Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1211

Archive 1205

←

Archive 1209

Archive 1210

Archive 1211

Archive 1212

Archive 1213

→

Archive 1215

Can an AFC article that has been reviewed and accepted be subsequently deleted

A page submitted for AFC review and accepted was afterwards nominated for deletion and subsequently deleted, without a collective decision to do so. Is this right? Heatrave (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

probably yes, but what page? ltbdl (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Chijindu Kelechi Eke NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

that doesn't look very deleted to me. ltbdl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 04:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Heatrave: yes, very much so. AfC reviews often operate at the margin of notability. Acceptance doesn't mean "this article must be kept forever"; it only means "this article is probably okay", ie. it would have a 50:50 chance of surviving a hypothetical, or indeed actual, AfD discussion. Usually it doesn't come to that. If it does, often the article will survive. But sometimes it doesn't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this was about Rhymesonny, approved as article on 10 December, AfD nominated 13 Dec, then AfD Administrator's decision to delete on 22 Dec. David notMD (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@David notMD @DoubleGrazing i don't think that it was fair to delete that page because some of the reasons given during the discussion.

Right now it is indexed in search so do you advise a recreation of the page or is there a possibility to revert the deletion and suggest improvements instead? Heatrave (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Heatrave: I wasn't commenting on whether it was 'fair' or not, only making the point that AfC acceptance provides no immunity against subsequent deletion. And on a separate but related point, a Teahouse discussion won't overrule an AfD one.

I would very much advise against recreating that article, as it will likely be speedily deleted as G4. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

AfD is a collective decision, Heatrave, in a way in which AfC is not. You gave Rhymesonny your best shot, including in the AfD discussion. You got no support at all, except from a presumed sockpuppet. It's probably time for you to accept that the article is not going to be hosted on EN wikipedia at this time. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

You have a long history of creating articles in Mainspace that were converted to draft status, also of submitting drafts to AfC that are Declined. As an example of the latter, Draft:Maison Yusif Declined nine times! Also claiming copyright protected images as your "Own work". Not being an Admin, I cannot see the deleted Rymresonny, but defer to the opinion of DoubleGrazing that the AfD decision was valid. David notMD (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@David notMD @DoubleGrazing i started editing Wikipedia not too long ago and believe i have come a long way. As novice as i am, i am bound to make mistakes and i am all for correction.

However in this case, I keep using fair because i believe the article was unfairly deleted and this was a sentimental decision than from a neutral point of view, without a reference . This is not the first time i have a draft not accepted and did not raise any issues on those occasions. In this case however, i feel strongly vindicated to do so. Initially, the administrator reverted the article from the mainspace to the draft space due to the copyright issue. I accepted that as a mistake on my part and removed the image from the article. From this point, i submitted to submitting through AFC because i believe that my mistake and the article should be treated separately. If the image was nominated for deletion, there will be no cause to complain.

After 10 days, it got approved. 4 or 5 days later, the article was nominated for deletion based on what he called "complete blackhat SEO and falsified notability and not based on the violation of any Wikipedia policy.

In addition to a source from BBC, the article included 2 source on the works of the person with the World Bank, with official world bank url, which establish notability from very reliable and independent sources, making the notability claim neither here nor there.

The 'blackhat seo' argument is not viable, as editors do not manufacture citations but result to search engines to find information. There are citations which date back to 2011 when i was still in high school so there are no black-hat techniques used here. If you told me back then that i will be editing Wikipedia about a decade later, i would laugh it off because i could not afford a laptop.

If that wasn't enough, the articles Spoken word and Spoken word in Ghana have both mentioned the subject as a notable figure within the space. For those of us with local knowledge of art and literature in Ghana, the subject has played a role in space, beyond what you can find online.

Not having enough support should not warrant the deletion especially when a conclusive decision hasn't been made on the discussion page and matched against the violation of any rules on editing. This is a case of being outnumbered but not being wrong.

The main reason I started this conversation is because there is little to prove to me that this was not done out of sentiment or power play.

In my opinion, this deletion feels like Cancellation which is against the very fabric of my being. As this is not a controversial topic, the speed at which the deletion was done confirms my earlier notion.

To conclude, i do not know the way forward and it hurts to see that an attempt to restart the article will result in speedy deletion. But i hope that my points will be considered. The theme for Wikimania 2024 is the collaboration of the open, and i hope that some administrators will embrace the spirit of collaboration to make this space beginner-friendly. Heatrave (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Heatrave: as I already suggested, the Teahouse is not the place to re-litigate an AfD that went against your wishes. You have the option of taking this to Deletion review, although you would need to be clear on what basis you're doing that, and be prepared to present a reasonable case; just saying you didn't like the AfD outcome isn't enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of a userpage

I created a userpage and started adding content before realising that I'd made an error in the titling of it. Where is the best place to request it to be deleted once blanked, or do I have to apply a template for speedy deletion? EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them) (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Honestly this sounds more like a move request, although idk if you can do that with user pages. If you still want to delete it you can put {{ db-u1 }} (without the spaces in between brackets of course.) blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 19:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you asking about User:EphemeralPerpetuals, or is there an earlier Userpage you have abandoned? If the latter, deleting does not apply, but you can delete content there and then leave a note that you continue as EphemeralPerpetuals. David notMD (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Nope, it was a subpage that I requested to be speedy deleted and was pretty promptly. Thanks for your help though :) EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them) (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I'm reading your last comment as your question has been answered, and we're done here. If I misunderstood, please revert my comment, and/or elaborate. Mathglot (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

How to recover bio page deleted from English site but available in other language sites

I was looking to update the english version of this page (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/) which existeAlexandre_Havard about six months ago but seems to have disappeared. I am looking for recommendations as to how best to proceed to activate the english page so that I may contribute minor updates. Thank you. Apologies if this thread exists out there already... Feanor112 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Feanor112: Hello! See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/European_Center_for_Leadership_Development, there is an option to request undeletion. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Feanor112, and welcome to the Teahouse. To add to Deltaspace's reply: please study the deletion discussion that they linked to. The article (and some related ones) were deleted because the editors who investigated them could not find suitable indepedent reliable sources discussing them to establish notability. Unless you have several such sources (and remember that, while the sources do not have to be in English, each of them must satisfy all the criteria in WP:42), it will be a waste of your time and everybody else's to request undeletion. ColinFine (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Feanor112, in some cases, you can request that the deleted version be restored so you can work on it. This won't work, however, if the deleted copy had grave errors (e.g., copyright violations, etc.) but if it was only deleted for lack of WP:Notability or sourcing, you can probably get it back again; see WP:REFUND. Alternatively, you can just recreate it from scratch (unless its been WP:SALTed). If it is restored, I would recommend starting in Draft space, by requesting that it be restored to Draft:Alexandre Havard, or clicking that red link and create and work on it there, until you feel it is ready. If you plan to translate any portion of it from the French article, you must provide proper attribution to the French article, per Wikipedia's Terms of Service; see WP:TFOLWP. Mathglot (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Subject of interest

I’m really bored so il just do something here. In theory, would this count as vandalism? (Seriously, this is my question) Encyclopédisme (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Encyclopédisme, and welcome to the Teahouse. Vandalism has a specific meaning in Wikipedialand: editing deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. Often people who are probably "really bored" make edits which meet that definition, but if you're not intended to obstruct or defait the project's purpose, it's not vandalism.

Having said that, if an editor spends all their time prettifying their user page, and never works on articles, they are likely to start getting pointed comments about being not here to build an encyclopedia, and could find themselves blocked.

I actually spend far more of my time on project pages, like this one, than on articles (80% of my 23 000 edits are to the Wikipedia space, and only 11% to main article space), so it could be argued that I'm "not here to build an encyclopaedia" - but I am here to help and advise other editors, so I think I'm OK. ColinFine (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

If you just want to mess around do it in your sandbox, not on actual articles. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 19:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, your Sandbox. It's semi-private, meaning that unless you invite someone to look at it, or you do something so grevious in a public space that vigilante editors will seek everything you've done, no one will see it. Do realize though, that content you put in your Sandbox and later delete can be viewed by anyone by using View history. David notMD (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Okkkkk. For one, I have a draft right now, and further on, I do not actually intend on putting a picture of me masturbating on to my sandbox. Cheers Encyclopédisme (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

And thanks for the replies Encyclopédisme (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopédisme, just to confirm previous replies: what you specified in your OP (original post) is *definitely not* vandalism, in the Wikipedia sense. It might be pointless, it might not be an improvement to whatever article you contribute to (which would make it subject to reversion), but it is not vandalism. Your sandbox and your user page belong to Wikipedia, not to you, but within reason, you can put (almost) whatever you want there. There are some limitations, but if you use common sense, you should be fine. I'm not sure if your user name hints at an ability to speak French, but if you do, you should consider editing at French Wikipedia as well, or translating articles to, or from, French Wikipedia. Amicalement, Mathglot (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I already do. Cdlt. Encyclopédisme (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft

How do I speed up the reviewing process? Can I speed it up? (Aside from just putting a bunch of tags on it and getting the attention of underpopulated, pretty much inactive, and totally useless Wikiprojects). Encyclopédisme (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Encyclopédisme: I'm afraid you can't... you'll just have to wait for one of the volunteers at AfC to review it. Luckily, there isn't a very large amount of articles waiting for review, so a volunteer might see yours soon. Cheers ‍ Relativity 05:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Encyclopédisme. It looks like you submitted your Draft:Amaru Topa Inca for review only just yesterday (December 30, 2023). There are WP:NODEADLINES for many things when it comes to Wikipedia, but trying to speed up the reviewing process after only one day is bit much to ask, don't you think? It's also not really good form to essentially ask about the same thing multiple times on the same page (like you did above at #Draft), or on multiple pages (like you did at [[#at WP:AFCHELP#23:26, 30 December 2023 review of submission by Encyclopédisme and WT:HISTORY#Draft). All Wikipedians are WP:VOLUNTEERs and plus it's New Year's; so, lots of Wikipedians might be doing other things right now. Time isn't of the essence here and it won't matter one bit to Wikipedia whether your draft is approved today or two-weeks from today. It also shouldn't matter to you as well, unless there are some reasons why it needs to be approved asap. If that's the case, perhaps you can provide some clarification as to what those reasons are. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi! 1. Thanks for replying 2. I was bored, sorry 3. I got reviewed for some reason by a user I never saw before 4. Cheers Encyclopédisme (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Your draft has been accepted. For future reference, the system is not a queue. Reviewers decide which draft they want to process next. David notMD (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

How to: Major rework

Hi, I just started editing on Wikipedia. I've mostly been adding sources, it's something I enjoy and (I think) I'm good at. I came across an article (Vilna Gaon) that look like it can use a lot of sourcing and possibly deleting. How do I go about such a thing? is there a place I can store drafts until it is ready for print? do I have to notify editors (in talk page I guess) that I am posting a major change? any guidance is appreciated.

Thanks FergusArgyll (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Fergus and I wish you well on your project. You can copypaste the article to your sandbox and rework it there, and once you’re satisfied you can copy it over to the article. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 21:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Blueskiesdry Do changes persist in sandbox? FergusArgyll (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? If you mean edits on the article itself from after you copied it, then no; you’ll have to add those into the draft yourself. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 21:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@FergusArgyll: If you do it in your own sandbox, then I don't think anyone else would interfere. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@FergusArgyll: Hello! You can do as @Blueskiesdry suggested, but I recommend doing small incremental changes so it can be easy to review later. For example, replacing one "citation needed" template at a time. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Also if writing down everything is a slog, you can just make some bullet points getting the basic ideas and sources down and fleshing them out at a later date. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 21:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @FergusArgyll. DO NOT copy the entire article to your sandbox, rework it, then copy it back. Making such a large change to an established article, worked on by many editors, in one edit is not recommended. Instead work on it section by section in your sandbox. You can have many sections in your sandbox, but make your changes to the actual article in many edits. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@FergusArgyll, you can start your own sandbox in your own user space. See Wikipedia:About the sandbox. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Deltaspace42 @StarryGrandma Ok my reservation is; so much of it is unsourced that I'm afraid a lot of it is false/OR, I would like to read a couple biographies and articles and take out from there the reliable stuff instead of running on a wild goose chase... FergusArgyll (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

FergusArgyll, a very quick -- probably too quick -- look at the article suggests to me that there are probably a lot of sources about the man, and that these are very likely to be in Polish or Yiddish. I can't read either, and perhaps you can't either. The talk page has a list of associated WikiProjects, strangely including Israel but not Poland. In your place I'd consider posting a "This article looks valuable but is in acute need of referencing" message on the talk pages of both the Poland and the Judaism WikiProjects. However, I'd read the article a lot more carefully before doing so, and perhaps decide to post something rather different, or elsewhere. Anyway, the article does not seem to call for deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary: I think they meant deleting some of the unsourced statements in the article, not deleting the article itself. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

No, not deletion, just a lot of sourcing and work. Yes I can read hebrew and yiddish (among others) and am familiar with the subject.

There are a lot of sources but like you suggested, it'll take a lot of work. FergusArgyll (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Most often the large unreferenced chunks in an article turn out to have been added years previously by users who've since disappeared from Wikipedia. But there are exceptions. You could take a look in the article's history, and, if some of the major authors are still around, invite them to help in referencing. -- Hoary (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok I'm going to give it a shot, first by looking at the Hebrew version and finding sources from there. Keep an eye on me so I don't act too bold... Assume good faith :) FergusArgyll (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Blueskiesdry @Deltaspace42 @Hoary @StarryGrandma I started, I added 3 sources, they are all in hebrew, considering the subject I hope that's okay. FergusArgyll (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

FergusArgyll, if a reliable source happens to be in Hebrew/Arabic/Amharic/Basque/whatever, it's a reliable source. Given two equally reliable sources that will back up the same assertions equally well, one of the sources in English, the other in Hebrew/Arabic/Amharic/Basque/whatever, we'll take the former. That's about as far as the language preference goes. -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Should I also attempt to translate the source myself, or let the reader use his/her preferred translation service? FergusArgyll (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

FergusArgyll, Neither. The role of the Wikipedia editor is to read the sources (in whatever language) and to create a summary of the majority (and significant minority) viewpoints, in your own words; since this is English Wikipedia, your summary in the article should be in English. Because you will be adding citations to sources written in a foreign language that not everyone will understand, it would be helpful (but not required) if you would add two parameters to your citations, 'quote' and 'trans-quote'; you could place an exact word-for-word copy of a *brief* portion of original Hebrew text that supports the summary you added in your own words into the |quote= param, and then you can translate it into English and place the translation into the |trans-quote= param. You can copy the following, and adjust as needed:

• <ref>{{cite book |lang=he |last1= |first1= |last2= |first2= |title=Original Title in Hebrew |trans-title=Title in English |date= |page= |publisher= |location= |isbn= |oclc= |quote=Original Hebrew text copied from the article that backs up your summary. |trans-quote=Your translation here. |url= |access-date=Today's date}}</ref>

See the documentation at {{cite book}} for explanation of any params above that are not clear to you. Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Woah I didn’t know it got that detailed. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 13:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Reference Repair Difficulties

I'm not sure why my attempts to fix citations are becoming inline references.

See here and here DarklitShadow (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, DarklitShadow. I'm not sure what you're saying. You seem to have successfully replaced the bare URLs by proper citations.

However, I cannot see the point in spending time correcting the format of worthless sources. It doesn't look to me as if Astral Rejection has a single source of any value for establishing notability. Unless somebody can find some sources which are reliable, wholly independent of the band, and contain significant coverage of the album, then all effort spent on this article apart from nominating it for deletion will be time wasted. ColinFine (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The same applies to the article about the band, I Set My Friends on Fire, incidentally. --ColinFine (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Part of the article on Astronomical Society of Glasgow looks like this:

In 2014, the Society took part in a Stargazing Evening at Whitelee Wind Farm with Glasgow Science Centre."Stargazing at Whitelee". Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 31 December 2023.

Instead of the footnotes...

DarklitShadow (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@DarklitShadow For the first one, you had placed the ref tags in the wrong place. I fixed it in this edit. Does that help with the other one? I make no comment as to the quality of the sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Creating new page/tittle

Hello, I was planning to request the cancellation because I mistakenly misspelled the word "coffeeshop" in my draft. However, I noticed that my draft is not being published. Could you please assist me in getting my draft published? What should I do to have it published? Mskoksal (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mskoksal: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I see that your Draft:Espressolab(coffeshop) submission was declined on 29 December. Have you addressed the issues which are provided below the decline message? Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I have moved (retitled) your draft. 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mskoksal & @Cremastra: Since there isn't an article called Espressolab, I don't know why the disambiguator "(coffee shop)" would be needed if the draft becomes an article. GoingBatty (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: There already exists Draft:Espressolab, which is also created by @Mskoksal. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Deltaspace42 - Thank you!

@Mskoksal - To avoid confusion, I suggest you continue working on only one of the drafts, and add {{Db-userreq}} to the top of the other draft to request deletion. GoingBatty (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

hi, i add {{Db-userreq}} for espressolab(coffeeshop) draft.can you delete the this draft?thank you.. Mskoksal (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

An administrator will come along shortly and delete the draft. 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

thank you for your interest.. peki diğer taslağımın kabul edilmesi için ne önerirsiniz? Mskoksal (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

sorry:) the dictionary did not translate it into English, so I am writing it again. So, what do you suggest for my other draft to be accepted? Mskoksal (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Cite

How to add perfect citation? Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The general guidance is at WP:CITE. To help you reach "perfection" we would need to know what type of citation you are using (e.g. {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}} etc.) and whether you are running into a specific problem. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. actually, i want to add Urdu offline books to as a citation in article. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Youknowwhoistheman, WP:OFFLINE may have some guidance for you. Be sure to add |language=ur and be scrupulous about citing specific page numbers, and you should be fine to cite your books. Folly Mox (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Folly Mox Thanks you so much, Happy new year in advance! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Youknowwhoistheman, you are welcome to cite books in Urdu to source information you add to articles, as long as the Urdu content is superior to anything available in English. If there is a source of *equal quality* in English for that content, then you should cite the English source per WP:NONENG; otherwise, it is fine to cite the Urdu source. Mathglot (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Youknowwhoistheman A section below at Wikipedia:Teahouse#How_to:_Major_rework has very useful advice about formatting foreign-language sources from books to include quotes and quote translations. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks you. @Michael D. Turnbull Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding a Sister City to Lutsk, Ukraine

My town, Emmitsburg, Maryland, adopted Lutsk as a Sister City after the invasion by Russia. I am not sure how to do it. Please help. Thanks. Dwalbrecker (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dwalbrecker First, you need to find a reliable source (e.g. a newspaper) that published the information about twinning. Then edit the article Emmitsburg, Maryland and/or Lutsk#Twin towns – sister_cities, with a citation for the source included. Note that Lutsk already has many twinned towns. WP:CITE gives help on formatting citations. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

bio article

A bio wiki page needs a name update as the person has married. I am unsure how to update the name change and still keep reference to the former name that the person is associated with. WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, WikiTikiTavi. Provided there is a reliable published source for the change, you can simply update the article to record the change.

Whether or not the article should be moved (retitled) to the new name depends on the sources: if sources continue to refer to the person by the previous name, it shouldn't be moved, though possible a redirect should be created from the new name. But if the move is merited, you can simply move the article to the new name, and a redirect from the old name will be created automatically. It would be easier to answer if you gave us the name, rather than speaking in generalities. ColinFine (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Teresa Fedor former senator in Ohio has married. Her staff want the page intact except her name. I was thinking putting the Fedor in brackets in the title, "Teresa (Fedor) Obrecht" WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

and what "reliable source " is needed? It may not be in the news or public print? I was at the wedding is there a way to be a "witness"? WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@WikiTikiTavi63: Hello! See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

What her staff wants is not the only consideration, Wikipedia policies are paramount, like WP:COMMONNAME. 331dot (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@WikiTikiTavi63 You edited the article to change her birth date in the opening sentence but not in the infobox, so there is now inconsistency. Please read the policy on biographies of living people very carefully. All information must be supported by inline citations: what you know because you "were at the wedding" is absolutely of no use as all information must have been published in reliable sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Your personal observations are not an acceptable source. It needs to be published somewhere, even if the sources just start using her current name. Please read conflict of interest as you seem to have one. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

that is why I came here to ask... for proper procedure.

Thank You. I was excited to get the update. But I will refrain to let someone with more experience do it. WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete and Move

E D Berman has been moved without any discussion to ED Berman by a user listed as far as I can make out via their talk page, a sockpuppet User:Gaybryant. Grateful if someone could let me know who to bring this to the notice of. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 23:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Edmund Patrick: I have moved the article back to E.D. Berman with the summary of "Undoing move by user blocked for sockpuppetry, and move was done without prior discussion." Thanks for reporting this. Cheers ‍ Relativity 23:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

If you cannot revert an undiscussed move yourself, you can ask the technical move requests board. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Relativity Rotideypoc41352 I completely disagree with this reversal, as a simple Google search reveals that the American-born Brit ED Berman himself, uses the British (and worldwide) way of using initialisms.

ED Berman at LinkedIn

ED Berman at Facebook

ED Berman at Twitter

ED Berman at Unfinished Histories

Edward David (ED) Berman at Rebel Video

ED Berman at Rebel Video

ED Berman at London Community Video Archive

This is just another case of Americans thinking all of Wikipedia should be in the American format. Danstarr69 (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Edmund Patrick Relativity Rotideypoc41352 I've also just noticed that the article was created correctly as ED Berman...

And then it was "moved without any discussion" on the 17th of June 2019 by, you guessed it, an American. Danstarr69 (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Note to hosts or any passers-by: Danstarr69 has already opened a RM at Talk:E.D. Berman, so the discussion should continue there. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

thank you. As original research I can say here he was known as Ed Berman in the 70s and maybe after discussing any changes it may become that. Edmund Patrick – confer 20:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thierry Jamin

I just had a tussle over pseudoscience, and weirdos making it to parliament in Mexico. Now I’m bored again, so I’m going to invent a stupid question. Anyway there’s this editor really insisting on it all. An I wanna know if there are similar problems down here? With Thierry Jamin type ppl. Happy new years ! (I’m soon no longer bored, so I wont ask stupid questions anymore). Encyclopédisme (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopédisme, Thierry Jamin is described as a pseudohistorian, so presumably you could look in Category:Pseudohistorians. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 21:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Encyclopédisme (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Article was "quickpassed"

Recently, the Wikipedia article on Letterpress was promoted to good article status. The reviewer noted that they couldn't spot any flaws, and so decided that the article passed. I'm not sure if this is allowed. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 23:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: Hello! I'm completely inexperienced in the article statuses, but, assuming that it is possible to improve any article to the good status, no matter how notable the subject is, then, if the article exhausted any obvious improvements or expansions, why doesn't it deserve a good status? Or there should be first established some consensus regarding the status? Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 23:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

TrademarkedTWOrantula, Good article reviews, as opposed to Featured article reviews, are deliberately set up to be carried out by a single uninvolved editor. There is no minimum amount of time to be spent or number of words to be written. If you believe that the article does not meet the GA standards, then you can take the matter to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. I see some awkward wording in the lead but I am not sure that is enough for a reassessment. Cullen328 (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Being nice to the photographer

Happy New Year Teahousers!

A photographer gave permission for an image to be released to Creative Commons 4.0. All has gone well. Permissions all done properly and the VRT are content.

However, both being newish at wiki, both the photographer and I have just noticed that the all the metadata has been uploaded - including that photographers's contact details.

While the photographer is happy to release the image under creative commons, photographer didn't mean to release personal information. (Yes, something to watch for next time.)

Now I can edit information in the "Summary" section regarding the image over at commons.wikimedia.org — however, I can't edit the metadata section. I'm guessing it can only be done by an admin.

Going off the general principles of anonymity and so on, seems right to ask if those details can be removed. Can someone tell me the right person, and the right way, to ask?

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi MatthewDalhousie. This seems like it's all related to files uploaded to commons, not enwiki, so it should best be handled on a talkpage or other notice-board there. You will have to be more specific about which details you are talking about (for example, file-description page vs EXIF vs structured-data) and how hidden you would like them to be (for example, simply changed, or actually scrubbed from public visibility even via history). DMacks (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@DMacks

It's about the photographer's contact details, nothing to do with the actual image or data related to the image. For some reason photographer has those details embedded as a default in the metadata. I've taken the discussion over to a talk page at wikimedia commons here. Thank you! MatthewDalhousie (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Creation of Infobox

Please, l need assistance on how to create infobox on Wikipedia. Olivia Harry (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Olivia Harry: Hello! There are multiple types of infoboxes, which article are you working on? Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I wish to add some infoboxes on my user page and not on article for now. I wish to learn it first. Olivia Harry (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Olivia Harry: See Help:Infobox for general help. Wikipedia:User pages are for communication and collaboration. You could use {{Infobox Wikipedia user}}, but see Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors if you are young. Your main user page is not for testing code. You can use User:Olivia Harry/sandbox for that. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful assistance. Olivia Harry (talk) 05:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Help on finding sources for page

Hi there, I am having issues finding reliable sources for my page on Sandra Hazlehurst, Mayor of Hastings, New Zealand. There is limited online material on her, part of the reason I wanted to create a page. Could anyone be of assistance. Thank you and hope you're having a great new year, Joseph. Draft:Sandra Hazlehurst Jtwd (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

If you have offline materials on it, you are permitted to use it. You might want to double check that they are good and you might have used some of them, but here are some sources: [1][2]. ✶Quxyz✶ 06:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Quxyz: You might also want to ask at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

User mass changing the national anthem of Spain

Hi! Please let me know if this is more appropriate for somewhere like WP:ANI. User Antoniocarreras81 (see contribs here) has been mass changing the national anthem of Spain. I don't know if this is just plain and simple vandalism I should mass revert and throw to WP:AIV, or if this is just me being silly and new and afraid to revert things like this. Thanks in advance! Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, just so I can make sure I'm not just jumping to bad faith conclusions, it looks like they've done the same thing on the Spanish Wikipedia & been warned for it there. Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Schrödinger's jellyfish: Hello! I've just listened to both versions and it seems that the melody is the same, the only problem that might occur is the copyright but I'm not sure how it works with anthems. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 00:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Me either - I'm not even sure if it is vandalism, but one of the edits popped up on my recent changes filter. Looked at their edit history and it raised an eyebrow. It just seems like an incredibly random thing to change across multiple Spain-related articles. Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Schrödinger's jellyfish: I don't think it's random, probably they just thought that their version has a higher audio quality or something and decided to replace every occurrence of the old version. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 00:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, okay! My apologies for jumping to vandal conclusions. Hopefully all turns out to be fine with copyright. Thank you! Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Deltaspace42 and @Schrödinger's jellyfish, happy new year to you all! 2001:EE0:4BC2:E9E0:5DB:6154:E8B8:7AD3 (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)National Anthem of Spain was first published in

talk:Schrödinger's jellyfish and Deltaspace42, please note that the National anthem of Spain was published in 1761. As the article notes, the original music is out of copyright, but a particular harmonization is copyrighted. Presumably, that specific 20th century harmonization should probably be avoided. Cullen328 (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Can I link to my music?

So in prefs there’s a place where you can put links to external profiles (I’m assuming it’s for Twitter or Facebook type stuff). I have a Bandcamp account where I occasionally release music (I’m not going to name it here because it could be construed as promoting it), and I was wondering if linking to it would count as advertising? blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 17:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Blueskiesdry I'm not clear what you mean by "prefs". Simple non-promotional links to a personal website are allowed on your userpage, in line with the guidance at WP:UPYES. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean account preferences. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 17:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be unfair and unduly cynical to characterize this as "blatant promotion".

