Wikipedia:Teahouse

331dot, 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

When is a List article "too long"?

I'm looking at a List article (List of military electronics of the United States) which is currently 226,025 bytes and growing. There is a hatnote that the list is "very long", but when is it too long? How should an article with this much info be efficiently split into sub-pages? Thank you in advance. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 05:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You could try to split it into parts for the different branches which would shorten the List for each branch. Synonimany (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That might work except most items on the list are used across multiple branches. Not sure how we could accomplish that. My question was more like “should it be split” at this point? — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 17:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe one list for cross-branch equipment and one for each branch, could that work? Synonimany (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

And if for example this works, it should be split, as it would be more searchable and readable, because this would make the lists shorter. Synonimany (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Bottom line, you agree it is time for splitting the list. Is that right? If so, I’ll try some things offline and eventually work something out. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 18:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this list is too long. Good luck. Synonimany (talk) 07:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Split it by alphabetical order keeping the size to a minimum in each. For an example, group A-L together and M-Z together. You'd then have "List of military electronics of the United States (A-L)" and "List of military electronics of the United States (M-Z)". The naming convention for list splits is at WP:NCSPLITLIST Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Horsepower

•  Courtesy link: Horsepower

In the page I find the text "DIN 66036 defines one metric horsepower as the power to raise a mass of 75 kilograms against the Earth's gravitational force over a distance of one metre in one second"

It's been sixty years since I finished High School Physics, but I have a vague feeling that this text should include "measured at the Earth's surface" or similar? Thanks, Chris Greaves 96.30.182.81 (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP 96.30.182.81 (Chris). If you're able to support such a change with a citation to a reliable source (as defined by Wikipedia), you can either (1) be WP:BOLD and make the change yourself or (2) be WP:CAUTIOUS by proposing it at Talk:Horsepower. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

That reliable source must be the DIN 66036 because of the beginning of the sentence. 176.4.228.65 (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe it's standard gravity from the forum posts I've seen with translations. (They're not authoritative. But, I didn't want to spend $$ to buy the official standard in German.) Standard gravity is defined as a fixed number because actual forces of gravity vary around the earth, even if at the same nominal altitude of zero, or sea-level, etc.. Alegh (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Publishing a new page

Hello, I just created a new musician Wiki page and its ready to be posted online. Having trouble with publishing it, even though all the changes have been saved and I hit the "Publish" button, it is still not coming up online. Is there something that I'm missing here? Thanks in advance. Dan Vadim Von (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You have edited your user page, which is not article space and doesn't appear in search engines. I think you confused creating an article with creating an account. Did you intend to adopt the name of the person you edited about as your username? New accounts cannot directly create articles and need to use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. Your draft can be moved in to draft space if that's okay with you. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I created this page about myself. Can I move the entire block of content into Article Wizard? How can I move it into draft space? Dan Vadim Von (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Your draft autobiography must be moved, either to your "sandbox" or to draft space. And a tip: remove the promotional junk ("legendary", "prestigious", etc). -- Hoary (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Adjusted the wording. How do I go about moving the content into either the sandbox or the draft space? Dan Vadim Von (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I will do so. One moment 331dot (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I have moved it to Draft:Dan Vadim Von. Your draft is completely unsourced and highly promotional. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability- like a notable musician. Most people have great difficulty doing that about themselves. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

For help with sourcing, see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dan Vadim Von,It might be cache,refresh UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 20:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

does this page qualify for deletion?

I have been looking at Arthur Ingram (died 1742) for a bit now. It caught my attention for the weird title, but it seems like he fails a claim to notability, except for the fact that he was a British Member of Parliament.

On one hand, I cannot find any actual other information about him other than in the article, which seems like nothing that should hand him a wiki article. On the other, I am ursure whether being an MP is enough to claim nobility. Wikipedia:Notability (people)/Subnational politicians says that "Members of the devolved legislatures of the United Kingdom are presumed notable." I'm not sure if that means MPs are notable?? Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges says "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" but also "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels [are presumed notable]," which I think includes British Parliament. And lastly, List of MPs elected in the 1715 British general election has every MP that does not have a wiki article in a red link, suggesting that that article should be made, for the fact that are MPs.

I need someone else's insight on this.

Qwaabza (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the last quote you give above would definitely qualify as 'notable' (by status, rather than by available published documentation) a Member of Parliament (of the Kingdom of Great Britain, as it then was) – this is a National-level office, one step above the also-notable members of the devolved legislatures of the UK; the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the London Assembly (which of course did not exist in the 18th Century).

I suspect that more sources might exist for Arthur Ingram somewhere, but they would probably need deep research to find, perhaps in libraries or local government archives covering Horsham, for example, or in Parliamentary records, or in newspapers of the period (the first daily newspaper had begun publishing in 1702). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.7.95.48 (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I guess it's just a underdeveloped article rather than a non-notable one.

Qwaabza (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Qwaabza,you can just move the page,and add a Template:Multiple issues UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 04:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

No, please don't do that. There is no reason to move the article that I can see, and Template:Multiple issues is a container template - you shouldn't be adding that to any articles unless you're also adding maintenance templates. It doesn't need any maintenance templates, because there's nothing wrong with it, at least as far as I can tell. I have however added a stub template. -- asilvering (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Using LLM (ChatGPT) for writing

While updating article, would it be wrong of me to take the information from website and make ChatGPT write an encyclopedic summary and paste it on Wiki, and then check and scrutinize it thoroughly as I would do with my own edits and publish it if I find no mistake, nothing wrong and no wrong interpretation? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

If no, then the case of '5% of new articles on Wikipedia are AI generated' would be slight less to worry about. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, if it's thoroughly scrutinized, it's not violating any wikipedia policy. But LLM text is often... crap. So ymmv. The other trouble is that LLMs can parrot copyrighted text without you realizing it, so check for that as well. All in all I think it will take you longer than simply writing the content yourself the first time. -- asilvering (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-10-19/Recent_research

For my tuppence-worth, it would be wrong to paste it into an actual Article, because this would then be present for a period in Article Space (with likely inaccuracies and hallucinated references) before you had checked everything in it, but it might be acceptable to paste it into a Draft and check it there. Even better might be to work on it on your own device, and transfer it to Wikipedia (as an Article or, preferably Draft for Submission) only after you have checked and copy-edited everything.

Others may disagree. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.7.95.48 (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

"Paste, check, publish" means it won't hit mainspace before it's checked. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Another problem is that it is well known that LLMs rely on Wikipedia as a source, and thus including an LLM summary may mean including a Wikipedia summary, which my trigger WP:CIRCULAR issues as well as WP:WINARS. Mathglot (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Yeah, so I mentioned that I am intending to take the information from a reliable external source and just use LLM to summarize it. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 13:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Why do that when you can just summarize the source in your own words? Your English seems fine. Using LLM seems to be not only a waste of time for Wikipedia, but also a waste of time for you. You could go to whatever trouble it takes to add such a summary to the article, only to have it completely reworded or removed altogether by the very next person who edits the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor,I suggest no UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 20:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

How do i make good refrences

I want to make a article about Fire colors but idk how to make refrecnes 1,250,261,161a (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Please see Help:Referencing for beginners. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@1,250,261,161a You may not need to make an article from scratch, which is in any case a difficult task for a newcomer. You could add well-referenced extra information to articles like Fire and Colored fire. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Give more context please,what do you mean by "good references" UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 20:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Why is editing other users' talk page comments inappropiate?

Why is editing other users' talk page comments inappropiate? Cyber the tiger (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Usually, editing other's comments can be seen as inappropriate because it's almost "bending what someone says", and when someone changed what someone else says, that comment may take on a different meaning. E_F⁵ 17:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@CyberTheTiger You will find more information at WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@CyberTheTiger: Perhaps if you provide an example of when you think it should be OK for someone to edit another's comment, it might be easier to answer your question in a more specific way. For example, your original post contains a spelling error and many people would see "correcting" that error as something that should and needs to be done; Wikipedia, however, doesn't hold talk page posts to the same publishing standards as it does article content and recommends not making such editorial changes because doing so can create more negatives than positives. For sure, some might not care and actually welcome such corrections, but others might feel offended by them because it makes them feel as if their posts are being graded in some way. So, Wikipedia tells us to live with such mistakes as best as we can and seek clarification when they somehow might affect the meaning of the post. Generally, Wikipedia only suggests we edit or remove posts made by others when they're serious policy issues involved (like a personal attack against another editor, posting of someone's personal information, copyright violations, etc.) or perhaps to fix a formatting or syntax error that's impacting the page as a whole or how the post is being displayed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@CyberTheTiger,I have done so before,removing personal attacks,but,normally,no,and also adding a comment is considered an edit,and that is exactly what talk pages are for and that is completely acceptable, UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 20:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

i was talking about editing someone else's comment that they already posted Cyber the tiger (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@CyberTheTiger please provide link to comment,that might be able to provide more context UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 21:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Map issue

what do you do when a map provided by Wikipedia clearly indicates that a bird doesn't reside, breed or go near a certain area, yet it has been placed as a member of that area?

List of birds of Gauteng

Pertaining specifically to both the old and new world parrots where the map shows a clear gap around the area that is Gauteng, the only time you will see them in the wild is if someone has lost them as pets. But if this is to be true, then why not add cockatiels and budgies to the list because the only other place to see them in the Johannesburg zoo.

Yet they are they not the only birds that have been erroneously placed in this list but unfortunately maps are not provided on all of these, Flamingos, pelicans, ostriches and storks are not residents of Gauteng. I'm an avid bird enthusiast who resides in Gauteng and dream that they soar or roam freely around my province, but there's a difference between fact and dreams. Jayveesee (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Hm, it's hard to prove a negative. What you can do, in general, when you see a problem like this, is remove the content and leave an edit summary that explains your reasoning, along with the magic words: "unsourced content". Now anyone who wants to add that back in has to follow WP:BURDEN. In theory. In practice it may become messier, in which case you can always come back here for advice. -- asilvering (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help mate.

I tried it, but for whatever reason once again it's been restored to how it was.

Not going to bother anymore. Jayveesee (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, but you forgot the magic words: "unsourced content". It's time to go to the article talk page, and explain there. Tag in the users who are reverting you, and explain what's up, and why that map isn't a reliable source for whatever reason. And don't forget to log in before making edits. -- asilvering (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jayveesee. A thing to remember is that maps like this only try to represent what is usual, and are too small scale to show fine detail. In the case of birds which – surprise! – sometimes behave unusually, get lost, or get blown by contrary winds over long distances, even across oceans, there will always be some of a particular species occasionally showing up in some places where they do not routinely visit or live. At some level, this may happen sufficiently often to be worth noting in texts and lists, but not so often as to show on distribution maps.

