Wikipedia:Teahouse

Stormy clouds, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help

Wikipedia

New stubs to edit

Hi, I mainly edit stubs of footballers but I was getting pretty sick of it. I will keep doing it but I wanted try editing stubs on other articles, though my knowledge of a lot of topics isn't great. What stubs could I edit and what resources could I use? Thanks :) RossEvans18 (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@RossEvans18 Well, at Category:Stub categories you'll find 19,108 categories of stubs, pick something you like. As for resources, have you tried The Wikipedia Library? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

If you choose a topic area covered by one or more WikiProjects (you can find them via an article’s talk page), you’ll find that those Projects have an Article Assessment Table. These show ‘Importance’ as well as Quality, allowing you to focus on improving the highest priority articles. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@RossEvans18, you might be interested in the backlog drive that's starting in three days, WP:FEB24. Finding a reference for a totally unsourced article is often similar to expanding stubs. -- asilvering (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This sounds really good, I'm not sure how much I'll be able to contribute but it's a lot of what I do anyway, adding references to articles with very little in them. Thanks for letting me know about this, I didn't know about this :) RossEvans18 (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

List of fruits is a good place to look for unsourced articles. Casper king (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

List of fruits - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is the actual link Casper king (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Help me witj my article

Hey Guys, what do you think of my text to wikipedia?

Sandbox text without citations - better to use link below

'Rebecca Victorino Faria Silva, born on December 11, 1992, is a Brazilian entrepreneur and wellness influencer with a focus on lymphatic drainage and health. She is known as the founder and owner of 'Detox By Rebecca.' Carrer Rebecca began her professional journey in Brazil in 2010, offering lymphatic drainage services in a makeshift space. Over the years, she specialized in the field and, by 2017, worked as a massage therapist. In 2018, Rebecca expanded her expertise by studying Oriental Medicine in Sydney, Australia. Subsequently, she established a specialized spa in the United States, emphasizing lymphatic drainage and gained notoriety by developing her own technique. Rebecca has gained recognition, having been featured in various magazines, including Forbes, POOSH and others. She has worked with a diverse clientele, including individuals such as Hailey Bieber, Kim Kardashian.'

See text and citations at User:OffBeat.us/sandbox

Is it ok to publish here? OffBeat.us (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, OffBeat.us, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that, as usual for people who try to create an article before they have spent time learning the craft of writing for Wikipedia, the answer is No, not in its present form.

You have done better than a lot of people: you have actually got some sources. The problem is that none of them meet the golden rule that is required to establish that the subject is notable: most of them are not independent, and one of them doesn't mention the subject at all.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

My advice, as usual in these circumstances, is to forget about your draft entirely for a few months, while you learn about Wikipedia by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles; in particular, learning about verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view and notability.

Then once you've got a hold on those, you can read your first article and try again to find sources with the necessary qualities. ColinFine (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks A LOT, really, you were the only person that told me that at all <3 thank you a lot OffBeat.us (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - For context, this is a WP:SPA for spam. This account is likely a sock, and they tried to create and recreate this article in the pt.WP several times until their account got blocked.--Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 16:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Unlike the pt community like YOU, the en community is helping me, if it was SPAM, I wouydnt beeing here asking for help OffBeat.us (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Puffery word

I just read the MOS:PUFFERY, where i didn't find the word 'Highly'. Have a look at this, It is written "He was born on 26 February in Sufi City of Safipur, in a highly religious Sufi family. May i remove the word highly or not? Kindly help. -- QuadriSyedSahab(T · C 09:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should reflect what reliable sources say. Does that statement reflect what is stated in reliable source? If not it can be removed. The listed MOS words are only examples of puffery, and there are many more that are not listed there. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Shantavira The subject belongs to a Sufi family but i don't think it can be 'Highly', there are many Sufi family in India. -- QuadriSyedSahab(T · C 15:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, QuasdriSyed, and welcome to the Teahouse. In this context, I don't see the word "highly" as making a value judgment, so I wouldn't call it puffery.

Much more serious is the fact that the paragraph is unreferenced. Until I just edited it, it had the appearance of being sourced, but the reference was to a website about the location, which did not mention the subject of the article at all. So I have removed the ref and added {{citation needed}}. ColinFine (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@ColinFine, I understood and Thanks for welcoming me. I fixed and refilled some of the Bare URLs. -- QuadriSyedSahab(T · C 15:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you are misparsing the sentence: the epithet is highly religious which is another way of saying very religious. It has no evaluative content. ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@QuadriSyedSahab: "highly" isn't exactly puffery, it's a rather meaningless intensifier word, similar to "very", and can be removed without changing the meaning or impact of the sentence. As Mark Twain supposedly once said "substitute 'damn' every time you’re inclined to write 'very;' your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be." So "the sun is very big" becomes "the sun is damn big" and someone will remove the word "damn" and everything is fine. The same could be said for "highly" in this context. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe that helpful advice came from William Allen White, not Mark Twain. (Like Winston Churchill and Sir Thomas Beecham, Mark Twain is one of those names whose gravitational pull attracts unattributed or wrongly attributed quotations in staggering numbers :) — Crawdad Blues (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Need help

How to edit Wikipedia? I’m a recently created editor and wanted any welcome for me. What about Signpost? Plotogate3-7 (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Plotogate3-7: Welcome to the Teahouse! I added a welcome message to your user talk page. The Signpost is available for everyone to read, but doesn't have a section to welcome new editors. Thanks for joining Wikipedia! GoingBatty (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep, what about creating drafts? Plotogate3-7 (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Plotogate3-7: Creating a new Wikipedia article draft can be quite challenging, especially if you do not have a lot of experience editing existing Wikipedia articles. To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction, and then spend a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article and summarize what the sources have published, and be prepared for a process that may include waiting for review, declines, and rewrites before an article is accepted. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

That’s good, I know. Plotogate3-7 (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

If you want technical help starting a draft, you can head over to WP:ARTICLEWIZARD. Professor Penguino (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

How do you start out with editing in Wikipedia? More specifically, how can I practice concise editing?

Hi everybody,

I'm very new to Wikipedia, and I want to help, however I can, in making better this vast source of information. I've started out with copyediting, but more often than not I find myself getting stuck and making errors. I've done about 5-6 copyedits now, and now am venturing into more advanced edits, but then again, I find myself getting stuck and having trouble with finding out what to write. Can someone help me out with this?

Thank You!!

:))

InGoodlyFaith (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@InGoodlyFaith See if Wikipedia:Task Center and Wikipedia:Requested articles have anything you find interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

InGoodlyFaith, hello! Here are a few ways to augment your editing practice:

1. Often the best way to cultivate concision is simply to understand the topic better. For a given topic, compare the different ways in which the same material is digested and summarized across all the secondary and tertiary sources you have access to.
2. Read our Manual of Style—there are many good habits and conventions there that either directly or indirectly promote concision and economy in writing.
3. While "trimming every redundant word from a sentence" isn't always the best way to write precise prose, it's still a worthwhile exercise. Here is a page where an editor provided numerous examples you can practice with, which I found very helpful.