(On that note: while it's an easy example to gesture to, I think "your band" as mentioned on WP:UPYES is overused as an example of blatant promotion, both on Wikipedia and in general. Humans make music!)

Remsense留 18:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

"URLs to external profiles" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal-userpage is a recent feature and many old users don't know it yet. You can put as many links as you want there but nobody else can see them. The feature is to mark the same url's in a special way if they are also used on your user page. See Wikipedia:User pages for what you can have there. Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages? says: "You are also welcome to include a simple link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language." You are contributing to Wikipedia, User:Blueskiesdry has relevant content about that, and I don't see any current external links, so I think a discreet link to your Bandcamp account would be OK. There may be others who think it's too commercial if the site isn't about you but about selling something. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it alright if I explain what it is in like a sentence or two? blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 20:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Blueskiesdry: I would stick to one brief sentence like your above "I have a Bandcamp account where I occasionally release music". Just place a link on "Bandcamp account" and don't make it the opening sentence. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

PrimeHunter called you "old", Mike Turnbull. It's right there in black-and-white (emphasis added): a recent feature and many old users don't know it yet. Could've said, "accounts created before it was added", or "users who haven't looked at Special:Preferences in a while", but, nope! Went right to "old".

And your account was created in 2018. I've been here since 2009 — if you're old, I'd hate to think what that makes me! (I'm joking, of course. No offense intended, PrimeHunter, and only a tiny bit of offense taken.) FeRDNYC (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

My account is from 2005. I think the general rule is that you can use a term about a group of people if you belong to the group. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to be called "old", as a simple statement of fact. My first account here (now my WP:VALIDALT) was created in 2011, as recently described here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

what should ido ?

58 / 3000 I got a message saying it's hard to register while I'm registering on Wikipedia. I've been asked to modify it, what should I do? 182.216.4.174 (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, it's hard to know the issue without more context. Are you receiving an error message when you try to register? Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have no idea what you are saying. As usual for problem reports, please explain 1) what you were trying to do; 2) what steps you actually took; and 3) what result you got (and what result you were expecting, if it's not obvious). ColinFine (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

...and do not paraphrase the result - copy the exact words you saw and paste them into your reply here. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Auto-archive on an article's talk page

How do i create that? Iljhgtn (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: Try IABot. Hopefully that's what you're talking about. Cheers ‍ Relativity 22:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: I guess Help:Archiving a talk page is what you mean. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

That IAbot requires some "login required", but I am logged in to my wikipedia account? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The IAbot doesn't have your authorisation yet. Click on the link and then the Allow button on the following page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: User:InternetArchiveBot (IABot) is about archiving article sources so a copy of the source can be found if a web page dies or changes content. If you want to set up archiving of talk page discussions then IABot is irrelevant and you need Help:Archiving a talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

PrimeHunter has what i am looking for. i will check that link. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia! – different editing modes

Happy new year everyone! 🥳🙏 On Swedish Wikipedia, I can edit the text as I see it. There is another, separate mode which resembles some sort of code. On English Wikipedia, I can only see the "code mode" and can't edit the text as I see it.

Why does Swedish Wiki have two editing modes and English one only has one?

 Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

You appear to be talking about the WP:source editor and the WP:visual editor, you can switch between the two at the top left of the page when editing.

Happy editing!

Geardona (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is it! Thank you @Geardona😊

But on Swedish articles I have both selections, while on English I only see one selection.

I uploaded two examples (printscreens):

• https://i.ibb.co/1qYCvNn/SE-two-edit-buttons.png
• https://i.ibb.co/YXgjR2x/EN-one-edit-button.png

Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Found it! https://i.ibb.co/vshbg03/Found-it.png

Which one do you prefer, the source editor or visual editor?

Is one superior to the other in some way? Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

In the source editor you can do more technical edits, although the visual editor is much easier to use. Geardona (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you again @Geardona. Much appreciated!

If I understand you correctly, I should learn source editor and you prefer source editor yourself. Did I get that correctly? Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Learn new things in 2024:(edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. That "some sort of code" is called Wikitext and the editor for that is called the source editor. The other editor is called the Visual Editor, and is not enabled by default on the english Wikipedia, something which the swedish Wikipedia might difer on. You can enable it in your preferences under "Editing", "Enable the visual editor". Judging by your comment here you might want to set the select field "Editing mode:" below it to "Always give me the visual editor if possible" or "Show me both editor tabs". Assuming that you haven't unchecked the "Enable the visual editor" checkbox, you can switch between the two via a pencil icon in the top right of the toolbar. There are namespaces where the VE isn't available (including Wikipedia:).

Geardona it should be top right, actually. The pencil 8 slots from the left (in the source editor) toggles syntax highlighting. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Besten Dank @Victor Schmidt! Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Expansion of Draft article

Dear fellow editors, I just created a draft article and it needs expansion. I appeal for help from here. Here's the link Thanks everyone! Olivia Harry (talk) 08:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I think one thing the draft could use is more sources. This is especially important in biographies of living person, where mistakes could have real world consequences.

I find that Google News a lot of help when searching for political topics - just make sure your sources are reliable. Help:Find sources is a useful guide to searching for new sources.

All in all, I hope you will continue contributing here. :D Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ca,

I have made sure I picked reliable sources from Google. The article needs only expansion from the current sources provided there. It's being a tedious job on me and that's why it's necessary other editors like you do join in expanding it. I am always here to contribute! Olivia Harry (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The first source does not contain significant coverage. The second looks good. But you need several sources, each of which meets all the criteria in the golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Did you base what you wrote on sources? If so, citing them should be easier for you than for anybody else. If not, any editor will have trouble finding the sources (if these even exist), and most will prefer to spend their time and energy on other pursuits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.52.66.53 (talk) 10:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

And in general, Teahouse hosts are here to advise on how to edit and create content, but not to be researchers for refs or co-authors. David notMD (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Olivia Harry: The editors at WT:ISRAEL may be able to help. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I concur with all your helps. I will continue to improve the article. Thanks everyone. Olivia Harry (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia images from Flickr

Hello again 🙏

I noticed that some Wikipedia images are uploaded onto Wikipedia (Wikimedia?) while others are from Flickr. How can use Flickr's images on Wikipedia? And how do I know that I can use them (copyright and so on)?

There are some amazing images on Flickr that would really improve some Wikipedia articles. Hundreds of pictures like this, and they are IMHO 10/10:

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/fredrik_lindedal/53085998546
• https://www.flickr.com/photos/fredrik_lindedal/53024797097
• https://www.flickr.com/photos/fredrik_lindedal/53424967903
• https://www.flickr.com/photos/fredrik_lindedal/52956154995

Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Most random images on the internet are incompatible with Wikipedia. They need to explicitly have a copyright that is compatible with Wikipedia, allowing for reuse for any purpose with attribution. 331dot (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @331dot. I expected that to be the case.

However, many Wikipedia images are from Flickr. For example:

• File:Size_comparison of iPhone 5C 5S 4S.jpg
• File:Apple Garage.jpg
• File:Apple I Computer.jpg
• File:Apple PenLite prototype, 1992.jpg
• File:MacBook Pro.jpg
• File:Apple Genius Bar Regentstreet London.jpg
• And many many many others.

How do I know which Flickr images are ok to have on Wikipedia and which are not? 😊 Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:copyright has more info, and images are uploaded to WP:commons normally. Geardona (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Is it correct that you download the picture from Flickr and upload it to [WP:commons]? Assuming that copyright allows it.

Flickr frequently allows download in full resolution via their interface. There is a button for that. Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

In the lower right corner of a Flickr page, there's usually a copyright statement. It might say "all rights reserved". Or it might say "some rights reserved", or even "public domain".

'Public domain' images are acceptable; 'some rights reserved' images can be acceptable, depending on which license the uploader chose. If it's "-BY", that's fine. If it's "-NC" or "-ND", it's not.

(That said, beware of "flickrwashing": when someone uploads an image to flickr that isn't theirs, and then says "yeah, sure, this is Creative Commons, it's public domain, whatever". If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.) DS (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

(and, specifically, those Lindedal images are 'all rights reserved', so... no.) DS (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Super clear, thank you @DS Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me out @DragonflySixtyseven

Much much appreciated. Apparently google even allows searching for picutures with "creative commons" license. See printscreen: https://i.ibb.co/WvX1N4n/Google-search.png

If I understand you correctly, this image would be ok ok Wikipedia: https://www.flickr.com/photos/118304891@N02/13298255555

I don't think it necessarily should be on Wikipedia, but I am just trying to verify that I understood the concept correctly. Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Learn new things in 2024: Thats CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0 so no, not permitted here. I don't believe it has been mentioned, but c:COM:L has a pretty decent overview over what is (and isn't) permitted here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, thank you Victor. This is what Flickr says about CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0:

You are free to:

• Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
• Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
• The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
• [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/]

Seems good enough to me. Apparently not good enough. Will read [[ c:COM:L ]] Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

I think I got the gist of it.

NC (non-commercial) or ND (no derivations) disqualify them from Wikipedia.

It needs to allow "more free usage" to qualify for Wikipedia.

If it's only "Attribution" and "ShareAlike", then it's ok.

All clear, thank you! 🙏 Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, Learn new things in 2024, NC means "non-commercial" and NC licenses are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Our freely licensed content can be re-used for any purpose, including commercial purposes like posters, books, magazines, videos, t-shirts, coffee mugs and the like. Cullen328 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Undelete of page: Ben Gurion Canal Project

Recently the page for "Ben Gurion Canal Project" has been deleted by a 7/3 vote & I need help reopening the discussion for keeping the article.

While I understand that the current Geo/political climate is not conducive to something as controversial as the above named project, the fact that there was/is a proposed project is reason alone to have information available to everyone & not burry it.

The Ben Gurion Canal Project has gained some recent notoriety due to TT and I believe that is the motivation for the article to be deleted.

Below are vairious sources of articles published before the current crisis from both sides of the isle that may lend credence to keeping this information on WP.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/statement-to-the-knesset-by-pm-ben-gurion

https://m.jpost.com/opinion/an-israeli-suez-canal-393225

https://www.albawaba.net/node/suez-canal-ben-gurion

https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/459467/The-second-coming-of-Ben-Gurion

https://www.atalayar.com/en/articulo/economy-and-business/suez-canal-crisis-revives-israeli-russian-talks-alternative-routes/20210330143613150581.amp.html

Please let me know your thoughts and any help would be appreciated. LtCdrLaForge (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Follow the instructions at WP:Deletion review and proceed there Mach61 (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

LtCdrLaForge, in order to establish notability of a topic like this, sources must be indisputably reliable, must be independent of the topic, and must devote significant coverage to the topic. Most if not all of the sources you list fail that three part test. Opinion sources, rumor mongering and wild 21st century speculation based on a concept that was evaluated and ruled out 60 years ago are sources that do not qualify. Cullen328 (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia images from Flickr

Hello Wikipedians,

Flickr images with CC-BY-SA-2.0 license can be used on Wikipedia. Say that a Flickr image with CC-BY-SA-2.0 license gets uploaded to Wikipedia. And the original photographer changes the license to "All rights reserved" half a year later. What happens?

Does the initial CC-BY-SA-2.0 still apply or does it become a copyright infringement? Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Learn new things in 2024:

From creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/:

The licenses and CC0 cannot be revoked. This means once you apply a CC license to your material, anyone who receives it may rely on that license for as long as the material is protected by copyright, even if you later stop distributing it.

So if the author suddenly decides to be greedy and changes the license, then that wouldn't work and CC-BY-SA-2.0 would still apply. Another thing is to prove that the license was CC-BY-SA-2.0 before, but I'm not really experienced in this matters, probably the archived version of their website on the Wayback Machine would show that the license was different. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Deltaspace42 No need to use a Wayback Machine, The description page of flickr images has a license history popup going back to 2007. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Deltaspace42 & @Victor Schmidt. Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Using Wp when I’m bored.

Theoretically, if anybody knows anything about the muiscas and the incas (even though, that’s unlikely), could they give me an article to create? If not, please don’t bother to answer. Encyclopédisme (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

You could likely find significant discussion and articles to create or work on at WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, WikiProject South America, WikiProject Peru, and WikiProject Colombia. Best of luck! Remsense留 20:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Too lazy to do that. If anybody who reads this knows something about the Inca and wants me to create an article, please ask. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Your question does not compute. "I want to do this task which takes significant amounts of intellectual energy and discipline to carry out effectively, but I'm too lazy to put in any of that intellectual energy". ColinFine (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I cant follow? What did you say?

In the slight chance that someone gives me an article on Inca history to make, I will be happy to display my half-assed knowledge. Now I am in a state of being bored, and I would greatly appreciate not being in that state. Thank you for having answered this, cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions:

• Construction of Machu Picchu
• Church of Andahuayillas
• Temple of the Chosen Virgins of the Sun
• Acllahuasi

Hope that helps!
Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Encyclopédisme (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

New User

Dear all, Happy New Year! I'm brand new to Wiki and need help please! I've created a blank draft article (The Music Man Project) and have some content ready, but don't want to publish it. I'd like to add some of my draft content and familiarise myself with the editing tools. How can I save the draft content so I can go back to it and work on it without publishing? Thank you! Marilyn Fowles (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

A good place would be to save it in your sandbox for you to work on: at User:Marilyn Fowles/sandbox. —Quondum 01:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, will try the Sandbox. 2A00:23C8:B5A3:8901:1D5D:5F5F:3931:3495 (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Marilyn Fowles, keep in mind that content should be reasonably intended as content on Wikipedia, which must meet certain criteria. I see that it was deleted from your user page on grounds associated with it possibly having inappropriate content for Wikipedia; if it fails on those grounds, it is likely to be deleted wherever it is. —Quondum 01:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I can see a potential start of a potentially viable article in that now-deleted content and would be willing to see where it goes during incubation. If it were to have been pure spam, obvious copyvio, or similar, I would not have offered to restore it to draft. DMacks (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah – all good. I am clearly still clumsy at this. —Quondum 02:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Marilyn Fowles! Welcome to Wikpedia. I assume by "publish" you mean "click the button marked 'publish'"? That's the Wikipedia term for sending your writing to the server (the concept is more like to "upload" or "post"). By definition, everything you write on this website is "published". It does not mean that your content is part of a live article. It does mean that everyone can see it (and most can edit it if they really want to) if they know where to look for it. There is no true "ownership" or "invisible private space" here. Articles in "Draft:", or your personal "sandbox" are a great place to save your work as you go along. You can ask for advice, practice formatting (with no risk of breaking a live article), think and rethink, write and rewrite, etc. Then when you're ready, you can tag it for migration to the live article space. DMacks (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Your user-page is for writing a bit about yourself, as relevant to wikipedia. It appears you started to draft your article there, and then it got deleted for mis-use of the user page. I can restore that content if you like (to a more appropriate location). DMacks (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @DMacks for your kind comments and help - you have given me hope! I now understand that I misused the user-page - apologies and thanks for correcting me. I'm so very pleased you can see the start of a potentially viable article and I would love it to be restored to an appropriate location. I have written most of the article in a word document, having studied the Wiki guidance. I've included lots of references, ensuring they fit the criteria. I just need a template to start copying and pasting. Before the page was correctly and understandably deleted, I was thrilled that I learned to enter references and get the links working! 2A00:23C8:B5A3:8901:1D5D:5F5F:3931:3495 (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I restored it to User:Marilyn Fowles/Music Man Project. The main concern based on what I see there now is the need for several in-depth independent/WP:SECONDARY refs to help demonstrate notability for the organization. Also, I'm not sure if you are affiliated with this group in some way, but if so pay very close attention to our conflict of interest rules. DMacks (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@DMacks Many thanks for restoring, much appreciated. I did a bit more work in my sandbox and have included 18 references - are you able to see them and perhaps advise if they look ok (if you have time)? I've used sources that I've seen on published pages so hoping they are OK. No, I'm not affiliated with the group - just want to help a local cause. Marilyn Fowles (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Marilyn, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia, and to 2024!

I'd like to give you some counsel that I often give to new editors, and that is: take it slowly! If you had just started engineering, would you set out to build a car from scratch as your first project? If you had just taken up a musical instrument, would you immediately book yourself a public recital?

Remember that creating a new article is not the only, or necessarily the best, way to contribute value to Wikipedia. People who try the challenging task of creating a new article as the first thing they do often have a frustrating and disappointing experience.

I suggest that you put the Music Man project aside for a few weeks or months, and spend your Wikipedia time learning about how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles - many of them are in sore need of it! In particular, coming to understand Wikipedia's requirements in the areas of verifiability, reliable sources, and WP:notability, will help you immeasurably when you do decide it's time to focus on your project. ColinFine (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Article apparently deleted

Hello, and thank you for reading,

In the last year or so, I contributed to an article on the Great Fire of East Nashville in 1916. Last week, I looked for the article and couldn't find it. I used multiple variations on the search terms and came up dry. How can I find the article, ask that it be restored, and/or find out why it is no longer available?

I ask mainly because my grandparents, my dad, age 3, and my uncle, baby in arms, lived there at the time. Their house was passed over by the flames, and they were all safe. I ran across a picture that my grandmother had in an album of the aftermath of the fire, and wanted to add that to the article, if possible.

I'm new at this, and greatly appreciate any help that anyone can give me.

Best,

John Hampton JohnHamptonIII (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if there's ever been an article by that name, but at look at your contributions showed that you contributed here East Nashville, Tennessee#Great Fire of 1916. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

JohnHamptonIII(edit conflict) East Nashville, Tennessee appears to have a section about the fire, to which you contributed on Feb 9th, 2017. I couldn't find any evidence coverage went beyoynd that. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

JohnHamptonIII, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wildfire/Guidelines, a fire that extensive that caused one death and destroyed 500 structures and caused the evacuation of 2,500 people would be eligible for a free-standing article. Cullen328 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I remember having contributed to a free-standing article, which raised the question: what happened to it? I can see that it may have been incorporated into the article that User:GreenLipstickLesbian and User:Victor Schmidt (thank you!) referenced. The free-standing article on the fire that I remember contributing to was much more detailed than the East Nashville bullet list reference, as I recall. And, yes, User:Cullen328, I agree fully that this topic merits a free-standing reference.

Please forgive my misuses of terminology; this is my first try at this.

Thank you all for helping me! JohnHamptonIII (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@JohnHamptonIII:There's a possibility you contributed to a similar article when logged out? I haven't been able to find one by looking through the categories of wildfires, however. So, who knows? A quick google shows that this fire seems obviously notable to merit inclusion. If you'd like to, maybe you'd like to try writing the article? Just WP:YFA, familiarize yourself with our policies on original research, and go for it! The images you have seem like they could be really useful as well, and just guessing from the year of the fire, I'm pretty sure you'd have no trouble uploading them to commons. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll look into it. Thank you for your help, and Happy New Year! JohnHamptonIII (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Creating references with least repetitive manual labor

First thing first, big thank you to everyone for such receptive welcome earlier today. And thank you for so clear, friendly and useful answers. I would like to ask about references. And I try to not bother you again today. How do you make references? I spent time googling for it and answers vary a lot:

• https://mtsac.libguides.com/wiki/citations-how
• https://libguides.uta.edu/wikipedia/references

These are useful for WP:Visual editor, but what about the other WP:source editor?

Also Wikipedia articles on the topic:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Citation_tools#Tools

Citoid and Citer seem really nice. It seems that Citoid is for WP:Visual editor and Citer is for WP:source editor Do you use them? What is the best option to create a high quality reference with the least repetitive effort? Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I simply use the cite tool built into the vis editor and switch between the two types Geardona (Tech Support) 17:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! 😊

Speaking of images from Flickr. It is really really hard to find images on Flickr with appropriate license. But when you find them, it's a goldmine. See my edit to Union City, New Jersey. @331dot @DragonflySixtyseven @Victor Schmidt. Will make a few more soon.

Thank you everyone, you're awesome 👏 Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Made a mistake with Union City, New Jersey, recalled the edit. The picture did not show Union City, but was taken from Union City. The edit on Malmö Central Station turned out well. Will make more later. Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The generation tools are very nice and useful. That said, they aren't perfect and often produce parameters that need to be tweaked, so just be wary of that! If this happens, you will often see an error produced by the template advising you on what needs to be fixed. Cheers! Remsense留 22:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Remsense

What is "generation tools"? You seem to be referring to Help:Citation_tools#Tools, but I'd like to doublecheck, just to be sure
Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my bad—I mean the tools to automatically generate citations, such as Citer and Citoid. Remsense留 23:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Learn new things in 2024, have you read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-08-01/Tips and tricks § Citation tools for dummies!? That might be helpful, but as Remsense says above, many automatically generated citations will require manual repair, and can be best conceptualised as a "first pass" or "rough draft" of the finished citations.

Algorithmically generating citations is a science still in its infancy. Even sources with a DOI and structured metadata can contain errors in one of the databases the citation scripts hit, and as for websites or google books, the output is often such that you'll end up rewriting the entire citation template. I do a lot of fixes in this space, so I probably trust the code less than many other editors here, to acknowledge my own biases. Folly Mox (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding company logo to the infopanel on the right

Most company pages on Wikipedia have company logos. Some don't.

Examples of Swedish companies with logos:

• Acne Studios
• Clas Ohlson
• Elekta

Swedish companies without logos:

• Abba Seafood
• Comviq
• Esselte

Same country, same rules, but different outcomes.

• Can I download the logo, upload it to WP:Commons and add to the infopanel?
• If not, why do some logos appear on Wiki and others don't?

Many companies have their logos and graphic material in the press or investor section, so they seem to encourage usage. Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Learn new things in 2024. Logos are usually non-free and not allowed at Commons but can be uploaded here at the English Wikipedia as fair use for the article about the company. See more at Wikipedia:Logos. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @PrimeHunter!

I quickly glanced at Wikipedia:Logos, will read it more thoroughly soon.

If I understand you correctly, logos are ok to add to English Wikipedia, but not to other languages (some other might be ok). I checked my three examples and 2/3 are uploaded on WP:Commons – Acne Studios and Clas Ohlsson. But Elekta is uploaded locally(?) on English Wikipedia.

• Where do I find the local upload?
• And why are some (Acne Studios and Clas Ohlsson) allowed on WP:Commons then?

Directlinks to the files:

• File:Elekta_Logo.svg
• File:Clas Ohlson.svg – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Clas_Ohlson.svg
• File:Acne_studios_logo,_2021.svg – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Acne_studios_logo,_2021.svg

Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The original question can be explained as a Wikipedian just hasn't got to that article yet. As for why some are uploaded to Commons and not here, the two you listed are licensed as too simple to be copyrighted (simple geometric shapes). I would be more cautious with using that if you are new to copyright. ✶Quxyz✶ 23:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

A "logo" that is really just plain text and maybe a simple additional line or shape is not considered a creative-enough original art to merit license-protection. That's why Clas Ohlson and Acne studios image-pages say "This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain." Public-domain files are allowed on commons. Someone felt the circle-and-dots with text for Elekta was more than 'simple', and therefore by default has a restrictive license that is controlled by the company. Non-free-license content is not allowed on commons. Non-free content is allowed on enwiki subject to very strict rules. DMacks (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @DMacks & @Quxyz Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the question "Where do I find the local upload?". You have links to all three ":File:" pages already. If it's local to enwiki, that takes you to the local enwiki page. If there is no local but instead it is on commons, that same link automatically falls through to the commons page. DMacks (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Uploads to commons are done here, I think:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard

What about uploads to English Wikipedia (but not commons)? Same link does not exist:

• https://en.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard

Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_upload_wizard DMacks (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

the concept of time

I WANT TO CREATE THE MOST BEAUTIFUL FAMILY WITHOUT DEATH 104.245.218.59 (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The Teahouse is for asking questions about how to edit Wikipedia. We cannot help you with grand metaphysical issues. Cullen328 (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Savage 😂 Yamantakks (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Have you read our article on immortality? Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

*snrk* What is this, Clippypedia? FeRDNYC (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

citation duplicates

In a recent edit, I wanted to use a citation that already existed in the article, but I created "new" citations instead, making duplicates. How do you insert a citation for a publication that is already listed? Davideteiemusic (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

+1, I would also like to know the same. Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Davideteiemusic, @Learn new things in 2024: Hello! I've merged the duplicate references in the Zoomusicology article. Assuming you are working in the source editor, to merge duplicate references, add <ref name=(unique reference name - usually author or first words from title)> to the first reference, and then replace all other duplicate references with <ref name=(reference name)/>. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Does the ref name go after the target reference or before? blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 19:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Blueskiesdry: Before, like this: here<ref>some citation</ref>, another place<ref>some citation</ref> becomes here<ref name="choose name">some citation</ref>, another place<ref name="choose name"/> Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 19:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Full guidance is at WP:NAMEDREFS. Folly Mox (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Blueskiesdry: As far as ordering, it actually doesn't matter. The expanded version of the reference can appear the first time it's used, the last time, or somewhere in the middle. All that matters is that it's only expanded once.

One other thing to watch out for, with named references: If you use section editing, and the full reference doesn't appear in the section you're editing, the preview will make it appear as though your reference is broken. (Ditto any other named-refs that are defined outside of the section, even ones you didn't create. You just have to trust that the section preview isn't representative of how the full page will look when it's saved. FeRDNYC (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Horace Heyman

Hello

I am a first time writer for Wikipedia, and just completed an article entitled "Horace Heyman" on December 30, today.

It is about my father, but all sources, duly annotated, are public, including Wikipedia itself, newspapers, and magazines.

My first question is what is the average time for review.

My second question is how do I access my Sandbox, once I have left the user page.

My third question is that for some reason Wikipedia claims it does not like my User name, but then it seems to accept it anyway..

My fourth question is that apparently I have to use a Template but I have no idea why or how to access templates from my User page. Ipandro Acaico (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

|: This guy wrote into my question! I moved him here. Encyclopédisme (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Another, fifth, question.

I know that my last questions are now at the bottom of the page, a long way.

How do I know when and if someone has answered them. Do I have to wait permanently on this page for the rest of the day, or does someone advise me, and, if so, how and where?

By email? with a Popup? with a sound? Ipandro Acaico (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Ipandro, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your sandbox is at User:Ipandro Acaico/sandbox, and there are various ways of accessing it. If you're using the default skin, then there's a "person" at the top right, with a menu below it, including "Sandbox"; or you can find it from your contributions list.

I have added a header to it which will allow you to submit it for review when it is ready - but it is not yet. Please read referencing for beginners - and note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and so should never be cited as a reference (though you are encouraged to wikilink appropriate items in the text. ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

One further comment: creating a new article is one of the most challenging tasks there is in editing Wikipedia. I strongly advise you to leave your sandbox alone for a few months (nobody will touch it) while you learn about editing Wikipedia by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles - especially, learning about finding and citing sources.

Writing about your father is even more difficult, because you have a conflict of interest, and you are likely to find it hard to write in the required neutral point of view. The thing to remember - which is surprising to newcomers - is that the article must be based on independent reliable published sources, not on what you know. --ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Colin

1. On finding the sandbox, v ery useful input...I happen to have enlarged my screen so the dropdown mark next to the face was not visible on it.
2. On Wikipedia as source, I get the point. A Wikilink is sufficient...why doublecount?
3. On conflict of interest, i don't see an issue because a) my father was indisputably a real pioneer in electric vehicles, the equivalent of Elon Musk, because was ahead of his time (my loss!). and b) he has been recognized for his achievements: if you press on the Honours link, you will note that most Knights Bachelor of his year, 1976, are considered worthy of Wikipèdia articles. Another thing I have realized is that the act of writing my father's minibio actually forces me to string together other Wikipedia entries (specifically Smith Electric Vehicle, Sevcon and Mister Softee) and help me produce a credible narrative, as well as make people access more Wikipedia entries.
4. I get your point about independently reliable sources - some of which I discovered through the act of producing the document.
5. Several months seems excessive for a first article. I have already produced 10 books, having typeset the last 4 using Microsoft, each in one year, so I hope to be a bit quicker.
6. My followup question, when and how do I submit the "final" article for review. Implicit in that question is how do I differentiate the final article from "publishing" the Sandbox?