Also, changes happen in the climate (etc.), and in species' distributions as they respond to the changes. Since neither existing distribution maps nor textual descriptions get automatically updated, some of them will be out of date, and may disagree with one another. It would be nice if all of these maps, texts and lists were regularly checked against the latest published scientific/ornothological information (the same goes for non-bird species as well, of course), but there aren't enough volunteer editors who want to do it, so we depend on editors like yourself to notice particular anomalies like this, investigate, and update the material if and as necessary, always citing Reliable sources, of course. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.7.95.48 (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Well that particular page is extremely well maintained as after both my brother and I tried to fix it twice each, yet it keeps being restored to it's incorrect glory. I don't know how much wind there has to be to have brought the invisible ostriches we're supposed to have in the province that I reside and have constantly roamed around in for 35 of the 43 years of my life, but perhaps I should partake in some smoking habits before leaving the house to be able to see them.

It's no wonder more people are refraining from using the website, imagine a kid being an enthusiastic future ornithologist wants to see flamingos, pelicans and a few of the raptors that are on this list only to have the bitter disappointment of coming to the realisation that they can only be seen in sanctuary at the zoo they've already seen so many times before. I thought our edits are supposed to repair mistakes, not spread misinformation... Jayveesee (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You - or rather an IP address which is presumably you, or your bother, but logged out - are removing entries including those tagged as "(A) Accidental – a species which has been recorded 10 or fewer times in Gauteng". So you wouldn't reasonably expect to see them often, or at all, but they have been there at some point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I now see that the IP address is blocked, and given edits like [1] rightly so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my brother, he's not a very tactful person, and the reason for me signing up as an "editor" to show things can be repaired with reasoning and conversation.

Thanks for the suggestions. And yes, as I have at multiple occasions have stated the only place you will see live flamingos in Gauteng is in a sanctuary or the Johannesburg zoo. Jayveesee (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I haven't checked all the species you removed, but our own article on Marievale Bird Sanctuary in GP has a picture of a flamingo there; and eBird has 852 records of the species in the province; and 3893 records of Green woodhoopoe; many for each with photos. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I will leave it for someone else to repair in the meantime, as I still am busy learning how to edit properly and effectively for the benefit of the readers before delving back, if it hasn't already been repaired by that time, to fix it appropriately without having anyone having any issues with the edits I make.

Once again thanks Andy Jayveesee (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jayveesee We have a policy in this,Verifiability,not truth UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 20:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I was under the impression that this was closed and done with, yet you felt the urge to insert what was basically already stated in previous responses, only in an attempt to seem sasquipedellian, why? Have you forgotten that verification by personal sightings and the maps provided are in fact a key factor in verifiability. As such I can verify that I have never seen the birds I previously mentioned to the other editors in the wild only in bird sanctuaries, the maps indicate that I would be correct in my argument too but if I was, the page would have been left after my first erroneous editorial. But as I already agreed and admitted that birds are unpredictable in there movement your commentary is unnecessary and unwelcome.

Have a nice day. Jayveesee (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jayveesee: "Have you forgotten that verification by personal sightings [is] in fact a key factor in verifiability." Not on Wikipedia they aren't. See WP:V and especially WP:NOR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Then what's the purpose of the maps, the initial issue in question? Jayveesee (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm starting to align with my brother's point of view on this subject as it seems more productive banging my head against a brick wall. Despite my alignment with you and admission of being wrong to a certain degree, it's like no actual truths are actually being addressed only perspectives. Jayveesee (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You may know a 'truth' from your personal observation ("I saw X in place Y at time Z"), but it is only admissible on Wikipedia if it can be verified by citing a published reliable source.

I would also remind you that just because you personally haven't seen something in a large area, that doesn't mean it wasn't there in another place in the area where you weren't at that time, or in the same place at a different time. Private anecdotal non-observations prove nothing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.7.95.48 (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

How is logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address socking? An IP address is not an account Cyber the tiger (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

From WP:SOCK:

Sockpuppetry takes various forms:

Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address qcne (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Editing the same article or Talk page from an account and logged out so as to appear as an IP address would give the impression that two people are involved. David notMD (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It would not be directly sockpuppetry (technically,as the policy does not say anything about that),but still,disruptive editing is not ok UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 00:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No, @UnsungHistory, that's not correct. Logging out to edit as an IP is WP:LOUTSOCKing. -- asilvering (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about Template:Cults

I could not find a template for Cult groups, so I started creating one in my sandbox. Then I discovered it HAD existed at one point, but was moved to Template:New Religious Movements. There's a 12 year old archived discussion in which they decided to perform this move. To me, the conflation of Cults with New Religious movements is a ridiculous error, and perhaps libelous, as not all cults are specifically New Religious in nature (example the Manson Family). Having The Branch Dividians in the same template as the Latter Day Saints is ludicrous. Wikipedia instructs to use the most common term for titles and the term Cult is extremely common in reliable sources. So it seems to me we have a big missing page in Wikipedia in this regard. I'm looking for thoughts on how we can rememdy this. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You might try asking at WT:NRM for interested editors. -- asilvering (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Iggy pop goes the weasel My issue is this would be very duplicative of the NRM (already massive) one and a term that is far, far more likely to result in edit wars. The term is also extremely contentious without a great definition - what exactly a “cult” is varies so widely from source to source that creating a consistent navbox from any one of them is a nightmare. What will be the basis for inclusion? Any group that has been called a cult ever? Or are we going to OR our way into deciding which ones are Real Cults? Seems bad. I agree with you about the Manson family but honestly sometimes the less strictly religious groups are still classified as NRMs, like Landmark Worldwide. And I don’t think it’s odd with the Mormons - plenty of people would edit war over including them in any prospective cult navbox so I don’t think that would solve the problem. They’re also often accused of being a cult. See why the cult leader category was just deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The current solution is factually lacking and misleading... I read the old discussion from 2012. We have a responsibility to be complete and factually accurate. As Wikipedia is built upon reliable secondary sources all we really need are reliable secondary sources that refer to a group as a Cult. It's an error to conflate all of it under the banner of Religion, particularly when we're forced to leave major Cults out of the existing template: For example we have NXIVM, a major recent example of a non-religious Cult referred to by reliable sources as a Cult. I cannot understand why there's so much reluctance to use a template that lists Cults and related topics when the articles on Cults already refer to them as Cults. Wikipedia also instructs us to use the most common term for things and while everyone knows the word Cult and it appears in reliable sources with great frequency, for more than "New Religious Movement". New Religious Movement simply does not equate to Cult and vice versa. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Iggy pop goes the weasel There are plenty of secondary sources that refer to Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or any religion at all, as cults. So is the scope going to be any group that has ever been described as one? What is the inclusion criteria? And if not, what is the definition? We don't have a List of cults, or List of groups described as cults, for the same reason, because there was no agreement on what constitutes one. A navbox based purely on a contentious label is bad. And no, under some definitions they are more or less one-to-one, Landmark Worldwide is non religious and is often called a cult, but has also been described as an NRM. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Iggy pop goes the weasel,this should be brought up at the Village pump UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 20:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect

Sorry, if I'm not being bold. However, can I make a redirect to the Communist Action Organization in Iraq page? Rager7 (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rager7: Yes – since your account is autoconfirmed, you can make redirects. Did you have a particular redirect title in mind, such as CAOI? jlwoodwa (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking of titling the redirect to "Iraq Communist Organization", but CAOI is also good title for redirect. Rager7 (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Rager7, don't make redirects that are merely descriptive; your example would work better as a {{short description}} than as a redirect. Feel free to make a redirect whenever some reliable sources use that name for it, or when it is a frequent search term that will help users find it. Mathglot (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Rager7 (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

How to prevent accidental article/category creation

hello, i accidentally made a category and i would like to sincerely apologize for doing so. i would like to be a serious editor but if i keep making mistakes like this and the times where mobile edits remove content how will i become an editor rather than just a fool on this website? how do i fix this and prevent further problems on the site? Avienby (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Avienby. Proofread your work and think very carefully before clicking the "Publish changes" button. Cullen328 (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Avoid editing when sleepy, when distracted, or after having ingested alcohol, a narcotic, a hallucinogen, etc. If you realize that, moments previously, you accidentally created something (an article, a category, whatever), simply blank it. It will then be deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Avienby: Always use the Show preview button before you publish! Mathglot (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Adding [citation needed] to my own article

I am wondering whether to add {{Citation needed}} to an article I submitted for review, or just remove the material needing a citation.

This is for an article on a living person Draft:Gary Stockdale

Some material is poorly sourced and so needs to cite a more objective source. The material is NOT controversial. I am hoping that I or someone else will find a better source at some point. I see 3 options here:

1. Add {{Citation needed}} after the poor source citation.
2. Replace the poor source citation with {{Citation needed}}.
3. Remove the poorly sourced material.

Which option is best, or another option? Dr.bobbs (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dr.bobbs The policy for biographies of living people says that all material that could be challenged must have an inline citation, or should be removed. While you are tidying up, please remove all the external links within the main text. There can be an external links section at the foot of the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

However, I am confused by your mention of external links within the main text that need to be removed. I'm pretty certain that I didn't put in any, and I don't see any now. I believe there are external links only within the "External links" and "Video clips" sections, and in the Website entry in the Infobox. I assume these would all be proper places to have external links, since I don't see any alternatives to that for these locations. Dr.bobbs (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dr.bobbs: I believe Michael D. Turnbull might've been refering to the embedded links to Wikipedia articles found in the Gary Stockdale#Video clips. You can convert those to WP:WIKILINKS. He could also been referring to the links to YouTube videos in the same section. Those aren't really needed from an encyclopedic standpoint, particularly since a link to the main YouTube channel found in the "External links" section. Finally, the section probably should be renamed to "Filmography", "TV appearances" or something similar. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dr.bobbs As you say, there are still external links to YouTube videos in the "video clips" section. These are somewhat hidden, since you have just a full stop associated with the URL, giving as the final example (backup vocals). In my opinion, you should either be upfront and have the link associated with the name of the video or, more in line with the first paragraph of the guidance at WP:EL External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article, not include them there at all, relying on the proper external links and/or infobox sections of the article to provide readers with them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

I don't understand what you mean by "just a full stop associated with the URL". I don't know what a full stop is, or what the alternative is, or how to achieve that alternative.

I also don't understand what you mean by "have the link associated with the name of the video". How does that differ from what I did?

By "more in line with the first paragraph of the guidance at WP:EL", I guess you mean that the former "Video clips" section (now named "TV appearances") is considered to be in the body of the article (I had thought that this section was not in the body of the article), and that it should all be moved into the "External links" section? Maybe I could use "TV appearances" as a subheading under "External links", and move all of those YouTube links, with all the bulleted descriptions, there? Dr.bobbs (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

I don't understand what you mean by "the embedded links to Wikipedia articles found in the Gary Stockdale#Video clips. You can convert those to WP:WIKILINKS". Those "embedded links" are already WP:WIKILINKS, aren't they, so how could I convert them to what they already are?