Best of luck, and happy editing! — Remsense诉 19:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll try these out, I wasn't aware. Thank You!! Have a good day! InGoodlyFaith (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the best place to start editing Wikipedia?

Main Page Incastudent (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Anywhere you see something in need of fixing. Be bold. TypoEater (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Incastudent Someplace reasonably calm, don't dive straight into areas like Israel/Palestine conflict. See if there's anything you like at Wikipedia:Task Center. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

You can also try Special:Homepage. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Incastudent. I started with, and still continue, just editing pages I have a special interest in, for it’s a lot of work searching for proper references and rewriting awkward paragraphs, and I need motivated to put in the effort. I just decide to check if there’s an article about (insert topic interested in) and if there is, and it needs improvement, that’s my next project. As you were already advised, don’t start out with big, popular articles, for lots of people are already working on those ones. Focus on the lesser known articles with a smaller number of daily views, for you may be the only one to come along willing to put in the effort to improve things.

Best wishes on your upcoming volunteer endeavors. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Image

how to rename this jpg file Abundant Possess (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Abundant Possess It seems at [1] that you figured out how to ask. You have to wait for someone with permission to do it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

...which I did. DMacks (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I want to ask you one more question. Can I reference the British Raj to create a new article page Abundant Possess (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand the question, but WP:AGE MATTERS and WP:RAJ may be of some help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Which just happened. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page Creation

I am looking to create a wiki page for the artist Nathan Jarrelle Management but I have no clue where to start. Nathanjarrellemanagement (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, first off, based on your username, please read WP:COI. Second, practice in your sandbox, then talk to the Article Wizard. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Hells Bells (Talk Page btw))} 20:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nathanjarrellemanagement: Hi there! WP:AUTO explains that Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies. Creating a new Wikipedia article can be quite challenging, especially when you have a conflict of interest (COI). To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. When you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple published independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of you, and determine whether they demonstrate that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could create an account and declare your COI on your user page. Then follow the instructions at Help:Your first article and summarize what the sources have published, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting for review, declines, and rewrites, before an article is accepted. If you are successful, then you could never edit the article directly due to your COI, but could submit edit requests on the article talk page. Hope this helps. GoingBatty (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

And if you do manage to write something that passes muster, please bear in mind that it will never be a wiki page for the artist, because there can never be such a thing. It will be an article ABOUT the artist. And anybody will be able to come after you and edit that article--and if those edits are relevant and properly supported by reputable sources, they'll stay. And if either you or (?) the artist doesn't happen to like those changes, well there won't be much you can do about it. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

You guys are a hoot. There's a difference between constructive info and fluff and from what I've read none of this has been constructive information. I appreciate the help you attempted to give, it passed "muster." Nathanjarrellemanagement (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This was incredibly helpful, thank you. Nathanjarrellemanagement (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

He seems to be the person at linktr.ee/nathanjarrelle (a website that's blacklisted, no doubt for a good reason). There's not much there. (And if there were substantive claims there, in order to appear in a Wikipedia article they would of course have to be cited from a reliable source.) It's rather obviously too soon for a Wikipedia article. -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I asked a question for help, not to be shit on. Also, you don't have to talk about me, I'm right here. Talk to me. My linktree, isn't blacklisted, it's a hub for all of my links in one place but feel free to google me. There is more than enough information out there about me in my decade of a career as an independent artist. I appreciate what little help you attempted to give. Thanks. Nathanjarrellemanagement (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

So you are writing about yourself- why did you not indicate this in your initial post above? 331dot (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

"I am looking to create a wiki page for the artist Nathan Jarrelle Management..." So, your name is Nathan Jarrelle Management??? David notMD (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, whether you consider it "constructive" of "fluff," it is very important to understand that anything you write for a Wikipedia article won't be either yours or the subject's (whether they're two different people or not). Anybody will be able to come after you and edit it beyond your recognition. Uporządnicki (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Nathanjarrellemanagement, you're complaining. Above, I wrote that linktr.ee was "a website that's blacklisted, no doubt for a good reason". If it's about this that you're complaining, fair enough. "No doubt" was an overstatement; "presumably" was what was meant. But more importantly the reason for the blacklisting could very well be entirely unrelated to your use of the website. And so I apologize for that thoughtless comment of mine. Still, it does seem that this is too soon for an article. If it indeed is too soon, there's no understanding that at least X years must pass before the quality and quantity of available sources will suffice for a good article. -- Hoary (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Nathanjarrellemanagement: the artist's name seems to be Nathan Jarrelle, and if 'Nathanjarrellemanagement' represents an agency or business that is not a sole proprietorship (and possibly even if it is), you will have to change your username. I will leave you a message explaining this at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like User:Anachronist beat me to the punch. Please read their message on your user talk page (here; towards the end) regarding changing your username. Mathglot (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

How to link translated article to original

I have just translated my first article Sabine Fischer (Political Scientist) , but I don't know how to attach it to the original article: [2] Also it doesn't seem to show up if I look it up on Google. Does it have to be reviewed first? Thanks Зэгс ус (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Зэгс ус: Welcome to the Teahouse! In the Tools menu, choose "Add interlanguage links". (For a more detailed conversation, see the #Link articles into "languages" section above. Articles do not show up in Google until 90 days have elapsed or they have been reviewed by the WP:New Pages Patrol, per WP:INDEXING. GoingBatty (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright! Thank you very much! Зэгс ус (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Зэгс ус, congrats, you were successful in linking it to the German article, as reflected in this edit at Wikidata item d:Q111684861. Well done! Mathglot (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject creation

Hello all! I am wanting to create a Wikiproject page for the Gilmore Girls site because the current project group has been archived. Would anybody be able to help me with this?

Thank you! Imroberts (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess this is connected with Gilmore Girls, but I don't know what a "Wikiproject page" is, nor a "project group". Are you aiming to create, or resurrect, a WikiProject? Maproom (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I am looking for a forum that is discussing Gilmore Girl page edits, how would I locate this? Thank you. 148.88.245.66 (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Imroberts. Welcome to the Teahouse. ... and your enthusiasm is to be greatly welcomed, too!

However, you do have an account that is just 2 days old and only 9 edits under your belt. Someone with that limited amount of editing experience, rushing in to create a WikiProject from scratch, is quite likely to end in a waste of time for all concerned. My advice would be to get some real, demonstrable experience of editing Wikipedia and of contributing to articles relating to that topic over at least the next 6 months or so. Along the way you would probably encounter other like-minded enthusiasts for the subject who might be interested in collaborating with you - or you might singularly fail to find any others. Who knows?

Once you've done that, that would be the time to raise such a suggestion, not right now. I can't see where you say a project on this topic was 'archived'. One was certainly proposed back in 2011 but the proposal was not met with enthusiasm, and was rejected. See WikiProject Council/Proposals/Gilmore Girls.