I am grateful for your rapid and complete response to my previous questions. Ipandro Acaico (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

a Sixth question

When I go to my User Page, it says that Wikipedia does not have an exact name for my page, but then uses my User name Ipandro Acaico anyway.

What on earth does that mean? Ipandro Acaico (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello again. The meaning of that is that you have not yet created your user page User:Ipandro Acaico (which is why it appears in red, and why Wikipedia says it can't find a page of that name). But if you choose (it is entirely optional) you may create your user page - that is what it is offering you. If you do so, please have a look at WP:UPYES, to get a sense of what is allowed on a user page and what is not. ColinFine (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ipandro Acaico: Note that Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references (per WP:CIRCULAR). GoingBatty (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

As is common with many newcomers, you have been writing your article WP:BACKWARDS (please read that linked page). For example, you write Heyman also diversified the company to the manufacture of refrigerated trucks, and of ice-cream trucks, by introducing soft ice-cream to the United Kingdom through a joint venture with Mister Softee but the only citation for that statement which is supposed to be used by readers to verify that this is true is in fact a link to the top level of the Softee website, which of course says nothing about Heyman. My recommendation is to start again in a few months, after you have understood how Wikipedia works and you have amassed a group of suitable sources meeting these criteria. The obituary in The Independent may be one of these but you need several. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

P.S. You might like to start by improving the article Sevcon, which could do with additional reliable sources. That will help you develop your editing skills. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Ipandro Acaico there are ways to 'ping' someone, as I have done you, so that next time you log in you will get an indication at the top menu that there is content for you. For drafts and articles, people add those to their 'Watch' list, so likewise, when checking Watch, you see recent edits to what you are watching. David notMD (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

In answer to one of your questions, after a draft is submitted, it waits until a reviewer decides to review it. The backlog is not a queue. Could be days to weeks. During that time, you can continue to work on the draft. David notMD (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Mike

I am confused about how it keeps on telling me that Ipandro Acaico is a User Page and letting me use it. Do I have to create a new User Page.

On the Mister Softee link, the idea of producing it is so that the reader can find out who they are. The question is why do i need an external proof of my father with Mister Softee when I grew up with it, i.e. I AM THE FIRST HAND SOURCE! Ipandro Acaico (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello! This is your userpage: User:Ipandro Acaico, which is already created. I've just created a "talk page" for you, which is located here: User talk:Ipandro Acaico. You should be all good to go! sawyer * he/they * talk 00:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

You, claiming to be writing about your father and providing information based on your knowledge of what is true ("FIRST HAND SOURCE") is exactly what Wikiedia cannot accept. David notMD (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ipandro Acaico If you want readers who don't know who Mister Softee is, then you just add a Wikilink to our article on the subject, like I have done here. It is mandatory that sources be already-published in reliable places (see my earlier link to this explanation). Using material that only you know is an immediate fail as no-one would have any way to verify what you write, which is a core policy for Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Ipandro Acaico a famous early 2010s Hip Hop rapper from my city, grew up living next door to a local nightclub deejay, who then also went on to become a famous rapper in a group of Bassline rappers in the late 2010s.

I was pretty certain that they were both from the same neighbourhood originally (as I was sure I had seen the Hip Hip rapper in my area before he was famous, plus the Bassline rapper I've apparently met multiple times when he was a kid, as he fancied my niece), although I didn't know they lived next door to each other, however I had no proof to use on Wikipedia, therefore it couldn't be added.

However around 12-18 months ago, one of them gave an interview in an online video podcast, where he revealed that fact, so now I can prove it to Wikipedia if I want to (and I no doubt will eventually when I can be bothered).

My point is, you need to prove everything you add to Wikipedia. If you can't prove it, then it will be removed eventually when someone notices it. Danstarr69 (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

But I did create a User Page Ipandro Acaico (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Arzu and I

Mehraban 87.241.151.156 (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP 87.241.151.156. The Teahouse is for asking questions about Wikipedia (particularly editing Wikipedia). Do you have a question about Wikipedia? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Did you have a question about Wikipedia? GoingBatty (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Greek letters

Why don’t most articles have a Greek letter in the page title, for example, α Centauri is located at Alpha Centauri. Astronomical Editor (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

My guess: Much more practical. I can easily spell "alpha", but I wouldn't known how to begin spelling "α" without a copy-paste. Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

There are always redirects, so you can type out the English name of the Greek letter and get where you want to go. Or if you are writing a link to it, you can type '&alpha;' to get the alpha character. DMacks (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It depends on the topic-area of the article. For astronomical objects, WP:STARNAMES prescribes: "Write out the English name of the Greek letter e.g. Alpha Centauri (not α Centauri, which instead should be made a redirect)". Chemistry goes the other way, with WP:CHEMPREFIX prescribing :"use Greek letter prefixes if appropriate, e.g. Α-Ketoglutaric acid...not Alpha-Ketoglutaric acid". Yup, that's a capital actual alpha, not a capital English letter. For technical reasons, all wikipedia articles must begin with a capital letter, so the confusion between capital-a and capital-alpha might be one rationale for spelling out the greek letter. DMacks (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Much better answer than my guess 🙏🙂 Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

No worries:) "Can I type this easily on a normal keyboard?" is actually a reasonable idea, and one of the rationales for some sitewide MOS guidelines, such as MOS:STRAIGHT. DMacks (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

How to decide which logos are made of "simple geometric shapes" and which aren't?

 Courtesy link: § Adding company logo to the infopanel on the right

Decided to create a separate topic, to not overload the previous one. To avoid making it messy. Many logos on Wikimedia are accompanied by the following text

This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image may still be subject to other restrictions. See WP:PD § Fonts and typefaces or Template talk:PD-textlogo for more information.

Seen on WP:Commons, for example:
, File:BMW.svg
File:Apple_logo_black.svg
File:Adobe Corporate logo.svg
File:Baker Hughes logo.svg
File:Meta Platforms Inc. logo.svg
File:Applied Materials Inc. Logo.svg
File:Amazon_logo.svg

• How is the decision made on what counts as a simple geometric shape and what doesn't?
• Who makes that decision? In other words, who could I ask to have a look?

The example used previously, File:Elekta Logo.svg is geometrically simpler than the American company logos in the quote. And many Swedish logos currently missing from Wikipedia are geometrically simpler than the American company logos in the quote. It would be good idea to add them, and I could add a bunch, once I figure out how this works. Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It's indeed a judgement call of the uploader, and second-guessable/subject to change or discussion by anyone else. I see that someone has tagged the Elekta logo as possibly actually being public-domain. There are many edge-cases for the "threshold of originality", and where that line is even varies substantially among different countries (and therefore subject to different rules on the various wiki sites). Only a court can make an definitive legal ruling on any individual case. DMacks (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @DMacks

Could I upload logos like this one#1 or this one#2 myself?

High quality, high resolution (#1 and #2 examples aren't high res but that's not the point), official sources, everything the same way as all the other logos already have been uploaded.

And use the same rationale as already uploaded other logos, i.e. "does not meet the threshold of originality". These two examples (#1 and #2) certainly do not "meet the threshold of originality", given all the other more complex logos already on WP:Commons. Learn new things in 2024 (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

For logos that are too simply for copyright, I would suggest you upload them to Commons, as they could then be used on other sister projects. One thing that you must be aware of if you do upload to Commons, is that that the threshold of originality which determines if something is complex enough to be copyrighted differs by country. See c:Commons:Threshold of originality for more details. -- Whpq (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Logo #1 is definitely PD-textlogo, and ripe for commons. Logo #2 seems like it also, and in fact already is available (via commons) as File:Länförsäkringar textlogo.svg. DMacks (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hananya Naftali Infobox

What's the best infobox to fit Draft article Hananya Naftali and how do I find it? Olivia Harry (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

You should read through MOS:INFOBOX, which at the bottom also has links to Wikipedia:List of infoboxes and other directories. FeRDNYC (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Olivia Harry Use Template:Infobox person. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 04:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @LordVoldemort728 and @FeRDNYC. You suggestions has been helpful. Olivia Harry (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Need help with creating a page

I need help in creating a page for the work that our nonprofit is doing. The initial page I submitted for publication got deleted. Can anyone help me Svee1 (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

No, Svee1, you need something much more fundamental: You need to realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and you need a basic understanding of what an encyclopedia is. I'm not saying that you lack this realization or this basic understanding, but if you have either then I don't see evidence of it. Let me quote a sample of what you wrote: Using advanced technology, we create bilingual educational content and apps for accessible and enjoyable language learning. Our mission includes promoting awareness, challenging stereotypes, and respecting linguistic diversity. No we do not. Oh, if you mean that the nonprofit does, then say so. But you'll need reliable sources (which must of course be disinterested and therefore must be entirely independent of the nonprofit) to back up the claims that the language learning is accessible (whatever this means), and that it's enjoyable. As for the nonprofit's mission, interested readers can presumably find this on the nonprofit's website. And remember to disclose your conflict of interest. -- Hoary (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, don't paste in (conventionally) copyright material. I belatedly notice that this was lifted directly from linguisticsjusticeleague.org/ (which tells us "Copyright © 2023 Linguistics Justice League"). No big surprise. But it's both plagiarism and a copyright violation. -- Hoary (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Svee1. In addition, to what Hoary posted above, perhaps you should take a look at WP:NOBLE and WP:NOT because it kind of does seem that you might be misunderstanding what Wikipedia is about. Basically, you or anyone else attempting to create an article about your NPO is going to need to be able to clearly show that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) by establishing that it has received the kind of significant coverage in multiple WP:SECONDARY reliable sources as explained in WP:ORGDEPTH for any such article to even have chance of surviving a WP:DELETION challenge. Even then, neither you nor your NPO would have any claim of WP:OWNERSHIP over the article and its content, and anyone with a conflict of interest (i.e. any personally or professionally connected to the NPO) would be expected to never directly edit it (except in some very limited cases). So, if you're looking to spread the word of all the great things your NPO is doing, perhaps there are WP:ALTERNATIVEOUTLETS more suitable than Wikipedia for such a thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Editing a celebrity's Wiki page

Hi, I work with Sonu Nigam - a reputed singer from India. This is his Wiki page - Sonu Nigam There's is an error in his bio where the names of one of his sisters is not mentioned. Currently it only mentions Teesha Nigam but he has two sisters - Meenal Nigam and Teesha Nigam, Meenal Nigam's name needs to be added. Shreyjadav (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The place to request this is the article talk page. However this can only be done if you supply a reliable source. All Wikipedia content must be reliably sourced.Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding an unreferenced name of a non-notable sibling is not appropriate. I have removed it. Cullen328 (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

On a more general note, parents' names and their professions are often named in an Early life and education section, a spouse or spouses named in a Personal life section along with how many children, but children's name not shown. An expection to this guidance is if close relatives are themselves the subjects of existing articles and especially if they are in the same profession as the subject. Teesha is the subject of an article. David notMD (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

translate the content of a Turkish title into English

hi again,

How can I translate the content of a Turkish title into English?

It gives an error like: ''Your translation cannot be published because publishing is only allowed to more experienced editors on this wiki.''

I would appreciate it if you could help me on this issue. thank you Mskoksal (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Mskoksal Hello. Accounts new to this Wikipedia cannot directly create articles; you seem to already be working on a draft that you can submit for review.

If you work for Espressolab, you are required by the Terms of Use to disclose that, please see the paid editing policy. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Be aware that what is acceptable on the Turkish Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here- each version of Wikipedia is separate, with its own policies. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Deleting external links from a article

How do I delete external links from an article? Jackeyed One (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Just click the edit button above the section you wish to edit and remove them. If you're referring to Draft:Janet Panetta I suggest you read Referencing for beginners. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

citing an advertisement in a journal/magazine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bettmann_Archive has a citation [3] referencing an advertisement placed in a journal by Otto Bettmann (not a peer-reviewed paper in the journal) but there is no title for the advertisement and I don't seem to be able to get to the source to see it. I made the minor change of

• replacing title= with journal= to indicate the name of the journal, and
• adding a comment for the title explaining why there is no title for the article.

Of course the rendering for this still correctly complains that there is no title:

{{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

How should this citation be given? (I may run into this again, myself, if I refer to an ad about a historic computer or related product.)

Ainsinga (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I inserted the text quote as a title. Does that work for you? David notMD (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible to limit the Recent Changes feed to only edits that add or remove 500+ bytes?

I only want to see the bold edits so I can have something to feast on when I’m bored. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 00:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Me too. I wanna know. Encyclopédisme (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Blueskiesdry and User:Encyclopédisme, this having sat unanswered for two days implies to me that no one has a positive answer to this question, and indeed I've been unable to find an option at Special:RecentChanges to filter on byte difference. There are a few interesting filters you might want to check out, depending on what your goals are here. The first two sets of filters ("quality" and "intent") are AI predictions by the WMF's mw:ORES model (or possibly its successor, LiftWing; disclosure: I've never tried these filters, but almost never work RCP). There's also a lot of tags you could try out. This link activates a lot of tags that show changes that might be of interest. Have fun experimenting! Folly Mox (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Something you might not have considered is that the net byte change does not necessarily reflect how bold an edit may have been. If a user removes 35000 bytes from an article by overwriting it with 35001 bytes, the watchlist will only show (+1). Madam Fatal (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Cassie_Kozyrkov

Hello Everyone,

I'm Saad , just a fresh new editor. I have just barely gotten through the wikipedia adventure, anyways now i'm here and the reason that I started doing this is becuase I need to create a biography for my Boss , who's a well know thought leader. The link that I gave above is from one of her direct competetors. I was exploring it and noticed that it says that the page has many erros and does not follow the notibility criteria. If possible could some help me identify some examples of what's wrong with the article so I could make one for my boss without the mistakes she made. I also need 10 edits so I though I should start from here. Steen Rasmussen FYI (talk) 10:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Steen Rasmussen FYI, Welcome to the Teahouse. The first step would be to read this When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. It is highly advised not to create an article about someone you know personally or professionally, as there will be a Conflict of Interest. Jeraxmoira (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey Jeraxmoira, Thank you for the warm welcome and the information. You just made life easier and at the same time more difficult for me xD. I've read the page and I completely understand but is there no way around it? I mean many people have biographies of them here on Wikipedia, plus it isn't that he ordered me to write a biography on him. I wanted to provide Wikipedia editing services and also wanted to write about him since he's also my mentor, both seemed like a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steen Rasmussen FYI (talk • contribs) 11:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello. You said that "I need to create a biography for my boss", suggesting that you were directed to do so. You may still proceed if you wish to, even though it is highly advised that you not do so, but you must create and submit a draft via the Article Wizard instead of attempting to directly create an article. You should first gather independent reliable sources that on their own offer significant coverage of your boss and describes what they see as important/significant/influential about them- how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. This should not include interviews, press releases, brief mentions, or materials put out by your boss or company, it should only summarize independent sources who chose on their own to write about your boss. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Steen Rasmussen. As well as what others have said, note that, once you have found the independent reliable sources which are a non-negotiable requirement for a Wikipedia article, you will need to forget everything you know about your boss, and write a summary of what those sources say. If you happen to think (or know) that something they say is wrong, that gives you a problem. Depending on what that information is, you might be able to simply omit it, but what you may not do is substitute something else that you know from personal experience. Do you see why this can be hard?

I'll also point out that new editors who immediately try the challenging task of creating a new article (even without a conflict of interest) often have a frustrating and disappointing time. If you had just started to study engineering, would you try to build a car as your first project? I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months learning how Wikipedia works by improving some of our six million articles, making sure to learn about verifiability, reliable sources and neutral point of view. ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Steen Rasmussen FYI: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1211. I should also add that because you're planning to write about your boss, you have a paid relationship and disclose that properly. With the advice that other users have given you, I'm going to add that there are reasons not to have an article about her; one of the possible risks is that if a reliable source reports on something embarrassing or damaging to your boss, there's little to no way of getting it removed without editor consensus. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, your wrote "I wanted to provide Wikipedia editing services..." While there are a few legitimate paid editors, the offerings of paid services is plagued by scams, as so strongly advised against. The great majority of article creators and existing articles improvers are unpaid volunteers. David notMD (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Request for help with content editing

Draft:Altay Şükrü Yılmaz Hello dear wikipedia editors!

Can you help me with my article in draft form?

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

https://www.google.com/search?kgmid=/g/11s3zjgp_f&hl=tr Tartou (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Answered on the AfC Helpdesk - please do not make multiple topics. Again, it is up to you to prove notability. Qcne (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Shannon Taylor (actress)

I'm a bit confused how this was declined. Meets WP:BLP with awards, noms and has plenty of significant RS. Am I alone here? If so, why? Filmforme (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I would reach out to the user who declined this. Lectonar (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Filmforme The reviewer probably looked at the first two sources you used extensively. The first seems to have been written by her parents and the second is based on an interview. Both are in a very local source and neither contributes to demonstrate her wikinotability. You need better sources that match these criteria. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Refs 3 & 4 are near identical in content, suggesting derived from band press release. Ref 5, only picture caption makes mention of Shannon. Which 3-4 references are about her, at length? David notMD (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Being "2nd assistant director" and a Producer on We All Die Alone does not mean the awards are relevant to an article about her. Delete all mention of the film. David notMD (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. @Lectonar I did reach out but haven't heard back yet. And they had already referred me to here for questions. @Michael D. Turnbull @David notMD It looks like they had removed some sources about the subject in the news related to COVID, perhaps because it wasn't related to their career? I removed several non-trivial refs related to their awards for that film, but they have an Emmy win and two nominations for other work. I would think that plus the significant RS would do it, but I'll keep digging. Filmforme (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Rachel Zegler Wikipedia photo

Hello! I recently took a photo of Rachel Zegler that I was wanting to use for her wikipedia page, as her current one is quite old. I've never uploaded on here before, so I have some questions. If I upload this photo, do I still own its copyright? Can it be used in any other official media like websites or magazines without my permission? Sorry if these questions seem silly, but I am very new to this! Thank you in advance. Brutallygolden (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you continue to own its copyright. But you licence it for use on WP, and that licence also allows it to be used elsewhere without your permission. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

So, if I check the third option on Commons. The one that says, “requires the person using this media to give appropriate credit and distribute under the same license”. Does this not cover it from being used anywhere else? Thanks for replying! Brutallygolden (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That merely requires the downstream user to give appropriate credit and distribute under the same license. Not to approach you for permission. The minimum licence requirement for WP is an open licence allowing for commercial use. You can force the user to give you credit. You can require them to use the same licence if they wish to distribute your image. You cannot stop them from using the image, nor require that they approach you for permission. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Brutallygolden, and welcome to the Teahouse. To expand on what Tagishsimon says, you will be required to license the image with WP:CC-BY-SA or a similar licence - see that page for details. ColinFine (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Bored again

As above, I am bored again. I’m going to ask you a genuinely useful question now. Is en.wp more liberal (I.e economically), possibly even neo-liberal, and more conservative, in short right-wing, than it is (reformist) socialist (social-democratic, democratic socialist) or communist (Marxist, far-left)? I have realized that some articles here on en.wp are largely different from their French or Spanish counterparts. Also, why is the German Wikipedia so professional? Please do not answer with, "You should ask there", or something like that, please give me an actual response. Was there ever a poll done of editors and their beliefs? Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Possibly you need to get a hobby, Encyclopédisme. Arguaby you are misusing this forum. Meanwhile, Ideological bias on Wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I do have a hobby. Multiple ones actually, and one of them is editing wikipedia! Anyway, I’m coming back to wikipedia once I’m bored again. Be ready. Also look at the archives of this forum, this is not vandalism, I was told so, as I am doing this with good faith, ask Jimmy Wales, my friend from Yorkshire. He happens to also edit Wikipedia. Thanks for your answers and cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Nobody said it was vandalism, Encyclopédisme. But this forum is for answering questions about how to edit Wikipedia. Discussions of philosophy (even philosophy of Wikipedia) are not on topic here. ColinFine (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ow sorry I didn’t know. My next question will be on how to create a template, when I’m bored again. Encyclopédisme (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We try to be null and neutral, see WP:NPOV Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talking Heads) (DANTE) 22:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Suppressing a footnote tag

 Courtesy link: Template talk:Physical constants § A second-level shared reference idea

TL;DR: How can I can generate reference list entry from within a template invoked in the article body while suppressing the visible tag () that <ref>...</ref> would generate?

This is for use in a template that includes a reference, but currently a shared part of that reference is quite long, and if that template occurs many times (as it frequently does), the duplication creates an unnecessarily long and repetitive references list (see List of physical constants for an example). It would make sense to have a single subordinate reference that all of these link to via the |work= citation parameter, and I want to "invisibly" generate this shared reference entry and bluelink to it.

If I'm in the wrong forum, please redirect me :) —Quondum 23:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't completely understand what you mean, but would Template:SfnRef be of help? ayakanaa ( t · c ) 02:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Not quite. It simply generates an anchor for embedding in the citation proper. I would still have to manually create the actual citation in the reference list at the end of the article, which must be avoided. <ref>...</ref> used in the body of an article does provide something that will be inserted in that reference list, but it displays the link in a form that I don't want. If I use that, I will have a superscripted footnote tag within the citation that references the shared citation, which is not the format that I'm seeking. —Quondum 02:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Let me give an example:

I want to implicitly generate the bulleted line once only when either of first footnotes is generated, and not have it displayed. —Quondum 03:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Quondum, I'm not sure what you mean by "implicitly generate", or how something could be bluelinked to a line that is not displayed. I think the exact thing you're looking for is not possible, since it sounds like it involves a template placing wikicode in multiple places on the page, which can only work if you're wrapping the entire body text inside the template (this is why we have {{atop}} / {{abot}}, {{hat}} / {{hab}}, and see also {{citation needed span}}). I could be misunderstanding the problem statement, but it seems like the thing that will get you closest to what you're wanting is the shortened footnotes as suggested above, which will involve manually adding the full citation once each onto each article transcluding the template. Folly Mox (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Folly Mox, I seem to be having difficulty getting my meaning across. In the following, I almost achieve what I want, where what follows the periods would be generated by a template:

Aside from the awful use of {{sfn}}, the only problem is that the "^{^ a b} , " should be suppressed. Even the reference highlighting (when you hover over a link) works correctly. Notice that the full citation is not manually added, and that {{sfn}} has been used to fold the multiple copies of the full citation that are created by multiple template invocations into one. —Quondum 17:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Quondum, I do understand what you're trying to achieve finally (probably more my own misunderstanding than any miscommunication on your part), but I'm afraid what you've already come up with is considerably cleverer than anything I would have imagined. The html markup of the hopback links probably have their own class, which you might be able to set to style="display: none" by wrapping the full citation information bit of your template output in <span/> tags? Apart from that I'm out of ideas. Another venue may know better than I. Folly Mox (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

They do have their own class (mw-cite-backlink) but you don't have access to it, because it it is generated by the mw software when it interprets the <references> tag and not something you have access to in the wikicode. The footnotes are an ordered list (<ol class="references">) and each of the numbered refs have a list tag element (<li>) with an id that is targetable by the refs or sfns in the body; for example, the id for note #2 is "cite_note-2" and for note #3 is "cite_note-3". This means that in theory, you could adjust your common.css and target note #1 with "display:none", but that would work only for you and nobody else, and only as long as the inline refs or sfns on the page didn't change in number or order, so essentially is completely unworkable. Beyond that, you'll notice I didn't mention the id on the li-tag for note 1, which you would need to use in common.css to disappear the backlink for that note, and that's because it isn't "cite_note-1", it's this monster:

<li> tag for note 1. This is hidden, because the code line is probably three or four times your window width.
<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTE&nbsp;<cite_id="CITEREFCODATA_2018">CODATA_2018,_[httpphysicsnistgovcuuConstantsindexhtml_"CODATA_Internationally_recommended_2018_values_of_the_Fundamental_Physical_Constants"],_''NIST_Reference_on_Constants,_Units,_and_Uncertainty'',_[[National_Institute_of_Standards_and_Technology|NIST]],_20_May_2019</cite>-1"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^

so this whole approach is untenable for multiple reasons, imho.

However, I'm wondering if we don't have an XY problem here. If you'd like to step back and restate what it is you are trying to accomplish with your template, functionally speaking, rather than in terms of its implementation, there may be a completely different approach that will get you what you want, without having to get into the weeds like, "how do I suppress display of citations that the mw software is designed to display and that isn't accessible in the wikicode?", which I believe has no solution. Try starting over from scratch, and ask your question again. Mathglot (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking definitely an XY problem, now. I think maybe the question should be something like, "How can I avoid duplicated footnotes when using template {{Physical constants}} and take advantage of standard consolidated footnotes in the References list?" – does that sound right? Trying to divine your question, I started looking at the design of {{Physical constants}} and {{Physical constants/data}}, and that's what I'm guessing your underlying question really is, but I can't know for sure.

Before getting too deep into it: yes, this is the wrong venue; this should be moved to Template talk:Physical constants, or maybe the Templates WikiProject, if multiple citation wrapper templates are involved. But at first glance, what I'm guessing might work, is a way to take advantage of normal, named references. For that, you'd need to provide a refname in your */data table, and a way to access the name from the template code, neither of which is very difficult. For example: the ref */data for 'bwien' is <ref name="physconst-bwien">{{cite web ... }}</ref>, and param |ref= in the template only allows the values no and only. Why not change the */data, so that bwien also has |refname=physconst-bwien, and add a new allowed value in the template code for |ref= of named (or, reuse, etc.) and when the user provides that value, then you pick off the |refname= value out of the data table? Then the mw software will consolidate them all for you, as it is designed to do, and you won't have any more duplicates. Seems like that ought to work. Mathglot (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm subscribed, so no need to ping me, but not sure if you are, so, ping: Quondum. Mathglot (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, this looks promising and you seem to have divined the intent. I'll experiment using the new information that you have given me. I can see the outline of the approach that you are suggesting. My code above is definitely a hack (not acceptable for mainspace use), and your understanding of the consolidation functionality is part of what I was missing. I may ping you at Template talk:Physical constants if I get stuck (I came here because I hoped to get beyond the few watchers there). —Quondum 21:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Best practices tip regarding venue: what you can do in that case, is start the discussion at Template talk (or wherever), then add a section here entitled something like, "Feedback requested at Template talk:FOO for a reference question" along with a brief sentence or two about your problem, and a link to the discussion. And you could duplicate the feedback request at WP:WPT, WP:VPT or other venues, if needed. Good luck, and lmk how it's going. Mathglot (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah ! WP:VPT is the forum I would have posted in, if only I had remembered it. Goes to show just how rusty I am. On practice, yes, I should be familiar with that (I've seen it enough), but my brain doesn't seem to be firing on all neurons lately. —Quondum 00:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Bias in article about Great Barrington Declaration

I think this article does not meet the usual standards of Wikipedia. To begin by labeling the Declaration a "fringe" notion is pejorative and question-begging. Even Francis Collins, who with Anthony Fauci, tried to cancel the authors and this Declaration, apologized a few days ago for his actions. Gregory Pence January 2, 2024 I have written about this topic and my book was even praised by Anthony Fauci's wife, Christine Brady: (Redacted) Pence (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! This is not the best forum for this kind of question. You'd be better off asking about it on the article's talk page, found here: Talk:Great Barrington Declaration. In general, I would avoid promoting your own book on Wikipedia's talk forums, as self-promotion is frowned upon here. Thank you. sawyer * he/they * talk 00:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

How to separate quotes for one reference

Hello! I'm new and need help... Could you please tell me how to separate 2 quotes from 1 source for 1 reference, or if there are Paragraph1 with TopicA and needs no quote but Paragraph100 with TopicB needs QuoteB (both of them use the same source, cite web, therefore they will be placed under 1 reference)? I'm looking for something like... for example, Reference number 3, has 2 cite webs, and we can use * with enter to create a list under Reference number 3.