I don't see how including a link to Stockdale's YouTube channel takes the place of specifically listing his few most noteworthy YouTube videos. The reader is left to wade through many dozens of videos on his YouTube channel, the great majority of which are really not noteworthy, which is not very helpful.

I changed the "Video clips" section title to "TV appearances" as you suggested. Dr.bobbs (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Default font

Did wikipedia recently changed the default font or something? Suddenly everything looks clean and can't pinpoint exactly why. VihirLak007^hmu!/_duh. 15:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@VihirLak007: Did you change operating systems? Different operating systems have different default fonts for text: macOS and iOS use San Francisco, Windows uses Arial, and many desktop Linux distributions use Noto Sans. I'm not sure what font Android uses. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 17:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Should i open ANI case?

Hello, one of my DYKs was promoted but then pulled down for what I believe is an unreasonable reason. I already reached out to the Teahouse for assistance (see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1239#Question_2), and I also sought guidance from one of the most respected Burmese editors, Hybernator (User talk:Hybernator#Question). I revised the article as much as I could according to his suggestions and believe the current version is sufficient. However, the DYK promoter User:AirshipJungleman29 continues to raise issues and pose endless questions. I’ve been patient and polite, as advised by our leader in the Burmese Wikipedia Group, who mentioned that AirshipJungleman29 often challenges Burmese and Chinese editors in the past. So, I keep my desire.

I’ve explained that Asian religious traditions differ significantly from Western ones, and if my article has problems, similar questions should be raised on articles like Sita or Rama, who are also characters from the epic Ramayana, just like Kusa Jataka. I even added an analysis section as requested by AirshipJungleman29. He is still not happy with the improvement. I’m struggling to handle this situation and would prefer not to reopen the case, but I can’t ignore the difficulties being imposed on me. Should I request input from ANI editors? Even if he doesn’t agree with me, I believe he should respect Hybernator. I can't tolerate this kind of rudeness. Wikipedia is a global community where any issues can be discussed openly to resolve them. Thank you. Hteiktinhein (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:DYKTIMEOUT: "unpromoted nominations over two months old may be rejected at the discretion of reviewers and promoters."

Well, all the DYK reviewers were too busy to review my nomination within the two-month period. By the time it was reviewed, I had no internet access, but I tried to respond promptly once I was able to get online and addressed the issues. Despite my best efforts, they ultimately rejected the nomination per NLH5. The delay in reviewing the DYK is not the nominator’s (my) fault, as the reviewers seemed too busy and neglected it. If they had reviewed my nomination within one or two months, I would have had enough time to make any necessary revisions for approval. Hteiktinhein (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Hteiktinhein. As it says near the top of WP:ANI, This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. What you are describing is a routine content dispute, and ANI does not adjudicate content disputes. I do not think that you would get a friendly reception at ANI. There are several other forms of dispute resolution available to you. Cullen328 (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t believe he has sufficient knowledge of Buddhist cosmology to make content judgments based on his own opinions. At the very least, he should seek input or request comments from a Pali Canon expert or experienced editors on Buddhism, like Redtigerxyz. If a Pali scholar disagrees with the quality of my article for DYK, I will willingly withdraw it. A Christian editor may not fully understand Buddhist cosmology. Hteiktinhein (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not Christian, but I will of course say that I have little experience with Buddhist cosmology. What I do understand however, and you do not, are Wikipedia articles and the standards they are to be written to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hteiktinhein, please let me know who your leader in the Burmese Wikipedia Group is, and what exactly they said about my attitude to Burmese and Chinese editors. You can ping them to this discussion if necessary. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No, he is afraid of you. He said, 'If you (meaning me) write even a small negative comment about him, he’ll take it to ANI for a personal attack and lobby to get your account banned. So, no matter how angry you are with him, you have to stay quiet and respond politely.' That’s why I’ve decided to keep my anger to myself. I won’t be submitting any more DYKs after this experience, as I don’t want to deal with you again in the DYK process. Thank you. Hteiktinhein (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hteiktinhein, this is a collaborative project. It is completetely inappropriate for you to say that our leader in the Burmese Wikipedia Group said something negative about AirshipJungleman29 and then refuse to say who that supposed "leader" is. Transparency is an important social norm on Wikipedia. Back in October, right here at the Teahouse, I gave you a detailed analysis of the problems with your article. Others gave you feedback too. You cannot blame other people if you did not take the advice that other editors offered. Cullen328 (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Who cares? I have the right to no revel who is our mentor is. This is my privacy. Hteiktinhein (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hteiktinhein, please be polite. Not revealing who your "leader" in the Burmese Wikipedia Group is not helping any of the editors at the Teahouse who are trying to assist you. Providing this information will help them check if there actually is any behaviour of AirshipJungleman29 mentioned by you such as "taking it to ANI for a personal attack" and "lobby to get your account banned" that may warrant further investigation. Please co-operate with them to get your issue resolved faster. Thank you TNM101 (chat) 08:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Accusing others of misbehaviour without evidence is the definition of WP:ASPERSIONS. I have asked the editor responsible for the official Burmese Wikipedia group, and they have replied that no such words were said in the group. I must ask Hteiktinhein which group they were referring to? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I simply stated that my mentor or leader told me not to mess with editors like AirshipJungleman29, so I didn’t try to go against them. That’s all. It’s not your business; it’s part of our discipline. Hteiktinhein (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hteiktinhein, I don't know if it's already clear from the discussions above, but no, do not open an ANI case about this. The policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks prohibits, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." A discussion at ANI based on comments from an unnamed third party saying another editor "often challenges Burmese and Chinese editors" may end up getting your own account blocked, and it will not help with the DYK noms. If there is feedback on a DYK nomination that does not make sense, try starting a thread at WT:DYK, and focus as much as possible on the content issues. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it protocol to use single quotes or double quotes or does it not matter?

Galaxy111 (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:MOS#Quotation_marks. Amstrad00 (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Didn't see that section, thank you! Galaxy111 (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Stub Expansion

Hi Teahouse, I have been trying to create a expanded and more complete version of Brighton Applefest. I have 3 main questions. 1. At the bottom it is listed as a stub, what is the way to add my rewrite? 2. Can someone please read the new version at User:CF-501 Falcon/sandbox. 3. Once read over, would the page benefit from an exact list of all events hosted during Applefest?

I hope this is the right way to ask for help. Thanks CF-501 Falcon (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

CF-501 Falcon, I was about to say "remove the colons from the ends of the headers" from your draft. But more simply, remove the headers. However, add the header "References" to the bottom. I don't see why the by-law is worth mentioning. Remove dollar amounts. Copy the result. Set out to edit the current article, but simply blank it. Paste in the content of your draft. "Publish" it, with an edit summary such as "thorough rewrite". (NB this procedure is usually not a good one; but here, it would work well.) Please do not add "an exact list of all events hosted during Applefest". -- Hoary (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hoary, I have done as you said. Should the "this page is a stub" be deleted? Can you also please check the article? Thanks CF-501 Falcon (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

As far it goes, CF-501 Falcon, it's OK. But surely an article about a festival should say what goes on in it. And this article does. I quote:

The festival offers a variety of attractions. Its primary draw is its parade, and a street festival featuring fresh foods and local crafts. Other attractions include hayrides, a classic car show, live music, Kinsmen pancake breakfast, a firework show, and a children's amusement park. Vendors can be found around town selling local arts and crafts.

However, the sole source cited for this is the municipal website. I get the impression that this article on a festival is largely sourced to those who run the festival. Any better sources? -- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I was able to find one other source, a local news station, and have added it. As far as the municipal citations they are the only reputable source I could find, the rest are Facebook.

Is there anything else to improve the article? CF-501 Falcon (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation at Musk

Hi, would like to check as to whether the addition of Elon Musk on the Musk article's disambiguation header (as per edit) is in conflict with any specific style guidelines? I have noted an ngram search result showing considerable correlation, yet this explanation was apprarently not accepted by User:Paytonisboss who reverted my edits and cited WP:RS, which doesn't quite make sense in this context for a disambiguation header. Now I'm not quite in a position to edit due to 3RR and the other user did not respond. 151.192.43.70 (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

hes not related to the musk to what i found in my reasurch best regards, Paytonisboss (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It's precisely because the topics are not related that there is a need for disambiguation. Considering that many readers today searching for "Musk" might be looking for Elon Musk more than any other meanings conveyed by the "musk" word (as supported by the ngram search), adding this additional notice helps them, and one direct click is more helpful than having to go through an entire disambiguation page. 151.192.43.70 (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I've restored 151.192.43.70's edit to the hatnote, for the reasons advanced above. Deor (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks & appreciated. 151.192.43.70 (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of translation software

Hello, I'm working on an article about a species of spider described in Beiträge zur Araneologie, a German journal. However, I am regrettably not fluent in German, which adds considerable difficulty to reading the article in question. I have therefore relied on the assistance of Google Translate for this matter, however, translation software does have its limitations, especially regarding topics such as arachnology with highly specific vocabulary and a limited database available. Can I still use this article as a source even though it has been translated, or would it not be appropriate owing to the potential inaccuracy of the information gained from translation? Mediocre.marsupial (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Such software has certainly gotten better over the years, but it's still not without flaws as explained in WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. You could try different online sites to see if they roughly translate the original German the same way and then pick the best. FWIW, you don't need be able to read the source at the level of a native speaker as long as you're reasonably confident it's reliable and you're using it in the right context; if however, you want to be cautious, you can (1) discuss the source on the article's talk page, (2) seek assistance at WP:Germany or (3) seek assistance at WP:TRANSLATORS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that link is exactly what I was looking for! I should've searched for machine translation instead of translation software. I think I might have understated my ineptitude in German though, I really don't know a word of it. I gather that this is a reliable source as it's cited in the World Spider Catalog, and I plan to use it for describing the spider in question, which seems like the right context. I'll check if any translators can help. Thank you so much! Mediocre.marsupial (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The difficulty is that machine translation tends to be far more accurate for everyday language than it does for technical and specialist language. Particularly where an everyday word has a specialist meaning in the technical context, or where a word has two alternative meanings and the context is necessary to know which applies, machine translations often make a complete and utter hash of it. Machines struggle to resolve linguistic ambiguity.