Whilst not wanting to dampen your enthusiasm, experience shows that many new users simply don't stick around for long after their initial burst of enthusiasm. So, to avoid people starting WikiProjects that simply don't get off the ground, it's best for a few active editors to come together to put forward any proposals for any new WikiProject. Some guidelines have been produced on the proposal of any new WikiProjects to join the couple of thousand that apparently exist already. See WikiProject Council/Guide. I hope this helps and doesn't put you off from editing or creating new articles under the WikiProject Television banner. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Imroberts:, thanks for your interest in discussing Gilmore Girls. The place to start discussing this topic is at Talk:Gilmore Girls. If it turns out that there are tons of editors there that are interested in discussing the topic in greater detail, you could get together and create a WikiProject for it, if it hit critical mass. But I strongly suggest starting out at Talk:Gilmore Girls, first. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Biography of living person ; Academics

What is required to establish notability for academic. Is the number of citations for their publication, and an h index and i10 index sufficient? What range do they need to be for academics working in the field of philosophy ? 2. For being a holder of named chair in a university, is there a further criterion , in terms of level of recognition of university etc? Rprakashmathur (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rprakashmathur The accepted criteria are listed at WP:NACADEMIC. Note that they are expected to meet only one of the listed conditions. If you tell us the name of the person you intend to draft an article about, we can probably give you more advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Acharya Dr. Sthaneshwar Timalsina .This is the draft article.

and this is his profile page on Google Scholar. https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=RkSKtKcAAAAJ

Cited 444 times. h index 9. He is also an endowed chair in Stony Brook University, at NewYork.

Request your guidance Rprakashmathur (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

See the comments on the draft, which has recently been declined. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The draft contains direct external links, which will need to be replaced or converted into citations. Maproom (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Rfc

Did I use the RFC template correctly? A bot removed it in a subsequent edit following my edit here: Special:MobileDiff/1201278346. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The first timestamp after the rfc tag tells the bot how long to leave the RfC "active". You added the tag right before a December 2022 timestamp, so the bot figured it was time to remove the tag. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, appreciate the advice. I'll put the RFC at the bottom then. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Didn't work. Can you help me fix it? Thanks, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

How to declare a COI without financial involvement?

When there is no monetary transaction or financial relationship but the person is known to you, though not related. How should a COI be declared ? Rprakashmathur (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Lectonar (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

You can declare it in your user page, the talk page of the article(s) you are editing, or in the edit summary. I recommend using WP:edit requests if you want to change something, rather than editing the CoI article directly. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

My article was declined

@Jeraxmoira My new article about an upcoming malayalam actress was declined and the reasons were unclear to me. please help Arjun Dayanandan (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, the reason for decline was clearly stated as "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" Also be aware that IMDb is not a reliable source because it is user edited. Theroadislong (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link Draft:Sravana T N. Theroadislong (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Arjun Dayanandan. The reason for the decline is that there are no reliable sources or sources with significant coverage on your draft. A WP:BEFORE search on Google News has nothing useful, so I would not recommend resubmitting it for another review. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there anything I can do to avoid this and resubmit it? 27.57.29.11 (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

you need to find reliable sources that gives an in-depth coverage of the actress. One such example would be a decently long biography of the actress. However, if the actress is too new, no one would have really written about her much. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

what if I can find a brief biography of the actress? Will that work? Arjun Dayanandan (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

A "brief biography" may help, but it may not. If it was written by Sravana or her associates, (whoever published it) then it is of no use for this purpose. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

by brief biography, I meant in websites like IMDB which has published her work in movies. Arjun Dayanandan (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Hells Bells (Talk Page btw))} 15:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

What would be a reliable source for a movie actress who has acted in 4 movies? She is the daughter of a movie director as well. Arjun Dayanandan (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

IMDb is a user generated site, so we dont use it. see THIS page on reliable sources. when you click on it, it should send you to the IMDb section. Babysharkboss2!! ^{Green Day (Talk Page btw)} 16:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

How about bookmyshow? It is a movie ticket booking application and it is neither self published nor user generated site. Will that work?? Arjun Dayanandan (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Its Arjun here by the way from my phone 27.57.29.11 (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

you can sign in on mobile. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Hells Bells (Talk Page btw))} 14:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Any article on someone who is "upcoming" is invariably premature. See WP:UPCOMING. You will need to wait until they have actually "come up", if they ever do, and of course most aspiring actresses never do. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Having problems getting a small company page approved.

Urgh - first time writing a new article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Reveald,_Inc. I used another small company as a prototype https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SecurityScorecard and I *think* I sited the appropriate independent sources for various things the company has done but I've been rejected twice now - any suggestions? I am not seeing how the Scorecard article is more independent than the Reveald one (other than I could remove the PR Newswire references - they are now duplicated with the third party references). Advice? @Infosecwiki Rockpool (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for following proper Conflict of Interest procedures. However, I'm afraid the article you used as inspiration is a poor one. The cited sources barely talk about the firm SecurityScorecard at all.

Articles on companies require especially higher levels of sourcing since they often have a PR team that carefully curates their image. The cited articles seem to be an example of churnalism, and uncritically repeats the company's word at face value. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rockpool: When looking for better articles, see articles at the higher end of Category:Company articles by quality or Category:Computer Security articles by quality. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

on turning tables into tables that look cool

i was doing some test things on my sandbox with tables, and didn't find out how to change cells' width (height is automatic, so eh), color, and orientation on the visual editor. switching to the visual editor and back, with or without actually doing anything, broke the tables completely, and also the rest of the page one time

is there currently a way to change anything besides text with the visual editor? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. You are given some options in the properties pop-up, but nothing else. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

source it is :(

thanks cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

How to capitalize name in article title

Article Toni Beaulieu is titled Toni beaulieu. Can the b be capitalized? The article is a stub owing to miscommunication with co-author/editor. My apologies to readers . . . Ganellia (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Toni Beaulieu. Move has now been performed by Significa liberdade (to whom thanks), leaving T— b— as a redirect. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.103.187 (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ganellia, and welcome to the Teahouse. You appear to be writing the article WP:BACKWARDS. If you don't start citing reliable independent sources pretty quickly, somebody is going to move it to draft space, as it is not acceptable as a mainspace article as it stands. Also, please note that external links are not normally permitted in the main text: they should be removed or (if appropriate) converted to citations. ColinFine (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

See Help:How to move a page for another time. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Copy-editing Program

Hello, I first started editing in August, and I remember a program (not a list) that would give me pages to look over, but I can't seem to find it now. If anyone knows where or how to find this, I would be very happy! Thanks in advance! Seltzerbubbles (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Seltzerbubbles, welcome to the Teahouse. Was it Special:Homepage? PrimeHunter (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello PrimeHunter, that was the correct page. Thank you very much! Seltzerbubbles (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk page assessments of Wiktionary redirects

Hi folks. I am trying to clear the backlog of articles that are currently unassessed. Running into some issues, namely with Wiktionary redirects that have a talk page that put them in a specific wikiproject scope. Looking at the category a lot of the articles don't have talk pages at all. But some of them do like Deflagrating spoon and All bets are off. Should they just be classed as redirect? Templates removed altogether? Thanks! (Edit: Just noticed that the articles I listed are already class=redirect, but it doesn't work. The page still shows up when searching all articles with quality=Unassessed-Class.) Reconrabbit 18:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Logos & Help

Is there a way to upload logos to Wikimedia? I am looking to upload a logo for a draft I am working on, Draft:40-Mile Air and I am unsure about the rules regarding uploading logos.