Reference

1

2

3

• cite web
• another cite web

4

And then, how to:

Reference

1

2

3^ab cite web

• ^bQuoteB

4

Do we have to write QuoteB manually outside the cite web without |quote= ?

I also want when we read the whole article, for Paragraph1 (with TopicA) we click ^[3] and QuoteB not show up.

English is not my first language but I hope you can still catch the idea from my words... Miracle for0110 (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I can understand. But maybe Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations helps? Maproom (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes! That was I meant by 3^ab cite web. But moreover, I need to add a quote, relevant to just 1 of them.

This case for a further example:

3 = a source for all about cats (cite web)

^a = descriptions of their fur at Paragraph1

^b = descriptions of their sounds at Paragraph100

then a quote "Meow meow meow".

How can we make it clearly that "Meow meow meow" belongs to ^b, not ^a?

Because no sign with that little ^b near the quote in reference...

The result will be like: 3^ab Jerr, Tom (2 January 2023). "All About Cats". Comfypillow. Retrieved 2 January 2024. "Meow meow meow"

And if there's also "Soft soft soft" for ^a?

What I have tried: 1 cite web allows 1 quote, not multiple. Miracle for0110 (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

multiple quotes for one citation are not possible. ltbdl (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

...oh. And how about to put more ^a or ^b near the quote? Is there any way, perhaps? Miracle for0110 (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Creating a biography

How to I use my account to create a biography of my own life and cerdentials? NordicRedAmericanBjorn (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

credentials* NordicRedAmericanBjorn (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Wikipedia does not allow users to write strongly discourages users from writing articles about themselves, which you can read about here: Wikipedia:Autobiography. Thanks! sawyer * he/they * talk 02:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

That's actually not true. The first paragraph of the guideline reads:

Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict-of-interest editing and is strongly discouraged. Editing a biography about yourself is acceptable only if you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our biography of living persons policy.

Links and formatting in original, though the nuances between writing and editing may be pretty similar. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying haha. The original comment implied (to me) creating a new article about themselves, rather than editing an existing one, which 99% of the time ends up being a means of self promotion and is pretty clearly not encyclopedia-building. sawyer * he/they * talk 02:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@NordicRedAmericanBjorn: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1211. As Sawyer-mcdonell linked above, writing an autobiography about yourself on here is strongly discouraged, as more often than not that type of article turns into a resumé, which is not what Wikipedia is for and generally gets deleted rather quickly. It would be far easier to set up a personal site for yourself to do so. If you're so inclined to persist nonetheless, I strongly suggest you read through Your first article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello NordicRedAmericanBjorn. It is important to know that if a Wikipedia article about you is published that article won’t belong to you. Anyone who can find reliable sources about your life can edit the article, even if that means adding details that you’d prefer not to have in the article. And if good references are sourced you cannot remove what others have added,You may want to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing for more information on that. Also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not may be of help. Karenthewriter (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

For articles about people who are alive, all factual statements - for example, colleg/university degrees - must be verified by independent references (see WP:42). Everything you know to be true about yourself is excluded unless people with no connection to you have published about you. Your website - no. Your publications - signifant ones can be listed but do not contribute to establishing notability. Interviews - no. David notMD (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

How fecal transplant is performed?

What kind of physical limitations are there for this process? For most organ transplants you can just take one organ out of someone and put it in someone else. But for fecal transplant wouldn’t you have to line up the anuses? And what if the donor doesn’t have to defecate? Would you have to wait for them to need to defecate before you could initiate the transfer of feces from one anus to another anus? Windolson (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Windolson. This type of question isn't really what the Teahouse has been set up to handle; the Teahouse is really only intended to be a place for asking questions about Wikipedia (particularly Wikipedia editing). More general questions such as this can be asked at the Wikipedia:Reference desk, but you might also want to take a look at the Wikipedia article fecal transplant for some general information. However, it's very important that you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that basically anyone with Internet access can edit, which means that the information it contains might not always be the most accurate or the most up-to-date. So, if you have questions about a medical condition or a medical procedure, you might be better off, as explained here, to consult a medical professional in your area whose expertise is in whatever you'd like to know about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Windolson: Welcome to the Teahouse! If the article Fecal microbiota transplant doesn't answer your question, and you think the answer should be a part of the article, you could ask on the article's talk page: Talk:Fecal microbiota transplant. Suddenly I'm not in the mood for an evening snack. GoingBatty (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Try a vegemite sandwich. Mathglot (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Windolson If you want to get information about the transplant or how it is done, you can go to Wikiversity. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 04:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Brief description of the process now on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you are looking for Fecal_microbiota_transplant#Technique Cs california (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m bored

Hello. Could you tell me a daring story of online image campaigns starting problems on Wikipedia? Or of long time vandals? Of influential sock puppets, and sock empires? Or maybe of outside conspiracies playing out on wp? I am really just bored. Encyclopédisme (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Encyclopédisme: Hello! Perhaps, Category:Humorous Wikipedia essays would be of interest to you. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh you are my hero. Indeed, this is all I need. If anybody else wants to answer as well, though, it won’t bother me. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:LTA is where long-term abusers are described. You seem to be regularly bored. Why not use the WP:Task Center to find useful things to do? Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. Il come back here when I’m bored again. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

See User:Willy on Wheels this is one of the most prominent cases with lots of copycats. He just went around using the random button and then added "PAGENAME on wheels" to the page and bypassed bans using public proxy IPs. This was possible in early 2005. There was a April fools where he was nominated for Admin. -Cs california (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikilove

Can Wikilove option be removed from a user (to receive) and if so how can it be retained? WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi — can you elaborate on your question? Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

On the User pages there is a black heart that is for showing appreciation to the user for their work. Mine is not there. I am part of a student WikiEdu group of editors and made some mistakes. My original article is now live and without warning tags. However, I fear I have lost credibility and may not be able to edit with credibility going forward. Is there a way I can get back to good standing or should I just give up? WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

it's not there because you can't give wikilove to yourself. ltbdl (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense...that is a relief. I thought I might be on the verge of being blocked. Whew! Thanks WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Citation (Generic name or News desk)

Hi all! i hope you are doing well!

my question is, Many times articles are posted by the "news desk". That means there is no generic name. What to do in such a situation? Is the author's name necessary in a citation? Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Youknowwhoistheman: Hello! I think the author's name is optional, so you don't need to write it. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks you @Deltaspace42, So if we leave that blank then there is no problem in citation? And are dates etc. also optional? Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Youknowwhoistheman: If we are talking about "cite web" template, then the only required parameters are URL and the title. Template:Cite_web#TemplateData has a table with parameters and there is a column that says which parameters are optional or not. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks you. @Deltaspace42 Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

From {{Cite magazine}}:

To cite a magazine article with no credited author

{{cite magazine |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title= |url= |magazine= |location= |publisher= |date= |access-date=}}

This just puts an HTML comment in place of the optional author= parameter, but it will inform future editors that the author was not omitted by accident. It shoulod work just as well in {{Cite news}}. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 11:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Verbarson Thanks you. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Article improving

Can someone help me improve my article so it can be published Draft:Cavalli Williams-Simpson Jasper colins (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Your draft has a few issues, namely with sourcing. The draft only cites two sources, neither of which are great for an encyclopedia. Generally links to self-published and promotional websites like LinkedIn and Instagram aren't ideal, especially when they're the only sources, because they're not reliable or independent of the article's subject. Secondly, the subject doesn't demonstrate Notability as defined by Wikipedia. I'd suggest you read the guidelines at Wikipedia:Your first article for more information on how to write a Wikipedia article. The person who decides to review your draft will also give you tips. Good luck! sawyer * he/they * talk 02:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Major issues: Sentences such as "He continues to grace the rugby field, bringing his seasoned skills and unwavering passion to every match." are forbidden unless this is a quotation from a published source, used as a reference. Look at articles about other rugby athletes to see what is OK. David notMD (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

If you're not sure how to pitch an article correctly, one option is to look at other, pre-existing articles about similar people. Make sure you find a good one, and then use a similar tone and approach in your article. But it's not even worth trying unless you can find some good, independent sources writing about the person; otherwise the article is almost certain to fail when transferred to main space. Elemimele (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Publishing a visual diagram update on the Haneda Runway collision

Have been partially working in the 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision since the start of the incident. But lately haven't been able to publish an recent change due to the semi protection layer, which is meant to block off any unnecessary edits or vandalism. The update I was gonna publish is related to the positions of the wreckages (both aircrafts) and the spot where both planes have collided on Runway C (16L/34R). The visual post have been referred of BBC's article and some aerial footages to correctly place the markings on the SVG file (which can be fixed still afterwards for any mistakes).

So I request for some help to get the diagram published please. Any help would be really appreciated. Detektiv Prime (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Detektiv Prime Hello and welcome. You may propose your edit on the article talk page(Talk:2024 Haneda Airport runway collision) in the form of an edit request, see edit requests for instructions. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Detektiv Prime, if you have made an SVG file, then the place to upload it is Wikimedia Commons rather than Wikipedia. Once it's at Commons, a Wikipedia article can include it. -- Hoary (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

their later attempts to include an svg into the article had tripped an edit filter three times, which triggered an alert on WP:AIV, which was definitely a false positive. They have since asked for assistance on the article talk page and help has been rendered. – robertsky (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

rejected submission

My submission was rejected due to unreliable sources. My source was the Spanish version of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's translation refers to Germania Rodriguez as "his". Since I personally met Germania, I know that she prefers the pronoun "her". This is the only change I made, yet it was rejected. I've no further ties to Germania, & do not profit from correcting her pronoun. Please clarify how Wikipedia's policy rejects its own sources. AcidFreeBase (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Wikipedia doesn't accept itself as a reliable source, because anyone can edit it and it's not always 100% accurate. This policy is outlined here: Wikipedia:CIRCULAR. I hope that helps! sawyer * he/they * talk 03:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow. So Wikipedia is not reliable. Since I personally, as first-hand source am not reliable, how can I clean help remove all content in Wikipedia that references second-hand sources, such as all history > 100 years ago? AcidFreeBase (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Why would you do that? Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. Read WP:RS. particularly WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Meters (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

And what article are you referring to? There is no Germania Rodriguez on English Wikipedia. We do have Germania Poleo, about the journalist Germania Rodríguez Poleo, but I see no undone edits concerning gender. There was Draft:Germania Rodriguez Poleo , which was deleted as an abandoned draft in May 2023, and and again in November 2023 (after having been refunded). Meters (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@AcidFreeBase: That is correct: Wikipedia is not reliable for its own purposes as it is user-generated content. Secondary sources are needed to establish wikinotability, which is the foundation of every article on here. Please be aware as well that policies and guidelines differ across different languages, and what may be acceptable over on the Spanish Wikipedia may not pass muster here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that the article Germania Poleo uses the terms "her" and "she", and has since it was created in October 2023. Meters (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

AcidFreeBase, your draft has never been rejected. It has been deleted twice due to six months of inactivity. I am sorry, but you seem to have some significant misunderstandings about how Wikipedia works. Please read and study Your first article, as well as the core content policies of Verifiability and No original research. Cullen328 (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

AcidFreeBase While I believe what you say about the person that you met, that's impossible to independently verify- verification is an important principle of Wikipedia. This is because anyone can post any claim about a topic here. We need sources that we can verify. We can't verify your personal word no matter how accurate it is. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

A state of boredom

How can YOU create a template NOW? Is it difficult? I wonder who made the choice of creating templates. What is the computer code of templates? Encyclopédisme (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Encyclopédisme: Welcome to the Teahouse! Help:Template has a lot of good information for you. Some templates are simple, and some are quite complicated. Templates are created in MediaWiki, the wiki software that Wikipedia uses. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

How to tackle poor sources for sports biography of living person

Hello,

I'm trying to improve this article on a Football Player https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Moran

I noticed that for the player's career history the sources are all fan sites. My current understanding of source reliabilty is that these are poor sources and that for biographies of living persons the standards for source reliability should be fairly high and that unverifiable infomation should be removed quickly.

I deleted the section as I was unable to find reliable sources for this infomation. This deletion was then reverted.

I considered tagging the poor sources but I realised if I did this there would be a situation where that whole section was unverified.

Was there a better way I could have handled this situation? Have I misuderstood what is acceptable on Wikipedia? How would you recommend I approach this situation? OneMillionGuineaPigs (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@OneMillionGuineaPigs: Welcome to the Teahouse! Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you can start a discussion on the article's talk page Talk:Steve Moran regarding the sourcing, and invite the editor who reverted your edit to the discussion. The two of you (and potentially others) can come to a consensus on how to move forward. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, I will try this! OneMillionGuineaPigs (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Unoccupied person feeling weary and impatient

Hello. What are your opinions on RationalWiki and Conservapedia. Have there ever been incidents with editors of the two? Also, on a lesser note, am I allowed to take part in Teahouse discussions if I have something useful to add? Encyclopédisme (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

the answer to the last question is "yes", with the added note of "if you're sure it's constructive" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

And the first question?? Encyclopédisme (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopédisme, the Teahouse is a place for editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and for experienced editors to accurately answer those questions. It is not a forum to express opinions about other wikis. It is most definitely not a therapy session for any editor's boredom, weariness or impatience. So please stop that behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

How do you become a Wikipedia admin? Do you need to have edited a lot? Is there a minimum edit number? These are my questions. Encyclopédisme (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

hope this helps Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talking Heads) (Weezer) 19:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

To become an admin on Wikipedia, you must create and pass a request for adminship. Yes, you must have edited a lot; there are no firm limits on the process and community norms change over time, but certainly experience measured in years and edit count in the thousands (or tens of thousands) would be a practical baseline. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Donation Receipt

Hello, I can't find any information about locating my donation receipt. can you help? Howkew21 (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello amd welcome. We have nothing to do with the donation process, which is conducted by the Wikimedia Foundation. Please direct any inquiries to donate@wikimedia.org. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

invisible commentmobile

is there a limit to what can be done with invisible comments in an article besides "anything actually related to improving the article or keeping it good" and "hopefully not adding enough of them to clutter the source for anyone who happens to be editing"?

in the cases i'll hopefully have time to work on tomorrow (being the lists of pokémon, currently still at gen 1), noting unimportant, unsourced anime and game examples (like may's beautifly in the anime, or the dead gardevoir in pmd) and common misspellings (like "ninetails" for ninetales, or "alamomola" for alomomola) are both things i believe would be fine cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cogsan: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1211. Does WP:INVISIBLE answer all your questions? It suggests what's considered appropriate and inappropriate uses of hidden text. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

yes, i checked that while writing the question, just wanted to be 100% sure so i wouldn't make a moderately-sized mistake

from just reading it, it seems the answer is a decisive, unambiguous "sure i guess"

thanks cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

GIF

How do you make a GIF? I want to upload a gameplay screenshot for Ape Out, but I feel as though a still image isn't clear enough. The video can be found here. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 20:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Like all other media, GIFs and videos used on Wikipedia articles need to be freely licensed, or fall under non-free content policy, which is stricter than "fair use". Since the promotional video is presumably still under the copyright of the publisher, it likely can't be used here.

Moreover, the use of animation and video on Wikipedia has historically been fairly limited due to accessibility concerns, among others. Generally, there aren't a lot of cases where videos and GIFs—which cannot be printed out, for example—get across information not available in prose or still images.

I do think this may be a case where it could be useful like you've said, but you're probably much better here working with a full video instead of a GIF, and making sure its purpose is as necessary and clear as possible. Cheers! Remsense留 20:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

notibility check

I have started an article in my sandbox. When I get a solid lead and some credible references how do I get it checked for notability? I checked the notability page for criteria, and it seems I am ok.

My first article was through a semester long WikiEdu format so this is new for me WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:YFA explains how to create and submit a draft. WP:42 useful on quality of references. David notMD (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

thanks WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiTikiTavi63, Dolly Parton's Imagination Library is already covered in Dollywood Foundation, the sponsoring entity. Cullen328 (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not search the Foundation. I searched the Imagination Library. You just saved me work! WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Final remedy to boredom

Hi. I would like to know if there is any saloon or something like that to discuss things? This is my last question here. Encyclopédisme (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopédisme, when you created your account you should have been assigned a mentor and a homepage with edit suggestions. You are of course always welcome to ask questions here or on your mentors talk page but the aforementioned homepage or this page on suggestions for new articles may help give you some ideas. There is also the Village pump which references the Teahouse and Help Desk. If all else fails you can try finding a Wikipedia Project that interests you and maybe that will give you some ideas of what to edit next. --ARoseWolf 21:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The IRC or Discord is probably your best bet. Blueskiesdry (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will now do something else. I definitely didn’t know all of that before. I will stop to express my boredom on here now. Encyclopédisme (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, no one is telling you that you have to be on Wikipedia all the time. If you’re on and get bored, maybe it’s time to take a break; watch some YouTube or read random AskReddit threads like I do. Blueskiesdry (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. I have so many chores to do throughout the day. I have a set time I can devote and the rest of the time I am on in between my work I have to get done. During the winter I have more free time than the summer but you don't have to be on here all the time. Just edit as your schedule allows. --ARoseWolf 21:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it considered bad practice to skip multiple lines?

I have come across a problem in the article that I am editing where the images take up space around a title that aren't relevant to the title that I am editing. I have tried moving the pictures to the right, but it still takes up the space. I am thinking that adding a few extra lines to space them out should help, but I don't seem to see it on other articles. Are there any possible solutions that I haven't come across? Thanks! Fdefect (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Fdefect, welcome to Wikipedia! You can try using the {{clear}} template. Cheers, — Frostly (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Drawings relying on copyrighted sources?

This has been stuck in my head for some time and the question in advance may seem dumb, but what do they mean by "copyrighted sources" prohibiting drawings and other depictions of a certain object (for instance an image of the German destroyer Z43)? Does this even cover official descriptions of said object?

Sincerely, e (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Browhatwhyamihere. As a general principle, if an artist makes a drawing that is based on a copyrighted photograph, then that drawing is a derivative work that is subject to the copyright restrictions of the original photo. It is possible that the copyright on this particular photo of a warship may have expired, according to Photograph copyright (Germany), but I would seek expert advice on that matter. Cullen328 (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd have to consult with Sturmvogel on the copyright expiration matter; he knows more than I do. Anyway thanks for the reply! e (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

My edit to a page was replaced with completely unrelated info

Hi, I'm a relatively new editor, and so far have been doing some small edits, and functioning relatively well, but this seems like it could benefit from some experienced editors.

I was editing the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation page, and everything was going well, but when I went to save my edits I was told that there was someone else editing the page, causing a conflict. I thought, "ok, so I'll just save my edits and go on with life," but when I saved my edits and saw the page, what I had added was not there. And, I found that I was staring at a table accompanied by information that A) does not even pertain to the BBRF in any way (its about some sort of band and their tour dates), B) removed the source that I had added, along with two others, C) taken away the sensibly placed template asking that the article get more sources added along with more info, and D) removed the infobox that I put in in an effort to add some information in an organized manner.

When I looked at the edits log, mine were not there, (but the edit(s) by the user who put the unrelated information are there), which seems like it may be important to resolving this. It's like I never edited the article at all, and it's somewhat frustrating that this happened. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Villaida (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Are you still having a problem? The misplaced material you describe seems to have been removed from the page, if you would like to add your information again. Remsense留 23:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Villaida: Hello! If you are doing a major edit which lasts for like 15-30 minutes, there is a high probability that someone would post an edit and cause an edit conflict. I recommend using this Template:In_use, your first edit is to just post this template on a page, then begin a major edit and then remove the template. Of course, it wouldn't prevent any other editors to intervene, but it would be less likely to happen. Also, there had already been the relevant discussion on the Teahouse, I think you would find the information posted by other editors there useful. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 23:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Third Party

If one user adds content, another user reverts it, and the initial user reinstates it without engaging in conversation, what would be the best course of action for me to take? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Generally, the best course of action is to contact the first user directly. Mach61 (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

LeónGonsalvesofGoa, this is a vague scenario that has no simple or single answer. If the first editor was vandalizing and the second editor removed the vandalism, then the first editor should be warned and reported to WP:AIV if they persist. If the first editor was adding accurate, properly referenced content, then there is nothing wrong with restoring it if a vandal like the second editor removes it. In that case, the second editor should be warned. If the first editor added accurate but unreferenced content, you can either add a reference yourself, or ask the first editor to do it, or tag it as described in Template: Citation needed. There are countless other variations that need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Cullen328 (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328@Mach61 To clarify, I initiated a talk page discussion (Talk:Abu Bakr al-Razi#Quotes on Religion). The rationale provided by the second user for removing the edit is supported by policy. It has been 24 hours, and the first user has not yet responded. How long should I wait before considering the removal of the content added by the first user? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

There's no specific time limit, but the point is to plausibly give people time to respond. As Cullen328 said above, if you do feel it is supported by policy, there is nothing wrong with restoring or reverting material, especially if there is some established consensus—and there are often ways other than simple reversion to handle an issue, such as the use of maintenance templates like {{citation needed}}. Remsense留 23:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Heath Ledger

Heath Ledger was a direct descendant of Emanual Solomon , a 15 year old convicted of theft at the Durham Assizes in 1817 and transported to Australia wit his brother Vaiben in 1818. This is researched, documentad and verified in " Descendants of Samuel Moss Solomon" written by Jenny Cowenthe first edition which appeared in2019 and the second edition which will be published in 2024. Heath Ledger is entry 1230 on page 386 and entry 1406 on page 420. The ISBN is 978-0-9945173-1-9. Heath Ledger's maternal forebears were Jewish. GavinSilbert (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn’t this be a better issue to raise on the Heath Ledger talk page? Blueskiesdry (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, but Wikipedia cannot use self published books as citations for biographies, see WP:BLP and WP:SELFPUB for details. MrOllie (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

ISBN

ISBN 0-8160-5764-8 1 appears on https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofpa0000unse_s7e2/page/n3/mode/2up but "{{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)" when I click Publish. What needs to be done for it to be accepted? Mcljlm (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mcljlm: I'm going to have a hard time helping you if you didn't give us a little more information. Could you please link to the page you're working on? Thanks. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mcljlm. I don't see any ISBN or similar value on that page. But I can tell you that the trailing "1" is not consisent with ISBN formatting. ISBN 0-8160-5764-8 looks like what you want. DMacks (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The ISBN I posted is on the back of the title page, https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofpa0000unse_s7e2/page/n5/mode/2up DMacks. Mcljlm (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah found it...had to use a different browser...weird. But anyway, it clearly does not have the trailing '1' there.

Encyclopedia of the Palestinians. ISBN 0-8160-5764-8.

no error. DMacks (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Mcljlm, ISBN 0-8160-5764-8 translates as ISBN 978-0-8160-5764-1, and either of these two is the ISBN of an edition of Encyclopedia of the Palestinians. -- Hoary (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

can't convert dollars/oz to cents/gram

Using the convert template, if I do: 15|$/oz|¢/g

I get: $15 per ounce (Error in convert: Cannot convert "$/mass" to "cent/mass"

The help message didn't help me too much.

I can do: 15|¢/oz|¢/g to get: 15 cents per ounce (0.53 ¢/g)

I can do: 15|$/oz|$/g to get: $15 per ounce ($0.53/g)

What am I doing wrong in the 1st example? I know I can't convert currencies (e.g., dollars to euros), but this is just a decimal place conversion. Also, how do I get it to spell out gram? Thanks. Sunandshade (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Sunandshade, it seems like the template treats ¢ as a distinct unit from $, so this will not work. Would the presentation with no conversion—$15/oz ($0.53/g)—be acceptable? It seems best practice anyway, e.g. to compare 5 billion to 0.4 billion, as opposed to 5 billion to 400 million.
Oh—and you can spell out the units by using {{convert}} with |abbr=no ({{cvt}} is actually an alias that uses |abbr=yes)—which produces $15 per ounce ($0.53 per gram). Remsense留 09:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a lot. The original article did not use convert (I assume the calculation was done by hand) so I thought I'd add in the convert template, but was trying to keep the same units as the original. I agree using $ to $ is fine so I'll use that. And I'll use abbr=off. Funny, for my other uses of convert, abbr=off is the default, so I didn't have to specify it. Sunandshade (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

you're welcome, best of luck! Remsense留 10:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

[insert very important topic here]

Hello! Happy new year to ya'll at Wikipedia! I really don't have anything to say other than if there could be little categories in the search bar (example: on the left history and on the right food so you find a specific category) I'm not saying that it's messy but it's something to think about. Jude marrero =D 74.103.166.181 (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jude, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting, but this page is generally for people asking for help in editing Wikipedia articles. If you want to suggest changes to the user interface, one of the subpages of the WP:Village pump is probably a better place to ask.

Note that you can look at a Category and see all the sub-categories and articles in it, for example Category:Food. There is also a way of combining categories in a search, PetScan (though I've no experience of using it myself).

Also you might find something in the Outline of knowledge helpful. ColinFine (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "translates" ColinFine? Mcljlm (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you've replied to the wrong person in the wrong thread, Mcljlm. ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Moving Pages Between Different Language Wikipedias

My question is: how do I move pages between languages? I'm asking because there is a certain inactive user draft I found that I want to move to the Georgian Wikipedia (which is the language the draft is written in). - Alex26337 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

*Forgot to add that it has a corresponding English Page. - Alex26337 (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Alex26337, it's not obvious that there's a Georgian-language page on Deutsch, so this could be useful over there. OTOH I can't read Georgian and the entire thing may for all I know be booby-trapped with misstatements or otherwise worthless. So I'd be inclined either to ignore it or to have it deleted. If your level of Georgian is good enough to know that it's worthwhile, you can look in ka:WP to see what the procedure is for copying it there; if it isn't but you suspect that copying the draft would be worthwhile, you could look among speakers of Georgian as a first language for somebody who is active both here and there and likely to respond quickly, and ask them. -- Hoary (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Alex26337, and welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I know there is no mechanism for moving/copying pages between different versions of Wikipedia. You would need to copy the (source) text into a new page on ka-wiki, and of course you would be responsible for ensuring that it met ka-wiki's policies. You should also attribute it (probably in your edit summary) - see WP:copying within Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't understand what is meant by a credible link?

Draft:History Radio

I am trying to fix this draft. I do not see what is wrong with the links, the son of the national poet of nepal, a major academic and public radio exchange and routledge? How is then credibility defined? 85.191.190.175 (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello. It's not about "credible": it's about whether the source meets the triple criteria of being reliably published, being independent of the subject, and containing significant coverage of the subject. See WP:42.

Looking at your reference list, it appears that the first two are published by historyradio, and so are not independent, and the other three are about Wynn, not about History Radio (your note says that the first one "mentions" History Radio, and the other two don't appear to be related to it at all, just to Wynn.

An article might be about History Radio, in which case its sources must be independent pieces about History Radio, or it might be about Wynn, in which case its sources must be independent pieces about Wynn (not by, or dedicated to, him). It can't be both. ColinFine (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

How do i make a side table on a matter?

See TAROM (airline) and then Draft:Legend Airlines (romania) tarom has a side table where it says full name and stuff i want that but idk how Poyeker (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Poyeker: Welcome to the Teahouse! The "side table" is called an infobox. The specific infobox on TAROM is {{Infobox airline}}. I suggest you go to Template:Infobox airline, copy the Blank syntax, paste it in Draft:Legend Airlines (Romania), and then fill out the parameters appropriately. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Poyeker.. While GoingBatty's answer is correct, adding an infobox will not help Draft:Legend Airlines (Romania) get accepted.