But the good news is that if you are a subject expert on spiders, this may compensate for your lack of German. Although we are not supposed to write from personal knowledge or experience (a big problem for experts who "know" that they're right), having expertise means you know the contexts with which the machine translator struggled, and you might be able to untangle the machine's mistakes. You can use the machine translation if you can convince yourself that the source really does say what you think it says. As a trivial example, if the machine translation tells you a fly has hairy radio aerials, you're probably justified in describing it as having hairy antennae. If it tells you that the fly has a double-lobed bathtub, you are probably doomed, unless you know enough of the original language to work out what alternative translations are available for the original word that gave rise to bathtub. Elemimele (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that when trying to use machine translation for this article. Not many technical terms used in the article have everyday meanings, and when the translation doesn't exactly make sense (e.g. Cheliceren-Klauen = lit. 'cheliceral claws' = 'cheliceral fang') I can figure out what the term actually means from context (chelicerae do not have claws). I wouldn't call myself a subject expert on spiders, but at the very least I can tell the basics and have enough reference books to rely on for clarification. There's also the glossary of spider terms in German Wikipedia, which helps as one can refer back to the labelled diagram there. Mediocre.marsupial (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

People working on translations here on-wiki generally frown upon translation software being used, as it often creates more problems down the line; e.g., many articles sitting at WP:PNT are machine translations which no one gets around to correct and/or copyedit. PNT incidentally is a page where you could drop your article once finished, and sooner or later some good sould will come by and do the final touches. Lectonar (talk) 10:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

How can I hibernate my Wikipedia page for a few days?

I would like my Wikipedia page to go offline for for a few days for private reasons. Please can you help me? Okapiheads (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Okapiheads, welcome to the Teahouse.

I am unclear about your question. Do you mean a biographic article that is written about you? Articles can't be "hibernated", but in certain circumstances non-public personal information on a biographic article can be supressed.

You have no other contributions other than this Teahouse question - so let me know if you mean something else? qcne (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Okapiheads Other frequently-asked questions for biography article subjects, describing what they can do, are detailed here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Mike,

There is a Wikipedia page about me. I didn't put it up nor have edited it. Is it possible for it go offline for a few days? Or be taken off "for editing purposes"? I am about to enter a country that is not particularly friendly to journalists. Perhaps I am being overly cautious but it would make me feel better. Is this possible? With thanks. Okapiheads (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Okapiheads Either it will be available to read, or it won't be- articles are not removed from public view temporarily. If you want to argue that you are not notable and the article should be removed period, you can do that. (see WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE) 331dot (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Okapiheads I don't think that is possible, just as you couldn't temporarily shut off an online article about you at The Times. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

... and you would have to check whether there are also articles about you in other-language Wikipedias, which you can do by navigating to the article in English and clicking on the "Wikidata item" link that's usually on the right. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks both. Okay, I understand now. Is it possible at least to remove the photo affiliated with it? And also remove the date of birth which is actually partially wrong as it happens? Okapiheads (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Okapiheads We certainly don't want incorrect DOB in articles. If you email me (which you can do via my UserPage), and confidentially provide the article name, I'll remove that information. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, Mike. I have emailed you as suggested. Okapiheads (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Okapiheads,you might find Template:Away useful UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 20:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@UnsungHistory Why? That's a userbox. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 20:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cremastra,Because it indicates that a user is not active for some time, and that is what @Okapiheads is asking about UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 20:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@UnsungHistory {{away}} is to say on your userpage "I'm not going to be editing because I'm in the process of moving to New Zealand with twelve cats". The OP is asking to have their article temporarily taken down for private/safety reasons. These are quite different, and I don't see how the OP could be served by placing {{away}} on their userpage or anywehre else. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 21:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

My issue is dealt with now but thank you for getting stuck in there! I appreciate it. Okapiheads (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thats only a userbox and Cullen328 has already put a message about your answers Ned1a Wanna talk? 20:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

My question is dealt with now but I appreciate you taking the time and trouble to try to answer it. Okapiheads (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Anti Vandalism

How can i join Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Academy? TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:CVA. 130.74.59.192 (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@TheSmartWikiOne I am in the countervandalism unit,you can copy the code on my Userpage UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 20:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thats only a userbox... Ned1a Wanna talk? 20:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Barnstars

What are barnstorm and what do they do? TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:Barnstars. 130.74.59.192 (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Barnstars are Rewards for doing stuff here UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 20:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

MOD

how do i become a mod here? TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@TheSmartWikiOne You don't, because there are none. We have administrators who go through a rigorous scrutiny process before being accepted by the community. The process is described at WP:RFA. Newcomers like you are would be extremely unlikely to be accepted in that role, nor would you need to be an admin to help add content or improve the encyclopaedia in other ways. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You spend months if not years building up a good edit history, demonstrating your temperment and good understanding of Wikipedia policies, as well as a need for the tool set(which is all being a "mod" or admin is, just extra tools, it conveys no additional authority or status). A formal requirement is that you be at a minimum extended-confirmed(account is 30 days old with 500 edits or more). Please see WP:RFA for more information. There is also an election process(which has just concluded its first cycle) but the requirements are the same.

My advice is to simply focus on being a good editor and less on obtaining the admin toolset; if you develop a need for the tools, other editors will see this and consider nominating you. If you were to nominate yourself, it would be closed quickly as you are now. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@TheSmartWikiOne,what do you mean a "mod"?give more context UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 20:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I assume they mean moderator as in Internet forum#Moderators. It's similar to Wikipedia administrators. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Updating an outdated map with inactive creator

I am trying to update the map for the United States Climate Alliance which seriously needs a new version with all the states correctly highlighted with better colors as well. I already have a new SVG file for it, but I cannot overwrite the file.

It is also used in multiple other wikis, and I wonder how I can go about updating the map. Should I upload a new file and replace it in all of the wikis? How would that work? BrakeCoach (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I suggest asking at WP:Graphics Lab/Map workshop ColinFine (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Is Citing Examples Legitimate?

As part of the Dog Breed article:

I want to convey the point that breed standards from major dog organizations include behavioral factors. There is no citable source that says "breed standards from major dog organizations include behavioral factors." Is it legitimate to make this point by linking to several breed standards? If not, how can the point be conveyed?

I want to convey the point that dog breed selector programs include behavioral and personality factors. Again, there is no citable source that states this. Is it legitimate to make this point by linking to several dog breed selector programs? If not, how can the point be conveyed? Wygk (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wygk The journal article doi:10.1111/brv.13128 says pretty much what you want to include, I think. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a good article, however, I have quite a few references for the inheritability of behavioral traits.

The point that I am trying to convey is that behavioral traits are often assumed to be associated with breeds, and this is evidenced by their inclusion in breed standards and dog breed selector programs. How is it possible to illustrate that point? The only way I cna think of is through citing examples. Wygk (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Quoting and citing guidelines from particular standards would demonstrate the point for those standards only, it might be considered WP:Original research or Synthesis to extrapolate that to a generalisation, or to carry out your own survey of standards.

Might there be reference to this matter in published material from some major dog-show, such as Crufts, or from its (or another) 'pan-breed' organisation such as The Kennel Club? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.7.95.48 (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Question about deleting articles

Hi, I’m Jordan, a newcomer to Wikipedia who is looking for some guidance on the article deletion process. Before I get into my question, let me first state that I do have a conflict of interest, I'm an employee at Dell Technologies and here on Wikipedia to make requests to update information related to the company. With that out of the way, I'm aware of the edit request process and have made some Talk page requests, but I'm not sure what the best process for someone with a COI like me to follow if I think an article (or articles) might need to be deleted.

As I've been looking across Wikipedia at the various Dell-related articles, I've come across several about defunct products that I don't think ever had good sourcing or meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (from what I've read and understand of those so far). Some of them are in poor shape and there aren't sources available to "fix" them (examples: Dell Axim, Dell Support Center, EMC NetWorker). I'd like to bring them to editors' attention to see if they should just be deleted.

What's the best way for someone with a COI to handle articles that might not meet Wikipedia’s notability standards? Is it ok for me to nominate them for deletion? Is there somewhere I could provide editors with a list of articles that I think might need deleting?

Any assistance or direction editors here might be willing to offer would be very appreciated! JM with Dell Technologies (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@JM with Dell Technologies: Your first step would be to follow the process at WP:Before - you say "there aren't sources available ", but how much have you looked for them? And rather than proposing deletion, maybe you can suggest other articles into which the articles that concern you can be merged? It would also be great if Dell could release some of its many product images under open licence, so that we might use them. See WP:IfSMC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

If you genuinely don't feel that an article is justified or will ever be supportable by sources, I believe you are entitled to nominate it for deletion via AfD exactly as any other editor would, provided you're up-front about your COI (as you have been so far - thank you!). If you have the twinkle tools installed, there is an "XFD" item under the "TW" menu that starts a deletion dialogue. Otherwise, follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Check WP:GD too for general hints about deletion. I'd just warn you that there is a risk that some editors will be MORE motivated to keep an article simply because its deletion was requested by someone related to the article! It's also important to note that we don't delete just because a product is defunct, or because the article's in a poor shape. It has to be demonstrably unsourceable/non-notable or in irremediable state. Elemimele (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Petter Næss article editing

Hey guys! I am new to editing and am trying to get a good grasp on things so I started working on one of the articles under suggested edits and Petter Næss was the one I decided to start working on. The multiple issues template stated that "This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (April 2020)" and "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. (April 2020)."

I made multiple edits, fixing particular dates, re-formatting the layout of the article to define his roles in theater vs. film, and adding more citations for the information already on there. I also changed some wording to better clarify what his film Elling was adapted from.

My question is mostly just if I did all of this correctly? Does it look okay? Did I follow what the issues template was asking to be fixed?

I'm sorry if this is more info (or not enough), like I said, I am a complete novice at this.

Thank you for your time!! Rylieb leelib (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Getting a page unflagged

Catya Plate's page has been flagged for "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." I am her personal assistant and trying to work on getting this unflagged. She had hired someone years ago to write it, I've reread it with the guidelines and don't see a reason for why it is flagged. Please advise us on how to go about this. Thank you very much. And the page is this: Catya Plate. Radhika48825 (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You've already asked this question here: Wikipedia:Help Desk#Getting a page unflagged, please don't ask for support in multiple places. Amstrad00 (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Already asked at Talk:Catya Plate#Efforts to unflag the page; discussion appears to be ongoing. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Website citations, to two different items on a scroll-down

I'm working on a draft article. Citations, referring to two named items, are being tagged as a cite error. I need to make citations to two items presented in a single reference. As it is now, there is one reference to which I've given a ref name shared in both citations. But I need to refer to two separate items (in this case, info about two specific publications) which are there to be found by scrolling down the web page.

The cite error notes that the reference is being "defined multiple times with with different content" due to the items mentioned in the two citations. What should I do? Of course, I could just make two separate citations, without putting a ref name in the reference template.

Thanks.Joel Russ (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the system allows a double citation,just split it into 2 UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 20:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Joel Russ (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Joel Russ, for this case, I'd recommend removing the refnames and appending the section anchor to the URL, so one points to https://wholeearth.info/#whole-earth-review and the other points to https://wholeearth.info/#whole-earth-catalogs

Named references cannot be defined with non-matching parameter values. Folly Mox (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Folly Mox. Would it be possible to direct me to an instance where a "section anchor" has been utilized this way? If so, with such an article example, I could click edit and see how that was done.Joel Russ (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate Content on the Main Page

As a parent, I would like the editors to avoid presenting topics as seen in Did You Know ... on the 2024-11-13 Main Page. Specifically this ... "... that The Cock Destroyers (pictured) released a trans-inclusive sex education video for Netflix before hosting Slag Wars: The Next Destroyer?"

