This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
Can a YouTube video (e.g. this one) that is from an official and reliable channel, covering the production of a film, be used as a source? DinSolo (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi @DinSolo: YouTube is just a platform, so the reliability or otherwise of the content depends on the channel and the original source. If we're talking eg. BBC News, and the clip is on BBC's own official channel, that is considered a reliable source, even on YouTube. If we're talking Russia Today, that's a deprecated source, and cannot be used no matter whose channel it's on. If we're talking BBC news, but the channel isn't BBC, then it could be reliable as long as the content hasn't been edited or doctored in any way, but it would be better to find that same content on BBC's own channel and cite that. (I say this in a generic sense, without commenting on whether Think Music India is a reliable source.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Think Music is a musiclabel, so they may be regarded as a reliable sources only for uncontroversial factual information about themselves and their issues: see WP:ABOUTSELF. It makes no difference what medium or platform their publications are on. ColinFine (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Ah... it seems that the same author created both at the same time, so this isn't an issue for this article. However, I'd still like to know what kind of tagging would have been useful. -
I am sorry you faced harassment. I recommend you take a look at the policy section WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL, which is a step by step guide to dealing with incivility. If the steps fail to resolve the problem, you can file a report at WP:ANI, with evidence like Diffs. Catalk to me!13:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I have found that the task of updating Atlas (robot) with information about their new electronic successor is a task I can handle. I cannot, however, determine if I can add significant or even a little bit of information about the new robot's purpose and construction with a source straight from Boston Dynamics. I also am having trouble figuring what the author for this text would be and how I would cite it in the article. Any advice on what to do? I would like to improve the state of the article. ~ GoatLordServant(Talk)13:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for
Since the author is not mentioned in the website, it's ok to leave the field blank, like this: [1]
I also recommend finding an WP:independent source for information added to articles, since the company who made Atlas wouldn't be impartial to it. However, the blog you've found should fine for uncontroversial, little details. 👍
I was figuring all the article needed was a baseline for the updated version, and all the commentary, reactions, and more in-depth stuff would come later. Just needed a start! Thank you, Ca. ~ GoatLordServant(Talk)14:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
If you make 20 very small changes, should that necessarily be 20 separate edits?
Wikipedia:Good editing practices tells me that "Making multiple changes in a single edit, particularly when edits stretch across different sections, should be avoided.". What I have interpreted this to mean is that if I am making multiple small edits within the same paragraph, that I should make them as one edit, but if they stretch across multiple paragraphs, then I should make a separate edit for each paragraph that I am editing.
A lot of the changes I make in articles are small minor changes here and there like adding commas and adding the word "the", so that means following this interpretation ends up inflating my edit count. For example, I was editing the article for the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, and 18 of the edits were just me "fixing grammar by adding the word 'the'". Is it necessarily a bad thing that there are a large number of those edits? Would that be excessively inflating my edit count and adding too much clutter to the version history or am I just overthinking this? Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Anonymous Libertarian, and welcome to the Teahouse. Nobody who is here to improve the encyclopaedia cares in the least about edit count; and nor is the length of the version history really of import.
I would say that several minor edits in the same section would be fine, but there wouldn't be a problem doing them individually.
The major risk in doing different edits in one go is that if somebody disagrees with one of them, they are unlikely to pick just that one, but will often just revert the whole eid.t ColinFine (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I’ve been wondering the very same thing, @Anonymous Libertarian. But of course there’s no real harm to anyone if we simply rack up points — it’s not quite like if we were using up critical natural resources by turning on the tap every time we made a minor edit. 😅
In the vast majority of cases, it's simply not that big of a deal and you should do what feels most comfortable and reasonable until someone tells you otherwise. There are disadvantages to both discretizing every edit and making large heterogenous edits, both stemming from difficulty of review by other editors. Just be aware that both people might have trouble with large edits that touch a lot of different parts and do a lot of different things, and also with 40 edits that fill of the article history that they then potentially have to go through piecemeal. Personally, I would find it a bit absurd to make every typographical change its own edit, there's simply no reason to do that as a matter of course. Remsense诉16:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
My Userboxes put into a vertical table?
Hello, I need help with my userboxes on my page. I am trying to put the collapsible segments into a vertical table, but am having trouble with it. Thanks! MemeGod ._. (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@MemeGod27 I'd recommend something like mine, where all of my userboxes are laid out in their own box with collapseboxes. This prevents them from sort of just sitting around all over the page. CommissarDoggoTalk?15:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I am trying to submit an article about an urban garden in Belgrade, Serbia. The citations i am giving are either books or big online newspapers/magazines (I have now deleted two just in case: one to the tilda site and youtube reportage about the garden). I am wondering if the citations are marked as unreliable because they are in serbian? Tommyleena (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@Tommyleena There is guidance applicable to all sources at WP:RS. Sources don't need to be in English but we do prefer those that have editorial control and oversight, such as national-level newspapers. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I think the issue might be more to do with a lack of sourcing than with the reliability of the sources that are cited, Tommyleena. For example, what's the source for the statement that "Belgrade garden hosts a variety of plant species, with 29 trees of different species growing there"? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
How can I make a request to recover the draft of a page that went through the articles for deletion process? I'd like to see what the original draft looked like so I can update it as new references are available since its deletion. Nnev66 (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, WP:UNDELETE is a bit confusing and but I've requested the page be restored as a Draft and will see what happens. Appreciate your response that this process may be OK for article that had originally gone through AfD. Nnev66 (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
FYI, in case anyone has my question, I was told if one wants to recover a Draft page they should contact the admin who closed the Articles for Deletion discussion and not use the undeletion mechanism. I'll update here once I have a final resolution to this issue. Nnev66 (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry Adriancph, I just discovered a "subscribe" link in the tool pane under Actions. I mistakenly thought that I should click on the star symbol (Alt+shift+W). rootsmusic (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi RoyalSilver. I'd suggest looking for some sources independent of Shawnee County's own publicity, such as some news coverage or a travel guide. As it is now, you've got four references but they're all coming from the same place. Good luck with your article! -- D'n'B-t -- 19:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
One thing I see becoming an issue is that you're currently writing backwards. This is problematic because it is original research and that it can sometimes be hard to verify to the standards of Wikipedia that something is true.