There is only one thing that is worth spending any time on with regard to that draft at present, and that is finding more sources which meet the triple requirement of being reliable, independent of Legend, and having significant coverage of Legend (not just of one incident) - see Golden rule. If you cannot find at least three such sources, give up, because that draft will never be accepted.

If you can find three such sources, then learn how to format your citations (see WP:REFB, make sure those strong references are all cited and remove most of the weak ones (like anything originating from Legend), and then check that the article contains only information from those strong sources.

More generally, If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.
I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles.. ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Should i make a different article only on the specific matter of the human trafficking?

and what CAN i name it?

I know that i shouldnt just come in here and try anything but yeah

I could make one on the matter of the specific flight (why it got stopped and where what)? i think that would benefit it easier because there are more articles on that specific thing yk Poyeker (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ian Charles draft

Some years ago, an editor began a draft on Ian Charles, who is the director of the Quadram Institute, a UK public-funded research institute specialising in food and the gut. The draft is in their sandbox, here:[3]. The editor attempted to submit the draft, but it was rejected (inappropriate tone) and I think they lost heart and gave up - they haven't edited since. I'm wondering whether it's worth resurrecting this draft, but had some questions: (1) Is it okay to start with a draft from someone else's sandbox, assuming that I attribute it? (2) Is he likely to pass WP:NPROF? My feeling is that the director of a substantial public research institute ought to be a match on criterion 4 or 5, but when I've seen discussions it's mostly been in the context of universities rather than public-funded research institutes, so I'm not sure. Inevitably, as with any academic, independent sourcing is going to be a bit sparse (that's why we have NPROF). (3) I have a slight COI (I have connections with a different organisation somewhat related to his, and know professionally at least one person who works in his institute).

If people think Charles is a pass, my intention is to tone down the 1st and 3rd sentences to get rid of the internationally recognised fluff and the mission statement, convert the "references" into selected literature, and see if I can prop his biographic details with at least his University of East Anglia institutional web page, while also making sure it's not a copyvio (which some of the existing text definitely is)[4]

Grateful for any advice. Elemimele (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The editor in question has not edited anything since 2020, so I would treat content as money found on a sidewalk - yours! And your distant connection to IC does not in my opinion warrant declaring a COI. Go forth and draft! David notMD (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

There are two obvious ways of going about this, Elemimele. One is to copy its content, start a new page (a sandbox of yours, a draft, an article), paste the content there, save, improve, save. Please do not do this. (A guideline whose title I don't remember warns against this approach.) The other is to rename (move) the file to a new address (a sandbox of yours, a draft, an article), save, improve, save. If you do this, you don't have to attribute it at all: the old page will redirect to the new one; and the history of the old page, and its moving, will appear in the history of the new one. (The only possible problem would come if the creator reappears and wants to use their sandbox. We can sort that out if it ever happens.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, David notMD, Hoary, I'll move to draft (if I don't mess it up) and work from there, and to be on the safe side, I'll leave a note to the creator. I appreciate the responses! Elemimele (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, failed. There already is a very short and rejected draft from MrStoat, written rather recently. MrStoat was probably unaware of the sandbox version. Time for me to learn about merging.... Elemimele (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Elemimele The draft by MrStoat at Draft:Ian Charles is Declined, which is less severe than Rejected. What I advise here is that you contact MrStoat on his Talk page and ask if he is open to you contributing to the draft before he resubmits it. David notMD (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that you have already moved a large about of content from the abandoned draft to MrStoat's draft without first notifying. Although it is now after this action, I recommend communicating with MrStoat, as what you've done is hijacked the draft. You may not get a reply, as MrStoat created this draft in early October and has not edited it nor anything else since then. David notMD (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I am rather new to contributing to Wiki and happy for others to work on and edit the draft page. Many thanks. MrStoat (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Just as well, as I just did a lot of chopping and moving to make this more aligned with articles about academics. Still missing are references to verify his education and career. What I advise at this point is that the two you collaborate on improving the draft and deciding when it becomes good enough to resubmit. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for the criteria for notability of scientists. Can be difficult to achieve. Referencing some of his journal publications is allowed, but does not contribute to extablishing notability. I will not be revisiting the draft. Good luck. David notMD (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi MrStoat and David notMD, I've added an explanation on your talk-page, MrStoat, about what I was getting up to. I apologise for not doing this earlier. I ran out of time this morning to do much tidying beyond the initial big copy of text from the sandbox draft. I'd very much like to collaborate, MrStoat, and I'm reasonably confident we can get this to a pass of WP:NPROF. The OBE alone won't get him notability, but it helps to reinforce that his directorship of Quadram isn't just a teeny-tiny uni-spinout. This is a major public-funded UK research institution with a long history, and he's in its highest appointed position, as well as being an academic professor at the adjacent university. David notMD, I'm sorry about the referencing mess. That was inherited from the sandbox thing, and I'd intended to update the literature, trim it to the most high-impact, and convert it to a proper Selected Publications, while using the references to do what they should: back up the biographical information. But I had to get the kid to school! Elemimele (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

uploading image to wikipedia turns horizontal

Hello, I'm trying to upload an image I took on to wikipedia, but as soon as I upload the photo here it turns horizontal. If I continue uploading will it switch back vertically? I'm using a MacBook if that helps. Sorry I'm new to this. Brutallygolden (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

SPLC

During a recent discussion I was told that the SPLC was "quite literally, in the business of manufacturing controversy to generate donations." As far as I can tell the context in question is somewhat pointed, but factual. I am concerned because I have had several interactions with this editor, and they are bringing up previous debates from other articles which seem to misrepresent me as an editor. I have asked them to strike and stop doing that on their talk page, and linked them to WP:TPNO. I'm not really sure where to go from here. DN (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

They seem to refuse to let it go. DN (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking, what section is the citation removal referring to? That might help sort this out. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Not at all. To clarify, the original removal was not a citation from the SPLC, or on the SPLC wiki article. It was in the Far Right subsection on the Republican Party (United States) article, and the source seems to be Joe Feagin, however there seems to be some disagreement as to the legitimacy. That started the discussion which led to this comment about the SPLC citation I showed them, and the subsequent WP:TPO awkwardness. The editor I'm having issues with seemed to continue bringing it up on the article talk page saying they hadn't done anything wrong. I finally gave up and went on their talk page to tell them I'm not going to engage with them any further for the time being. Sorry if this is TMI. DN (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I find the perspective from the other user to be troubling to NPOV, however must clarify the source to such a charter. For example, I think it would be fair to list white supremacists as often having involvement with the far-right under a controversy section, but not the main section itself. Thoughts? UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I tend to agree. I did try to advocate for including attribution and rewording the context to avoid generalizations, but it felt like no matter what there was no compromise, even though they seemed to acknowledge the reputation of the original source (Feagin). When I mentioned the SPLC citation, well, it only seemed to get worse. That response felt more like stonewalling. The straw that broke my back was bringing up an entirely separate incident on a different article from a long time ago that IMO not only had nothing to do with the discussion, but misrepresented that incident entirely. "you presented a source that made it clear that scholars don't all agree on what happened. This is likely to be another such case." I won't go into it further, but it just felt like pure manipulation. DN (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I would bring up both of those cases where appropriate myself, seems like harassment and not being constructive. Seems as though they have more of an agenda to promote than encyclopedia to contribute to objectively. Possibly bring it up to one of the teahouse admins? I've never used a Wikipedia reporting system so I shouldn't give advice on this. Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll think about it. Thank you for your help. DN (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

unable to publish article

i've been working on an article for 4 days now, and i've been trying to publish it for a while, but it just won't work. i keep getting this pop up: "No stashed content found." is there any way i can solve this? or copy the exact content to a different window? or anything? i suspect this happens if i keep a window open for a very long time. creating this article all over again would be a severely tedious task, so i would really appreciate any solutions to this issue. Dissoxciate (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Dissoxciate. Keeping a window open for a very long time without regularly publishing your changes is not a good idea. I suggest that you develop new articles in your sandbox or in draft space. Publish your changes frequently, and then move the content to the main space when it is ready. Cullen328 (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

thanks for the response, Cullen328. i'll definitely keep that in mind. i was working on a direct create, which is why i decided not to publish regularly, as the article would be incomplete in that case. even though i'll publish changes frequently from now, what do i do about the current problem? is there any solution for this article? Dissoxciate (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No article on Wikipedia is 100% complete- but to directly create an article you will need to have at least enough to demonstrate notability. If it will take time to do that, you should use your sandbox and then move it when ready. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Dissoxciate, sometimes "lost" content can be found in your browser history by repeatedly hitting the back arrow. Whether or not this will work in your case, I do not know, but I wish you luck. Other editors may have other suggestions. Cullen328 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dissoxciate: If you still have the text in your browser but are unable to save it then try copying it to User:Dissoxciate/sandbox. Keep the old window open as long as possible until you have saved the content somewhere and checked it can be seen at Special:Contributions/Dissoxciate. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses everyone. I'll see what I can do about the article. Dissoxciate (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

How to edit a template

Some of the best templates for specifying what type of English to use for a page have handy abbreviations. Examples include American English, which you can just type { { AmE } } for, or British English which you can type {BrE } } for.

Many of the other variations of English could use shortform versions, but I try them and they do not exist or don't work. Just one example might be Indian English. I try "IndE" and it doesn't word. I get you couldn't use just "IE" because there are others like "IrishEnglish" etc.

If I could add some of these chosen abbreviations for language templates that I work with frequently, that would be really helpful. Some are Indian English, Nigerian English, Irish English, but there are so many different versions and it would be helpful to know how to edit a template, and where to locate that etc. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Iljhgtn. Abbrevations like that don't work by editing the existing template but by making a redirect to it. For example, Template:AmE says #redirect [[Template:American English]]. Click "What links here" under "Tools" on Template:Indian English and select "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" to show current redirects.[5] The only one is Template:Indian-English with a hyphen so there is no abbreviation. {{American English}} and {{British English}} are used far more than other variants so an abbreviation is more helpful. I think they have too many redirects [6][7] and personally I'm not fond of something like {{AmE}} in an article source because the meaning can be hard to guess. {{IndE}} would be harder. {{American English}} is used in 18441 pages. Only 424 of them use the {{AmE}} redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Iljhgtn. To add to what PrimHunter says, I am very familiar with the abbreviations "BrE" and "AmE" outside Wikipedia, but I've rarely come across the other abbreviations. Which doesn't mean that they can't be used, but they are likely to be less familiar. ColinFine (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but redirects are the answer for what I am looking for then? I appreciate that. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there any abbreviated redirect for wikiprojectbannershells? That would also be useful. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You can find the shortcuts in a box to the right of the main text on the page for Template:WikiProject banner shell. The most convenient one is {{WPB}}. Reconrabbit 17:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

So in the source editor i would just put { { WPB

insert wikiproject 1

insert wikiproject 2

} }

Then close it like I did above? With the spacing corrected of course? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You would need to put a pipe (vertical line) character between each of the projects, like this:
{{WPB | WikiProject Nepal | WikiProject Mining}}

You could even use abbreviations for the wikiprojects, like NEPAL and MINING. The easier it is for future editors to read, though, the better. Reconrabbit 17:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I need to change a page & EpTic is preventing me from doing so.

Hello, I actually have a Wikipedia page on here & the information is incorrect & insufficient & I would like to both change it & add to it. 108.14.77.234 (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! You replaced the existing image with non-existing one by using your own local path on your PC. Read Wikipedia:Uploading images. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

What is your relation to the subject, you may have a conflict of interest, and if so you need to declare it and follow relevant policies for editing with a conflict of interest. Remember, someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith.

Thanks, Geardona (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. I may be misinterpreting, but I read your comment above as meaning that you are Selah Marley, and that you are making the (unfortunately very common) mistake of thinking that the article Selah Marley belongs to you, and that it is appropriate for you to edit it. If that is the case, please understand that neither of these things is true: see WP:OWN and WP:ABOUTYOU.

What you are welcome to do is to make edit request for things in the article about you to be changed. But please understand that Wikipedia requires reliable published sources for all information in an article. Personal knowledge - even of the subject of an article - is not accepted. That Selah Marley was born in Miami is stated clearly in one of the sources (the Essence article), so if you wish to challenge that you'll need to find a reliable source that says otherwise.

as for the image: you are welcome to provide a (freely licensed) image if you think it is better than the current one, (though it is then up to an uninvolved editor to decide whether or not the image is better). But you will need to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons (and license it for free use) in order to do so - DeltaSpace has given you the link with information of how to do that. ColinFine (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it a kind of promotion on Wikipedia?

Hi Everyone, I am not sure whether this is the right place to put this concern here. But i think this is a serious issue for Wikipedia decorum. Today i noticed a user named User:Sush150 frequently adding Bollywood Hungama website links as references on Wikipedia's various articles. I checked his recent contribution on the pages below and found Bollywood Hungama is used very frequently as references: Singham Again, Murder Mubarak, Maddock Films, List of Hindi films of 2024, List of Hindi films of 2023, List of Hindi films of 2021, List of Hindi films of 2020, Kareena Kapoor Khan filmography, Tiger Shroff, List of highest domestic net collection of Hindi films, Dunki (film), Tiger 3, Fighter (2024 film), Jawan (film), Akshay Kumar filmography.

These are few i found, but i am sure there is a long list. Macbeejack ☎ 08:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Macbeejack ☎ 08:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The site does not seem like it's nearly notable or reliable enough to be put in articles this way, even in external links. I would ask them about this on their talk page, and revert as you feel is appropriate. If this continues indiscriminately, it may be a case for WP:ANI. Remsense留 08:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Macbeejack Remsense as someone who has updated a lot of Bollywood films (mainly ones filmed in Yorkshire) with 10s of 1000s of missing credits, and will be updating many more in the future, I know that Bollywood Hungama is always credited as some type of partner (brand, agency, ticketing, digital, media, education, marketing, channel, banking, satellite, streaming, distribution etc), in the pre-opening credits of every single film I've updated, usually with just their logos.

The same goes for many other random recurring companies in logo form (some of which I need to make a note of, as I always have to image search them to find out which companies they are), including some Indian newspapers (some of which I've noticed Wikipedia claims are unreliable, which I take as a pinch of salt as a right-wing Brit, as Wikipedia also claims that every single right leaning British source is unreliable, even though I spot misinformation and mistakes every single time I read an article The Guardian and The Independent, yet Wikipedia claims they're reliable). Danstarr69 (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, apologies for my ignorance. Remsense留 09:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

While noting up front that sometimes printing errors does not an unreliable source make, one problem we have with reliable news sources is that we can't use newspapers that permit pay-to-print revenue models for establishing notability, which in our insufficiently nuanced reliability scale cuts out most of the newspapers in some countries: certainly Nigeria, and possibly India as well (I'm unfamiliar).

Circulating a printed newspaper for subscribers is not a content model any news service established within the past four or five decades can afford. I agree it's a problem, as is an overall absence in the editorbase of what I'm going to call "foreign media literacy". Fortunately, for the present case, Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force § Guidelines on sources exists, which characterises Hungama as generally reliable, and even prefers their reported numbers for worldwide box office gross. Folly Mox (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear Folly Mox, Thank You for your reply on this. I agree that Bollywood Hungama is generally reliable on the basis of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force § Guidelines on sources . But my question is: Is it right to add references repeatedly of same website while there are other reliable website available to justify the fact? You can check the films i mentioned above, where approximately 80% references used of Bollywood Hungama. Is it right?

Danstarr69, perhaps one of us is hallucinating. As I read it, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources has very similar (guardedly approving) comments about the reliability of The Independent, The Guardian, The Times, and The Daily Telegraph. -- Hoary (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hoary Wikipedia, just like Twitter, is full of left wingers.

You can't add any right wing sources to articles, as left wingers will remove them, no matter what the sources say.

One of last times I remember using one, was to show that a farmer, or someone who now lived/worked on a farm, was the focus of a single TV episode, in a long running TV series.

There was nothing controversial in that source whatsoever, yet it kept being removed, even though it wasn't Blacklisted. I'm pretty sure I was using the deprecated Daily Mail to help prove that fact, as nothing else existed other than 1 local newspaper.

I've also seen generally unreliable sources get removed countless times while browsing through other people's edits...

Yes you read that right - Removed not replaced, therefore in the near future, facts also get removed because the evidence was removed. Danstarr69 (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that sometimes people take the "generally" of "generally unreliable" too far, and interpret it as meaning "unreliable in every case ever", and likewise with "generally reliable". People do similar overinterpretation with respect to style guidelines as well, forgetting about nuance and exceptions, so I don't think this is necessarily attributable to political perspective. Folly Mox (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Use of the [unreliable source?] tag

Hi there!

I have a question about the use of the unreliable source tag as I am unsure when to use it, or if it conflicts with this guideline which says that information that is not backed up by a reliable source should be boldly removed.

For example, on the article Gamefam, two sources lead to Forbes contributor pages; a source that has been called generally unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. Should the information that relies on these sources be removed or is this tag enough.

If this tag is sufficient, how can't falsified information be used on Wikipedia if it is backed up by an unreliable source (provided the tag is present). TenToe (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello TenToe. The policy at Wikipedia:PROVEIT says:

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page.

So

• If the article content is verifiable, it needs a citation to a reliable source added.
• If the article content is verifiable only in primary sources, it should follow the WP:Primary rules in the Wikipedia:No original research policy.
• If it is not verifiable via any reliable source, it should be removed.

It's kind of up to editor discretion on how to traverse that. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Rjjiii,

Thanks so much for your response. This is much clearer to me now.

The example I gave had alternative sources that are more reliable so I shall replace these.

It seems like if information is only available in a questionable source such as Forbes Contributor, it is best to just not include it. TenToe (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

TenToe, many good faith editors are not aware that articles written by Forbes contributors are not considered reliable. Once that is discovered, the first choice should be to find and add a reference to a better source that verifies the content. That is a better course of action than just deleting the content. If the material is false, it should be removed. If the content seems plausible but cannot be easily verified, then a "citation needed" tag should be added. Cullen328 (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Deleted page but I want to try again

The page I was working on (Megan M. Carpenter) was deleted but I want to take another try at it. Is all that work lost? The notice says to contact the person who took it down but when I click that person's name ("User:AmandaNP") I don't see any type of messaging tool. Can someone suggest a next step? I'm new to all this. Thanks! Pilgrimfoot (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The page was deleted back in 2019 for "unambiguous copyright infringement" (see the messages on your talk-page). Pages deleted for copyright reasons will almost never be restored in the deleted version. @AmandaNP: as deleting admin. People here can be reached via their talk-pages. See Help:Talk pages. Lectonar (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Pilgrimfoot. I am an administrator and can read deleted articles. I believe that it is very likely that this person is notable and eligible for a Wikipedia biography. But you will need to start over and be careful to avoid copyright violations. You must paraphrase and summarize the sources in your own words. Cullen328 (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

How to get military service photo into Wikipedia Commons

I have never attempted to author a Wikipedia article before, so this is all news to me. I am working on adding content related to a World War II pilot, and would like to have his service photo in the article. I have the image, but cannot provide a source/year when it was taken -- although I know the photo represents the subject. This is more than 80 years ago, so it's more likely those details can ever be known. Do these circumstances make it impossible to import this photo into Commons (and ultimately add to my article), or is there a way around this? I've tried twice already with no success. SMC317 (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

SMC317 aside from the image issues, you will need three sources that are independent, reliable, and contain significant coverage in order to prove his notability, and given the information at User:SMC317/sandbox, I don't think Crecelius meets that standard. It's probably more important to know whether he is notable or not before spending a lot of time figuring out images etc.

As for the image upload, it seems that according to the edit filter log on Wikimedia Commons, the image is too low quality and you are a new user, so it was blocked. Try bringing this up at the help desk on Wikimedia Commons, where the editors will know more about this issue. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

SMC317, I agree that this person's notabilty is a much more important issue than the photo. After all, over 15,000 American airmen were killed in World War II, including one of my uncles who was shot down and killed in the Battle of Monte Cassino in 1944. The vast majority of these men are not notable. If you can establish notability and get your article accepted, then a non-free photo of a person who is now dead can be uploaded here on English Wikipedia under WP:NFCI, bullet point #10. Cullen328 (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this input. I will start studying the notability requirements and see if this article is actually viable. SMC317 (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to automatically add every article in a WikiProject to your watchlist?

I want to have the entirety of the Beatles WikiProject on my watchlist so I can see all the edits, but I can’t be bothered to add them all manually. Is there some script that can do this for me? Blueskiesdry (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There are ways to manage WikiProjects—I recommend not having them all on your watchlist, but here is a third-party tool that collates maintenance and work needed for Wikiprojects, and every day Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Article alerts is updated. Remsense留 00:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Help please!

Dear all, is there a friendly member available to help a newcomer please? Just need some general advice from a kind person! Marilyn Fowles (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to ask away! Remsense留 23:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Remsense. Is there a facility for a draft article to be reviewed, whilst it's still in progress please? Marilyn Fowles (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Music Man Project

I have added a box at the top of the page where you may submit your draft for review at Articles for Creation when it is ready. However, I would address the banner about undisclosed payments at the top of the article before submitting, since the article will not be accepted if those concerns are not addressed. Remsense留 00:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Remsense. My next question was going to be about the undisclosed payments banner - this suddenly appeared today and I don't know how to address it. Any help much appreciated! Marilyn Fowles (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The banner was put there at bare minimum because the article reads like it was written in exchange for payments. I would look at the pages concerning conflict of interest and neutral point of view. If you are paid for editing Wikipedia, that requires disclosure as stated. Remsense留 00:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

No I'm not paid and don't have anything to disclose. Not sure how I've managed to give an incorrect impression. Thank you for explaining and helping. I will look at the pages and also find somebody to adopt me via 'adopt a user'! Thanks again! Marilyn Fowles (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

If I had to guess: the article reads as promotional, lacking an encyclopedic tone, and has an while there are third-party news articles and other secondary sources, there is arguably an overabundance of links to primary sources close to the subject, partners of the subject etc. These are often signs of a conflict of interest. Remsense留 00:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, that is so helpful! I'll keep studying and learning, I'm really enjoying it! Marilyn Fowles (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

best of luck, happy editing! Remsense留 00:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Disable something in my talk page

How can I disable "learn more about this page" in my talkpage? I put my status up there, and I'd like people to see it easier. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikiexplorationandhelping I don't see a 'learn more about this page' popup. It might be caused by your browser or skin. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I suppose you can see my status as online on top of the page then? Then I'm all set! Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

It’s a mobile view thing. Blueskiesdry (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wikiexplorationandhelping: Yes, it's MediaWiki:Discussiontools-ledesection-button. In the mobile version you have to click that to see the lead of talk pages. I don't know whether there is way to avoid it, apart from adding a heading so there is no lead. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

How do I fix a wiki-link

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lignum_vitae&oldid=1193635624

I made a change to link to the correct page but someone came along reverted it and gave me the vandalism template. I even left a note in the edit summary explaining. The whole phrase containing the wiki-link is un-cited, do I need to cite a new source to make a change to the wiki-link without being accused of vandalism? Or is it just because I don't have an account. 76.16.75.39 (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that your edit was an improvement, because you replaced a link to a vague topic with a link to a more specific and more applicable topic in context. Perhaps RTSthestardust can provide a better explanation for why they reverted you. Cullen328 (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Quoting an opinion?

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

In the first paragraph, someone has quoted a book claiming the impact and the importance of the author on the page. Is the the neutrality that Wikipedia is seeking? Thefrozencelt (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The opinion is quoted and attributed, which is often perfectly reasonable in context, because it is not in Wikipedia's own voice. The goal is that various opinions stated in an article together sum to a neutral point of view, which is not "no point of view". Remsense留 02:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Removed Post, Referred Here

Hello, I've been referred here to ask questions I might have about Wikipedia editing.

I've adding public information to Terracotta, Inc. article, but it was all reverted for being "Promotional". I'm not sure I understand why updating the the Company Info Element to include the C-Suite, Yearly Revenue, and the history of the company's acquisitions is considered "Promotional" information.

If that's the case, how do other companies provide this information on the article? User talk:LiteFrozen#c-MrOllie-20240105014700-January 2024 LiteFrozen (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@LiteFrozen: Some sentences in this diff are clearly promotional like

• The company expanded the capabilities of Ehcache and developed enterprise-class products
• Terracotta acquired Quartz, the de facto standard job scheduler for Java
• Terracotta DB was launched, an in-memory data management platform for translytical (transactional and analytical) workloads, based on an evolution of Terracotta Big Memory. Terracotta DB adds persistent store and compute capabilities as well as claims 300% better performance on caching compared to previous releases
• its in-memory processing provides the foundation for Software AG's cloud offerings

I definitely agree with MrOllie's revert here. And then afterwards you restored a version with more promotional content such as Terracotta, Inc., is a computer-software company that specializes in increasing scalability and performance of real-time Big Data applications. and Terracotta DB adds persistent store and compute capabilities as well as claims 300% better performance on caching compared to previous releases. All of your reversions and additions are adding promotional content to the article, which is in violation of WP:NOTAD. And, by the way, other companies don't add information to the article, editors do. ‍ Relativity 02:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

(To MrOllie: My apologies for pinging you when it seems that you don't want to take part in this conversation. I only saw the talk page thread after my response.) ‍ Relativity 02:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I understand companies don't contribute the information, it's users. Yes.

What I was saying is, say in this article: World of Warcraft on the right side we have a list of important people.

Is it not acceptable to put this information? It seems like I've been told that users are NOT to add such information. LiteFrozen (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The company expanded the capabilities of Ehcache and developed enterprise-class products

Terracotta acquired Quartz, the de facto standard job scheduler for Java

Terracotta DB was launched, an in-memory data management platform for translytical (transactional and analytical) workloads, based on an evolution of Terracotta Big Memory. Terracotta DB adds persistent store and compute capabilities as well as claims 300% better performance on caching compared to previous releases

its in-memory processing provides the foundation for Software AG's cloud offerings

I believe most of this was added before me, but I'll be happy to remove it for being promotional. :) LiteFrozen (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@LiteFrozen: Yes, some of it was added before you edited. Apologies, and next time please don't revert other user's constructive edits that remove promotional content even if you do not add it. ‍ Relativity 02:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course, I wouldn't want promotional content on any pages if it's against Wikipedia's policies.

That's understood. I reverted the page because there was no explanation on the changes. I'm not sure how I'm getting flak for reverting an ambiguous edit with no information but the other user reverted it to the original form and removed valuable information and an opportunity to correct the article.

I get it, some people don't care. I try. LiteFrozen (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

MrOllie clearly explained that the content that you reverted to was promotional, and many workings in Wikipedia rely on common sense. In this case, it's pretty obvious that some of the parts in the revision you reverted to were promotional. ‍ Relativity 02:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, he said promotional. But there was information there that was not promotional, like company statistics, which were cited.

I think it's pretty common sense that a new editor would be running into some of these issues and would get some additional information regarding reverts, but I don't mind hunting for the reason an ambiguous "promotional" might mean and which piece of information it related to.

It's all good, it's growing pains that's it. Appreciate you helping out.

I'm still wondering how those company stats are added, since when I added it, it was considered "Promotional". LiteFrozen (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It's also weird that I'd get slighted at because the original article was considered promotional. It was reverted (to a promotional state) but not updated, but that user isn't getting all the reverts. Kinda lazy, but whatever. LiteFrozen (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem was that you reverted to a version that stated that the company was increasing scalability and performance of real-time Big Data. This is promotional content, and reverting to a version with the promotional content is seen as badly as having written the content yourself. Although thank you for removing some of the promotion, even though it did remove much of the content of the article. ‍ Relativity 02:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see.