I am not advocating deletion of the articles, only removal from the Main Page. Blanthor (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Blanthor See our policy on censorship. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 20:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The user said they don't advocate its removal from Wikipedia. It isn't censorship to curate the content that appears on the Main Page(where at least some land when they arrive here and can't control what is seen), perhaps to present the least shock value. I don't advocate removing it from the MP, just saying that's the other side. It's for the community to decide- Blanthor, you are free to participate in the processes that decide what appears on the Main Page. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

how about inventing a category like "unfit for main page"? 176.4.186.61 (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

personal knowledge

I recently edited the Wikipedia entry on Ann Charters, a personal friend of mine. She wanted me to add her new book to the entry, which I did. So the reference was the author herself. Is this not okay?

Ritlarge (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Nope,Verifiability,not truth UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 20:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Please see the Wikipedia guideline on conflicts of interest; basically, you shouldn't be editing your friend's page at all but you can request other editors to do so on your behalf. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I found your edit. There was no actual reference, but there is now. It was all in capital letters, it is not now. So you did no harm, but you did not do all the good you wished.

It is inadvisable to edit the article about people (etc) known to you personally. This is described as a WP:COI. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ritlarge I ought to have pinged you. My error. I have done so now. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I am eager to learn/ It is aan honor to be among you. Ritlarge (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ritlarge: You weren't signed in when you made that edit - please try to remember to do so in future. The article on Ann Charters lacks a photo of her. Perhaps you can take one? See WP:A picture of you for guidance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

answering

how do i answer questions to? TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Be more specific. At what Talk page were the questions asked? David notMD (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

at tea house TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @TheSmartWikiOne, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would respectfully suggest that you might not yet have enough experience to answer questions here. But please have a look at WP:Teahouse/Host lounge/Expectations. (I think that page may no longer be formally active, but it is still a useful guideline). ColinFine (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Adding a source to a protected Wiki page

Hello, I am trying to add a source to the Sergei Tabotirisky page, but it has been protected because of the people from the Hearts of Iron 4 mod "The New Order", where he is a meme.

the source I am looking to add is part from the book: The Russian fascists: tragedy and farce in exile, 1925-1945, when it mentions him being assigned to the Bureau of Russian Refugees, on page 24.

I just want to know where you can get access to edit the page. JamesAndew (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

If you use the edit request wizard, it will help you put a request on Talk:Sergey Taboritsky with a template that will put the request in a pile to be reviewed. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I figured it out, but thanks for responding anyway JamesAndew (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect

How do you create an redirect? Zhenghecaris (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is a helpful guide to making one: Wikipedia:How to make a redirect Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zhenghecaris,you need an account of at least 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits to have these priveleges,then in the tools section you will see "move page",basically,it changes the page name,and the old name becomes a redirect,but you should discuss it with other editers first,otherwise it will be likely reverted UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 02:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@UnsungHistory, if you read what @Ca linked above, you'll see that you can create a redirect without moving pages. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I was not aware of that UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 04:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you answer questions you know the answer to. Ned1a Wanna talk? 20:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Testing a photo

I ran into a disagreement with another editor. After submitting this picture to these websites [2] [3], the results show that it is unlikely to be AI-generated. But the other editor claims the opposite that it is flagged as AI-generated. How can I show my proof or have a third party verify the results? Vacosea (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If it's not AI-generated, what is that stuff in the background? It doesn't make sense. What's the provenance of the image -- where did you get it from? Who is it of? Mrfoogles (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Has the photo already been uploaded to either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons? I tried looking for it, but couldn't find it. Do you want to upload it to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons and use it on some Wikipedia page? If you're just having a disagreement with someone about this photo that's not really related to Wikipedia, there's not much anyone here at the Teahouse can do to help resolve that.

The main concern when uploading a photo to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons is the photo's copyright status because the respective policies of each site only allow photos which satisfy certain conditions to be hosted. Once the copyright status of a photo has been sorted, it's encyclopedic value to the project then becomes a concern, particularly with respect to Wikipedia. So, it's possible that a photo might be fine from a copyright standpoint, but using it still might not be desirable from an encyclopedic standpoint. It's this last bit that often needs to be resolved through discussion much in the same way disagreements of over text content are expected to be resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The other editor is arguing a source is not reliable because this portrait was one of the co-authors, but you can't judge a background by feeling. This looks generated but the person is real and passes both detection tools. The strangest thing is that the other editor claims they receive the opposite results from AI checks. Vacosea (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

As a kind of general reply: no, the image is not AI generated, as it pre-dates the popularization of most AI image generators. The image URL suggests January 2020; the Internet Archive has caches going back to 29 February 2020. The stuff in the background, then, is less than ideal choices in where the photo was taken and how it was edited. The provenance of the photo appears to be newbloommag.net, a magazine focused on Taiwan news. Internet Archive caches of the homepage show that in January 2020, the main writer of the publication was doing quite a few interviews. While I cannot pinpoint—without spending a lot more time on this—the precise webpage and thus the subject of the photo, I infer that the photo is either taken by the writer or provided by the interviewee, and is likely copyrighted. Absent a release under a compatible licesme, our non-free content criteria pretty much only allow non-free photos of people after their death if there is no free alternative available. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352 I disagree about the year making it unlikely to be AI, thispersondoesnotexist has been around since at least early 2019. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 07:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

A doubt on Reference sources

Recently i created an article about a company, i gave some references, but unfortunately the article submission declined. How can I find good sources of references, but in this case this company has only a limited number of references, like some business directories. Then how can i add references if that topic doesn't have enough sources. Can you please give me a solution? ITZMECAMALIN (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ITZMECAMALIN: if there are insufficient sources to show that a subject is notable, then it is by definition not notable, and an article on it could not be published. Wikipedia articles almost entirely summarise what independent and reliable sources have said about a subject, and if such sources don't exist, it isn't possible to summarise them, and therefore isn't possible to have a Wikipedia article on the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Your draft also has promotional wording that needs to be removed: "growing its fleet to meet diverse customer needs and ensuring a high standard of vehicle quality and customer service." See WP:NPOV. David notMD (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

OK thank you ITZMECAMALIN (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Section or Anchor

What are anchors and how exactly do anchors work? Also, does stuff like subheadings count as sections or anchors? Asking this because Capricorn says that subheadings don't count as sections and an error message will pop-up if you try? TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Please peruse Template:Anchor/doc, TeapotsOfDoom. I am now editing, and adding to, a section titled "Section or Anchor" (which is its heading). You don't need Template:Anchor in order to cross-refer here, but using it future-proofs the link to some degree. User:Wugapodes/Capricorn says "Redirects to anchors are not recognized" (my emphasis), not that links to them aren't. -- Hoary (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

So do subheadings count as anchors or not? TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The following subheading (or subheader or whatever) is "draf:skysolution". Of course it's created via "== draf:skysolution ==": a pair of two "=". Browsers can't parse and interpret such mark-up; for their benefit, Mediawiki converts this to the following (X)HTML: [deep breath] <h2 id="draf:skysolution" data-mw-thread-id="h-draf:skysolution-20241114081900"><span data-mw-comment-start="" id="h-draf:skysolution-20241114081900"></span>draf:skysolution<span data-mw-comment-end="h-draf:skysolution-20241114081900"></span></h2> – from which, let's strip away the two instances of span and also an attribute–value pair (as this stuff is irrelevant to your question), and we arrive at <h2 id="draf:skysolution">draf:skysolution</h2> . Standard (X)HTML behavior: When the user clicks on a link to #draf:skysolution (note the "#"), the browser will jump to whatever – here, an H2 tag – has the attribute–value pair id="draf:skysolution" (note no "#"). Mediawiki (and not the questioner) provided this. So although no human (the questioner, me, you, etc) used Mediawiki's Template:Anchor here, Mediawiki itself has obligingly provided an anchor. (Don't assume that Mediawiki-provided anchor is identical to the text of the subheading. There are exceptions. And don't assume that it notices when a talk or other page has two identical subheadings and has a helpful solution for this. It doesn't.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@TeapotsOfDoom: for a more general answer, see Hyperlink#Anchor links - and note that that is itself an example of an anchor link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

draf:skysolution

Hello, I'm a new user on the wiki. I posted a draft about a topic and it was rejected because it was advertising content. I really don't know why there is advertising content in it. Is there a way to make the wiki easier for new users like me? Thaokin98 (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Sky Solution   Maproom (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The words "Sky Solution provides innovative technological solutions" suggest that the draft was written by a PR person who doesn't know what the company actually does. Maproom (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thaokin98, language like unique needs and evaluated as a pioneer in providing digital solutions are vapid promotional phrases devoid of substantive content. After reading your draft, I have no idea what this company does, other than the utterly vague "solutions" word, which is used repeatedly. Here's a question: how can a company that is less than two years old be "evaluated as a pioneer"? Consider a true tech industry pioneer like Hewlett-Packard which has been around for 85 years. Their article doesn't talk about "solutions" or them being "pioneers". It talks about the genuine products and services that the company has offered, and their genuine accomplishments. Cullen328 (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Rejected means that the draft is so contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia that all content should be deleted and start over, modeling wording on existing articles about businesses. Or else, decide to abandon this effort, in which case put Db-author inside double curly brackets {{ }} at the top, and an Administrator will delete the draft. David notMD (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I received a threat from another editor...

•  Courtesy link: Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge

Yesterday an editor re-added some information that they have added a few times over the past year and has been subsequently removed by a variety of editors from the page Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge. The additions were removed for various reasons - irrelevance, repetition, inaccurate use of sources - so I undid the additions with explanations as to why - quoting the editors who had removed them. Less than half an hour later the same editor added them back in with a note "final warning".