Also, note that not all Wikipedia articles need images. Your map really doesn't tell all that much about the lake itself as I cannot see it. If you really want an image, you could take it yourself and add it to Wikimedia Commons. ✶Quxyz✶02:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Updated the page of a relatively important figure in the Libyan Civil war, would someone mind checking my writing/sourcing?
Found out about that Al-Mahdi Al-Barghathi had died last October, in rather circumspect circumstances, but that the Wikipedia page still talked about the man as alive. So I figured I'd do some digging and update the page. I've spent some hours researching, and found what seem to be the most accurate/reliable sources, but I'm not sure if I formatted the brief and long bios as best possible. If anyone would mind checking the article and editing it so it fits with Wikipedia style that'd be great MWvBins (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems OK to me. If another editor agrees with me, you can just move forward and forget about it. Bduke (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. This account isn't new – I have been editing for a few years from this account, but for some reason that is not possible anymore. M.N. Thaler (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
So currently I am trying to create the articles for the 4 railway routes in Iraq, the IRR Southern, Western, Northern and Transversal. The Southern and Transversal articles already exist, for the Western Line I have prepared a sandbox but the biggest issue would be the Northern railway. The problem is, that the article for the IRR Northern kind of exists already as the Berlin-Baghdad Railway article. The thing is that the article does not really focus on the Iraqi section as well as the current state of operations and transformations in Iraq or generally anything that only matters to the Iraqi section, not just the entirety of the railway, which is fair. Would you say an article solely for the Iraqi section would be notable enough or would it be silly to create two articles for effectively the same railway?
Hello, JohnnyDoobydoo. There are two separate questions here. Whether the Iraqi section of the BBR is notable by Wikipedia's standards depends just on the number and quality of reliable independent sources about that section specifically (the sources do not have to be online, and do not have to be in English, though English sources are preferred if they exist).
If the sources are not there (remember, for that section specfically), then there cannot be a separate article.
If the sources exist, then a separate article is possible, but that does not necessarily mean it should exist. Is there enough worth saying about that section specifically that merits a separate article? This is an editorial decision (and editors may disagree about it!). The alternative is to create a section about it in Berlin-Baghdad Railway, and then you can create a redirect that points to that section. Discussing this on Talk:Berlin-Baghdad Railway might be a good way to start. ColinFine (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
@Pasta Crab: Don't be anxious to create a new article. That can easily lead to a lot of frustration as your efforts are highly likely to be repeatedly rejected for seemingly arbitrary reasons. Eavesdropping on the Teahouse and at WP:Help desk will give you some idea of the sorts of issues new users encounter.
If you are tempted to edit an article, make sure you understand about the requirements to cite WP:Reliable sources for any claims made. Be aware of the standard way to properly format citations. (That's a joke, there are various "standard ways" to format citations.) I imagine most new editors these days are using the visual editor, but if you want to see the "wikitext", that might give you some insight in what's going on underneath.
There are indeed some introductory areas, such as listed on Help:Contents and various other links listed in the left margin (at least in the non-mobile page layout). So just play around, as you explore, discover the issues people are encountering, you'll be less likely to trip and fall when you decide that the time has come for you to add or edit content. Fabrickator (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Main tip: when in doubt, ask. You have already made one of the key discoveries, that the Teahouse is a great place to come for help. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Can I remove a redirect for a page that now exists?
A few months ago I created the page Warped Tour - 2012, however this wasn't the exact name I wanted to use. I would have preferred to call it "Warped Tour 2012" without the hyphen (as this fits the format of the other Warped Tour year pages), but when I originally tried to move it out of the draft state into an article, it wouldn't let me use that name as it said it was already taken. It also does not let me changed the name of the page now that it is an article, giving me the same reason.
Since from what I can see, a page dedicated to the 2012 version of the Warped Tour did not exist prior to me creating this one, I think what might be going on here is that "Warped Tour 2012" is currently set up as a redirect to the main Warped Tour page so it in a way already exists on Wikipedia and won't let me replace it. So this has me thinking that this redirect needs to be removed to allow for the new page to take it's name.
I'm not well versed in Wikipedia so I'm aware that I could be way off the mark with what's causing me to not be able to rename the 2012 page, it might be unrelated to this, but this is what I think may be the issue here. Any help would be much appreciated, thank you! Owen1141 (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm editing an article entitled Canoe. Down at the bottom is what seems to be a template called "Clear" applied to a small section of text under a heading of "Canoe launches." I thought what Clear was likely to be for was to suggest that the small section be removed, because it's so small, without real discussion, and (at least to me) not of much value to the article.
But when I clicked on "Clear," it seemed to indicate that it was to clear up parts of photos. Because there was no photo in that section, I'm wondering why it's there. I'd love to find out. Augnablik (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
That's a template, which you can check out at {{Clear}}. Basically, its role is to ensure that white space is created to avoid images clashing with text, especially in this case the section header following, in various browser window widths. You should leave this alone unless you are clear [pun intended] about the consequences of removing it! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, @Michael D. Turnbull, with an extra dollop of — let me be clear here — appreciation for your “pun intended.”
It’s because I did check out the template that I was confused because the Clear icon is just sitting in a text areas with no photos. My question was why it was there. Maybe it was unintentional on the part of whoever put it there. Augnablik (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the clear template there is doing nothing there; what probably happened is that the image it was intended for got removed at some point, and the removing editor forgot to take out the template as well. Catalk to me!15:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a book, used as a source on Wiki article. I need to read and verify it. However cannot find free version of it. I already tried Google, Archive.org, and Wikipedia Lib. What else can I do? Is there any community or page (in wikipedia) to ask for a book? Aredoros87 (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
My general strategy when attempting to access a "book" is to start with WorldCat. The main reason for this is that if I'm having trouble getting what I want from archive.org, I'll already be aware of the existence or non-existence of the alternatives that WorldCat shows. Be aware that although Open Library accesses through the archive.org interface, there are occasional differences in what you may actually be able to access.