Yeah, I'll double check when using the Undo button to make sure the previous version is actually the previous version without my edits. Not sure why that reverted to what it did.

No problem! I love to help. Sadly, it did remove much of the article and information about the company. I'm sure someone will come along and update it with non-promotional material, although, I'm not sure what that would be. LiteFrozen (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Moving articles to articles which already exist

When I rename an article to a name which doesn't already exist on Wikipedia, it gets moved no problem.

However when I try to rename an article to a name which already exists on Wikipedia, I always have trouble, especially when it exists as a redirect.

I'm fairly sure that in the past, all I had to do was to remove the redirect, and then redirect it in the opposite direction, but now even that doesn't seem to work.

Do I always have to request assistance in these redirect cases, or is there a way I can do it myself?

I know you'll want to know what I'm trying to do as always, even when it's irrelevant to whatever I was asking, so here it is... I've just attempted to rename St Anne's Pier to St Annes Pier, as that is what its name is. It doesn't contain a comma, just like the town of Lytham St Annes which it's located in, doesn't contain a comma either. Danstarr69 (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! You can request this at WP:Technical moves. The specific article is often relevant to troubleshooting for subtle reasons, so we're usually more helpful when we know.

Remsense留 09:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Remsense Now, are you going to answer my question...

Do I always have to request assistance in these redirect cases, or is there a way I can do it myself? Danstarr69 (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies—it requires the page mover permission, which is given out comparatively rarely, as you can see on the page. Remsense留 09:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

DanStarr, there are some circumstances in which you can move over a redirect without the File Mover permission, and you may have encountered this in the past. WP:Moving a page#How to move a page says Moreover, the move will fail if a page already exists at the target name, unless it is simply a redirect to the present name that has never been modified, in which case you can move over the redirect (check the edit history). If you cannot move a page yourself because of a technical restriction, and you expect the move to be uncontroversial, you can list it at the technical section of requested moves. ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Danstarr69 You have made ~2,600 edits which is lower than the minimum requirement of 3,000 edits for consideration for page mover rights. While your contributions is on the low side, you still can start to the process of getting the right, if you have not begun, by participating in WP:RM discussions, file for technical requests appropriately. The purpose of doing so is to demonstrate that you understand the MOS policies and guidelines on article titles when the reviewing admin checks through your application for the right. – robertsky (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Minor pedantic point: they are apostrophies, not commas. {The poster formerly kn own as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.104.88 (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I assume "[inverted] commas". Remsense留 03:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Confused on how to post a translation for community review

Hello, I'm having some trouble with my translation. I'm working on this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rheinhotel_Dreesen which is a translation of this one https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinhotel_Dreesen . I originally submitted it as a personal draft, and I've started messing with it today to try and make it a community draft and I think I might have made some sort of mistake. I also can't figure out how to fix my citations, so if you could give me some guidance I would really appreciate it. I really want to publish this page because it discusses a significant WWII site and there is very little information on it in English. Yustyn Kokor (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yustyn Kokor there is no 'community draft'/'personal draft' system, only drafts. The existence of a draft implies that anyone can choose to work on it or to not work on it. You can resubmit it for review in the button at the top of the draft. The main issue with the draft right now is the over-reliance on Wikipedia as a source, which is not reliable. The citation error can be easily fixed by commenting out the unused list-defined reference. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the reply! What do you mean by "commenting out the unused list-defined reference"? Yustyn Kokor (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@SapiensYK: The error message means that you have a named reference that is not being used. Scroll down to the bottom of the draft's source code. (You won't be able to do this in the Visual Editor.) You'll see this: <ref name="Vogt2004"> :::[[Helmut Vogt (Historiker)|Helmut Vogt]]: ''Wächter der Bonner Republik. Die Alliierten Hohen Kommissare 1949–1955.'' Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, Paderborn 2004, ISBN 3-506-70139-8. :::</ref>

That is a list-defined reference. You either need to cite it, delete it, or replace it with: <!--<ref name="Vogt2004"> :::[[Helmut Vogt (Historiker)|Helmut Vogt]]: ''Wächter der Bonner Republik. Die Alliierten Hohen Kommissare 1949–1955.'' Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, Paderborn 2004, ISBN 3-506-70139-8. :::</ref>-->

The <!-- at the start and the --> at the end signal the start and end of a comment in HTML. This is called "commenting out" because placing the list-defined reference within a comment prevents Wikipedia from doing anything with it. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I have one last question: how can I remove the wikipedia articles I cited and keep them as links? I put them as citations by mistake, I meant to insert them as links for more information Yustyn Kokor (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@SapiensYK: One links to to a Wikipedia article by enclosing the text in double brackets—thus [[Friedrich Ebert]] becomes Friedrich Ebert. If you want the text ("Crown Prince Wilhelm", for instance) to link to an article with a different title, separate the target and the desired text with a "pipe"character—[[Wilhelm, German Crown Prince|Crown Prince Wilhelm]]. Do that and delete the following "references". Deor (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Is there a way to link another Wikipedia article but in a foreign language (it doesn't exist in English yes)? Yustyn Kokor (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just figured it out. Thank you Yustyn Kokor (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

SapiensYK I believe you are referring to this edit. That's an improvement, but there are other things you could do to improve it even more:

• Punctuation before ref tag: i.e., ...in 2000.<ref>...</ref> not:...in 2000<ref>...</ref>.
• Include (at a minimum) the publication date of 2004 for the Vogt citation, and the page number(s) (48) verifying the content you added.
• Optional, but nice to have, are the |language=de parameter, a translation of the title, and the publisher location. I'm also a big fan of the |oclc= parameter, but you don't need to add it if you don't want.
• Also optional, but very helpful for English readers who don't have access to the book, and wouldn't understand it even if they did, are the parameters |quote= and |trans-quote=;
• Don't reduplicate the entire citation; use named references instead.

See my latest change to the article, incorporating these suggestions. Mathglot (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, as far as figuring out how to link to another Wikipedia article but in a foreign language that doesn't exist in English, this edit is not the right way to do it. Instead, please use template {{ill}}, as shown in this edit. Mathglot (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SapiensYK, you might be interested in joining WP:GERMANY. -- asilvering (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Help!

I had put this article on deletion at a time when there was no citation in it. And this article was completely failing Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, but later citations were added to it and the article was improved. Can I remove the deletions I have placed? Will there be any problem in this? Or should we wait for the results? Thanks. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Youknowwhoistheman Just put a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jakkur (Bengaluru) Inscriptions that you're satisfied with the improvements and withdraw the nomination. Write a Keep comment if you like. It will be closed normally at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thanks you for guidance. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Citation

Regarding citation #2 of an article, I am working on: Wdallen49/Bobbie R. Allen I have a PDF document that was scanned from a Draft which was written by a U.S. Gov't official. I would like to cite this document in my article about Bobbie R. Allen but I'm not sure if that is acceptable. Can someone advise me regarding the use of this document? Wdallen49 (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Wdallen49/Bobbie R. AllenRemsense留 04:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Wdallen49, in my view, a preliminary draft of a document cannot possibly be a reliable source. The basic concept of a draft is that it probably contains errors that need to be corrected by further editing. Cullen328 (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Much of the information in the document is corroborated with other verifiable information. My thought is that it's a good (if not perfect) source of information which enables the reader to come to the conclusion that the subject was very successful. Wdallen49 (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wdallen49: Was a final version of the document ever published, and could that be cited instead? Besides the PDF scan, could a reader independently verify that the draft exists? GoingBatty (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Wdallen49 Another issue is how you obtained the draft; was it published somewhere and made available? "Published" covers a lot more ground than one might think, but it doesn't, for example, cover your cousin, the government official taking work home one day and showing you a copy of the draft over dinner. And if you (or anyone you know) is the official, there are other issues involved. Mathglot (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Wdallen49, you have to consider whether this document is a primary source. We are not biographers here, and it's important that we don't carry out our own historical research into the lives of the the people about whom we write. We shouldn't piece together information from primary documents. We are restricted to summarising what "proper" biographers (and journalists, etc.) have published elsewhere, after they've done the piecing-together. The correct order of events is that someone writing an article about him in a magazine, writing a history book, or writing a biography, researches the document and describes its contents and existence. You then refer to the magazine or book in the Wikipedia article. Elemimele (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Elemimele, This document is a significant source although much of the information contained within it is also contained in another official document. The author discussed much of the subject's career which is shown in multiple sources in the article. I guess I'm wondering it the document would be banned or worse, the entire article removed! Wdallen49 (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot The draft was stored in the papers of the subject after passing away in 1972. My thoughts are that even though the paper is obviously not a formal published work, it gives support to other documents within the article which are properly cited. Wdallen49 (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Wdallen49, unfortunately, that means that you cannot use the papers at all in the article. The best you could do is contact the owner of the draft and request that they publish it; if they can find a source that is willing to do so, you can then cite that source. But while the papers are in your possession and unpublished, you may not use them. Sorry. Mathglot (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot, thanks for that input. The person who wrote the draft has also passed away but he's donated his works to the Harry S. Truman Library. I've initiated a search for the papers and hope to find them. Wdallen49 (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@GoingBatty, I'm searching for an original at several Archival libraries but have not found the document yet. There are other official documents within the article that support most of what's said in the document in question. However, the document in question was very well written and also written by a very senior government official, thus, I'd like to include it. Wdallen49 (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Accidental article

Hello! I accidentally created an article when I meant to create a draft! Could anyone remove it? Article in question: Kingdom of Menabe ''Flux55'' (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Flux55, welcome to the Teahouse. I have deleted the redirect which was left by your move to draft. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! ''Flux55'' (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Tidying User Page

My user page is fine but it does have a lot of notices on it about events etc which are now out of date. Question 1. Is it okay to remove stuff from my user page or should it all stay as a permanent record? Question 2. How do I delete stuff like invites to participate in events now past etc. I use visual editor and am technologically challenged so would need very clear instructions if anybody has the heart to help! Thanks. Balance person (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

You can delete almost anything. (What you should not delete is clearly so marked.) Certainly you can delete invitations to events. Alternatively, you can "archive" it. I leave your second question to somebody who uses the visual editor. -- Hoary (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Balance person Consider using Help:Archiving (plain and simple). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

User: Hoary and User: Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you both. I understand now that I can delete stuff. The Archiving plain and simple thing does not give me the choice of only getting rid of ads for events. Other stuff on my page is helpful guidance and I want to keep it though it may be old. Does anybody know how I can just delete the old event notifications and individual bits that are no longer useful? Sorry this is just such a basic question! Balance person (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Balance person, I don't know of any automatic way, so if it was me, I'd just go to [8] and delete the unwanted stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

User: Gråbergs Gråa Sång So simple! So brilliant! Thank you! Balance person (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Balance person: If you use Help:Archiving (plain and simple) then you can first add {{subst:DNAU}} to sections you don't want archived. Archived sections would still be available on a page like User talk:Balance person/Archive 1. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I will try that next time! Balance person (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Aspiring Wikipedian Seeking Guidance on Reviewer/Adminship Path

Hi everyone,

My name is Sweetabena and I'm a passionate Wikipedian with a long-term interest in contributing to this incredible resource. I've been editing actively for two years and have made some contributions across various topics.

I'm deeply impressed by the dedication and expertise of the reviewer and admin communities on Wikipedia, and I'm inspired by the crucial role you play in maintaining the platform's high standards. As I strive to further my involvement, I'm eager to learn how I can become a reviewer or even one day, an admin myself.

I understand that both these roles come with significant responsibilities and require deep knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and community dynamics. I'm committed to dedicating myself to gaining this knowledge and developing the necessary skills.

I'd be incredibly grateful if any experienced reviewers or admins could share their insights on the path towards these roles. And at what point do I qualify to become a reviewer or admin? Sweetabena (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Sweetabena. Your enthusiasm is very nice but after over two years of editing, you only have made 149 edits, 113 of which were to articles. Your contributions are appreciated, but read Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants where it says that 500 undeleted article edits is the minimum to become an AFC reviewer. It would take you another eight years to hit that target unless you dramatically increase your editing frequency. As for becoming an administrator, many thousands of high quality edits are expected, along with widespread participation in behind the scenes administrative type tasks and deep understanding of policies, guidelines and social norms. So, the short answer is to get much more heavily involved. Cullen328 (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much @Cullen328 for your encouraging advice! I really appreciate your suggestion to get heavily involved before formally applying to become a reviewer. I completely agree that hands-on experience is the best way to learn the ropes and develop the necessary skills. I'm excited to roll up my sleeves and start contributing more actively to Wikipedia. Do you have any specific recommendations on how I can get started? Are there any particular areas or projects where I could be most helpful? I'm open to any suggestions you may have.Sweetabena (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You say that you are Ghanaian, Sweetabena. This suggests that you have an understanding of Ghana that most other editors (e.g. me) will lack. So perhaps Ghana-related subjects. But note two things. First, you can't write about Ghana (or anything else) from your personal knowledge: you have to cite reliable sources. Secondly, you are not at all limited to Ghana; you are of course very welcome to contribute on Uzbeki, Polish, British, Vietnamese, Finnish (etc), or international matters, or matters that are area-independent. (Just this morning I was reading about crying: a fascinating subject, but one whose reliable sources I'm not competent to digest.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks a million @Hoary. I really appreciate Sweetabena (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Sweetabena. I recently (August) became an Articles for Creation Reviewer, and to get experience beforehand I participated in a few WP:AFD discussions, tagged articles with WP:CSD deletion where needed (using WP:TWINKLE), and improved suggested articles from Special:Homepage. All of these got me used to the various policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much @Qcne for sharing your insights on becoming a reviewer! I greatly appreciate you detailing your experience with AFD discussions, CSD tagging, and Twinkle usage for deletion, as well as your involvement in suggested articles. This is incredibly valuable information for someone like me aspiring to become a reviewer myself.

Thank you again for your time and guidance. I truly appreciate your encouragement and will continue working towards becoming a valued member of the reviewing community. Sweetabena (talk) Sweetabena (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sweetabena Speaking as one who recently gotten accepted as an admin, this is certainly a route you can take, going through articles of which topics you are more familiar with as I had also started out with this. If you are interested in this direction, I can help you to get started with updating Index of Ghana-related articles on a regular basis (I am doing so for Index of Singapore-related articles), which will help you to look out for vandalism and other issues using Special:RecentChangesLinked/Index of Ghana-related articles. – robertsky (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Robertsky I'm definitely interested in exploring this route. Could you tell me more about what updating the Ghana-related articles index entails on a regular basis? What resources or tools would be helpful in getting started? I'm also eager to learn from your experience as an admin and any tips you might have for someone interested in the role. Sweetabena (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Login

Can't Remember my username or password. please help. this is the 18th account i've made. Jordan'sWiki (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jordan'sWiki it sounds like you should get yourself a password manager. Here's one: [9]. -- asilvering (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

If you save your email address at Special:Preferences then you can use Special:PasswordReset. You don't even have to remember the username if you know the email address and can still receive mails at it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

how a disclosure wikipedia page looks like?

if i state that I have been paid to create a wikipedia page about my employer, will this statement be visible to other users? Chiara ravasio 96 (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Chiara ravasio 96 Hello and welcome. Yes, it will (and should) be visible to the public. If you don't want it to be, you will need to refrain from making edits related to your employer- the Terms of Use require paid editing to be disclosed. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

thank you very much! where and how this statement will be visible? Chiara ravasio 96 (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chiara ravasio 96: Hello! Please read WP:DISCLOSE. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

On your User page is the most common placement. David notMD (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

On whether to create a page

Hello! I am hoping to create a page called Despair or Despair (theology). Since despair and depression are different in the religious context, I want to create a page expanding the latter definition. Before I begin compiling my reading and writing the article, is there any way I can search to see if the page has been deleted, merged, or discussed by a WikiProject group before? I'd rather not be that guy who makes a page that’s been created and deleted several times. Also, since Despair redirects to Depression (mood), should the main page be Despair (theology), should I simply create the page as Despair since the usage makes it a unique article with a particular usage, or should I add it to the disambiguation page for users to determine which is the better usage for their purposes? Thank you in advance! ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@ThaesOfereode: Hello! I went here and in the logs I don't see any previous deletions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thank you very much! ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@ThaesOfereode: Welcome to the Teahouse! You may want to ask your question about how to name the new article at Talk:Despair (disambiguation). GoingBatty (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

What should I do if no one responds? ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD if no one responds. You can always rename it again later either by "moving it" or requesting a technical change at WP:RMT ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Great! Thank you very much! ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Corporate Notability

Hello everybody, I am seeking advice regarding the page Draft:We Are Era, which has been under review and was recently rejected by Robert McClenon due to concerns about corporate notability.

In response to this feedback, I have carefully reviewed and revised the draft, placing a particular emphasis on addressing the corporate notability criteria. The draft now includes references from around 28 reliable sources, the majority of which are reputable newspapers or magazines in Germany (e.g. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Der Spiegel or Der Tagesspiegel). All these sources are comprehensive and secondary. There are also no signs of them being unreliable or dependent on the subject. I am convinced that they give a balanced and external perspective on the company, covering aspects such as the company itself, major campaigns, and acquisitions.

As an active contributor to the German Wikipedia for over ten years, with a focus on geography, history, media, and politics, I am relatively new to the English Wikipedia. Therefore, I welcome any advice or input to ensure the article meets the required standards.

Are there any concrete tips anyone could share?

Thank you! Renredam (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Renredam: 28 sources is quite a lot to plough through – perhaps you could highlight the 3-5 strongest ones, bearing in mind that for the purposes of establishing notability, the sources should not only be secondary and reliable, they also need to be fully independent of the subject, and to provide significant coverage directly of the subject. This excludes anything based on the company's publicity materials, routine business reporting, interviews, or anything where someone from the company is commenting on things. In other words, we want to see what independent writers and broadcasters have said about this business, entirely of their own volition. (You can highlight the strongest sources on the draft talk page, so it will be available to future reviewers.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

A nuance - in English Wikipedia, Declined is less severe than Rejected. David notMD (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Renredam: Looks like reference #6 is a dead press release, which doesn't seem secondary. GoingBatty (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Renredam - The text of your draft doesn't speak for itself. It doesn't tell the reader what third parties have said about the company. The reader should not be expected to read the references to know why the company passes corporate notability. Also, since the company is a division of RTL Group, you should explain why they should have a separate article from the parent company. Also, you haven't answered my question about conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

william shakespeare

Born 2011 Domingo6777 (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Domingo6777: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1211. Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Indef blocked for vandalism and false Edit summary. David notMD (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Can't Find References— Should I Remove?

Hello! I've been working on the Dutch East Indies article, and there's a paragraph that describes types of punishments used on slaves. I tried to find references to support the detailed list, but was unsuccessful in finding anything more specific than beating/killing (and am not very enthusiastic about digging deeper on slave torture). I'm hesitant to remove the paragraph, particularly since I want to avoid whitewashing the article, but am not sure how else to improve it. I'm hoping to get this article closer to being a Good Article, and it seems this paragraph as it stands would get in the way for important lack of citations. I considered being WP:BOLD, deleting the paragraph and leaving a note on the talk page, but figured as a new-ish editor I should ask somewhere first. I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask about this, but the article's talk page doesn't seem very active. Thanks for your time! Placeholderer (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Placeholderer: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see the paragraph already has some "citation needed" templates, which is good. The best place to talk about improving the article is its talk page: Talk:Dutch East Indies. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Placeholderer The entire section on Slavery was added by User:LouisBStevenson in February 2023. You could ask that person if there are references. David notMD (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

New to creating , help to create the wiki

Hello New to creating , can you help create the wiki

Arun Keshav Sapre 1955-1971 - late Squadron Leader Arun Keshav Sapre was Pilot in the Indian Air Force, Sq Ldr Arun Keshav Sapre died at age of 43 testing four-gun firing on HAL's Marut aircraft during the 1971 Indo-Pak War. He was awarded Bharat Rakshak Ati Vishist Seva Medal by Government of India posthumously. He played an important role during the war.

Reference https://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Database/4981 http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Database/Awards/awards.php?qaward=AVSM&qunit=ASTE&qname=&qyear= https://www.naidunia.com/chhattisgarh/raipur-mayor-pays-tribute-to-martyr-arun-keshav-sapre-on-49th-death-anniversary-6579507 59.96.80.53 (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. IP users cannot directly create articles, but may use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. Be advised that this will be challenging; please read Your First Article beforehand. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

You obviously know how to create and submit draft articles, because your draft Draft:Arun B Sapre has already been rejected. Please read the reasons for that rejection carefully and address them, before resubmitting it. The process for an article on Arun Keshav Sapre will be the same - Arjayay (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not to be authors or co-authors. Per above, use WP:YFA to create and submit a draft to the review process. Do not submit until you learn how to properly reference. Do consider creating an account first, as that has certain benefits. David notMD (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There is already Draft:Arun Keshav Sapre in the system, created by this IP using the Article Wizard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Having been a pilot and being awarded a Vishist Seva Medal posthumously for death during a training exercise are very unlikely to meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. David notMD (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

In the first sentence, the draft says "1955-1971" implying he was about 16 years old when he died, but later the draft says he was 43 years old. That draft needs a lot of work, starting out with making a plausible claim of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

What more is required to get published

we wrote an article about our association but it seems as though it does not meet standards. Please advise why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Drug_%26_Alcohol_Testing_Association_of_Canada_-_DATAC DATAC2024 (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@DATAC2024: Hello! Have you tried clicking on the links and read the information which Spiderone provided? I'll copy them here:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

That, and the article was written in very promotional tone, and, yeah, it was just deleted under the G11 section for speedy deletion. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@DATAC2024 Wikipedia is not intended to be a vessel for promoting your noble cause. See WP:NOBLECAUSE for more information NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 21:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

 Note: The draft has been deleted and the OP has been blocked indefinitely for unambiguous promotion . —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Citing personal correspondence

I was hoping to correct some mistakes on an existing page about a painting, based on information given to me by the curator of the museum where the painting is currently held. How should I go about citing this? I would be happy to post this correspondence anywhere it would be helpful. Alexanderwbr (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Alexanderwbr: Hello! Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If the source is already published somewhere, then it might be possible to use it, but it seems like right now it's only available to you, so it can't be considered a reliable source. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Great, thank you. I’ll reach out to the curator and ask if there are any publicly available sources that she could share to back up what she told me. Alexanderwbr (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Alexanderwbr, I suggest that you make the museum curator aware of how Wikipedia defines a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Notability of politicians

Does being a member of the US House of Representatives make someone notable enough for a Wikipedia article on its own based on WP:POLITICIAN, even if their career was "unremarkable"? The article that prompted this question was Nelson Papucci though I am sure there are similar very short articles about members. Reconrabbit 21:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Reconrabbit. Papucci was a member of the Alabama House of Representatives as opposed to the US House of Representatives. That being said, I believe that there is a fairly strong consensus among editors who regularly work on biographies of politicians that articles about national, state and provincial legislators should be kept and improved instead of being deleted. Anyone who spends an hour or two in a public library in Montgomery, Alabama, the state Capitol, or Madison County, Alabama, which he represented in the legislature, would certainly be able to improve and expand that article dramatically. Cullen328 (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I see, thank you. I'm more used to articles on academics, which are numerous but have quantitative measures to figure out how notable they are if it comes into question. Reconrabbit 22:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixed one problem, may have created another (smaller) one

So, I managed to fix the inline citation problem on the Integrated Conservation and Development Project page, but when I was doing the first one (a book), there was text that told me that apparently, I didn't do the date (of when accessed) correctly and I don't know how to fix it. Villaida (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Villaida: Hello! I have fixed it. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Villaida. To clarify regarding dates, the MediaWiki software does not recognize ordinal numerals in dates, such as the "5th" in "January 5th, 2024". Please see Wikipedia:Overview of date formatting guidelines for the three styles of date formats that are acceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. Villaida (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it!! Villaida (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Rename

Hello, (Not bored this time) I am planning to change the name of a page. How do I do that? Are there any guidelines for page names? Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Encyclopédisme: You're going to want to see the help page Wikipedia:Moving a page and the policy on article titles. As it would be your first time getting involved in page moving, I suggest starting a discussion on the article's talk page to see if anyone would find it controversial. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

For Cullin: I stopped already… I do have the right to ask a question, right? I do, no matter what I did before. I am planning on renaming a page I created. Encyclopédisme (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Valid question and correct answer. In fact, given it is an article you created, I'd say go ahead and rename it (as long as the new name is appropriate). Because if you want to change Amaru Topa Inca to something like Duck, Duck, Goose, that would be a no-no. David notMD (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Birth name with transgendered individuals.

What is the policy in regards to this? Caitlyn Jenner has the birth name listed but Laverne Cox doesn't. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey there. Check out WP:DEADNAME for the relevant policy.

Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.

If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name.

So, the birth name is only listed if the person was notable under that name. Hope this helps, cheers! Remsense留 00:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The logical basis for how we handle this issue is really quite simple, Traumnovelle. Caitlyn Jenner had been a very famous celebrity for at least 39 years before transitioning, and was likely notable as an Olympic athlete all the way back to 1972. Therefore, it is appropriate to mention her previous name, which received massive coverage worldwide for decades. Laverne Cox, on the other hand, became famous as a transgender person, and was unknown to the general public prior to her transition. Her considerable accomplishments in acting and performing are as a trans woman and are all credited under her current name. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to violate her privacy by mentioning a previous name that she has left behind. That name adds nothing to the reader's understanding of her success. Cullen328 (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Notability

Hi, can someone please confirm if holding "Presidential award for furthering diversity" from Brown University satisfy WP:NACADEMIC #2? Thank you. 1.23.250.167 (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Based on what I see at [10] I'm leaning no. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. -- asilvering (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. "No". Cullen328 (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article

Would like to check the references mentioned are sources that are independent of the subject. Adarshkagineregunduraj (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts: question also asked at the AfC help desk ([11]), so ignore this one. -- asilvering (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

An experienced Reviewer stated that the references are not independent, or that not enough of the references are independent. As example, interviews with Adarsh do not contribute to Wikipedia notability. David notMD (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Bengali as official language of sierra leone

How Bengali became an official language in Sierra Leone | Research News - The Indian Express. Sierra Leone officially recognized Bengali as an official language due to the successful peacekeeping mission of Bangladeshi UN peacekeepers. However, Wikipedia has not yet updated this information. Would you like me to help make the necessary edits on Wikipedia?

Gokul Balagopal96 (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend asking this inclusion question on either Talk:Bengali language or Talk:Sierra Leone, where there are people more likely to know details. In fact, on a cursory glance, this has been discussed on both pages, and there are good reasons why it is not included. Remsense留 06:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gokul Balagopal96:Probably find a few reliable sources apart from the ones mentioned here [12] because, this fact checking site claims that the whole thing was either misreported or a hoax. Bingobro (Chat) 06:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Please

Please help me understand if the following entry is acceptable to Wikipedia. Thanks.

Draft:Oindrilla Maity Surai Basuproma (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Basuproma Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you seen the advice left by reviewers? It seems pretty accurate to me. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear 331dot,Thanks so much for this. Will add more text to my entry before I get back once more to you. Basuproma (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

See Help:Referencing for beginners, but even if refs are fixed, may not qualify. David notMD (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear David notMD, Ihave re-edited the same draft and modified the tone of the entry to a more neutral one. Plus there are additional external links to it. Could please let me know if it is acceptable now? Thanks so much in advance. Basuproma (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

That is not how references are done, and I see no External links (which do not contribute to notabilty, anyway). Look at other articles about people to understand that references are inserted into the text, but the software then inserts a superscripted number in the text and puts the refs under References. David notMD (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much, David notMD. Will sort this out. Basuproma (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

What to do?