I am unsure how to handle this sort of threat from another editor. I know that if I have an editorial disagreement with another editor I should engage with them on their talk page, but I am nervous to do that given the circumstances. I don't want to enter into an editing war. No one has time for that. Any guidance you can give on how to handle this situation would be much appreciated. Dm980cam (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I've posted on their user talk page about edit warring. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Dm980cam. Just going to say that I wouldn't necessarily read to much into this. This user can give you all the warnings they want, but none of it will matter if they're editing against consensus. Moreover, they're pretty much powerless in that they can't WP:BLOCK you or anything like that, and they can't stop you from trying to make sure the article is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. FWIW, there seems to be an RFC currently taking place on the article's talk page; if this content is what's being discussed there, you can bring it up in the RFC and perhaps one of its participants will remove it again. You could also ask Cordless Larry to take a look at things since the edit summary stated the content was previously removed by them. Cordless Larry is an administrator and they can take action against the other account if they feel it's warranted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dm980cam: I think you might've somewhat misunderstood my post. I didn't suggest you do an RFC. I posted FWIW, there seems to be an RFC currently taking place on the article's talk page; if this content is what's being discussed there, you can bring it up in the RFC and perhaps one of its participants will remove it again. That meant there's already another RFC taking place on the article's talk page. If it's about the same thing that you're discussing above, then post about the issues you're having in that RFC. I wasn't suggesting you start a new RFC about this. My apologies if my post was hard to understand. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Scope of COI in terms of Archives

I am a school archivist, and I was wondering what the scope of articles I can edit is using the material I have access to. WP:TWL/Archivists would seem to imply that it is recommended to use private archives as sources of reference in archives, but as the institution I work for is a private one, I am wary of running afoul of WP:COI or WP:PAID. I can understand that writing articles about the School I work for would be considered a flagrant COI, but would it be acceptable to improve the articles on the school's alumni, or even- several stages removed- articles related to things the alumni have achieved during their lives? Would it be necessary to post content proposals to every article that has even a tenuous link to the school? OldSwinburne (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @OldSwinburne, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I would say probably not. Determining a COI is not entirely an objective question, and others might disagree; but to me it seems that the question is something like "Is there a reason to think that this person might hold the existence or content of the article as more important than Wikipedia's policies such as notability or neutral point of view?" I can see that a member of staff of a school might meet that criterion in respect of certain alumni, but it seems pretty tenuous to me.

(As an aside, that question - my personal formulation - implies that people who come to Wikipedia specifically to create an article about some subject do have a COI relating to that subject, even if they have no material connection with it. I believe this to be that case, though I don't usually pursue the argument). ColinFine (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

better feedback on new article

Hi there I submitted an article for a niche historical film (Draft:Seguín (Movie)) of import to the Chicano/Mexican-American community and the feedback I received was vague, could someone please give me more specific feedback on what I need to do in order to add this important film's article? Thank you in advance. Sirenaensi (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Sirenaensi. This is about Draft:Seguín. Your references are bare URLs. I recommend that you turn them into full references following the procedures described at Referencing for beginners. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Notability (films). A film is not eligible for a Wikipedia article just because it exists. Critical commentary is an important element of notability of films. A good indicator is that Seguín got a favorable review in the New York Times written by John J. O'Connor (journalist). Your draft should summarize his critical assessment. It would be very useful if you can add other reviews of the film. You describe the film as of import to the Chicano/Mexican-American community but your draft does not say that. Who says so? If you can provide a reference to a reliable, independent source making a similar assessment, than that would be a very helpful addition. Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

So helpful thank you! Sirenaensi (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I converted one source into a proper reference, but I also removed 2 Imdb references, as they're not reliable, for more information see Wikipedia:Imdb. Good Luck. Synonimany (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Adopt a User

What is Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a helpful page that will explain it to you. It's at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Do feel free to ask here again,once you have read it, if you have a more specific question that is not answered there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Want to answer questions

Hello Teahousers! I often lurk around the Teahouse, and sometimes I feel like answering other users' questions, but I do not have the confidence to do so. How can I gain confidence? ❀BrandenburgBlue❀_Talk! 15:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If you are sure your answer will be correct and useful, do it! Worst that can happen is that a more experienced Teahouse Host will comment/elaborate on your answer. David notMD (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @David notMD! Since I'm still a little inexperienced, I think I should only answer a question if I know how to and understand what it's asking, right? Just double-checking :D ❀BrandenburgBlue❀_Talk! 16:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, start there. David notMD (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

BrandenburgBlue, you're aware that "understanding what it's asking" can be a problem. That is perceptive, and encourages me to think that you'll make a good Teahouse host. Maproom (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Maproom I think I should wait until I have extended confirmed status until I even think of becoming a host, but I'll try to answer questions I understand whenever I have enough time, I'm usually busy ❀BrandenburgBlue❀_Talk! 20:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi! How about you start with answers you are sure of and you know are correct?

One of main skill you need on English Wikipedia generally is WP:BOLD. You can also make researches about prospective answers and also observe the manner these questions are answered by more experienced user. I know while it may be rough here, most experienced editors and administrators don't bite. Tesleemah (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@BrandenburgBlue I wanted to add that when I first started contributing on Wikipedia:Teahouse , I was corrected a couple of time. I was told to slow down and not mince words too and I understand this especially for a Non-Native English Speaker like me, That time I used verifiable and notable the same way because I thought they meant the same thing, Now, I'm much better now (I can't say I'm doing it perfectly yet). So, you can start as well. Tesleemah (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Reference site

I'm wondering how I could cite this source: https://xula.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16948coll16/id/318/ as it has no date and the site is a university. WikiPhil012 (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

WikiPhil012, you can use the Cite web template. Omit the date and publisher parameters, since they're unknown, but include as much other info as you can (e.g., author, title, URL, website, access date). If you're using the visual editor instead of the source editor, click on the citation button and choose "Manual," then "Website," then fill in the info, leaving items blank if you don't have that info. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Userboxes

How do I add userboxes to my wiki user page? ErickTheMerrick (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're using the visual editor you can click Insert → Template and search for the box you'd like to add. If you're using source editing you can just put the appropriate template in the edit window, for instance you could add → {{User wikipedia/RP Patrol}} to get the random page patrol userbox. Amstrad00 (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You can also copy Userboxes of other editors you feel appeal to you as well. Please be careful not to delete information from these Userpages while copying Tesleemah (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Languages

When the English version of a page is edited, are the translation then due to be updated to match it? Terrainman (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If people are viewing an English-Wikipedia article via a browser that provides machine translation to another language, then naturally the translation will reflect any change made in the English article. But if they are reading an article about the same topic in a different Wikipedia, then no, the two articles can contain totally different text. Even when one was originally a translation of the other, it will not necessarily get updated to reflect changes in the original article. I have translated from the German Wikipedia, but I rarely go back to an article that I've already translated to check if it's been updated. I probably should! Elemimele (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Category management

I found an article with an erroneous category; how do I get rid of that? Graider6211 (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If you open an article with "Source editor", the categories are listed at the bottom of the page, and you can edit or delete them. There are also "gadgets" you can turn on in your Preferences that make changing categories easier like WP:HotCat and WP:Cat-a-lot. Reconrabbit 17:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Graider6211, welcome to the Teahouse. There are some special cases. Which article and category is it? PrimeHunter (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It was Selama Mint Cheikhne Ould Lemrabott under the category Mauritian Politicians instead of Mauritanian. Graider6211 (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Mauritian politician stubs, actually. Graider6211 (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Stubs are a special case, because they are added by templates in the page. I was able to change it in this edit. Reconrabbit 20:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Establishing notability and disclosing involvement

Hello!

My employer (the owner of an art gallery) recently asked me if it was possible to create a Wikipedia page for her husband (one of the gallery's artists). I am confused as to whether this topic would be considered notable. There are published sources about his work, so I believe he qualifies in that respect. But the creator of this page would be me, an employee of the artist's wife. I believe this means I am not independent from the subject, and therefore he would not qualify as notable.

But then again, if I understand correctly, Wikipedia has guidelines for disclosing one's relation to a subject when editing. This implies that it is possible for me to create an article on this artist, as long as I disclose my relation to him and that I'm being paid for my time.

Does this topic qualify as notable? Should I refrain from submitting this page for creation, due to my relation to its subject? 24.121.204.172 (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Relevant pages are WP:PAID, WP:COI, WP:BOSS, and, for notability, WP:N. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The Articles for Creation process exists, at least in part, as a way for editors with a declared conflict of interest to create a draft that will be reviewed by experienced editors without a COI. I recommend that you create a Wikipedia account which will make compliance and collaboration easier. Cullen328 (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Small bracket-related typo

Hello! I'm posting on the Teahouse today because I've noticed a small typo within a special page. For the "bad title" special page for the left curly brace ( { ), the infobox saying "Did you mean" points to Brakcet instead of Bracket. The "Brakcet" article is a redirect to the section of the Unicode article about abstract characters instead of the standalone article about bracket characters. Since none of the other "Did you mean" infoboxes for the unsupported character errors point to "Brakcet," I figured this was a typo and am suggesting that it be fixed. That's all. Thanks! ✶Antrotherkus✶^✶talk✶ 19:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Antrotherkus. I have changed it in Module:Bad title suggestion/override.json.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Nicely done ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Am I Marking My Minor/Non-Minor Edits Correctly?

Lately, a lot of my edits on Wikipedia have been reference clean-up, specifically fixing bare urls. While I'm fixing them, I also clean-up the other references as I find a lot of barebones references that are often missing things like author, date, etc.—sometimes, the existing information for these references are wrong (such as the wrong title or generic author) and I fix that as well. I also like adding archive links as a pre-emptive archiving measure. The only times that I mark my edits as non-minor is when I'm removing a Cleanup bare URLs template.

However, I mark all of these edits as "minor" because I reasoned that it is not inherently changing the information or meaning of the references but I am simply just opening up the reference and seeing what information is correct and what is not correct. But sometimes these edits are done in a batch that amounts to thousands of bytes getting added to the article, and I do not know if this has therefore crossed the line between what is a minor edit. I have looked at WP:MINOR, but I worry that my edits are becoming disruptive to other editors. Junemoon19 (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:Minor says Adding or correcting wikilinks, or fixing broken external links and references already present in the article is a minor edit, so i think you should be fine if you mark these as minor edits. Synonimany (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Junemoon19, I have a different perspective. If you are adding authors or dates or changing titles, I consider that substantive. One of the indicators of possible vandalism is an edit that adds substantive content but is marked as minor. So, you may inadvertently be adding to the workload of anti-vandalism patrollers by clicking the minor edit box. Other opinions may vary. Cullen328 (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328, You have raised a very good point about the anti-vandalism patrol, which has not crossed my mind before. I also had not considered adding more information to references as substantive before, but you are right in that some would see it as adding content to an article. Thank you both for replying to assist me. Because of the differences in opinion and the fact that I often edit in batches where multiple references will be affected, I will ultimately err on the side of caution and heed WP:MINOR's advice to mark my edits as not minor when unsure. Junemoon19 (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

'Standridge' family name

 Courtesy link: Standridge

I'm Zak Standridge, multiple award-winning author. I'm a public figure: https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+Zak+Standridge+known+for I would like to be included as a Standridge, as I'm listed as a public figure (https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+Zak+Standridge+known+for) and my last name is Standridge. https://www.google.com/search?q=Zak+Standridge 2001:5B0:4EC8:96C8:AE80:CBAF:E705:401A (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC) Thanks for your time and attention - https://www.google.com/search?q=what+awards+has+zak+standridge+won — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:4EC8:96C8:AE80:CBAF:E705:401A (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Such lists generally only list subjects that already have a Wikipedia article, and it looks like Zak Standridge is not an article. As the article subject it would not be appropriate for you to write it. The general advice we give is that if you are truly notable someone will write the article eventually, and at that time it can be added to that list. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

also read this Wikipedia:Autobiography Ned1a Wanna talk? 20:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

moved article, trying to clean up links from other pages

I moved an article 'sixgill' to 'cybersixgill' to reflect the changed company name. I'm using Special:WhatLinksHere/Sixgill to clean up inbound links.