Note that when WorldCat points you at some other "free" sources, these are often actually restricted to those who have an association with the associated institution, Hathi Trust being a notable exception. Fabrickator (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@Aredoros87 You say that you saw the book already used as a source on a Wikipedia article. If you doubt that the book supports the article content and are trying to verify that it does, then one suggestion would be to raise the issue on the Talk Page of the article and WP:PING the editor who added that citation. For well-watched articles there are likely to be several people interested in the topic who have access to the passage in question and who might even be willing to email you a copy of the relevant pages. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I uploaded a new image and I just noticed that it had a watermark at the bottom right, and I don't know what to do now. Could someone help me? RoyalSilver (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi @RoyalSilver. Usually watermarked images are not released under Creative Commons and are copyrighted to the author, in this case Rich Minear. Where did you get the photograph from, how do you know it's released under CC BY 2.0 DEED?
Ah, found it. Looks like it was originally a copyrighted piece, then released under CC (see License history) which I presume is why the Watermark is still there. However, the Flickr image states it is CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 DEED, not CC BY 2.0 DEED as you have stated on the file page. That means you cannot crop it to remove the watermark.
@RoyalSilver and note that Commons cannot accept any license which includes the NC / ND stipulations: Wikimedia only hosts images that can be used commercially and can be modified. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I signed up for a Wikipedia account yesterday and I thought I could briefly introduce myself in my user page, but I was told that what I wrote didn't comply with Wikipedia goals or something. How can I fix it? I see that some admins are able to introduce themselves without getting their page deleted, and I sort of don't understand where the problem was.
I saw this part about providing a link to the page I'm asking about, but it's completely empty anyways (my user page was labelled "speedy deletion" or something yesterday and this morning when I checked it was completely wiped blank).
I am getting the following error when I attempt to export pages with the included templates. I am able to export them without the templates. Is there something I can do to troubleshoot? It had worked earlier in the week.
Request from 173.71.130.68 via cp1104 cp1104, Varnish XID 554392182
Upstream caches: cp1104 int
Error: 500, Internal Server Error at Fri, 10 May 2024 16:13:52 GMT
Hello. I am kind of new to Wikipedia. I came across Stanley Kamel#Filmography, and I tried a lot of things to fix the table, but it isnt getting fixed. Would someone kindly fix the table? —usernamekiran (talk)13:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Usernamekiran. You don't appear to have edited Stanley Kamel, and it is not obvious to me what the problem is with the table (or even which table). Please clarify. ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
False signature?? The query is 'signed' usernamekiran, but the entry and editing to the Kamel article appear to have been made by a different account. usernamekiran is clearly not "...kind of new to Wikipedia". David notMD (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
The edits were made by usernamekiran using his alt-account (note x at the end), so I don't think anything untoward is going on. It seems he was being modest about his experience! Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
When this question was asked the last edit to the article had been in January by an IP, so I assume they tried to fix it in preview. – 2804:F1...09:2AE4 (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi. @David notMD: Yes, I apologise for the confusion. I never edited the article, I came across the filmography's film table, and tried to fix the inaccurate boxes. Instead of saving, I checked the preview, and my attempts hadnt fix the issue. @ColinFine: the minor issue that I was talking about has been fixed by Michael D. Turnbull. Regarding the alt ac, I accidentally made the edit from that account, I was logged in to the alt ac from private/incognito window (I often do that to view Wikipedia as newly registered/auto-confirmed user), I didnt realise I had edited teahouse using the alt ac. Thanks a lot for the help, —usernamekiran (talk)10:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Klick Help
Hi Teahouse,
I'm feeling quite stuck. I submitted an extensively researched Draft through Articles for Creation about the large Canadian-based and now global company, Klick. (After disclosing my COI in both my username and on my user page).
From the 58 total references in the article, I singled out seven significant, independent, reliable, and secondary sources from major media, business news, and leading industry publications:
Meanwhile, I've been told the draft had too few references, too many references, references that were paywalled, and references that [prohibitively] quoted principals of the company in the context of their reporting.
"[Klick] has grown into the world’s largest independent digital health agency. The award-wining company has been growing profitably for 15 years and is a Branham top 10 healthcare IT company as well as having been named by the World Economic Forum as a Global Growth Company to watch."
(I also note I specifically said that Paywalled references weren't an issue, just that I couldn't access it myself) Qcne(talk)21:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi User:Qcne. Thank you for your help. Because of the deep work I've done on this article and the number of objections I've already addressed, I wanted to seek a third opinion. I think I've done everything you've asked, and I appreciate your guidance. I still think the extensive sourcing about this company surpasses the notability and corporate inclusion guidelines. So, I'm looking for others to weigh in.
To offer more reasons why I am confident, here are 13 additional sources about the company and its products. They are each independent, reliable and secondary. They vary in significance of coverage but leave no doubt about notability as a whole.
@Marisa at Klick I can understand your frustration, as you have obviously worked hard to draft an article about your company to Wikipedia's standards. My opinion is that you now have too many citations, which makes it very difficult for the reviewers to focus on the best. For example, as a professional scientist, I clicked through to #12 here to see what it said. I found an article clearly based on an interview with Kaufman at Klick, so not WP:INDEPENDENT of the company. To accept article drafts, we need to be convinced of notability based solely on sources meeting these criteria. So my advice would be to trim the text to what you can base just on these types of sources and re-submit. Once the article is accepted, you can suggest further edits (via its Talk Page in view of your COI): none of your work is lost as it will be in the history of the article and can be re-introduced later piece by piece. Good luck. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Marisa at Klick, apparently you do not yet understand the importance of the indepependence of a source, which is just as important as the reliability of a source when it comes to establishing the Notability of a company. I read five of your sources, selected from both your lists. All were based heavily on quotations from company officials and one was overtly based on a Business Wire press release from the company. All showed signs of being generated by the public relations efforts of the company. All of them are of no value in establishing that the company is notable. The issue is too many mediocre sources and too few (if any) sources that are completely independent of the company, indisputably reliable, and that devote significant coverage to the company. My recommendation would be to ruthlessly remove all of the sources that are not independent and reliable and that devote significant coverage to the company, plus all the content that they support. Source quality is vastly more important than source quantity. Do not burden reviewers with reading mediocre sources. Present only excellent sources that establish notability for them to read. Cullen328 (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
The awards list, although referenced, does not contain the types of major awards that Wikipedia values as contributing to notability. David notMD (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello. If you did not have an email address attached to your account Preferences to be able to recover your password, and you cannot remember your password, there is no way to regain access. You may create a new account and identify it as a successor account on the user page(example, "I am user1234, I was previously Rafeh96 but lost access"). 331dot (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
The last edits by Rafeh96 were in November 2015. Perhaps best to do as advised - start a new account and mention on your User page that you once were Rafeh96. David notMD (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I want to create a page for a higlife legend in Ghana
So, may I ask: Is free speech permitted? It appears that sarcasm and other offensive language are frowned upon in Wikipedia's community, and may sometimes lead to sanctions. If my opinion is contentious, can I still express it, or should I just say what everyone wants to hear? I am aware that not everyone on Wikipedia is nice; many merely put up a nice face to comply with rules and policies. WolverineXI(talk to me)15:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech. If you want to voice personal opinions on real world topics, then there are many alternatives. If the opinion is related to Wikipedia editing, feel free to express it by seeking consensus and commenting on/opening discussions. As long as nobody on Wikipedia knows about your opinions, there is no possible damage caused. (See this section of a essay that focuses on bigotry in particular) Catalk to me!15:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
How do I change the order of items in an infobox? On the page for C-3PO, I would like to move the "Creator" line above the "Affiliation" line. Wafflewombat (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello and welcome. I'm not certain that you can, or even that you should, as infoboxes by design are meant to be consistent across all articles, at least for the particular topic area. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
As 331dot said, the order of the lines is set in the infobox template; each line has a number and they're kept in strict order. See the documentation for {{Infobox}} (which is used to make infobox templates) to see how this works. Cremastra (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
What are Start-Class articles?