Also any advice for my draft is welcomed. Thank you! Phantomb1 (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia, @Phantomb1. In my opinion, you shouldn't be worrying about uploading logos until your draft gets accepted. In its current form, your draft is a long way away from being accepted, According to our notability guildines for companies, you need multiple reliable, secondary sources that provide significant coverage. Your draft does not have any independent sources. You need to find those sources or your draft will never be accepted. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 19:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Phantomb1 General advice at WP:LOGOS. If the logo in question is subject to copyright (as many are) you are not allowed to include them in drafts, only in accepted articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Phantomb1, I looked at 40-Mile Air's website and that logo seems highly likely to be protected by copyright. If so, then it should not ever be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, where copyright protected content is not permitted. If your draft is accepted as an article, only then should the logo be uploaded here to English Wikipedia. Please review and comply with the policy on Non free images. Cullen328 (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Phantomb1, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that, like many many new editors, you have plunged into the challenging task of creating a new article before spending any time learning the craft of editing Wikipedia. (I know your account is not actually new, but this appears to be the first editing you've done).

In house-building terms, you have thrown up a few walls without either surveying the site to check that it's suitable, or familiarizing yourself with the local building regulations. And now you're asking for help in putting a decorative moulding on the roof (asking about the Logo).

My advisce is always to put aside your draft for at least a few months, and learn about Wikipedia by making improvements to existing articles, learning in particular about the core policies of verifiability, neutral point of view and notability, as well as reliable sources.

Then when you've learnt enough about all of those, read your first article and come back to the draft. You will then start by finding reliable, independent, sources for the topic, so that if you can't find any you'll know that it's not worth spending any further time on. ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Question about citing multiple books from the same author

Hi

When you cite a book you would write something like this under the bibliography.

(cite book |last=Doe|first=John |title=Whatever |publisher=Whoever publishing |year=19xx |isbn=xxxxxxxxx)

and then to cite it in the article you would put this as the cite

(sfn|Doe|19xx|p=31)

But what if I wanted to cite another book from the same author, publisher and date in the same article?

Like

(cite book |last=Doe|first=John |title=Blah Blah |publisher=Whoever publishing |year=19xx |isbn=xxxxxxxxx)

If I put (sfn|Doe|19xx|p=39), it would be the same as the other cite. How can I seperate the two citations?Wikieditor9117 (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wikieditor9117 The documentation at the template {{sfn}} shows how this can be done. Alternatively, you could use two {{cite book}} templates with named references and then use the page template {{rp}} to indicate the pages in each. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

As Mike Turnbull said, this is detailed in {{sfn}} under the heading "More than one work in a year" (Im just spelling out just in case you miss it). You just add a letter suffix to the year in both the sfn and cite book templates.Polyamorph (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

OK thanks.Wikieditor9117 (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Question about level of detail in comic articles

I found this article and I'm unsure what to think of it - Achewood. It seems excessively detailed, especially in regards to the characters which are only cited to the comic itself. Is this kind of stuff allowed for fictional content? Any recommended ways to improve or clean up the article? Thanks, StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

StreetcarEnjoyer per WP:PLOTSOURCE plot itself doesn't have to be cited, and that presumably extends to descriptions of characters. Any analysis of the plot or characters should be cited, however. I would recommend starting with removing excessive detail that is not relevant to the article. For example, Roast Beef had a desperately unhappy and impoverished childhood, ranging from simple lack of food due to poverty to an incident where he overheard his mother killing his father, apparently in self-defense. can be shortened to Roast Beef had an impoverished childhood. The reader can probably get some events related to his life from the plot summary, if it is important. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Participate on Wikiprojects.

Hi editors, may I please participate on Wikiprojects, such as years and modern arts? I wanted to join, but how could I be qualified for the program? Thanks on your recommendation. ArtForDecades610 (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@ArtForDecades610: Welcome to the Teahouse! There is no qualification process to join a WikiProject. See WP:WikiProject Years and WP:WikiProject Arts for more information. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@GoingBatty Right, if I joined the WikiProjects, what could I do in there? Any activities I can use? ArtForDecades610 (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@ArtForDecades610: Each WikiProject has items on their page indicating things they want to do or pages they want to monitor. Each WikiProject also has a talk page for discussions. There are also WikiProject Cleanup Listings which can help you find articles to improve based on WikiProjects. GoingBatty (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

a drink I invented

I invented a mix drink cocktail and I'd like it to be searchable on wikipedia - is this possible to do? I see every other cocktail and the recipe such as white russian (cocktail) is on there. I haven't published it anywhere else Markmyles1 (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Markmyles1: No, this isn't possible. Wikipedia articles may not contain original ideas – your drink would first have to be reported on in reliable sources. Tollens (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

read this

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day

Babysharkboss2!! ^{Green Day (Talk Page btw)} Babysharkboss2!! ^{Green Day (Talk Page btw)} 01:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Every drink ever invented was made up one day so your comment makes no sense. Most cocktails have wikipedia articles. Mine was invented over 20 years ago and has been enjoyed by hundreds. 72.53.50.33 (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The thing is that Wikipedia isn't intended to keep an article on every possible subject. Instead, it seeks to cover notable subjects, where notability is a specific Wikipedia term that roughly means "covered in-depth in multiple reliable sources". That's the difference between your drink and a White Russian--many people have already written about White Russians in reliable sources, and when they do the same about your drink, it too can have a Wikipedia article. But not before then. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for an actual useful explanation. The baby answer before was useless Markmyles1 (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Please be civil in your responses. The link Babysharkboss gave you contains the answer to your question. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Fruit probelsm

Hello today I was looking through the list of fruits.  I noticed that tons of the articles are very bad like no citations at all and poorly written. I read the first four articles, and they were all like this. I am not knowledgeable about fruit, nor am I particularly interested in fixing the problem to be honest. None the less it is a very bad look what should I do about it? Casper king (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I spelled problems wrong! sorry.  Casper king (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is the list List of fruits - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Casper king (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia is a different project.

You're welcome to edit the articles and make any improvements you see necessary. If you're not "particularly interested in fixing the problem" then you don't need to. We're all volunteers here. DS (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Here on English Wikipedia (as opposed to Simple Wikipedia) we have this List article: List of culinary fruits, and this list of Tropical fruit. How do some of those articles come across to you? Nick Moyes (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Eppley Airfield table fix

Hello. Go to above article, scroll down to Annual Passenger Traffic 2000-2023. Just align the data with the proper decade, move columns to left. Must be simple, cant figure out how to fix problem. Thank you.Theairportman33531 (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Theairportman33531:  Fixed! GoingBatty (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Next Generation (Alpha - Beta)

Hello!

It probably is incorrect, but I have seen an overall consensus on many websites that 2024/5 is the last year of Gen Alpha. 2025/6 is Beta until 2039/40. I understand that Alpha has no agreed end date yet, but because of the overwhelming volume I published the Beta page with updated cites, etc.