Apparently there are some COI discussions for a draft page with this same name. Not sure how to clean up those links that are not editable.

Also, how can I get the draft DA page to stop conflicting with redirects?

Appreciate the help. Alegh (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Cybersixgill

I took a look and it should be fine. Make sure to keep redirects, Draft:Sixgill is just a draft that was moved to Sixgill and a redirect was put in place with it. I see that you created the disambiguate (we call them dabs) at the Draft redirect but then remade it at Sixgill. Just make sure to keep WP:REDIRECTs as they are helpful for the project! I wouldn't edit the archived pages (like the one at the COI noticeboard) but instead to focus on improving the encyclopedia. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Leaving the redirect is what is confusing me. With the redirect, searching for 'sixgill' will automatically take the reader to 'Cybersixgill' and not show the DAB. Is the redirect necessary if I'm creating a DAB? Alegh (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

You can change the direction of the redirect, if you are using VisualEditor you can read on how to change the direction of redirects at: Wikipedia:Redirect#Using VisualEditor or you can change the source link itself. But in this case, it should still direct towards Cybersixgill to ensure it brings readers to the right place. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm not explaining my intentions correctly. The original article 'sixgill' was created years ago when that was the name of the company. The company name is now 'cybersixgill' for many years. There are a few other articles existing about actual sixgill sea creatures.

I wanted to create 'sixgill' as a disambiguation page so that the other articles had equal opporunity to show up with that search term, instead of automatically jumping to a company using a similar name.

By making 'sixgill' a redirect, there would be no DAB seen by a reader. Or am I not understanding how the DAB works with a redirect tag on it? Alegh (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The draft to Sixgill should still be targeted towards Cybersixgill because the original target was the normal Sixgill article before the move. The Sixgill article is a disambiguate page, this page is what matters as its in the mainspace and not the draft page which is in a different namespace and isn't accessible through a search engine. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm planning on removing my draft:sixgill, as I created it today for testing the DAB template and what the redirect was doing. It is not the original Draft:sixgill that was the subject of COI talk. That original draft became the article sixgill (moved to Cybersixgill). I hope that makes sense. Alegh (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Making my wikipedia page

Hi there, I am looking to get my own wikipedia page made. I am based in Australia. I have news articles published about me in well known sites too. Is there a service provided by some companies or individuals for this? I would like to know more please. Rancho Mana (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:Autobiography Ned1a Wanna talk? 20:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Rancho Mana, please also read WP:SCAM. Your post here at the Teahouse may draw the attention of scammers and con artists. Be very cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Rancho Mana, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that you have a rather common misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is: there is no such thing as "my own Wikipedia page". If at some time, Wikipedia has an article about you, it will not belong to you, it will not be controlled by you, it will not necessarily say what you want it to say, and it will be able to be edited by almost anybody in the world except you and your associates. In short, it will not be for your benefit except incidentally. See an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.

Basically, Wikipedia is not for promotion (in a pretty wide sense). An article about you will be based on what people unconected with you have chosen to publish about you, not on what you or your associates say or want to say. +

There are indeed some companies which will gladly take your money and claim that they can create an article about you: they are mostly lying. Anybody who claims that they can guarantee to create an article about you, or that they can make it say what you want it to say, is lying: see WP:SCAM. ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you attempt to create a draft (or article) about yourself that was Speedy deleted, leaving no record of it existing as your contribution? David notMD (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Nope, unless there's also multiple accounts involved. Pro tip: edit counts reflect the total number of a user's edits, including deleted ones. You might not be able to see what the deleted ones were, but you can see that they existed. -- asilvering (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Petter Næss | IMDb

Hi, I noticed there was IMDb citations on the Petter Næss page while looking at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Petter Næss article editing. To my understanding according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources IMDb may not be used especially on a biography of a living person. Is this right? Should I remove the citations or find b=new ones to replace them first? Thanks CF-501 Falcon (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@CF-501 Falcon Please see WP:CITINGIMDB, there are two exceptions listed on that page, but as a general rule you should replace or remove the sources. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 21:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@CF-501 Falcon: Depending on how contentious the statement, you can also remove the cited "fact" along with the citation, or add {{better source needed}} after it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I have read what @CommissarDoggo recommended. The information isn't necessarily contentious; I added {{citation needed}}. I will try to find new citations. Thank you CF-501 Falcon (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

should I be a teahouse host?Tell me in the link I provide here,created in response to recent critisism

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

---

User:UnsungHistory/Should UnsungHistory be a Teahouse host poll 1 UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 21:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

When you see a question to which you believe you can provide an informed, lucid and helpful answer, then provide the answer. When you're not sure, can't phrase your answer well, or realize that your answer would add very little to existing answers, then don't. If your answers prompt others to call you a "teahouse host", let them do so. As simple as that. No need for a time-wasting "poll". -- Hoary (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC) ... Written before reading User talk:UnsungHistory#Teahouse. In consideration of the evidence and good suggestions there, mostly struck through. Hoary (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Context: User talk:UnsungHistory#Teahouse Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Good pointer, Rotideypoc41352. There's no need to add anywhere to what's already said there. -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Need some table help

Hi, I need some help with the table on Satellite tornado. For some reason, the "2007 Greensburg tornado" portion of the table (with EF scales and such) is completely shifted, and I'm not exactly sure how to fix it. Thanks! :) E_F⁵ 22:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the sections for 'May 4, 200' and 'EF5' should be made to rowspan 11 instead of 10.

Then, for the 'EF_' entries that are shifted right, there is one extra line with a pipe (|) before it. Remove these, and they will line up with the others.

You should be able to see this in Preview as you make the edits. If it's not working, don't click the 'Publish Changes' button. Alegh (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

That worked, thank you! :) E_F⁵ 22:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome! Glad you got it working. Alegh (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't fix this article

It's Mary, Mother of Jesus, which is a high-profile article if there ever was one and which is protected from editing. There are a number of error messages showing in the Names and Titles section, both in the Christianity and Islam sub-headings. Can someone fix these? Thanks. 2604:3D09:A17E:7300:F420:D133:42F4:36B3 (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit to add: there's also an error message under the Religious Perspectives heading and two more in notes. 2604:3D09:A17E:7300:F420:D133:42F4:36B3 (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that the lang template is used with a "lit=" parameter (apparently for "literal translation") which it doesn't have. These were introduced in Feb 2021 in this edit by @Ineffablebookkeeper, but as far as I can tell, lang has never had a "lit=" parameter, though somebody suggested it on the talk page two weeks ago.

It seems that the "literal translations" should be moved out of the template. ColinFine (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

oh bother. I had no idea that messed it up. Thank you for letting me know!—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 17:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed the templates. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. There's still an error in the notes, but it seems to be a different error. 2604:3D09:A17E:7300:F420:D133:42F4:36B3 (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed - Changed the template from {{lang}} to {{langx}}. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

List of pejorative terms

Is there any kind of list for articles which may use the word "pejorative" in the lead section of their article which therefore refer to the subject matter as a "pejorative" or in a "disparaging" fashion? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I get what you're asking but it seems like Category:Pejorative terms would be a place to start. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

That is what I needed, thank you. What is a good way to search for categories? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

You can search for categories using the normal search bar that is either on the side or top of the page. Special:Search is the place, you can change the namespace to search by clicking "Search in" and deselect "Article" and select "Category". Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Should "Hannah Montana" be put in past tense?

Hannah Montana's first sentence states, "Hannah Montana is an American teen sitcom created by Michael Poryes, Rich Correll, and Barry O'Brien that aired on Disney Channel for four seasons between March 2006 and January 2011." I was thinking about editing it, but I'm not quite sure because, after close inspection, I realized that it works being both in the present and past tense; however, which tense should be the preferred one? SonOfYoutubers (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

No, most of the information should not be in the past tense.. See MOS:TVNOW. Meters (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the clarification, I appreciate it! SonOfYoutubers (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

photo of Ann Charters

It was strongly suggested in a letter to me from Wikipedia that Ann Charters should have a picture of her on her site.

I wrote her about this, and I hope she is eager to do it. She is a famous photographer in her field and her work is shown in many books, especially those pertaining to blues music. She therefore knows a great deal about copyrighting her images. If she agrees to a photo on her page, perhaps you could reach out with the copyright rules o Wikipedia, or I could send her the parts of the letter sent to me that pertained to this subject. I live many miles from Ann. It would be impossible for me to take it, as suggested; but she is an expert , professional, on the subject, which I. would like her to read the information and figure out which photo she wants to use and how to go about it according to the rules of Wikipedia. Ritlarge (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ritlarge. There's some general information about this kind of thing in Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files and c:Commons:Licensing. Either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons (depending upon where you decide to upload the file) is going to need to have some way of verifying the copyright holder's WP:CONSENT (or c:COM:CONSENT) for any such photos to be hosted. Basically, the copyright holder is going to need to agree to release their content under a copyright license that pretty much allows anyone anywhere in the world to download their work from Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons at anytime and reuse for any purpose. The copyright holder is making their work freely available for others to use with a minimal amount of restriction in advance so that there's no need to ask for separate permission each time. If Ann Charters is how you describe her above, she probably understands what this means, but you could, if you want, send her an email like the ones shown in WP:PERMISSION to make sure. The important things to stress to her are that any copyright license that places restrictions on commercial reuse or derivative use are too restrictive for Wikipedia's and Wikimedia Commons' purposes, and the types of copyright licenses that Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons accept are non-revocable. So, she should be sure she absolutely wants to do something like this because it's really hard to undo after the fact. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Marchjuly, all very clearly stated. i will send her the pertinent information Ritlarge (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Can I use this as a source?

https://alamedamuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Imelda_smallpics_4printing.pdf Oholiba (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Oholiba, the guideline at Wikipedia:Reliable sources says, "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I won't use it. That's too bad, because it provides a lot of information about Alameda, California. Oholiba (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Oholiba, Rjjiii has pretty much answered your question; but this is the kind of question you should ask not here but instead at WP:RSN. If you do so, be sure to describe for what you want to use such-and-such (e.g. this masters thesis) as a source. -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Will it be a problem if I use many references to the city's newspaper (Alameda Post) for information about the history? Oholiba (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Am I allowed to translate pages in other languages (for example French, Russian, etc.) into English using ChatGPT-4o or DeepL to create or expand upon English-language wikipedia?

