be referenced and your draft contains no references whatsoever. Please read the guidance you have been provided with already.

I would recommend reading some of the other articles here on Wikipedia to get an idea of what kind of information they contain. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 18:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Crazy Train and content removal by user claiming to be "Ozzy's management team"

Tough one for me - I've reverted twice and ceased. The account removed a reference to a third party's contribution to the song Crazy Train, along with cited reference material from a known source. Their justification for removal is "This is Ozzy's management team so we know the history better than ant articles written by those who were not involved."

With or without a grain of salt, that's a bold claim without CoI declaration. However, I don't see this is as immediate vandalism so stepping back for 3RR. Thoughts? CMacMillan (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @CMacMillan, welcome to the Teahouse. That claim to be the managment team (at User talk:HWGA) actually comes from an IP, though of course it's being made on the account's talk page in response to your question. I recommend leaving COI notices for the parties involved and continuing the dispute resolution process as normal. Start a talk page discussion. Ping the account to it and leave a note for the IP. Might be a good idea to check the removed material against the source just to be sure it's accurate (I'll take your word for it that the source is reliable for this sort of information). If the other party isn't open to discussion, then you can go to WP:COIN or WP:ANI, or if they keep edit warring, to WP:3RRN. 57.140.16.29 (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)