A stub is a article which is to short the length of which i am unsure about but what exactly is a Start and where can one find this information. thank you in advance for helping a new Wikipedian. Adriancph (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I am trying to make corrections to the article on the Canadian Forces Snowbirds. I cannot see the edit key. Please point me to it. Thank you. Dan Dempsey Dan Dempsey (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Dan Dempsey, there should be several conspicuous edit links visible on the page. There is one in the bar below the article title, between the "Read" and "View history" links, and there should be "edit" links next to each section header. If you're asking why you can't get to the Canadian Forces Snowbirds page itself, that's because it's a redirect to the Snowbirds (aerobatic team) page. Liu1126 (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Because it had no resemblance to an actual encyclopedia article. You are free to liveblog elsewhere, but not on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Automatically filling an infobox person from Wikidata
I'm editing a Draft for the article Pere-Enric_de_Ferran_i_de_Rocabruna in the english Wikipedia.
I'm trying to insert an infobox person using {{Infobox person/Wikidata | fetchwikidata=ALL}}, as it is sugested in the tutorials, but the box is not being automatically filled from Wikidata, eventhough a Wikidata element does exists with the same title as the article. In the draft edit page, under Tools menu, I'm not finding any link to Wikidata. Xfmol (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
@Xfmol, Welcome to the Teahouse. I am curious. Which tutorial recommends using {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} rather than {{Infobox person}}? The link to Wikidata for an article is not by name but by article link. Draft articles aren't linked to Wikidata, so you will need to wait until the article is in mainspace. Also the template will only pick up data which has references, and very few of the items at for that person have sources.
Hello, Xfmol. I was about to give you much the same response as StarryGrandma; but I want to note that infoboxes are not required in articles, so it should make no difference to the review process whether you have an infobox or not. I suggest you simply comment out the infobox for the present (put it between <!-- and --> )
However, what will make a difference to the review is that Draft:Pere-Enric de Ferran i de Rocabruna has only one source cited, and therefore does not establish that he meets the criteria for notability in English Wikipedia; and also it is written in flowery language, inappropriate for English Wikipedia.
Please note that different versions of Wikipedia have different rules and policies, so the existing of an article in another Wikipedia does not guarantee that the subject will meet the requirements for English Wikipedia. Please see WP:Translation. ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. It is a draft editing page and I am just starting to write the article; of course the article will be far more extended and will have >10 references. I'm almost a begginer editor, I've already contributed to the catalan, spanish and french Wikipedias, but this is the first time I'm contributing to the english Wikipedia. Xfmol (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
@Xfmol As others have mentioned, I don't think you can create an infobox this way until you already have an article in mainspace. But you can certainly copy the {{infobox person}} into your draft (without filled-in parameters) and then use the Wikidata entry here to copy-paste in key information. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
@Xfmol, it turns out you can add the Wikidata identifier to the template as {{Infobox person/Wikidata | qid=Q16190541 | fetchwikidata=ALL}} to retrieve the data while in draft space. It will only fill in two values however, since the rest of the data doesn't have sources on Wikidata. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
where from learn to initial wikipedia page editing
I am writing to request assistance with my draft article Draft:Vaibhav Palhade which was recently rejected by a reviewer. The reviewer stated that the sources are just passing mentions and not reputable, and that the attached articles are in an Indian language and from reputed media.I believe the sources I have provided are in fact reputable Indian media outlets and provide substantive information, not just passing mentions. However, as an Indian language article, it seems the reviewer may not have been able to fully evaluate the quality and notability of the sources.I would greatly appreciate if you could please have this draft reviewed by an Indian language reviewer who can better assess the reliability and notability of the Indian media sources I have included. I believe the article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and that the sources are sufficiently reputable.Thank you very much for your assistance. I look forward to having my draft re-reviewed by a more appropriate reviewer. Steelbird1967 (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Steelbird1967. Your draft has not been rejected. It has been declined by three different reviewers. That's an important distinction. Have you read WP:NEWSORGINDIA which explains the serious problem that many media organizations in India have regarding entertainment personalities? Pay to play coverage is worthless on the English Wikipedia. If any payments have been accepted for any of this coverage, then it does not establish notability. Your one English language source is written in a highly promotional manner and makes a big deal of his collaboration with Hollywood figure Turn up Tobi. The problem with that is that Turn up Tobi is not a well-known Hollywood figure. He is a little known rap producer from New Jersey, a continent away from Hollywood. That calls the reliability of the source into question. When I used Google Translate to look at several of your sources, it appeared that they were highly promotional and often based on interviews, so not independent. Also, much of the content is this, that and the other thing is "upcoming". Speculation about future projects does not make a person notable. Actual accomplishments do. So, which is your very best source? Which one is indisputably reliable, fully independent, and that devotes significant coverage to this person? I will translate the entire source and give you my opinion of it. As for insisting on a reviewer fluent in Hindi, that is not going to happen unless you find an experienced Hindi speaking editor who is fully familiar with the problems described in WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Cullen328 (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
@Steelbird1967 and Cullen328: I can read Hindi, as well as Marathi. I agree with the reviewers. I had nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaibhav Palhade. In current draft, Palhade started his career in 2021. The title was salted because of recreation. Only one thing, a lot of the countries think "(entire) American entertainment content = Hollywood". —usernamekiran (talk)02:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
@Steelbird1967: no. there are hundreds of articles on topics which were deleted in the past because they were not notable, but later these articles were created/accepted through AfC/draft process after the subject of the article became notable. That means, regardless the history of Palhade article, it will be accepted after Palhade passes notability criteria. In short, currently there is no significant coverage of Vaibhav Palhade in reliable source, meaning he doesnt pass notability criteria. When there is enough coverage in the reliable sources, the article will be approved. —usernamekiran (talk)06:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Can you help improve a page I'm creating
I am creating a page under Franki Love. It says it is under "speedy deletion" because it comes of as an advertisement. Can someone please help me improve it? Jimrossen (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy link:Draft:Franki Love. As the text of the draft has only ever been one sentence long, the "advertisement" tag seems inappropriate. I note that the references currently numbered "3" and "4" are to two versions of the same source. Maproom (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, do you have any suggestions to edit it so it will be approved. It also has a tag of speedy deletion. Do you know how to remove it? Jimrossen (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place for debating or comparing with your personal views. Instead, go and create your own blog on Medium, Blogger, or Wordpress and write whatever you want. Grabup (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, it's me Akhinesh and I have a question about Licensing.