I have not done this, but since using ChatGPT and DeepL for my personal use, they are both very useful as translation tools. Nor do I intend to do this, though I think it would greatly improve English-language Wikipedia if sources and added details from Wikipedia articles in other languages where more sources and details could greatly flesh out otherwise sparse articles on English Wikipedia (not to mention greatly aid the creation of new English-language Wikipedia articles). 69.124.7.245 (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

You are not encouraged to use ChatGPT for translation as might lose the tone and style expected of a Wikipedia article, which be neutral and essay-like, It's ok to leave translation to English if you don't understand it. You can check the following out for better understanding of what is expected of you Style of Writing on Wikipedia, Editing on Wikipedia and Using ChatGPT Tesleemah (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Tesleemah, I think you're saying that Wikipedia articles must be "neutral and essay-like". I hope I'm wrong. They should not be neutral in introducing and concluding their summaries of disputes such as those between (A) a consensus of reliable sources and (B) wingnuts, though they should neutrally summarize one side and perhaps, if it's significantly notable, the other side too. They should be very different from essays. (It's LLM output that too often reads more or less like a turgid essay by someone miseducated by a poor teacher of English composition.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Hoary,I wanted to say neutral and encyclopedic not essay, not essay at all. Tesleemah (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "more sources", the citations are probably not something that you want LLMs for. Some other language wikis use a parallel set of templates for most citations. For example, {{cita publicación}} will work directly here, and a bot will translate the parameters within a day or so. For most foreign language aspects of the citation like the title, chapter, title of a larger work, or publisher, you don't want to translate those because the point of the citation is point a reader to the source which will not be translated. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

To anyone reading and getting ideas: please don't do this. We don't want machine-translated material on Wikipedia. Remember that other English speakers are just as capable of using machine translation tools as you are. -- asilvering (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Mike Tyson

How does Mike Tyson’s article not mention he is a convicted rapist who spent 3 years in jail. Despite the article having a whole section on his “legal troubles” and mentioned other rape allegations- he was charged and convicted of rape in the 90s. This article is locked but this is a gross omission. 2607:FEA8:FF01:48D5:5DD:A820:1B1A:6CBB (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I've answered you in your identical (if with a more accusatory title) section at the help desk. It does mention it, just not where you looked. In the future, though, if you're curious about how to handle an omission you think should be corrected, you can usually make a specific edit request on an article's talk page with the exact text you want to add and where (and include sources) and adding it can be discussed. - Purplewowies (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Templates

I can’t find the template saying the article is too long. Could someone tell me please? The article in question is Wind power in Australia. K.O.518 (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@K.O.518 is {{very long}} what you're looking for? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

CanonNi beat me to it. The template can be reached from Wikipedia:Template index (bookmark it!) (via Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup). -- Hoary (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you 👍 K.O.518 (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Content assessment scale

Is it ok to rate high-yielding variety as 'start' class in the content assessment scale, since I have substantially expanded it? 122.176.122.147 (talk) 08:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I was planning to do that just now myself but discovered it has already been rated. I'll review the rating process to check for any errors that need fixing. Great job! Afro 📢Talk! 08:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! 122.176.122.147 (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Lia Isik

help me get the draft verified, there are links to external sites for confirmation, and the image copyright confirmation was sent to commons wikimedia, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ISIK_(Celik,_Sommerseth_Shaw).jpg Bromptons (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

help me get the draft for this 4 album published musician article moved to article box Draft:Lia Isik Bromptons (talk) 09:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Bromptons.

Vast parts of the draft have no sources. How can a reader verify that anything written in the Biography and career section is true.

For biographic articles it is mandatory that every piece of information is backed up by a reliable source using an in-line citation. Please see the referencing tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. The draft will not be accepted without proper referencing.

Please also remove all the external links in the body of the text (or convert them to in-line citations following the guide above). qcne (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

the career and biography section has linked to reliable sources, can you move it article box and edit convert the external links to inline citation Bromptons (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

No, @Bromptons, it's your responsibility to properly format the citations. qcne (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The section "Childhood and education", for example, does not have a single reference. But before you spend time looking for sources, and attaching references, for such claims as "Her great grandparents are from villages around Noahs Ark in Ararat Mountains and are of Natives Mesopotamian and Russian origins", you'd better check that there do exist sources describing her or her work in depth. These sources must be independent of her and of each other. -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Some formating and cuts made, but still a mess. David notMD (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources and copyrighted materials Q

Q: about print sources: Wikipedia says don't source to places that obviously ripped off copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Restrictions_on_linking -- such as if somebody put the scanned copy of the manual to a video game onto their webpage. It's a physical book. Have sourced refs to the book pages. But unless you own this video game's manual another editor won't be able to verify unless I was to link it to the website that violated copyright. I'm worried somebody will delete these reliable refs because they don't have the book. But my only solution is to link to the web page but am told not to. Wouldn't be able to source the info without it. Is it cool to use print sources? 2601:601:9180:37A0:5584:F6B4:A89E:7F9C (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

ALSO on this train of thought, if this is a problem, shouldn't we kill a large # of print source references on the basis of accessibility? 2601:601:9180:37A0:5584:F6B4:A89E:7F9C (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. You can certainly cite printed material, provided it is reliably published: see Offline sources.

There are two possible complications here. First, whether a manual is regarded as published: I think it probably is, but I'm not sure.

Secondly, such a publication is probably a primary source, which can only be used in limited ways. So if you are citing it for uncontroversial factual information (eg date of launch, names of developers) I would think that was acceptable, but for anything more subjective (eg the developers' vision or influences) it would not be. If what you want to cite is details of game play or rules, I would say that unless an independent commentator has discussed these, then they are probably not encyclopaedic. ColinFine (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Citation

Hello there, I had to ask about the same references in single article with a,b. I created a page on which there was a reference from Example1 news article and I had to use it twice or thrice in the same article, I did it but it ended showing up two different references for the same article. While I have seen many articles which use the same reference but it's in the form of a,b or a,b,c (depending upon the number of usages) in the References section before the Link to the news source. Could someone explain in DETAIL what's it called and how to do it in the pages. As I am still learning and don't know much about it. It would be a great help. Thanks, Regards AstuteFlicker (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

What you're looking for is the Named References feature, WP:NAMEDREFS explains how to use them. Amstrad00 (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Balhampur

Add Balhampur Village article on Google maps Kkkksuraj (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Kkkksuraj. Wikipedia does not control Google Maps, so we cannot help. Go to a missing place to Google Maps. qcne (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

[courtesy link] Balhampur. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.7.95.48 (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Being hushed

I have been involved on Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, saying that I think North Korea should, given the abundance of sources supporting this, be considered a co-belligerent in the infobox. Though discussion was progressing, an ECP editor who disagrees with me decided to move the discussion to an RfC, serving to squelch me per WP:GSRUSUKR because I'm not ECP. The justification they gave for the move was to consolidate different threads, which I think is not an accurate justification because all recent discussion was happening on the same thread. I'm not sure how to progress from here— is this an ANI thing? Placeholderer (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Article name change

Hi, I was working on the Quinte Health Care article. The Quinte Healthcare Corporation has changed their name officially Quinte Health. Should the article name be changed to reflect it or a redirect added. CF-501 Falcon (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @CF-501 Falcon:! When an organization changes its name, our policy is to wait and see if independent sources begin referring to it by the new name, and to update the article title if they do. (WP:NAMECHANGES discusses the topic in more detail, if you're interested.) If you've found sources that have begun using Quinte Health to refer to the corporation, you can start a requested move discussion to ask for the name change. If the most recent sources are still referring to it by the old name, your best bet is just to add a redirect instead. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:TWRFC - How did the consensus be achieved?

The conclusion of the RfC says "As far as strength of arguments go, the arguments were extremely varied and challenging to weigh" and "Taking all of that into account, I don't see the strength of argument in favor of "state" being strong enough to overcome the numeric consensus". It is just like the consensus was achieved by just having "a numeric consensus" when nothing else overcoming it.

I don't see that the consensus can be achieved this way in WP:CONACHIEVE and I see that there is a explanatory essay "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" and it indicates that this achievement process might be unsuitable.

I'm newcomer here and I may not know the rules. Can consensus be achieved this way? 36.230.24.108 (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

That consensus isn't determined strictly by polling results doesn't mean that the number of votes is not a strong initial indication of the proportion of support. The closer concluded that there was no policy-based argument for "state" strong enough to counter that proportion. "In favor" refers to the arguments made by those in favor of "state" not a conclusion that the arguments for "state" were stronger. The best way to learn how consensus in an RFC works is to read a lot of RFCs and the closer arguments. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Criteria for open proxy editing when logged in

Hello! I'm a frequent user of an open proxy (Mullvad) that, as far as I know, does not support creating exceptions for certain websites. Because I'm privacy-conscious, I would prefer to not have to disconnect from this proxy to be able to edit Wikipedia. However, I do have easy and uncensored access to Wikipedia editing without an open proxy. I understand that I'm nowhere close to the level of trust required for an editor to be granted access to an open proxy exemption, but even if I were would I be eligible to have this access given that using an open proxy is unnecessary for me to edit Wikipedia? Thanks, /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 17:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@GracenC: See (if you haven't already) WP:PROXY. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I've already read it (as well as WP:IPBE), but thanks anyways! In retrospect I probably should have been more straightforward with my question. WP:IPECPROXY says that editors who may reasonably request an exemption include users who show they can contribute to the encyclopedia, and existing users with a history of valid non-disruptive contribution. Is there any precedent for granting this exemption to trusted users who would use it solely for convenience? /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 19:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, as someone with less than 100 edits I do not consider myself a trusted user. I'm just asking for once I become one. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 19:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for third party feedback

Is there anyone who'd like to help look over the talk page and article edits recently on several relatively low traffic Roman era history articles? My objections, concerns, and advice triggered by recent major edits of Botteville on Sicambri and Genobaud (3rd century) have unfortunately led to unnecessarily (I think) defensive discussion. It might be better to have more perspectives. BTW I have never tried using this forum, but I notice old history project pages look rather dead. Thought I would try it but if this is not the right type of question, I'd be happy to get advice on better alternatives. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if it's within their scope, but I've notified the Classical Greece and Rome WikiProject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

If it's outside their scope, I think you may have to follow the usual steps on the dispute resolution page. Other questions may be better at the help desk; the Teahouse will answer most questions, but it's intended for new editors. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: You could try WP:Third opinion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, yes that project seems active and some feedback has already been posted on one of the two articles. For the time being I hope this is not yet a dispute. But while both of us, the two editors, claim to be experienced a lot of the talk pages posts show that we both think that the other is misunderstanding Wikipedia norms. So potentially this can be calmed down by getting more feedback about what is normally acceptable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

First page

I have a classic experiment that I would like to appear on Wikipedia because it shows the relationship of Vrms from an ac supply and the equivalent dc potential differnece. A draft can be found at Draft:AC-DC light experiment - Wikipedia. I would be very happy if a current editor could help me improve it so that it is acceptable for publication. Many thanks, Iain Iain sci (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Help with grouping sources template

I am working on getting The Americans to GA status, as seen here. One of the last things to do is group some of the sources together in the Reception section. I attempted but fear I can not understand how it works. Could someone assist me with this? Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)