I have no idea how to change the .svg file, but maybe it should be done soon. (I known, only admins!) But I wanted to bring this to everyone's attention that a great majority of websites say 2024/5 is the end of Gen Alpha. Orastor (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Orastor: Welcome to the Teahouse! Maybe you're referring to commons:File:Generation timeline.svg? This file isn't protected - anyone can upload a new version. Or, you could contact one of the previous editors of this file to see if they'd be willing to update it. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Question on whether a line is puffery or not

Hello, I had a question if one particular line is puffery or not neutral in anyway.

In the lead paragraph of this page Henley & Partners -

It has been criticised for its core business model, which detractors believe to threaten the fight against cross-border corruption and crime. Henley's immigrant investor programs in Malta and in St. Kitts and Nevis have stirred controversy. According to a report by the International Monetary Fund, the program has helped St. Kitts and Nevis come out of a four-year recession.

To the existing text, I have added a line (which I have marked in bold just for clarity) which I got from a WP:RS citation source - https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/st-kitts-and-nevis-citizenship

Another editor felt this line is puffery and not neutral. In my understanding, this is not puffery in anyway.

I just wanted to make sure I seek opinion here if it is coming across as puffery in anyway.

ANLgrad (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It strikes me as blatantly biassed. The article cited is based on an interview with Christian Kälin, chairman of Henley & Partners, and so cannot be regarded as an independent source. Nevertheless, it makes it clear that in its author's opinion, they're a bunch of opportunstic crooks. Yet you have picked the one statement from the article that presents them in a positive light. If you have to cite that article, how about "Christian Kälin has changed the world – he thinks for the better, many other people think very much for the worse." Maproom (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The bolded sentence contains no puffery, but its inclusion in the lead may be undue. See also MOS:LEADNO. Perception312 (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Articles that dont exist yet

Hello, i was wondering where can i find article ideas that haven't been written yet in Wikipedia, to be able to write an article of them.

Best regards, Nameclips (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

hi @Nameclips and welcome to the Teahouse! I advise you not to go straight to creating articles, especially if you don't have any article ideas, and instead work on improving one of the numerous articles that currently exist. making an article is difficult for a beginner, and it is best to start by editing and improving existing article than taking this difficult task. if you still want to write an article, you can check out suggested articles, and I also recommend reading reliable sources, notability, and your first article. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 02:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Nameclips As long as you are looking for stuff to do, I recommend you tag for deletion your declined draft Draft:Nekesistema about an imaginary micronation. David notMD (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the answers above, we have Wikipedia:Requested articles, sorted by topic. Lectonar (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Bot edits are driving me crazy - can I avoid notifications about their edits?

I have a few thousand articles on my watchlist. I occasionally fix vandalism and bad edits on them. But there is a bot, Qwerfjkl, that appears to be making minor edits to the talk pages of every article on my watchlist, and I'm getting hundreds of emails about it. I care nothing about whatever this bot is doing, but I have to look at the change in order to keep receiving notifications about edits. Is there any way to tell the Wikipedia software not to notify me when a specific bot modifies an article or its talk page? I would still want to receive notifications about edits done by other, human editors, of course.

Thanks for any info! PopePompus (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

You can add the filter "Human (not bot)" to your watchlist. Hopefully that would also stop the emails. Perception312 (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't even know those filters existed. PopePompus (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Another thing to think about, PopePompus, is turning off email notifications for every edit to pages on your watchlist. I have been editing for almost 15 years and have over 58,000 pages on my watchlist. If I had email notifications enabled, I would be getting emails several times a minute. Cullen328 (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

But if I turn off email notifications, what's the point of having a watchlist? I thought the entire purpose of putting an article on your watchlist was to get email when the article is changed. PopePompus (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

An alternative would be just going to Special:Watchlist and skim that instead of getting an e-mail notification for each one. Umimmak (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

For my Watchlist of about 40 articles it appears that I chose an option that does not include emails. Instead, I see activity only after I log in and click on Watchlist. For people with large lists (Cukken328!!!!) filtering out bots a great idea. David notMD (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Trust me, skimming your watchlist every once in a while is a lot better than being inundated by a deluge of emails every day. Wikipedia activity isn't so urgent as to require near-constant attention. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@PopePompus: If you want to receive notifications about other bots but not the bots changing the WikiProject banners, you could also exclude the "Talk banner shell conversion" tag from your watchlist. There are other options discussed at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Flooding watchlists. GoingBatty (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

am i biased?

i love isopods and the bathynomus jamesi doesnt have a page, should i make one or would i be biased? Porridgeluver (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Unless you are an isopod, I don't believe you would have a conflict of interest in creating Bathynomus jamesi!

When writing your first article, I'd recommend reading this helpful guide for article creation in its entirety, and experimenting with editing at your sandbox (you can click that red text to create it). Additionally, you can ask somewhere like WikiProject Arthropods, WikiProject Biology, or WikiProject Animals for some potential reliable sources & help writing the article from other editors interested in biology. Happy editing, and welcome to Wikipedia! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 06:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Porridgeluver. If simply having an interest in a topic and loving to write about it was a major problem, then Wikipedia could not exist. That is what motivates all productive editors. If you are paid to edit by the World Isopod Association, then there may be a problem. Just write neutral, well referenced content about isopod species, following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and all will be well. Just be aware that you need to write in a more formal tone. Cullen328 (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I for one welcome our new tetrakaidecally-limbed overlords. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.215 (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

What should I generally do if I'm unsure about a tag?

I've done a small bit of weasel word extermination. As of far, if I am not sure I've gotten everything in an article, I'll simply leave the tag for someone else to look over. Is this correct, and, if not, what should I do instead? Endersslay (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Greetings @Endersslay - Two suggestions that may be helpful:

1. Look at the article's History (alt-shift-h) to see if other editors may have done any prior weasel-word edits, or are currently contributing.
2. Leave a message (new section) on the article's Talk page, noting what you have done so far, any questions remaining, etc.

Thank you to helping improve Wikipedia. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Endersslay. Here's my opinion although others may disagree. You seem to be editing in good faith. If you reasonably believe that you have resolved the issue that caused an article to be tagged, then go ahead and remove the tag. I do that all the time. If someone disagrees, discuss the tag on the article talk page. In general, I think that there are too many maintenance tags remaining on articles that have been improved. I favor removing several year old tags unless the issue remains obvious. If so, fix the issue, or move on. Nobody can fix everything. Cullen328 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

How to go about a Merge/rebuild of a page?

There is a page for the Retroid Pocket 2. I think it probably meets notability, it's a big name in the emulation world. However, it doesn't really make sense to make a page for it by itself as it's an ongoing product line with new versions coming out every six months or so. It should, most likely, have a page called "retroid pocket" that lists everything in the series or maybe a page for the company iteself, Retroid, with a list of devices or something. What is the process for migrating the information to a new page with more information, and should we get a more senior editor involved? Arthurbarnhouse (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Arthurbarnhouse, you don't "migrate the information"; you simply "move" the article to Retroid Pocket, and add material to this about Retroid Pocket 1, Retroid Pocket Platinum Edition, Retroid Pocket Turbo, Retroid Pocket for Dummies ... umm, one or two of those might not actually exist. If "senior editor" as in "senior citizen", then I'd qualify; but you really don't need a senescent or even an experienced (but youthful) sidekick. Be bold (but level-headed), and DIY. -- Hoary (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

New article submission!?