Please explain how to get CC licence, I don't really know how to use CC licence
I wants to upload some of my work to Wikimedia Commons but unfortunately I don't know how to use CC licence. I have received the same answers for my question about CC licence but I didn't really understand Akhinesh212 (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
@Akhinesh212: you can't "get" a CC licence. Whoever is/was the owner of the copyright in the content you're referring to must have released that content into the Creative Commons (CC) under terms which are compatible with Wikipedia. Your job is then to provide evidence of it having been so released. The vast majority of content (such as photos) in the world is not available under such provisions.
You see that someone has registered someone else's image on wikimedia commons as "Own work".
I see that someone has registered other people's images on wikimedia commons without attribution, stating “Own work” and “I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license”.
Is there any way to remove those images and sanction the user? Of course, I am not the copyright holder of those images. Fysjsj2517 (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Not for the plebs like you, Fysjsj2517, or me. However, we can start the process. Look at a sample image at Commons. Look at other of the uploader's "own work". Write a proposal for deletion that's general and covers all that you believe should be deleted. (I use a text editor for this.) Make notes about the particulars for any subset of these images (or any single image). Looking at any one of these images, click the option "Perform batch task". You'll be asked if you want to nominate uploads by this user. Yes you do. Check (tick) each image that should be deleted. Paste in your delete rationale, edit it, get it just right, and ... blammo. And then, do not hold your breath: deletion can take a very long time. (This one worked within a single calendar month; consider yourself lucky if this happens.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
wrote an article on upstate united FC and i cited reference, but i received an message that the article doesn't meet Wikipedia requirement. Sam goeso (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
@Sam goeso You moved the article draft to mainspace, where it may or may not survive the new pages patrol, depending on whether these experienced ediotrs think it meets our notability requirements. However, there is another issue. You uploaded File:Upstateunitedlogo.png to Commons and stated it was your own work, which you have now licensed for anyone to use for any purpose, without attribution. If indeed you created the logo, then your association to the club will be considered for Wikipedia's purposes to be a paid relationship and under the terms and conditions here you must state that on your userpage (see the paid link for how to do so). Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Does the Padma Shri award make a person notable according to WP:ANYBIO? I have reviewed some previous AFDs where some accept it and some do not. What is your opinion?
The section ANYBIO is in starts "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."
So, my reading is that an award like Padma Shri, a Pulitzer, or whatever, is one of those things that to some extent make it liklier there are WP:BASIC sources to be found. If those sources are not to be found, no article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
@Grabup: Exactly what was said... receiving the award makes it more likely that a person will meet the criteria for being notable, but does not of itself contribute towards meeting the notability criteria. Rather, the fact of having received the award makes it more likely that pertinent articles (i.e. those articles to which the notability criteria applies) will have been published about them. Until such articles have been published and are identified, the notability requirement will not have been met. Fabrickator (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
An NPR candidate needs to have prior experience with CSD, AFD and other aspects of article patrolling, like identifying copyright violation and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons. Ideally, they should gain some experience with those, then apply to become an AFC reviewer and gain some experience there first. Someone with 500 article edits and 90 days of editng can qualify, but that's not the qualification criteria. — Usedtobecool☎️15:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
.... yes, the page I linked has the full explanation. Sorry if I misled the OP into thinking that the 90/500 requirement was the only relevant factor. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Help with article
Could someone reach out to me on Discord (username: fly2ohare) or some other platform to help me with an article about FMC Natatorium in Westmont, Illinois? Cyao123 (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Cyao123. The question you need to ask yourself is, Where have people who have no connection whateverer with the Natatorium or its managers or promoters, and not commissioned or fed information on its behalf, chosen to write in some depth about the Nataorium (as an enterprise as well as a place), and been pubished by a reliable source? If the answer is Nowhere, then don't waste any more time on this project. If you have some places that meet those criteria (see WP:42 for more), then forget absolutely everything you know about the Natatorium, and write a summary of what those sources say.
Your basic problen, like that of hundreds of other new editors, is that you have taken on a difficult task - creating an article - before you have acquired the necessary skills. I always advise new editors to spend a few months learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles - before even trying to create an article. Once you have an understanding of core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable sources, and notability, then is the time to read your first article and try ity. ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, long time user, first time potentially editing. There is a wiki page for a deceased actor, however this page is fairly limited due to the lack of information for the deceased. I wanted to know what the standard is for providing source information. I was planning on having an email conversation with the surviving family but didn't know how to produce the information given. I wondered if the redacted screen grabs (sans addresses) of the emails would suffice. I was able to contact the surviving family via their YouTube page and linkedIn and the family is aware the conversation will be used to add to the deceased's wiki page. Thank you. Kmdarc (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
No these would be entirely inappropriate. Everything in Wikipedia should come from publishedReliable sources. Email (or written) correspondence with a relative does not qualify as either published or reliable, though if a biographer included it in a book from a reputable publisher (who will have fact-checked it), it might then qualify. The same would apply to unpublished correspondence of the subject themself.