Hello,

I am seeking advice regarding the page Center for Inquiry.

This page was up until now filled with an overly positive and biased viewpoint. The original page made no mention of Center for Inquiry's many well-publicized controversies. Recently, I overhauled the page and made good-faith edits that mentioned these controversies while also maintaining a neutral viewpoint. All of my edits had sources. Also, they remained unbiased, simply covering the facts without injecting any personal opinions.

However, a user is undoing my edits, and they are pressuring me to take the discussion to the talk page, citing WP:BRD. They are acting as if WP:BRD is mandatory, when it is an optional measure as per Wikipedia's page on it.

It turns out that this person, a user named Gronk Oz, is affiliated with CFI. His user page says "I have been a member of Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia ("GSoW") since 2014." GSoW is a group founded by user Sgerbic, Susan Gerbic of Center for Inquiry. https://centerforinquiry.org/speakers/susan-gerbic/.

Additionally, the user Sgerbic / Susan Gerbic is part of the CFI article talk page which is why I refuse to employ WP:BRD.

To summarize: CFI employees who actively monitor CFI's Wikipedia page are undoing my perfectly valid and well-sourced edits because it covers facts that they don't like.

What can I do in this case? VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@VegitotheKnightmare: Discuss it on the article's talk page. If you can't reach a consensus that way, look into other dispute resolution options at WP:DR. Do not engage in an edit war. RudolfRed (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not interested in talk page discussion since it is actively monitored by CFI employees. The conflict of interest noticeboard says talk page discussion is required. Any advice in this situation? VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

If you're not willing to discuss it on the talk page, then drop it and find other articles to edit. WP:BRD may be an essay, but WP:CONSENSUS is policy. RudolfRed (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I will discuss it on the talk page and use dispute resolution if necessary. VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

VegitotheKnightmare, while there's nothing wrong with discussing on the Talk page, if the editors in question are employees, then that is not the approach I would take, as I believe it would be a waste of my time. The first thing I would do is gather evidence (diffs) of what made you suspect they are employees, and then make a calm, neutrally worded account about what you have noticed going on at the article, along with your diffs, and post it to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. The folks there will know what to do next. A couple more things you can do if you wish, is to post a {{uw-coi}} template on the User talk page of the user or users who you suspect of being employees of CFI, and to add the {{connected contributor}} template to the header section of Talk:Center for Inquiry. Let me know if you need further help with this. Mathglot (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this very helpful advice. I will let you know if any issues arise. VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It may be useful for editors to look at the edit history that VegitotheKnightmare has mentioned to form your own view about the neutrality of recent edits. Just a suggestion. BlueWren0123 (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is a list of "Staff" of CFI. It doesn't claim that the list is exhaustive, but FWIW it doesn't include Gerber, who is described as a "speaker" and as a "fellow" of CFI. So she's affiliated with CFI, but I see no evidence that she's an employee (and rather doubt that she is one). Of course, not all conflicts of interest are paid, but an allegation of a paid conflict of interest (or a description of somebody as an "employee") should be based on sound evidence. -- Hoary (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARBSCE may be instructive here? I didn't follow the case, but it relates to the article discussed in this thread. Folly Mox (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ms. Gerbic is a columnist for Skeptical Inquirer. VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Normally I would limit my response to the article's Talk page, but since VegitotheKnightmare made accusations against me here (without bothering to notify me), I think it's fair that I reply here. Firstly, to be absolutely clear - I do not have, and have never had, any connection to CFI, nor any dealings with them. Secondly, I was not the only editor to suggest that these changes need discussion - two others (neither of whom I know at all) did so before me. I won't go into the merits of the proposed changes here - that is what the Talk page is for. Gronk Oz (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz,

I apologize, but that's incorrect. You are the only registered user to reverse my edits other than a user who restored my edits after I requested evaluation. Additionally, you are a member of GSoW, founded by Susan Gerbic of CFI. If not a connection with CFI, you seem to have a bias towards it.

Finally, you accuse me of not bothering to notify you which I interpret as a passive aggressive attack on my person. I don't agree with incorporating personal attacks. Let's refrain from that. VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz, I'm sorry, but I do believe that you are guilty of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Let's discuss politely in the talk page. Thank you. VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@VegitotheKnightmare: Agree - discuss the article on its Talk page. When I said that "I was not the only editor to suggest that these changes need discussion - two others (neither of whom I know at all) did so before me", the sequence of events was:

1. At 00:43, 3 January 2024 Achmad Rachmani reverted your edits with the Vandalism tag, and placed a message on your User Talk page explaining that “they did not appear constructive”.
2. At 01:58, 5 January 2024 126.253.150.39 reverted your edits with the comment “apparent vandalism (including article link breakage) and other unconstructive edits. Contentious additions should be reached via talk page consensus before wholesale re-addition.”
3. At 03:30, 5 January 2024 I undid your edits with the comment “Please follow WP:BRD - when your edits were reverted with the request to take them to the Talk page before adding them back, it is appropriate to do so.”

That is how I came to my conclusion that I was the third editor to suggest that these changes need discussion.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Achmad Rachmani did indeed revert my edits. However, they were restored after I asked for a re-evaluation in my talk page. Achmad determined that they were neither vandalism nor unconstructive, and he restored them at 00:57 on Jan 3. You can check this for yourself.

@126.253.150.39 is an unregistered user who claimed "Contentious additions should be reached via talk page consensus before wholesale re-addition.” This reversal was invalid because the edits were not contentious. A contentious addition "is an unreferenced or poorly referenced claim that any editor objects to, if that editor is acting in good faith." My addition was neither unreferenced nor poorly referenced, but, even assuming that it was, the editor was likely not acting in good faith since they are an IP user without any history who reverted the changes almost immediately after I posted them. It's quite suspicious, really.

Then, of course, you reverted my edits. You were in fact the second registered user to undo edits as I said, and since Achmad's reversal was a mistake and later undone by him, you are technically the only user to truly revert my edits.

Therefore, there was no basis for your reversal if you only used it because you thought previous users had objected to my modifications. If this is the case, and to avoid any further dispute, I kindly ask you to reconsider your undoing and to restore the page as I left it; I worked hard to improve it. VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@VegitotheKnightmare: That is what the discussion on the Talk page is for. Please note that unregistered users have the same rights as registered users to participate in the writing of Wikipedia, and their actions should not be dismissed on the basis that they are unregistered.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, let's move this to Talk. And I would like to publicly apologize to you for mistakenly accusing you of being a CFI employee. My mistake. VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Editing a Wikipedia article with a Word document

I have been trying to update a Wikipedia essay about my former professor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Brown_(anthropologist). It includes his biography and his research and influence. I tried several times to Publish Changes to the site after pasting in a Word document with my changes. It seemed to accept the changes. However, when I went to the essay about his work, etc. later it was in the original form. Thus, I assume my changes were not accepted. I could not figure out how to use VisualEditor with a Word document. I thought I could modify changes needed such as using links on names, etc. that needed to be cited in other Wikipedia articles, but I could not do so. Do I need to make all those changes in the Word document before pasting in the content? Rscupin (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rscupin: Hello! The reason the page went back to the original form was because your edits were reverted, as your additions didn't cite any sources and didn't conform to the Manual of Style. I would recommend you read these two pages and Help:Editing for more information. If you want to make major changes to a page, you are recommended to draft them in your user sandbox before posting them. Liu1126 (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Look at articles about academics (one route - select a prestigious university, and it likely has a listing of notable faculty). For a living person, all statements need to be verified by references. David notMD (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Rscupin, your proposed additions are well-written and informative. But that is not enough to make this new content acceptable for Wikipedia. Vast swathes of this material are entirely unreferenced, which violates the core content policy of Verifiability. How can the reader verify that what you have written is accurate, unless you provide references to reliable, published sources? Please read and absorb Referencing for beginners.

Another significant problem is that you include an extremely long direct quotation from one of his books. Wikipedia: Quotations says Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. I think that most editors would agree that direct quotes of two, three or even four sentences are fine in most cases, as long as they are properly attributed to the source with an inline citation with full bibliographic details. In this case, the direct quotation is 31 sentences long, and is considered a copyright violation on Wikipedia.

As far as developing content in MS Word, there is no prohibition, but as an editor with almost 15 years of experience, I recommend against it. I do all of my content development in my personal sandbox pages. That allows me to add properly formatted inline references as I go, as well as section headers, wikilinks, and all of the various things that make standardized Wikipedia content so useful. I can see exactly how the new content will appear to the reader before I add it to the main space of the encyclopedia. So, I recommend that you consider that approach.

My final recommendation is that you take a look at some existing Good articles to get a sense of what a "good" Wikipedia article looks like, and how it is structured and referenced. In particular, I recommend Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society. If you read three or four of the biographies listed there, I think that you will have a better idea of the expectations of the Wikipedia community when it comes to biographies of academics. Cullen328 (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Rscupin, here is a relatively minor point about conceptualization, and word usage among Wikipedia editors. What you are calling an "essay" is actually called an "encyclopedia article", or "article" for short. Wikipedia: Essay says Essays, as used by Wikipedia editors, typically contain advice or opinions of one or more editors. The purpose of an essay is to aid or comment on the encyclopedia. Such essays are not visible to casual readers of the encyclopedia, and are "behind the scenes", as it were. In addition, the essay style of writing is not appropriate in encyclopedia articles. Cullen328 (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Rscupin, another oddity is that virtually the whole thing, as edited by you, was in boldface. Please don't. Another is that the draft contained some information that, even if it were reliably sourced, probably wouldn't belong in an encyclopedia article. And yet another is that so much material in the draft was devoted to a single book that, if the material belongs anywhere, probably belongs in a separate draft/article devoted to that book. (Thus for example the article Steven Pinker deals only briefly with Pinker's book The Blank Slate, which gets its own article.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Paragraph/New Section

Hey seniors! Happy new years to all of you.

i have one question for you, How many minimum words should there be to create a new paragraph (new section)? Is there any specific criteria for this? Thanks Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

no criteria. no minimum words, either. ltbdl (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Youknowwhoistheman, if another editor thinks that a paragraph is too short or a section is too short, you may find out that paragraphs and sections have been combined. This is among the least useful things to disagree about. Cullen328 (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and @Ltbdl, Thanks you. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Future reminder

Is there anything like a template to set myself a future reminder that would ping me on a specific date? Respublik (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Respublik, you could install the user script User:SD0001/W-Ping. There's no feature natively built into the Mediawiki software. If you're not comfortable copypasting javascript code, there's a gadget under Special:Preferences → Gadgets → Advanced → "Install scripts without having to manually edit JavaScript files". Folly Mox (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Bare URL Monthly Category

If any administrators are reading this, can you please delete this monthly category for bare URLs listed in January 2022, which has been emptied and now falls under CSD G6? (I'm asking here because I can't find where-else to ask. Also, this place is usually busy.) - Alex26337 (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done – robertsky (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Alex26337, there's usually no need to ask anywhere about CSDs. CSD is pretty well patrolled. Just tag an empty category {{db-g6}} and it should be gone in a few hours. Folly Mox (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Redirects into full pages

I'm wondering if anyone can just literally edit out the "[[#REDIRECT]]" code from a redirect and turn it into a comprehensive Wikipedia page Abigbagel (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Abigbagel: Yes, you may. RudolfRed (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Abigbagel before you do, check the page history. You may find that the redirect was created after a deletion discussion (in which case you should probably not create an article there). -- asilvering (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Abigbagel, and welcome to the Teahouse. The other thing to bear in mind, apart from what asilvering said, is that if you do this you will effectively be creating an article directly in main space. This is allowed, but as soon as you publish (save changes) that article will be expected to meet the minimum requirements for an article, particularly in terms of sourcing.

If you reckon you can do this on the first go, go ahead; but it may save you hassle to develop the article in your sandbox or in a draft. When you think it is ready to replace the redirect, you can either submit it for review, in which case the accepting reviewer will handle the issue of the existing redirect, or else submit a requested move (You won't be able to move it over the redirection yourself). ColinFine (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Twinkle.

What is twinkle and what are the circumstances to use it? Thank you, WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

see here. ltbdl (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello WikiTikiTavi63, the full details are here: Wikipedia:Twinkle. It's a tool that automates a lot of things. I personally use it when reverting edits, requesting page protection, and proposing deletion. If you revert or "roll back" edits with Twinkle, it gives you the option to place a welcome message or relevant notice on the other editor's talk page. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Much clearer now. Thank you WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is the Great Barrington Declaration "semi protected"?

Why does the initial description of it say it's a "fringe" notion? This is very prejudicial and unlike Wikipedia.

Francis Collins just expressed regret last week for his efforts in trying to shut down Focused Protection: He said, "If you’re a public-health person and you’re trying to make a decision, you have this very narrow view of what the right decision is, and that is something that will save a life. So you attach infinite value to stopping the disease and saving a life. You attach zero value to whether this actually totally disrupts people’s lives, ruin the economy, and has many kids kept out of school in a way that they never quite recovered.[i]

Only years too late does he acknowledge that the Great Barrington Declaration “could have been a great opportunity for a broad scientific discussion about the pros and cons” of focused protection, but he fails to admit his mistake in actively trying to cancel the authors and to stop discussion of its ideas. This is like saying that protests about the Vietnam War could have been a great opportunity in the political community for discussing the merits of that war, but not admitting that you previously and strenuously tried to prevent all the protestors from gathering to protest.

[i] Francis Colins, quoted in The Wall Street Journal, December 30-31, 2023, p. A12. Pence (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Like all Wikipedia articles, it says that because that is how reliable sources describe it. Did you read the whole article? You are welcome to make suggestions on the improvement of any article at the appropriate Talk page, citing a reliable source. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Pence The article is semi-protected due to extensive disruption, which is not uncommon with articles about contentious topics. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

untitled

Hello,

I am working on a draft on Excavator Service Repair Manual. I believe that the topic of the article is of interest due to his activity in the world of mechanics, especially as a well-known one. I would like you to give me a recommendation or if the article is good to be accepted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Excavator_Service_Manual/sandbox Excavator Service Manual (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

you got your recommendation. it is not good to be accepted. ltbdl (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, ESM, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I'm afraid that you have not understood the purpose of Wikipedia. Your draft is entirely original research, which is never acceptable in a Wikipedia article.

An article on this topic would be possible only if you can find several books or scholarly papers which are specifically about "excavator service manuals" - not particular manuals, or even reviews of particular manuals, but a study of that topic. If you could find some of those, then you could possibly write an article which was a summary of what those articles said - not what you know or think about the subject.

I see that you are quite a new editor to Wikipedia. I would advise that creating a new article is a very very challenging way to start your journey as an editor. It is not the only, or necessarily the best, way to contribute: we have millions of articles, many of which are badly in need of some care. Please have a look at the community portal, and see if anything there (in the "Help out") section appeals to you. When you have been editing for a few months, and have a better understanding of core principles such as notability, verifiability and reliable sources, then you might read your first article and look for a suitable subject to create a new article abvout. ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Vector logo progress

I am trying to make the vector logo of WTVF, could you help me? This is my progress so far.

User:Yardwave Logo Maker/sandbox#/media/File:Wtvf 2010 logo prototype-svg.svg Yardwave Logo Maker (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Yardwave Logo Maker: You may be interested in Wikipedia:SVG help. Cheers ‍ Relativity 20:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Can't find that many good references

I am trying to make a page on Major Hans Freiss, but the only references I have are in German. It is very hard with so little info. Some sources say he died, others say he is alive, but since he was born in 1910, he is probably dead. Here is a link to my draft: ​​​​​Draft:Major Hans Freiß - Wikipedia Deerare2good (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The interweb seems to think he is Frieß, not ei. German refs are fine; as for other reference sources I suspect a newspaper archive might be your best bet. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

can you help me find one Deerare2good (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Spelling the subject's name correctly makes it easier for a search engine to find sources. Maproom (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I have been doing that, but besides the german refs, which might work, there is nothing besides some axis history forum that is not reliable. Deerare2good (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

How about this search? (I can't read german so I don't know if these are all for the same guy) 47.188.8.46 (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It's two or three guys, but the Major seems to be the most prominent. Note on the comments to your draft: Major obviously is a rank, and the difference between Frieß and Friess should be respected, but it's basically the same name. The "bayrisches musikerlexikon online" has some biographical information, but without context.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Length in FA articles

Article: Letterpress (video game)

So I want this article to become FA status; I feel as though it has potential. However, I believe that there's a criterion for FAs that it must be comprehensible. Therefore, I have doubts on whether or not this article can become a FA. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 19:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: Hi there! Congratulations on having the recent successful GA review. If there are parts of the article that are incomprehensible, you can mark them with {{clarify}} and discuss them on the article's talk page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I suppose you mean that the article needs to be "comprehensive", since your title asks about the length of the article? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The "proper length" of a featured article depends largely on its subject: if it can be comprehensively covered in 2,000 words, then that is a potential 2,000-word featured article. From what I've read about the process, featured articles even about very broad topics rarely need to be longer than 10,000 words—past that point, content should likely be split into "subpages" instead. Remsense留 22:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to say comprehensive. Thank you for answering. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 23:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, my brain isn't working today. I swear I said the right thing but another word just comes right out... TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 23:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Believe you me, we've all been there! I know I have. Cheers! Remsense留 23:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey, @TrademarkedTWOrantula. There is a list that contains FAs by word count that you might find interesting: Wikipedia:Database reports/Featured articles by size. The current shortest article is Tinder Fire, which was promoted to FA in 2023. See the nomination here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tinder Fire/archive1. ArcticSeeress (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed! A point to see about this list is the vast majority of FAs are shorter than 7000 words, and about half are shorter than 4000. Remsense留 20:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Feedback on article I created?

Hi all, hope you’re all well.

I recently created the article Sheth Ghoolam Hyder and I would like some feedback from experienced editors as to how it could be improved and also would like to see new contributions to the article as well!

Kind regards Ixudi (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article. Well-sourced. Encyclopédisme (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Ixudi Given that thisis your first effort at creating an article, I would have recommended going through the Articles for creation (AfC) process described at WP:YFA, as that would have resulted in you submitting a draft that a Reviewer would then past judgement upon. For your having bypassed this process, New Pages Patrol (WP:NPP) will probably be reviewing your article within next 90 days. It is possible that it will be accepted, converted to draft, or tagged for deletion. Only after NPP rules or 90 days pass without an evaluation will it be 'visible' to search such as Google or Bing. Last - "Good article" is actually a formal rating that requires nomination and review. Lesser ratings, typically shown on the Talk pages of articles, are Stud, Start, C-class and B-class. An editor has rated it C-class. My criticsm is that you have included content that is not about Hyder. David notMD (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I hope when I get an article it will be rated "Stud". AndyJones (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Stubs (the editor made a typo) are articles which typically have a single sentence and have little information, you should aim for C-class and above. Wikipedia:Content assessment has more info on article ratings 115.188.140.167 (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Typo in uploaded image file

Resolved

I uploaded this image: File:Don Schlitz, January 2024.jpg There is a typo in the name. It should read Don Schlitz instead of Schits. Will you either delete this and let me upload again, or just correct the spelling for me? The intention was to use the image in the article Don Schlitz. My apologies, Thanks Eagledj (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

We can rename (or, more accurately, move) the file to the correct spelling, with the assistance of a file mover or a sysop. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I have tagged the file description page with {{rename media}}. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eagledj All set, moved to File:Don Schlitz, January 2024.jpg now. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hoor Al-Qisimi

Hello,

I'm working on a draft about Emirati art curator Hoor Al-Qasimi. I've included citations from reputable journalistic outlets and primary sources. I believe the subject of the article is of interest due to her activity in the art world, especially as a very well-known biennial and generally due to her public status as a Sheikah/member of the Emirati ruling family active in civil society as a cultural figure.

Draft:Hoor Al-Qasimi

I would appreciate support on this article and to work with "Visual Editor."

Kind regards,

CAE ~~~~ Contemparteditor (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Contemparteditor. References to primary sources and interviews and passing mentions and coverage by organizations that she is affiliated with and coverage generated by press releases are of no value in establishing notability. When it comes to references, quality is far more important than quantity. It is not a good idea to make a reviewer wade through mediocre sources searching for better sources. Based on my quick scan, you only have two really solid sources, Artforum and the second New York Times article. Those two sources are reliable, independent and devote significant coverage to her, which is exactly what is needed. Trim back the worthless references to emphasize those two, and try your best to find a few more of comparable quality. Cullen328 (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear Cullen328, Thank you for taking time to look at the article. I appreciate your point about quality over quantity. It's a good one. Ironically, I increased the amount of citations after another community member commented that the article did not have enough sources. I've now deleted Vogue as a source. However, Artnet, a reputable publication, is important as a source, because the citation provides information not found elsewhere. Further, E-Flux is a journalistic outlet and source repeatedly present on Google Scholar. As a finer point, I referenced content from institutes she is affiliated with as primary sources but only use them to support information. I have not used them to establish notability or narratives; they only support facts. Finally, I'd like to point out, I'm dedicating time and energy to writing on Wikipedia and came to the Teahouse to seek "friendly advice." Language like "Trim back the worthless references" is incindiary. I think a) there are more respuectful/constructive ways to convay that message and b) such utterences undermine your otherwise constructive ideas. Do rember that it takes time to write articles and that the Teahouse is a place where people should feel comfortable to ask for help and ideas. I think it's hard to say a bad word against constructive approaches. Thank for your help, I hope I may consult you on some general questions again in the future, Contemparteditor Contemparteditor (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Contemparteditor, when I used the word "worthless", that was shorthand for "worthless for the purpose of establishing the notability of this topic". If that word bothers you, consider instead synonyms like "unhelpful" or "inadequate" or "insufficient". My purpose is to assist you with getting your draft accepted into the encyclopedia, and in helping you understand which references help and which do not help at all. The Artline source has some useful information but it is a timeline, in effect a database entry, that contains no prose. It does not establish notability. Consider the E-flux source. It is an obvious reprint of a press release with many clear hallmarks of a press release, including the "Announcements" header, the group's phone number, website, Facebook, Twitter and even "Media requests" press contact information. It is not an independent source and therefore does not contribute to notability. So, if you want to leave in many unhelpful sources that do not contribute to notability, then that is your prerogative. My advice remains the same: Maximize the references to sources that help establish notability and minimize those that don't. Make of that what you will. Cullen328 (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear Cullen328, Thanks for taking time to explain your point of view. Concerning the Artnet source, it establishes that Hoor Al-Qasimi was born in 1980. That information, for one reason or another, is not widely available. I believe that I could find it in a newspaper archive, but do you find it inappropriate to cite a source without prose? I find that information useful. I get your point about notability, but surely sources don't all need to convey notability. Sometimes simple factual information is needed and helpful? Contemparteditor Contemparteditor (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Contemparteditor, in my view (which may not be shared by other editors) is that it is not necessary for an article to be fully developed before submission to Articles for Creation. That is leaving aside the question of whether Articles for Creation is even necessary. It isn't necessary for experienced editors. Personally, I do not use it myself and have written over 100 new articles and none has ever been deleted. But for less experienced editors, I recommend submitting to AfC, in effect, a lean "stripped down" version, making it crystal clear through its prose and especially through the quality of its references that the topic is notable and ought to be in the encyclopedia immediately. After the article has been accepted, it can then be expanded, appropriately using reliable sources that are either not independent or do not contain significant coverage. Volunteer AfC reviewers are overworked and dealing with large backlogs. It is advisable to make things as easy and as obvious as possible for them. I am giving you pragmatic advice. Cullen328 (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Nice point, Cullen328. I think it's useful advice to remember that not everything must be fully developed for submission. Thank you for this point as well as the others you have shared with me here. Contemparteditor (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Carlos Knight page

There is a wiki page about me, Carlos Kennedy Knight, and the information is incorrect. have attempted to upload corrections, but they have not been changed. How do I verify that the new information is correct. I have never done a music video with Young Thug and my birthday is incorrect as well. 2603:6080:5306:7400:B8C0:A4E:ABAB:6B35 (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Carlos Knight. Deor (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The claim about the Young Thug music video was unreferenced, and the article about the song did not verify it either. The date of birth was not verified by the cited source. I removed both. Any other changes can be be requested at Talk: Carlos Knight using a formal edit request. Cullen328 (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

About Commons:Freedom of panorama

Hello Wikipedians,

How does Freedom of panorama work in practice?

Why is this image nominated for deletion because of "Freedom of panorama" but images that follow the same logic are actively used everywhere on Wikipedia, e.g. – here, here, here and here? And many other examples.

Why do some images "violate" FoP, while others images of the same type do not?
The force of ikigai (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello @The force of ikigai! This question is better suited to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama. Cheers ‍ Relativity 01:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The force of ikigai (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The force of ikigai, the short answer is that various countries have very different laws about Freedom of panorama, and Commons will comply with the law in effect in the country where the photo was taken. If the law is lenient, the photo will be kept. If the law is stringent, the photo will be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Citation vs Reference section

Is there a standard across Wikipedia for this section or are the two used interchangeably?

Artwhitemaster (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Artwhitemaster,

Let me quote the following two things from a wikipedia's content guideline

1. "A citation, also called a reference"

2. "Words like citation and reference are used interchangeably on the English Wikipedia."

So, hence we can conclude that, yes, they can be used inter hangebly.

Yamantakks (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Artwhitemaster, in practice, calling such a section "References" is much more common than calling the section "Citations". Cullen328 (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 is correct. If you would like to see the standard for Wikipedia for this section, please feel free to consult the Heading names paragraphs at MOS:REFERENCES. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello from Risjjius

hi Risjjius (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Risjjius, and welcome to Wikipedia! If you have a specific question about editing Wikipedia, please feel free to return and ask. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Mercy Alu

I am logged into my account. What I am saying is that the "reviewer" stated exacly the decline reason: that the references need to be from verifiable sources independent of the artist/ambassador. It doesn't make sense that ALL the National Newspapers with articles on this Artist are not verifiable? Please we need to be careful to maintain the quality of not only publications but review that we profess. Even a chat response telling me that declining was not far-fetched, without being specific doesn't make sense. The chat comment stated the article is unreferenced and appeared some parts copied from one of the sources, while the reviewer is saying the references need to be from reliable sources independent of the subject; indicating the article is actually referenced? If you believe it "appears" copied, if the same information is carried by different sources about the artist, and you see that I wrote similar about her, should I then make up things about her so as to make my article different? Or shouldn't much of the information online about her be able to be verified as similar? For example, this Major Newspaper of Imo State, Nigeria, that is the flagship Newspaper of the State and writes about Nigerian Artists, including interviewing them etc, with this article about this woman, is considered a passing mention? An unreliable source not separate from her? https://www.imotrumpeta.com/?p=37355 National Nigerian Newspapers who write about Nigerian artists are also unreliable?

Is the source you actually mention which is the Intercontinental Music Awards Website where she is noted to be an Ambassador, also an unreliable source that is NOT separate from the subject? I still say the same thing, you are not clear in how you select articles to improve on, and those you completely decline. Even Awards that are verifiable and relevant, backed by Hollywood, and published in these articles with the actual Award links shared, are still not verifiable by your editor? Artist Notability according to you, NEED to include ONLY one thing: Winning a relevant award, representing something significant in that area, Being published in major reliable independent sources. This artist meets all three. You are saying that the Major Nigerian Newspapers are not reliable, since their articles are included. You are saying, that even the United Nations is not reliable, since the link included showing this woman is also a UN/SDG's ambassador with Globcal International, with both the Globcal webpage link, the UN webpage link, and her designated Ambassador page unverifiable? I think something is wrong with your assessment. There are references in all that I have submitted, which verify at least ONE of your listed criteria, even if you choose not to acknowledge the rest. Jewels of Africa

Jewels of Africa (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, User:Jewels of Africa. I assume your referring to your draft article, Draft:Mercy Alu, which was recently declined by an AfC reviewer. I have to confess that I don't entirely understand the first paragraph or so of your complaint. It is not clear what you need help with, but I'll give it a shot.

and appeared some parts copied from one of the sources

Yes, it appears you copied some content from a source, this has been removed. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously; in the majority of cases, you can't copy text directly off a website. It isn't a matter of using the same information, it's using the exact same words. That's plagiarism and copyright violation and it's universally frowned upon. See Wikipedia:Copyright.