Hello experts, I am new to wikipedia editing and I tried to publish a new article about Huzzle which was not available on wikipedia. But I am not able to understand what should I do to imrove it or if I really want to write about a new topic how can I get it approved? Erricyash (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Your text was a blatant advertisement only sourced to the company itself. Any article about Huzzle must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Such sources do not include the company website, press releases, staff interviews, brief mentions, annoucments of routine business activities, or other primary sources. As a declared marketer you may be too close to the company to write about it as required.

"Startups" almost never merit articles- see WP:TOOSOON- a company must become established and recognized in its field to draw the significant coverage needed to merit an article. Please read Your First Article. Companies trying to force the issue of creating an article are rarely successful- articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject in any way. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Quote: By fostering meaningful connections and simplifying event management, Huzzle is poised to make a significant impact on the academic and professional landscape, offering a brighter future for all involved. Simply wait until reliable sources describe how it has made a significant impact. Then disinterested editors will volunteer to write it up (based on what they've read in reliable sources, of course). -- Hoary (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Meet criteria for B-class Article

Hi there, i had created a battle article related to the war between afghanistan and pakistan in 1960-61.

now that in the talk page Talk:1961 Pakistani Bombing of Batmalai the reviewers ticked 4 criterias needed for it to be B-class and one was left unmet. *Coverage and accuracy not met.

1.how can i fix that so it meets the criteria ?, 2.also does a article need to be B class to be reviewed in order to be indexed. Rahim231 (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I did not take a look at the article yet, but have you tried contacting the reviewer who rated your article? They may have some valuable feedback that you can incorporate into your article, and I'm sure they would be happy to help! Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually (MILHIST checklist assessment) was added by a bot on the page which was under the scope of Military history WikiProject., which checked the criteria and just left 1 criteria crossed. As a newbie in this zone what should i do inorder to meet criteria (Coverage and accuracy).? Rahim231 (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Rahim231, I will answer your second question 2.also does a article need to be B class to be reviewed in order to be indexed.? The answer is "no". There is no connection between the rating of an article, which is highly subjective for lower ratings, and the process of reviewing an article for search engine indexing. If not reviewed first, all articles are indexed after 90 days. Cullen328 (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rahim231: You may wish to ask the bot owner what logic was used to assess the article. Presuming the logic is sound, you could then ask the Military history WikiProject for assistance at their talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rahim231 I don't think you need to go to the trouble of asking the bot owner anything. One look at your article, and it's clear that it probably merits either a Start-class rating, or the 'C' Quality Assessment currently assigned to it, but absolutely nothing higher.

Now, I'm not decrying your efforts, but a B-quality article needs to have a lot more detail in it! Yours simply does not yet, and could also do with some cleanup for spelling, over-use of wikilinks (such as repeated an unnecessary links to weapons and to ammunition), plus inappropriate use, or ommission, of capital letters on occasions.

But those are minor points. When it comes to gaining a higher assessment rating there simply isn't enough detail in that article yet to leave someone feeling they've fully understood the events described. Was it a bombing campaign lasting one day, or one month? When did it start and end? Who were the insurgents, and why was the bombing necessary? Who ordered it? How many were killed and injured? What other damage was done? Civilians impacted? How did it end? What impact did it have? ...and so on. So either Start class or C-class is appropriate for it (it's often very subjective, anyway).

To improve your article, either re-read your sources and extract more detail from them, or go find better sources which give more information to form a fully rounded picture of what happened, when and why.

Oh, and you should not repeat the same reference again and again, as you've done. You should 're-use' it so that it only appears once in the Reference list, despite being inserted in multiple places. To learn how to do this, see WP:REFBEGIN if you're editing with our Source Editor, or WP:REFBEGINVE if you're using our Visual Editor. Both editing tools let you re-use a reference, thought they operate slightly differently.

See WP:Content assessment which states:

• START: An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources. Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use.
• C-class: The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems.
• B-class: It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. See WP:Content assessment/B-Class criteria.

I hope this help. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Inactive work groups on new articles

I am working on various articles such as American Sable rabbit, Velveteen Lop, Golden-backed tree-rat. These variously do or do not have the Pocket pet work group applied in the talk page. Is it appropriate to add work groups even if they are inactive? Thanks. Reconrabbit 13:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Reconrabbit, I don't see why not! In my view, never making an inactive WikiProject or work group visible on new pages is a good way to ensure that they won't be reactivated! — Remsense诉 14:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit I fully support Remsense's reply to you. A key point to add is that, even if an WikiProject or one of its sub groups/task forces appears to be inactive, its Quality Assessment Table nevertheless remains an inordinately useful tool for seeing all related articles, and their importance and quality levels. This can be immensely useful to someone who wants to work on the most important Stubs or Start class articles to improve, or perhaps find a GA article to bring up to Featured Article standard. So, even though this was a very small task force, with a very small assessment table, I earnestly recommend you add the template to any relevant articles that don't have them! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I have some concern over this because some work groups, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Cuisine, merge the name into something like "This article is included under inactive work groups: view" when added. Reconrabbit 22:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Question about copyright

Hello, i have a question about Copyright

I don't know how to use and get. I want Creative Commons CC0 Licence and i don't have an computer. I use my smartphone for everything and please I'm waiting for the answer please leave a reply here about CC0 Licence. Thank you from, Akhinesh~ Akhinesh777 (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Your question is unclear. Have you read the message on your Talk page regarding Wikipedia_and_copyright? You can find more information by following the links in that message. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ahkinesh777. It sounds as if you think that a CC licence is something you have to apply for and get. If you are thinking that if somehow you get a CC licence, that allows you to use other people's copyright material, then I'm afraid it doesn't work like that.

If you own the copyright to something (say, some text or images that you have created) you have the legal power to grant a licence on it - that is to say legal permission for other people to use the material in ways specified in the licence you grant.