A possibility would be for the relatives to point you to published material they know about: they might for example have newspaper cuttings and the like, which you could use provided their full bibliographic details were available. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.175.176 (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi 48JCL. Color declarations are ignored in wikilinks unless they are declared inside a piped link. That's why the text in your links is normal blue before clicking and purple after clicking. This would color everything and keep the color: 48JCL (Talk • Contributions). But it's above the 255 character limit on signatures. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Would asking a person for information about themselves for an article be permitted?
I'm wishing to write an article about Dirk Schouten, a motorsports driver competing in the Porsche Carrera Cup Benelux. There doesn't seem to be much publicly available information about him, so I figured that just reaching out to him to ask him more would be a good idea. However, I'm not entirely sure how that would fall under Wikipedia's rules. Is it permitted to do so? LegalizeCaruana (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
@LegalizeCaruana Probably not. Wikipedia articles are based on already-published information from reliable sources. Schouten might be able to point you to, say, newspaper articles he knew had been written about himself that you hadn't been able to find but other than that you can't base articles on information just obtained from the article subject. See WP:AUTO and WP:NOR for more. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Mike. It seems that not a lot of sources write about the Porsche cup, but I'll see what I can dig out once I get home from holiday. However I do note that there have been several publications from both himself on his LinkedIn (website is in Dutch) and from the Q1-Trackracing blog, the team he currently races at. Would these be considered 'reliable' sources or would they fall too close to the tree, so to speak? LegalizeCaruana (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, they would. WP:Notability (please read) can only be shown by material that is entirely independent of the subject themself. Anything by the subject, or anyone directly associated with them (including interviews, press releases, blogs, social media etc.), can used sparingly to corroborate uncontroversial facts, but can never be used to demonstrate notability.
In this instance, Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Motorsports is particularly relevant. It looks as if his achievements in the Porsche Carrera Cup Benelux would not meet the minimum requirements, though if he were to win the championship it would likely be another matter – apart from anything else, this would likely generate enough independent press coverage to make him notable.
Given that Schouten is only 22, it may well be that WP:Too soon apples here, and he will qualify some time in the future. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.175.176 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
This was a good help, yes. Also not to be a nerd but Schouten is now 23 according to his website lol. It seems as if he notes various ages on his social medias. But, yes, it does seem that his individual achievements fall short of the notability. Thank you for your help :) LegalizeCaruana (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Whilst detailed instructions for giving citations were linked to over at Draft:Al Berry, the fact that it appears to be an autobiography means that it is unlikely to get approved with any amount of sourcing. -- D'n'B-t -- 21:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Within that, "See" is unfortunate; it should be "Read and digest". And of course some of what you're asked to "see" (or to read and digest) may be incomprehensible or indigestible; and we can explain those parts. So ... which parts don't seem to make sense? -- Hoary (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I was curious if there is somewhere here, or on another website where you can make private Wikipedia pages. I feel reluctant to use the sandbox since other people may be able to edit or delete it. Wastelandhero18 (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
No, that isn't possible. However, your sandbox can be semi-protected so that anonymous IP addresses cannot edit it. I have protected user-space pages by request; let me know.
Hi Wastelandhero18, welcome to the Teahouse. There are no private pages in Wikipedia. Other users can see User:Wastelandhero18/sandbox but are unlikely to edit it unless you place article categories or illegal content like copyright violations. The content should still be Wikipedia-related, e.g. tests and article drafts. If you want full privacy while still having access to Wikipedia features like our templates then you have to save your work elsewhere and only use "Show preview" here. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I'd say the issue with a "private draft" is that unless you intend it to be a draft forever, it's eventually going to be editable. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
That is something I've also been wishing for. I wonder if it has come up in discussion by the senior editors before. If not, maybe, @Wastelandhero18, we could make this a proposal to post at the Village Pump, Proposals area, a place I just discovered recently. Augnablik (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Not trying to rain on your parade, but I think there's pretty much zero chance of something like that ever happening, and proposing such a thing at the Village Pump will almost cerainly quickly lead to at least one if not many more replies citing WP:NOTWEBHOST. For reference, even pages in the user namespace aren't "owned" by anyone other than the Wikimedia Foundation explained in WP:UPOWN. The best advice anyone can give you if you want to retain full-editorial control over or otherwise keep your work private is to never post it on any Wikipedia page as explained in WP:REALWORLD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@Augnablik (and @Wastelandhero18), what springs to mind for me is Google Docs. It is possible to make a document there that you (and/or people you invite, and/or the entire internet) can edit to your liking, and you can also limit who can view it - just you, only people you invite, or everyone with the link. Perhaps this would be a better match with what you envision? StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
That wouldn't work for me, @StartGrammarTime, because in Google Docs I couldn't use Wikipedia's various editing tools. Otherwise, it would have been a great idea.
Right now I don't really want others looking at it or making comments till I get the article as ready for prime time as possible, especially with good citations, so I'm using MS Word. But I really wish I could have a private sandbox, at least for this particular job I'm working on. Augnablik (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
@Augnablik - ah, my mistake! Somehow I missed that you were creating a Wiki article. In that case, what about Fandom? It seems to be built with Wikipedia's tools and functionalities, but with ads. So it might be a possibility for a private sandbox type of thing? Either way, good luck with the article! StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@StartGrammarTime, anything you can say about Fandom to make me and perhaps @Wastelandhero18 run out to get it? Is it really possible that it duplicates Wikipedia's ability to seamlessly prepare articles for publication?
o I'm not sure if I used a third-party application to create a Wiki article that it would convert perfectly, especially with regard to citations.
o There could be some allegedly Wiki-compliant tools not provided in a third-party application that I might wish I could make use of.
I know there are always plusses and minuses for all decisions and trade-offs to be made, but never having heard of this Fandom application you've suggested, these are certainly two questions I'd certainly want answers to before looking into using it as a workaround for not wanting my construction of an article to be visible to the public just yet. Augnablik (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
There's an easy way to do it. Start the article in your sandbox, use preview function to see how it looks, then, instead of saving it on Wiki, copy paste the text into Word or equivalent. When you're ready to work on the article again, copy paste it back into your sandbox. Repeat. Valenciano (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I think you may have solved my issue, @Valenciano. It sounds like a good possibility. But it would sure have been nice to have a simple direct way to do what @Wastelandhero18 and I were hoping to do right here in Wikipedia.