For everything else, it's best you discuss it with the reviewer, User:Ratnahastin. I hope this helps, at least a little bit. Cheers, 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, I suggest you calm down, and take a break. Stay cool when the editing gets hot. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Finally, I see that you've asked the same question at the AfC Help Desk. Please don't ask the same question in multiple places; it splits editor assistance. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your assistance. I just feel some people don't read or go over material and decline for the right reasons. It is simply annoying that "no references that are reliable and independent of the subject" turns into "copying of material" from a reliable published source. So the irony is that the subject is then an actual published figure? I thought there wasn't much on her except for passing remarks, which is exactly what the article was declined for in the first place. If an artist requires only one criteria to have a Wikipedia page, and the references show even one of those criteria, should the response not be rather an acceptance with a highlight of errors that need to be corrected? I wrote on an individual that has impacted many lives positively and is highly esteemed in the industry and beyond as an Ambassador. It took a lot of research to make sure I am selecting the right material, not material that could be termed blogs, or social media etc. There are many Nigerian artists only known mainly in Social media and those still get Wikipedia pages. Finding the right United Nations pages to support my carefully written article was tedious. I am an English major with years of writing experience. I do not think that Ratnahastin went over all the references at all. As far as I am concerned he would have had more feedback than not being published in reliable third party sources. It seems to me people are just happy to press the decline button in general. One would think Wikipedia is doing notable figures a favor by publishing them, yet they are already making impact in the areas they are making impact in, which is not made or marred by Wikipedia. Jewels of Africa (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure what point you are making: there can be multiple problems with a draft, not just notability. One of the problems with yours is that you copied passages directly from sources, which does not do justice to the subject of an encyclopedia article. Remsense留 22:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jewels of Africa, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The requirements of an article in Wikipedia are not easy for a newcomer to understand, which is why I always advise new editors to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles before they ever try the challenging task of creating a new article.

There are indeed several different kinds of problem which often turn up in new editors' drafts. Copyright violations are something which must be removed immediately, as they may have legal implications: they are not permitted anywhere in Wikipedia, not even in drafts.

But then there are other criteria, most significantly about the quality and indepedence of the sources. Looking at the first few sources cited in your draft, I see that the references 2,4, 5 and 13 are clearly cut-down versions of the citation 1. Why do you think that there is any value at all to a draft to cite multiple versions of the same article?

But in fact the original article, in The Witness, while it may be a reliable source, fails the other two tests for a quality source, that of independence, and that of Significant coverage: half of what it says about her is quoting her (not independent) and the introductory paragraphs say almost nothing about her.

Citation 3 The Independent, has one introductory paragraph, and then goes on to report an interview. This is not an independent source.

Citation 6 and 7 are mere listings, and cannot contribute to establishing notability.

Citation 8, Trumpeta, I think is fairly useful: it's partly an interview, but there is some editorial material about her first.

Reference 9, to the UN SDG, does not even mention her, as far as I can find, and therefore adds nothing whatever to the article. Even if it did mention her, it would not be an independent source.

The remaining citations are all from her or organisations she is affiliated with, and so are not independent.

This means, as far as I can see, that the only information which comes from independent reliable sources is the tiny bit in the introduction to 3, and a little more in the first half of 8.

That is the main reaon, I think, why the reviewer has not accepted the draft. You need to remove all the external links from the text as well, but frankly, unless you find some more sources that meet the triple criteria in the golden rule, you will be wasting your time putting any more effort into this draft. ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your response in breaking down the citations. I had a reviewer respond that she received an award from the Intercontinental Music Awards, where she works at? That was super weird, because I reviewed the competition requirements, and realized the ambassadors were previous winners who were awarded this title from their representation of their genre within their localities. This doesn't sound like a job to me. And Ambassadorship, as far as I know, is really an award or appointment in general, for an entity to represent through their brand, usually given to someone already notable. Just like Angelina Jolie for instance, would be given an ambassadorial title, much like a Nobel Peace designation, to represent whatever positive thing it is through her work. Also, saying materials I saw some being from the subject I wrote about was also weird. I went to check, and none of the organizations are owned by her in any way. Even the sources I found about the UN work (I have noted various presentations in this capacity), I find no evidence other than ambassadorial appointments. I can see you consider these affiliations: https://alu.globcal.net/homehttps://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/partners/?id=7214https://www.globcal.net/

Your review is the only review that makes sense in how you have broken down each component to explain it. I think just like you said, unless I find time to research additional material, then it is pointless. I could research other notable people in West Africa, or Africa in general, but then again, it might be pointless because Wikipedia standards are not meant to be biased, but ultimately translates in this way because it only uses one lens based on a particular Western location standard. It is just like when people bring in transcripts to school from foreign countries with different forms of accreditation; they may not fit what is done in another country etc, but unless the examiner looks at that other perspective, none of the credits will count. I don't think Wikipedia can ever represent a World encyclopedia of anything notable, except people who really are already noted well in other Western webpages that have direct information meeting all these hoops and hurdles.

The reason is, much of the world may have notable people, but without access to constant online presence or observing similar criteria in how they write articles. In Nigeria for example, if you write about an artist as an editor, you must present some views from the artist. Some end up quoting what they didn't hear from the artist, just to inject that artist authenticity demanded there. In the Wikipedia world, it is rather maybe not objective. I am sure editors that write about people who have been notable from the past when digital online presence of news, media etc was not as rampant, would most likely have nothing to submit at all today. Therefore, Wikipedia effectively precludes much of the world and history from being able to submit anything at all. It is therefore NOT a World encyclopedia and practically likely precludes most notable people worldwide from being listed. Not sure how reliable students and other people who want to learn about different parts of the world including whatever is meaningful to people from different cultures should find Wikipedia. This is because the criteria is extremely narrow and based only on Western Standards which may not exist in the same capacity everywhere.

Not every news outfit in every country publishes the same way, including online, etc. Even those on TV shows, how does one submit information about them if not online? Maybe take a video of the tv segment? Then you might get into issues of copyright, plagiarism, or an unoriginal shot etc. Meanwhile how do people from different parts of the world show proof of those things? So basically, sections of the world are cut out due to all these. Not sure whether you are able to really vet information from all around the world based on all these nuances. Jewels of Africa (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Jewels of Africa, you say: I do not think that Ratnahastin went over all the references at all. I don't think that any reviewer would have done so. Going over all the references for a draft isn't something that reviewers do. Rather, they sample a few of them. You also say: Her music has won several awards including Best Upcoming Female Artist, Africa, Hollywood and African Prestigious Awards When I first read that, it seemed very strange. "Best Upcoming Female Artist" where? What about "Africa"? Which prestigious Hollywood or African awards? But then I realized that Hollywood and African Prestigious Awards (also called HAPA) seemed to be the name of a set of awards. If this is noteworthy, I'd expect there to be an article about it. But there is no article. If HAPA is notable (by Wikipedia's definition), you might create an article about it first. Although it's a good idea to be fairly skilled in improving existing articles before embarking on any new article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

NOT every noteworthy Awards is listed on Wikipedia. For example, the International Acoustic Music Awards is well recognized and many artists like Miley Cyrus and others have featured in it or won in it. Sony and other notable companies are sponsors etc. It does NOT have a Wikipedia page. I might create an article about some of these awards. It's just irritating right now so may have those organizations do it themselves. I'm just a researcher in the genres I love and am interested in. Soulful African artists I love, maybe some beauty queens that sort of thing, are areas of my interest. But back to these awards, IAMA is NOT on Wikipedia. In fact, there are quite a bit of Grammy winners NOT on Wikipedia. Even the BMI and ASCAP music registers use the IAMA awards to support their artists from all around the world, yet it is not listed on Wikipedia. Maybe they are not listed because some people find it too tedious to attempt to submit anything to Wikipedia. I don't think even Universities are as tedious as Wikipedia folks in submitting anything. This effectively limits the quality of what does make it into Wikipedia, and make it less robust and resourceful. You seem to think everything notable in the world must be listed on Wikipedia to actually count as notable. https://www.ascap.com/news-and-events/calendar/event-details?eventid=d3737210-d04b-4c60-9aef-e2504d02d45e Jewels of Africa (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Jewels of Africa, Wikipedia editors work very hard to expand coverage of Nigeria and all of Africa. Category:Nigerian artists and its subcategories contain hundreds of articles. Category:Nigerian musicians and its subcategories contain hundreds of articles. Category:Nigerian politicians and its subcategories include roughly 1000 articles. Category:Nigerian businesspeople and its subcategories include several hundred articles. Category:Nigerian writers and its subcategories include hundreds of articles. If you explore Category: Nigeria and its complex structure of subcategories, you will discover that Wikipedia has many thousands of articles about every imaginable aspect of Nigeria. Cullen328 (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

What do I do now?

A few days ago, I volunteered to advise or correct articles specifically in biology (and within that aquatic biology). I believe I finished my initial work to start but I don't know if there's something else I need to do and who do I report to. Brian Quelvog Brian Quelvog (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Brian Quelvog: It would be nice if you pointed us to what you're talking about, because from your contributions, this Teahouse post is the only editing work you've done so far on Wikipedia unless you were editing from another account. ‍ Relativity 20:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I recently volunteered to be an advisor on subjects in biology (aquatic biology), but I haven't received any feedback. So I was wandering if there was something else I needed to do to get this process moving. Brian Quelvog (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Brian Quelvog: Was this on Wikipedia? Because if it wasn't, we can't help you here. Cheers ‍ Relativity 20:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Brian: welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

There is no process you need to go through to become an editor; but as far as I know there is no formal concept of an "advisor on xxx subjects" in Wikipedia.

I suggest you find some articles in areas of interest to you - perhaps start with Category:Biology, but I'm sure you'll want to drill down into subcategories - and look for ones that you can improve.

The other thing you can do is join a WikiProject, such as WikiProject Biology, or an associated WikiProject. Add your name to the appropriate Participants' list or page, and then get to work. You can look at what the current tasks are that people have identified in that area, or watch the WikiProject's talk page, to see if there are questions there you can help with. ColinFine (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Brian Quelvog. I am assuming you're a retired biologist with experience in the U.S. fish and game sector. A bit like you, I'm a retired naturalist, and for the last 10 years I've found working on Wikipedia and encouraging experts in their fields to contribute here is really rewarding. So thank you for offering to advise others.

As you can tell from the replies so far, none of us here can determine from your contributions where or to whom you offered your experience. Was it to a University department who were trying to get their student to work on Wikipedia? Or perhaps another editor working in the Education sector?

I'd certainly be happy to guide you 1-2-1 if you do want to help others here, yet find yourself getting stuck in understanding our guidelines and policies. A year or two ago I 'adopted' a retired professor emeritus in marine geopyhsics from the University of California who wanted to put some of his experience and knowledge to work and to share it with others on Wikipedia. It was fascinating to see the difference in approach. In academia, students and researchers cite primary sources in their studies, and credit every member of their team, whereas Wikipedia is predominantly a collation and summary of secondary sources, with each factual statement in an article ideally based on a reliable citation. Thus, Wikipedia is a great starting point for scholars, but it's the References section at the bottom which are most helpful to them in acting as a springboard for their own studies.

I would politely suggest that you can best contribute your skills to whoever you offered it to on Wikipedia by first gaining a little practice of editing, yourself. For example, I found 299 articles relating to the Category of 'freshwater organisms' which also contains a flag ( = a template that looks like this: ) highlighting that further supporting references are needed. (See here) You might find some of these worth looking through to see if you can understand our process of adding references to Reliable Sources to improve articles.

I've left a 'welcome message on your talk page with a link to learn more about editing, which I'd thoroughly recommend. We have two choices of editing tool you can use, though you can easily switch between them. If you need any help whilst you are yourself trying to help others, by all means drop me a message on my own talk page (see the link in my signature). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Citations on a new entry

Hello all,

I'm new to editing so have lots of questions!

I'm creating a new entry with a very challenging subject. I have recently gained access to primary material relating to Iraq's only internationally-recognised contemporary composer, now deceased. Primary material includes letters written to him by notable composers and musician of his time (original letters and postcards which are also scanned for easy digitale upload). The inheritors of the material are currently in correspondence with an institutions in France as well as the Gulbunkian Foundation in Portugal to archive and keep the material for scholarly access. My interest is in preserving Iraqi culture which is hugely challenging for many reasons. Language is just one of them war and loss of archives of many notable institutiosn is another. In presenting material for a wikipeadia article, I'm working with source material in Arabic, French and Russian (I'm a linguist with, primarily, good experienc ewith Russina and Arabic - and just for the record, I'm not paid to do this work). Quotations from these letters is currently in the public domain via secondary sources (primarily in the many online articles on his life written after his death in 2007). Do I cite these as links? They are all in Arabic. Can I cite his biographies which are in the public domain on the websites of notable institutions? These last are on the website of the websites of the Contemporary Music Centre Ireland and on the Iraqi Syphony Orchestra. Are they sufficient as sources? If I wish to include scanned versions of source material can I do so? This of course with the permission of the family. The same applies to pictures held by the family of the subject. If I try to include this material, how do I go about ensuring copyright of these for the family? Or is this even necessary as these pictures are a primary source.

I'm also finding it difficult to understand how to present citations. Are links to external online material sufficient or do I need to provide a reference note as well?

As you can see, I have a lot of questions.

Cheers! Sue Cosgrave (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if this is about Solhi al-Wadi. I see that he isn't in Category:Iraqi composers, I don't know why. Maproom (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It´s about draft Farid Allawerdi Sue Cosgrave (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Sue Cosgrave, and welcome to Wikipedia and its Teahouse. Lots of great questions there. I'll try to address a few of them for you:

I'm assuming you're asking about Draft:Farid Allawerdi?

It's best to think of Wikipedia as being a distillation and collation of what has already been published about a person by reliable sources (see this shortcut for what that means.) That allows anyone in the world to WP:VERIFY something that has been added is correct by (theoretically) visiting or ordering a book via a library/checking reliable websites online/finding an old newspaper or academic journal.

Unfortunately, most primary material such as letters and handwritten postcards cannot be used directly within Wikipedia to support factual statements. But if you can work with archive offices or museums to get them to publish something based upon those archives, then that publication can be used as a citation to support a factual statement on Wikipedia. Just making your own website and posting images of archives isn't enough - it needs to be something done with the approval or oversight of an institution. This rule is there simply to prevent anyone from making hoax websites and using it to create a hoax article. That rule applies to everyone, even though in 99.999% of instances, there is no intent to intentionally mislead.

Having found such independent scholarly articles, books, or past newspaper accounts, you don't have to worry about the language they're in. We accept good sources in any language, even though English ones are preferable.

Yes, you asked about things published about a person after their death. To be honest, some people only ever become NOTABLE in Wikipedia's eyes after they've died! Their passing tends to bring newspapers and journal editors out of the woodwork to create valuable obituaries. Only then can we demonstrate notability when major newspapers write about important, but previously overlooked or unappreciated people. It may sound like an oxymoron, but obituaries often are the lifeblood of Wikipedia!

You can reuse one obituary as a source of information about a person in multiple places within one article without having to re-enter the details again and again, which ends up really messy, with scattered duplicate entries in the References section. The 'Cite' button in both of our optional editing tools allows you to easily reuse one reference, and for it only to appear once in the 'References' section.

And, yes, you can cite biographies on websites of notable institutions - just not a website that some unknown person has written on their personal blog. Again, it doesn't matter if it's not in English.

Here are two shortcut links to help you come to grips with using either our WP:Source Editor, or the Visual Editor: WP:REFBEGIN and WP:REFBEGINVE. Most beginners now seem to prefer Visual Editor, though experienced editors find Source Editor much more powerful and effective. You can switch between them, even whilst editing.

Please don't try to use scanned documents as sources unless including one as a photograph directly adds to the encyclopaedic value of the article as an important or significant image (e.g. Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan.) Always try to add inline citations at the end of sentences, rather than simply adding an External Link. If citing a large book, you should specify page numbers to help anyone verify the statements you add.

Finally, creating a new article from scratch is actually the hardest task anyone can perform here - and it's especially so for a brand new editor like yourself. If you can, we always recommend starting off by editing and improving existing articles in small ways first, then maybe adding citations to those articles before taking the plunge to start a new article. You might wish to check if an article already exists on him in the Wikipedia of his native tongue.

I hope some of this might help, and I apologise if I've missed any key questions. Feel free to seek further clarification, if you need it. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick for your very detailed reply! Yes, the article is on Farid Allawerdi who was Iraq´s only avant garde composer. Being an avant garde composer as opposed to popular music means that his presence in popular articles was scant until his death. Tracing sources since the invasion of Iraq is virtually impossible. Many physical archives perished and those online in the present day Iraq are unreliable.

Perhaps you can advise me on one issue; There is a mention of him in a thesis publication on the work of an unrelated composer. Can this be used as a citation?

I´m studying other articles to understand how to best go forward but it appears that citation and reference practices have changed over time.

Regards, Sue Sue Cosgrave (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Guidance on using theses and dissertations as sources is available at WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Sue Cosgrave. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Cordless Larry. Will examine carefully. Sue Cosgrave (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Sue Cosgrave, I've converted one of your links into an inline citation using a template and a named reference.[13] Templates are completely optional and you are free to hand write your references within the <ref> tags if that is more natural. On Wikipedia, you can cite things to primary sources and even personal materials if they've been made publicly available, but Wikipedia's policies don't allow for entire articles based on primary sources or interpretation of primary sources. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Rjj, thank you; I see the conversion although it shows as Cite Error. I will go to the edit page and see how it looks and maybe learn a new trick. Sue Cosgrave (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I see it as an edit and I can´t undu it or add and insert the relevant info. Sue Cosgrave (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Trying to create a page about a company Gigwing and stating facts based on independent references

I'm trying to create a page about a company Gigwing and stating facts based on independent references and yet I'm getting speedy deletion alerts Gwmt24 (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Gwmt24. Is the "Gw" of your name perhaps short for "Gigwing"? What's your connexion to the company? Well, it's written in reverent corporate-image-copywriting-ese. Sample: The idea for GigWing was sparked when one of the founders experienced a delay in window washing services at their two-story home. The window washer, inundated with gigs but lacking helpers, highlighted a significant gap in the market for both job seekers and small businesses. This incident underscored the need for a platform that could efficiently match skill sets with gig opportunities, leading to the creation of GigWing. Try: [Name], who would later co-found Gigwing, had to wait for the windows of their house to be washed. The person they contacted was overworked. They got the idea of a database cum website to match jobs with would-be workers. (And I'm sure that others here could improve on that.) Backed up by reliable sources, of course. -- Hoary (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:GigWing

Hey there—as the editor who added the speedy deletion tag in question, I'd like to mention that my reasoning is about the same as Hoary's above. The article text sounds like something from a corporate website, and that's simply not what Wikipedia is for. Articles here need to be written from a neutral point of view, not like an advertisement. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 08:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If none of the content was copyright protected, then "If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator." applies. See WP:NCORP for what makes a company potentially notable, WP:42 for quality and independence of references, and per Hoary's question, WP:PAID if you are an employee. David notMD (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Gwmt24, and welcome to the Teahouse. The thing to realise is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

The main question you need to ask is "What have truly independent sources published about the company?", and base your article on those, not on what the company says.

The other thing I will say is this: If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.
I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles.. ColinFine (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Sultan Ali Bin Hamoud Al Busaidi ( 8th Sultan Of Zanzibar )

Hello Wiki, regarding of my great grand dad ( Sultan Ali Bin Hamoud Al Busaidi ) he had two Sons and its not even mentioned on this wiki i wanna clear put my grand father name and my family names in Wiki ... -The great Grand Son Farid Al SAid 188.135.48.183 (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I removed personal info from this query. David notMD (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy:: Ali bin Hamud of Zanzibar is described as the 8th Sultan of Zanzibar. He was succeeded by his brother-in-law. The names of Ali bin Hamud's wife and sons can be added to the article in a Personal life section only if a reference is found and added naming them. David notMD (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.royalark.net/Tanzania/zanz5.htm names his two sons, two daughters, and his wives, so can be used as a reference. David notMD (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It appears that there is consensus that royalark.net is an unreliable self-published source, so I don't think it should be used as a reference. CodeTalker (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion you linked to, the conclusion at the top is "After over a week's debate, consensus is that these self-published ancestry sources should not be used as sources in biographies of living people." In this instance the question is about adding the name of at least one son of Ali Bin Hamoud. Both sons are long-dead. Any addition should not go on to grandchildren nor great-grandchildren (this query). David notMD (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Novelty accounts

Can you just make one, or do you have to get special permission first? Blueskiesdry (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. I'm not sure what you mean by "novelty account", but legitimate uses of additional accounts are listed at WP:LEGITSOCK. You don't normally need permission to create one. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Stuff like Bishzilla. Blueskiesdry (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The Ben Gurion Canal Project

Content dispute

This page has been deleted with not much discussion and obvious little consideration of the sources available for the project. A search on "Google Scholar" shows sources back to 1950 from academia and other official sources. The deletion by @Daniel seems to be too quick and without much consideration. The users participating in the discussions were made around 20th December 2023 and deleted by 28th December 2023. As a former employee in Middle Eastern projects in the Shipping Industry 2 decades ago, I also happen to have insights in how this project stands today from insiders in the region and globally in shipping. I find it hard to accept a deletion of this article in the light of the events that goes on in Eastern Mediterranean p.t. The article is more relevant than ever, since it has been under detailed planning for 70 years. With the screenshots I managed to get before User:Daniel deleted it and the approach he used when I did an effort to start a discussion, makes me question if said user is biased. The latter because of the amount of academic- and professional records from the shipping industry. Talk is here Talk ¦ The Ben Gurion Canal The article should be reinstated and the known paid false editors, paid to edit Wikipedia according to their employer's agenda, should be banned or observed with focus rather than speed. Kind Rgds @Captain8lue Captain8lue (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC) This is the Teahouse, a place to discuss Wikipedia in general, not really for specific help with specific content disputes: on average, Teahouse hosts will not be informed on specific topics like this. I recommend having the discussion on the user's talk page you have linked, or somewhere like WikiProject Israel. Also, it's not required to take screenshots, as every edit is saved in a page's history. Remsense留 23:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)  Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Gurion Canal Project Please note that asking people to support/oppose a deletion can be considered WP:CANVASSING. The correct place to challenge a review (but please come with good arguments/sources) is Wikipedia:Deletion review. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC) If you have a question regarding policy or editing, feel free to ask. Geardona (talk to me?) 23:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Lets run through this statement by statement... "This page has been deleted with not much discussion and obvious little consideration of the sources available for the project" - an extensive discussion occurred at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Gurion Canal Project, in line with Wikipedia processes, "A search on "Google Scholar" shows sources back to 1950 from academia and other official sources." - these academic sources were dismissed by a consensus of Wikipedia editors in the AfD. "The deletion by @Daniel seems to be too quick and without much consideration. The users participating in the discussions were made around 20th December 2023 and deleted by 28th December 2023." - the 7-day period is in line with Wikipedia's deletion process, and therefore this statement is factually incorrect and should be withdrawn. "As a former employee in Middle Eastern projects in the Shipping Industry 2 decades ago, I also happen to have insights in how this project stands today from insiders in the region and globally in shipping. I find it hard to accept a deletion of this article in the light of the events that goes on in Eastern Mediterranean p.t. The article is more relevant than ever, since it has been under detailed planning for 70 years." - this sounds a lot like original research. "With the screenshots I managed to get before User:Daniel deleted it and the approach he used when I did an effort to start a discussion, makes me question if said user is biased." - The discussion was archived, not deleted. I am free to manage my user talk page as I so desire per talk page guidelines. The statement that I am "biased" should be withdrawn without equivocation. What is the relationship between this editor and LtCdrLaForge (talk · contribs), who also contributed to my talk page discussion (in breach of WP:SOCK if they are the same person or acting in close concert with each other) and has previously posted a similar diatribe to the Teahouse? Daniel (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Respectfully, I think this needs to be moved to AN/I at this point, the teahouse is a question forum. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC) I'd prefer the accusation of bias to be withdrawn or struck before such a move occurs. If this is a question forum, then there should be even less tolerance for that than anywhere else. Daniel (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Of course, by move I meant a cut out and then bring it there. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I've collapsed this discussion, since the Teahouse does not seem like the best place for it, as it is a specific content dispute where emotions are running high. @Captain8lue: if you would like to have this discussion, I recommend bringing it to a venue like ANI, and reframing the discussion as sounding less like personal attacks. Thank you. Remsense留 00:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft article at Draft:AfC submission

I'm sure this is not the place to report it, but this does not seem to be intentional. The page has no history besides this. This may be a misplaced draft or a misplaced name.

I found the page Draft:AfC submission when viewing Template:AfC submission, as it had a warning that read "This page should probably be moved, but a page already exists at Draft:AfC submission."

The actual draft article seems to be at Draft:Advance Street Name Plaque. Vanillyn (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vanillyn I have marked it for speedy deletion as a test page. Thanks ‍ Relativity 00:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

And I've requested creation protection since it's been created and deleted just too many times. ‍ Relativity 00:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

alright, thank you! Vanillyn (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Citations outside or inside of parentheses?

I know that you should put inline citations after the comma and dots, but do you put the citations inside or outside of the parentheses?

Is it like this (blah blah blah^[1]) or (blah blah blah)^[1]? RandomGuy3114(talk) 4:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC) RandomGuy3114 (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If what I'm referencing is within the parentheses, I put the note there too. -- Hoary (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It depends. If the citation applies to the entire parenthetical statement, I will put the footnote outside. Putting it just inside can look odd, so usually I will look for a way to rearrange things to avoid that. Will adjust my habit own per below. Remsense留 06:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@RandomGuy3114: MOS:CITEPUNCT says "Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis" (my emphasis). Deor (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I remembered about a help article saying the exact same thing but couldn't look for it to confirm it! RandomGuy3114 (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Are there guidelines for specific types of articles?

My question involves U.S. State articles. The New Mexico page has a tag suggesting that it should be trimmed down (from ~21,000 words) and I see in the guidelines that it should be <10,000 words. If I was to work on this I'd want the result to be consistent with other state articles, in terms of length and formatting, and with Wikipedia guidelines. I got to wondering about the word count and formatting of other state articles in comparison, which got me wondering if there are guidelines for state articles or if this type of article is a subset of a broader kind of article which has its own guidelines. If I work on this I want to make sure I'm not wasting time or causing problems. Or maybe I should take on another project from the list of high priority projects. What do you think? Gamboler (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

There's no firm standards—in fact, there's been an ongoing discussion regarding the article length guideline on the corresponding talk page. (I personally think that 10k is a good ceiling for almost all articles, and really a bit high most of the time, and that articles longer than that should almost always have 'sub-articles' split off or otherwise cut down.) What 'state-specific' guidelines were you thinking about? You could take a look at WikiProject United States and the list of WikiProjects for U.S. states, perhaps. Also, Virginia is a featured article, and featured articles are often used as models for people trying to improve related articles. Cheers! Remsense留 02:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)