Creative Commons is a particular collection of licences which you may choose to release your material under. The one that most material in Wikipedia is released under is WP:CC-BY-SA, and if you look at that link you can see the particular wording to use in releasing material under that licence. ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

i don't really understand, i don't know how to use CC0 Licence. I received some text code to copy i don't even know where to paste it Akhinesh777 (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Akhinesh777: The license doesn't matter unless you are uploading something you created to which you own a copyright. Then when you upload it (like a photograph from your phone) you will be prompted for the license at that time. Otherwise you don't need to worry about it. By creating an account here, you already agreed to release any text you write under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license, and this is automatic. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe the author of this question is asking how to indicate that text they used in a draft article Draft:OPPO A5 was released under the CC0 license. I don't know how one would do that and if the text actually was under CC0, but it was deleted as a copyright infringement. Reconrabbit 22:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Biography Death Policy

Wikipedians, what is the policy on how the death section of a Wikipedia article is written? Do we delete any part of the section if it is too much like an obituary? Ex. (A1139530 passed away yesterday... he is survived by his mother and his three children). Would we delete the "he is survived by..." section as it seems to be too close to an actual obituary rather than an encyclopedia article? Thank you for the help. A1139530 (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. We don't use euphemisms like "passed away" or obituary-like wording such as "survived by" in articles. Manual of style actually disrecommends such phrases: MOS:SURVIVEDBY. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Change the wording and state "according to A1139530's June 10, 2010 obituary, at the time of his death his mother and three children were still living." Then add the obituary as your reference. Karenthewriter (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Surviving spouses can be named but not children. David notMD (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

dasrules3

Hello, you did approved my article because there weren't any sources for it. I didn't put it sources, because I created the math theorem myself and I researched it and it hadn't been a thing before. That is why there is no source because I helped make it. Dasrules3 (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dasrules3 Welcome to the Teahouse! See replies at Wikipedia:Teahouse#a_drink_I_invented. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This is about Draft:Dylan Right Triangle Theorem. Dasrules3, the relevant content guideline is Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. If your theorem receives significant coverage in several peer reviewed academic journals covering mathematics, it may then be eligible for a Wikipedia article. Otherwise, no. Cullen328 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

See WP:TOOSOON for why this is too soon. After you publish your theorem in a valid maths journal and people with no connection to you have written about it, one of them may decide to create a Wikipedia article about it. David notMD (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Who can help me to write my wikipedia?

It seems that, articles can't be written by yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors than someone from Wikipedia need to write so is anyone out there can help??

Meera Yogi Meerayogi (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

you can write a Wikipedia article yourself. anyone can make a Wikipedia article. What do you need help with? Babysharkboss2!! ^{Green Day (Talk Page btw)} 17:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but people who try to write WP-articles about themselves almost always fail per WP:COI etc. Especially if they are WP-newbies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

oh, is that what they mean? then yeah, don't do that. My bad, i thought they meant something else.

Babysharkboss2!! ^{Green Day (Talk Page btw)} 17:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Meerayogi, Which are the 3-5 best sources you can think of that are at the same time reliably published (WP:RS), independent of you and about you in some detail? This excludes blogs, wikis, your websites, social media, etc, etc. See also WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Meerayogi, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

To emphasise what is said in the article Gråbergs pointed you to: if there is an article about you in Wikipedia (whoever writes it) it will not belong to you, it will not be controlled by you, you will be strongly discouraged from editing it (though you will be welcome to suggest edits) and it won't necessarily say what you would like it to say. ColinFine (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This is part of a long standing history of conflict of interest editing at Sockalingam Yogalingam user says she is his wife. Theroadislong (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

If you are in fact his wife, you can propose changes on the Talk page of the article. Asking "...is anyone out there can help??" at Teahouse is useless, as is asking on your own Talk page. Hosts are here to advise on how to edit, not to be co-authors. David notMD (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

My first edit war: Am I in the wrong?

Hey! I am currently in a little edit war with the user Energymeat. They are introducing (what I believe to be) incorrect information. They keep citing this one article, [3], which is the only source I could find that says AFM Gousal Azam Sarker is a victim of a conspiracy. On the other hand, the source they are trying to supress (which appears to be more reliable, though they are removing the content and the source) is The Daily Star ([4]), which is the largest circulating newspaper in Bangladesh (Source: The Daily Star (Bangladesh)), so I trust their word, and other sources confirmation on the topic. Can someone else give some input here if I am wrong? I believe the editor might have a COI as well, but I don't want to jump to conclusions, and of course, AGF. OnlyNano 18:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, OnlyNano, and welcome back to the Teahouse. With regard to edit warring: it doesn't matter whether you are in the right or not: do not edit war.

I see you have started discussing it on User talk:Energymeat; but "I'm right and you're wrong and you need to stop doing it" is not discussing, even if you're right. Please see dispute resolution, and consensus. ColinFine (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. My intentions are to have them stop editing that article, specifically with that piece of information, as they are just editing it back several times, without resolution. Thanks for those resources, I'll check them out! OnlyNano 18:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

OnlyNano, edit warring is a blockable offense so you must stop now to avoid being blocked. You are simply not permitted to edit war even if you are convinced that you are correct. I notice that you have not engaged in any discussion at Talk: AFM Gousal Azam Sarker which should be your first step when there is a content dispute. Please start there, and explain your reasoning in detail. Cullen328 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

In addition, OnlyNano, it is not a good idea to repeatedly threaten the other editor with a block when you are engaging in behavior that could get you blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello I am not in an edit war, i have merely appended the information in the source I provided in addition to all the prior information reinstated preserving all sources. This is the perfect balance of providing a full picture. Thanks! 103.72.212.51 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

OnlyNano, you have been edit warring at AFM Gousal Azam Sarker, and have made no attempt to discuss the issue at Talk:AFM Gousal Azam Sarker, so you are clearly in the wrong. The same goes for Energymeat.   Maproom (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Updating my page independent help needed please

Is anyone willing to help me please as minor updates are needed to my page and it is not god practice for me to do them as its my page about me. Is anyone willing to help please, see below. Thanks. I am hopeless at posting this request in the wrong places - it was on Talk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Patricia_Bowling

Extended content

At the sub-title Books I need to insert ‘(selected)’ as below. And at end of Books I need to insert a recent 3rd book as below: Books (selected) [edit] ·        Bowling, Ann (2017). Measuring health: a review of subjective health, well-being and quality of life measurement scales (4th ed.). London: Open Univ Press. ISBN 978-0335261949. OCLC 951645229. ·        Bowling, Ann (2014). Research methods in health: Investigating health and health services (4th ed.). Milton Keynes. ISBN 9780335262755. OCLC 887254158. ·        Bowling, Ann (2023). Research methods in health: Investigating health and health services (5th ed.). Maidenhead Open Univ Press McGraw Hill.ISBC-13 9780335250929 ISBN10 9780335250929  eISBN 9780335250936 At the end of my Wikepedia page at External links three of my four links need updating: please delete these 2nd and 3rd links: ·     Older People’s Quality of Life Questionnaire (OPQOL) summed scoring and reverse coding ·     OPQOL-BRIEF questionnaire Links accessed 17 June 2018 and insert instead: ·        https://eprovide.mapi-trust.org/instruments/older-people-s-quality-of-life Link accessed 1 February 2024. ·        https://eprovide.mapi-trust.org/instruments/older-people-s-quality-of-life-brief-version  Link accessed 1 February 2024 The 1st link is correct and should remain as: Ann Patricia Bowling publications indexed by Google Scholar The last link web location has changed and needs updating to: "Chief Medical Officer annual report 2013: public mental health" The definition and measurement of well-being and quality of life in mental health promotion and outcomeshttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/chief-medical-officer-cmo-annual-report-public-mental-healthRetrieved 1 February 2024.