@Augnablik, I don't use Fandom myself (except as a reader when I want the silly little details that aren't suitable for en-Wiki but are fun trivia). However, in the spirit of discovery, I made an account and investigated the edit functions on the Pokemon sub-wiki. It seems overall pretty much the same as en-Wiki, which makes sense since they say they use the same base. It's a website rather than an application, and en-Wiki happily shares the coding we use here for other sites to use if they wish. When I copied some of an article (including refs) into my userspace as a test run, it displayed exactly as expected, which seems promising. It looks like Fandom is reasonably up-to-date with current en-Wiki tools.
Sorry I can't be of more help, but I do think this might be something for you to investigate further as an alternative. If nothing else it definitely has more Wiki markup etc than Word does! StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Wastelandhero18 I think you are worrying needlessly, in almost twenty years of editing here with a large number of different sandboxes I have never know another editor to mess with them. Theroadislong (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Orpington & District Amateur Boxing
Could anyone help with the social history of Orpington ABC ? We have news paper articles dating back to 1912 and have researched the history dating back over 100 years. The club had produced national champions and amateurs that represented their country along with producing notable professionals. We have over 100 old photographs , news paper article and programmes. 62.31.130.183 (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Do you mean "help you to create a Wikipedia article" (which we can do), or "help you with researching further"? If the latter, it's not impossible, but it's likely that you are now the leading experts on the subject, and anyone helping would have to know what you already have to avoid uselessly duplicating it.
Hello. I was editing Bled Strategic Forum to try and make it less promotional, before realising that the text was just copied from their own website. I remember before reading about how copyrighted text needs to be removed in the page's history but I can not find how to report the page to someone who can do that (and I'm not 100% I'm remembering correctly that it needs to be removed).
Update: I'm seen that the writer is connected with the business, and has uploaded [image from the website] that they claim to have made. Is this an issue, or have they just effectively given up the copyright of the image?
@Notcharizard For the copyright part, see WP:COPYVIO. The file link you supplied doesn't work, the correct link is File:BSF-Data-2023.png. The article Bled Strategic Forum has been around since 2020 but Draft:Bled Strategic Forum still exists as created by User:MR BSF on 25 April this year and declined today because of the duplication. MR BSF then expanded the existing article with most of the content which had been in the draft. User:DoubleGrazing has asked whether MR BSF is a paid editor (which might simplify the copyright situation if they are copying their own work from the website) but has not yet received a reply. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Video game credits on Wiki
I am wondering why there are no entries for Sound Design on your Video Game entries on Wiki.
There are entries for other game development roles and even and entry for Composer on each video game, but no entry for Sound Design.
I recently tried to add a new Sound Design field in the credits of a video game entry, but my edit was removed with no explanation.
I am confused, does anyone know how to add new entries or why Sound Design is not included in the list of credits for video games ? SoundCredit (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Hey thanks for getting back to me on this @CommissarDoggo
I have now posted this on the talk page you recommended, thanks.
For reference, I did not see any reply or explanation for the removal of this particular edit, since you said this I have looked around my profile to try and find it, but cannot find anything relating to this particluar edit.
Anyway, I will see if I can get it done using that other talk page you mentioned.
@SoundCredit No worries, hopefully you get the result you're after.
As for the second bit, on Wikipedia we have edit summaries, which people can add when they're publishing an edit or reverting an edit. You can see the edit summary on the the edit that reverted yours here. CommissarDoggoTalk?11:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
ahh ok thanks for pointing that out, I did not see that, nice one.
My Article Was Declined for Not Having Reliable Sources
I am confused. It is a short article about the GCC Secretary General. All the sources are reputable national news sites or the official website of the very publicly recognized organization. The organization is on Wikipedia, the person in question has an Arabic wikipedia page. I have seen other wikipedia pages with far less information make it on the website. This would not be the case if it was an EU or NATO official or a "western organization." There is clearly a double standard here. What possibly could have warranted a rejection?
It is also all just basic factual information -- it is completely neutral and factual. This is a joke right after waiting 3 months to be told that?
I don't know how to tag a page under editing but it is for Jasem Albudaiwi.
Thanks for the link, much appreciated. Sorry but EU officials use EU sources -- why is it a problem with the Gulf Cooperation Council? Especially if it is for non-biased information -- especially when it is super easy to see the person in the news. Nobody says "official" when it comes to UN or NATO websites -- the GCC is just as reputable of an international organization. 37.39.175.136 (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, let's see. He has also been actively involved in international conferences and negotiations, particularly focusing on humanitarian, economic, and security-related issues. "Being actively involved in XYZ" might mean something significant, or it might mean as little as "He's known to have been present during XYZ and he wasn't photographed dozing off there". I'll assume for a moment that it's the former: something significant. Then what, according to reliable sources, did he actually do in those international conferences and negotiations? -- Hoary (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
That's literally expanded upon further down, if that statement is the issue then I'm happy to remove it. Furthermore, the article is meant to be a base - I mean its meant for people to keep editing and adding. Everything else is point by point taken from reputable news sites / official organization website -- or his CV which is up there.
I literally just looked up an EU official and they use -- official EU websites for sources. Sorry but this is most definitely a double standard. So what exactly am I supposed to find? European sources for the Arab guy? 37.39.175.136 (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Ok again -- how are EU wikipedia pages getting accepted then? Does this only apply because it is an Arab/non-western page? I'm confused as to the reason for the double standard. So others can use their official websites and it is not a problem (this is how I approached writing this taking a diplomat and looking how they did their page) but when I utilize it its suddenly not independent?
This is basic factual information it is not subjective in anyway. You are actually telling me I cannot use the GCC official website for referencing that the Secretary General is the Secretary General. For the SG of NATO you cannot reference the NATO website or press releases that he is the SG? What? This makes absolutely no sense. So what--I'm supposed to find other sources saying he's the SG -- it really seems subjective from wikipedia's side what sources they are willing to accept.