(AnnQoLAge (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC))

@AnnQoLAge: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see that you've added this request to Talk:Ann Patricia Bowling four hours before posting it here. Please be patient, and someone will eventually respond to your talk page request, especially since Primefac added the {{edit COI}} template for you. GoingBatty (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@AnnQoLAge You have made a perfectly acceptable EDITREQUEST on the talk page of the article about you. That should suffice, and an editor will be along shortly to address it. There are currently 66 such requests pending. No need to post it here, as Teahouse volunteers don't usually get involved in answering such requests. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Editor apparently dodging a question

I'm in a midst of a discussion/dispute with a long-time editor. From my point of view, he appears to be dodging the question, i.e. not willing to answer the central question clearly. I have repeated the question 3 times.

Without a clear answer, the discussion doesn't make any sense to me. Either I'm not understanding something, or the other editor is being unfair.

I'm talking about the last few replies here.

What should I do now? Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know I'm writing a reply to the conversation on the talk page to answer your concerns. Dionysius Miller^talk 00:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Z80Spectrum As an administrator who has tried (in the limited time available to them) to wade through that battleground talk page and other posts from you, my view is that:

a) it was wrong to delete a proposal to split or merge an article. That should be reinstated and discussed (preferably without the wall of words with which you and others seem to manage to create, nor the accusations of liars and scammers I've seen from you elsewhere.

b) Although I know little about computer graphics, I believe they were quite right in removing all your lengthy discussion and personal research from the talk page. Wikipedia is not a 'how to do it' platform. It looks like an old thread from 2021 got answered at huge length by you and an IP with detailed WP:OR, and this strayed well into WP:NOTFORUM territory. If you believe it is relevant to any discussion here on Wikipedia, as opposed to on Commons, then why not put it in one of your user sandbox pages and simply link to it? That would have avoided a lot of kerfuffle and hot air that you have so successfully managed to generate or contribute to.

c) there are 13 'citation needed' templates in that article. I suggest you would be better off addressing finding sources to support existing content, rather than going down a rabbit hole of seemingly highly technical personal investigation and research which is out of scope of this Project.

d) {{cot}} and {{cob}} templates sometimes have their uses on talk pages, too, though not to collapse detailed investigative chit-chat which is better off being kept to other more specialised, dedicated forums. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Newbie issues

Hi, I'm having some issues in regard to drafting my first article. I'm attempting to improve Wikepedia's range of information on the Irish legal system and courts, but I don't understand how to fill out the references properly. All of the explanations I find when I search for help just further complicate it and confuse me unfortunately. Would anyone here be kind enough to explain the drafting process in simple terms? I am very much not used to online resources. Very helpful person singular (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Very helpful person singular Welcome to the Teahouse. Using one of our two editing tool options (called Source Editor), I have fixed the formatting of your draft and corrected the first citation. You weren't far off, but you unfortunately added the 'retrieved date' in a format incompatible with the template (02/02/2024, as opposed to 2 Feb 2024), which caused all those scary red warning messages to appear.

If you use the 'Preview' option when entering a reference in the Citation template popup, you can easily check how the reference will look, see a problem and fix it before inserting the individual reference into the article. Only when you've done that preliminary preview of the single citation need you insert it and then preview the entire page. Does that address your concerns? Nick Moyes (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much for you help. Very helpful person singular (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Species box not autopopulating, how to fix?

Hi, trying to create a species article, normally the template box autopopulates, but not in this case for some reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cudonia_lutea

Any ideas on how to fix?

Thank you! Emrosie (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Emrosie Welcome to the Teahouse. Just a very hasty response before heading off to bed: The problem with the failure to autopopulate is that this is a fairly esoteric taxon and the relevant template needs to be created first, with a link to the parent rank. See documentation at Template:Speciesbox, and the 'fix' link in your draft. Alternatively, copy the non-automated taxobox template from a related article and edit accordingly. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

General question about notability (any article, but maybe specifically one)

If this isn't the right page to talk about these sort of things, direct me to the right place. I'm well aware it could go in a specific talk page, but the talk page is empty (as in, I did post something in it, but nobody seemed to be focused on the page ever since I came across it). This seems like a good place to go when you were curious and there's nobody around.

I've came across a article about Starmad. To be quick, it's basically a software mentioned back in 2008 made for space mission analysis, as in, it calculates space related things such as Delta-V budget. I made previous edits to the article already, because some sections were more focused on how great/improved the software was rather than what it was in general.

What I wanted to ask is that, how can you tell if Starmad fits WP:N, and if it does (I'm pretty sure it is? But I'm a newcomer, so I can't know everything), then how seriously should it be taken? Sure, there's a paper regarding it, but that itself was made by the original creator, Davide Starnone. As for everything else, I think most of it is primary sources, since it's straight from the creation itself. There's nothing I can see from outside sources and there's no coverage on it. Some editors attempted to add new sources, but, when I came along the citations weren't formatted properly; there was no link to click on.

If, specifically, an article like this, what should be done? If it isn't notable and there's no sources able out there to prove that it is, should it be left alone, or should it be deleted? In general, how can I tell to leave a article alone for others to search for sources, or proceed with making a path to deletion?

Thanks, and sorry if this isn't the right place to discuss this. DoNot87 ^{🡵 talk} 00:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, a topic reported solely by its author/creator and/or their organization is not notable. I'll take a look now at the "attempted" sources but that's the gist. Dionysius Miller^talk 01:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't find a thing more on it than the stuff from the developer, so I've proposed it for deletion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast replies! Sorry for not being WP:BOLD, I was hesitant to nominate deletion mainly because I don't want to undo something someone else has worked on, and I was worried if the article could have future edits to improve it. DoNot87 ^{🡵 talk} 01:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

In its current state, the article is worthless. The question to ask is of whether there are reliable sources for what it says. These don't need to have been on the web, let alone still on the web; and they don't have to be in English; though for this subject I'd imagine that if they had ever existed they would be on the web and in English. ¶ Even dud Wikipedia articles bring minor pleasures. I enjoyed reading that the software was/is "officially owned under the company 'SSBV'": I hadn't previously considered that a distinction could be made between the official and unofficial ownership of software, or that, say, the computer at which I am typing this is owned under me. And I'm amazed to learn that Windows software can "[assist] in spacecraft subsystems design, considering Attitude Control" among other things. -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess I should have known that from the start. The article was mainly made with strange wordings, and even copy and pasted from the official site (explains the weird list of strange terms... like, what even is Mission Operation Complexity, from the point of view of Mission Design and Planning?) and it makes me possibly believe that it might have either been laziness or attempts to get a article created to advertise the software (but not saying it must be, it's just weird nevermind, damn you, David).

I added the little "SSBV" thing because the start of the summary didn't fit a proper lead that all articles start with, so I wrote my own. I'm the one to blame for the usage of the term under. I possibly should have have used the words owned by instead. Oh well.

It was fun to attempt to edit this article, and I'll try to improve my skills for the future. DoNot87 ^{🡵 talk} 01:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Haha, I finished writing a proposal for deletion and before I could publish, @Seraphimblade beat me to it. I'll settle for seconding. Dionysius Miller^talk 01:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Pseudohistory

Can I use this source for the Pseudohistory article?: https://beastrabban.wordpress.com/2022/08/12/explaining-simon-webb-history-race-and-the-manipulation-of-history/ DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)