Here is where the biased comes in -- the Secretary General of the GCC is not notable enough? His actions are responsible for over 56 million people. Sorry there is no way you can convince anyone that lives in the member states that the GCC and its SG are not notable. The GCC itself has a huge page. Every little regional European organization has a page. Small groups in the US have a page-- but the leader of the GCC is not notable enough? A super quick google search will prove that statement completely wrong. 37.39.175.136 (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
IP editor. The issue is not entirely whether Albudaiwi is notable: it is mainly whether your draft demonstrates that he is. Your view "Furthermore, the article is meant to be a base - I mean its meant for people to keep editing and adding" may have been acceptable when the English Wikipedia was started, but currently we want new articles to clearly demonstrate wikinotability by citing sources meeting all these criteria. The sources themselves do not need to be in English. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
i've been trying to edit an actor's biography, and added a lot of information that's all in his IMDB page, that is already in the external links, but all of this information was deleted by Wiki's editor. how can I add this information properly and is IMDB page isn't a good resource for an actor's biography? Asaf4545 (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Asaf4545, As per WP:IMDB IMDB is not a reliable source, and should never be used as a source in our articles. We do, however, allow one link to the IMDB article in the articles External links section - which can cause some confusion - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Asaf4545, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can add this information (or, indeed, any information to any Wikipedia article) only by citing a reliable source that vslidates the information. User-generated sites like iMDB and almost all wikis are not regarded as a reliable. ColinFine (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Vue Play
Hi, I updated Draft:Vue Play to not be read like an advert, but it is still not accepted. Please tell me what I have to improve as I do not find it like being and advert anymore but rather informative. Steffanhalvorsenekholt (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Its most serious flaw is the total lack of references to reliable independent published sources that discuss the subject. Please read about notability. Maproom (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I added a disclosure in the Talk section. By the way, Made With Vue.js, Product Hunt & Awesome Vue are independent sources. I have written everything myself, but I got help from chat-gpt to create me a template / starting point. I removed the Conclusion section & sorry, I did not know about the rule of using external sources in body, I removed them now. Does it look better now? I added one reference to the official site, hope it is ok. I am new to writing something in WikiPedia, sorry for all the trouble. Steffanhalvorsenekholt (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Declined several times and now Rejected by an experienced editor. Even after your edits, still had hyperlinks in the text, unreferenced content, and inadequate references. The company was launched a year ago, so very much WP:TOOSOON. My recommendation at this point is that you request the draft be deleted by putting Db-author inside double curly brackets {{ }} at the top. David notMD (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
No need to apologize. I (and others) choose to volunteer here at Teahouse. Sometimes that comes across as blunt, but ideally, the comments are about the content, not the person who posted that. David notMD (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Timothyhoeller, here at the Teahouse of the English language Wikipedia, we care about only one website that uses MediaWiki. That is the English Wikipedia. Questions about other websites using similar software are out of scope here. Ask at those other websites. Cullen328 (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi all! I am wanting to become better at editing and I am curious about citations, specifically about the placement of citations. I have been reading through the Wikipedia pages surrounding proper references and citations, which has caused me to be slightly confused. Perhaps I misinterpreted it, but does each paragraph require a citation at the end of it? Or do citations only go with the sentence that it is referenced by? I am sorry if this is a silly question, just want to make sure any future edits I make are properly cited. Topiguana (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@Topiguana Welcome to the Teahouse. That's a very good question. The answer is that it can be either. If one multi-sentence paragraph is based purely on one source alone, then it is fine to put the citation at the end of that paragraph. If, however, the paragraph contains multiple factual statements, then it is best to put each source after each individual sentence. That allows other users to easily VERIFY the statements given.
You may use one source more than once throughout an article without having to repeat the citation and having it appear multiple times in the 'References' section. Both of our editing tools allow you to select and reuse an existing reference, though the layout of each tool is somewhat different. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@Topiguana: not a silly question at all, quite the opposite!
To add to Nick's answer, I think how close the citation is to the statement made also partly depends on how contentious the statement is. The more it raises the readers' eyebrows and makes them wonder where that information came from, the more it's crying for a supporting citation right there, and not somewhere way down at the end of the paragraph.
Another thing I wanted to say (and this may be just my personal view rather than any sort of policy) is that if a paragraph ends without a citation, then that means whatever comes after the last citation is unsupported. So by all means add citations throughout the paragraph, but please also make sure to add one at the end. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
How to reference wikipedia article by wikidata Qid?
{{Q|5}} - this a wikitext syntax to make a link to wikidata item by qid. human (Q5)
How to make a link to wikipedia article by qid? I.e. {{wikipedia:en:Q|5}}.
It can be used in places like this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. When you want to specify a person, it exists in wikidata, but not in wikipedia yet.
@Podbrushkin It may not be quite what you are looking for but the template {{ill}} for interlanguage links has a nice feature that you can make a redlink to a non-existent article in the English Wikipedia provide a link to Wikidata. I used this recently in a list article where many notable items in the list only existed in foreign-language versions. So {{ill|isoxaflutole|WD=Q15632908}} gives isoxaflutole. When I create the English article for Isoflutole, the Wikidata part of the link will "vanish" in the rendered text. That would be a good way for the Women in Red project to do things, since the Wikidata item will have all the other-language links, if they exist. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, indeed it is very close. Unfortunately, this template doesn't exist in russian wikipedia, where I intended to use it. Also there is a Template:Wikipedia for wikidata and en:Template:Sitelink for english wikipedia. For ru {{iw|Москва||d|Q649}} can be used as a workaround.
Hello, I was trying to make this article a candidate for speedy deletion due to reason of A3, no content. I was using Twinkle and I thought that I had to put two reasons for candidate of speedy deletion, for article reason and general. I'm trying to change the reason back to A3 but I don't know how. Could someone help me. RoyalSilver (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I’ve recently been editing the draft for the Draft:Whatever (channel). I’ve been looking for reliable source regarding this channel. However from what I’ve seen for reliable sources it can include news articles, which is what I mostly found regarding this however I can’t really find anything scholarly considering this is a youtube channel that’s been going viral for some time now. (Discopleasant (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC))
Hello Discopleasant and welcome to the teahouse. Most major news sites are considered reliable, but there are exceptions, including most of the websites you cited. This page lists some common websites and the consensus on their reliability. Additionally, I recommend you install this script that highlights common sources based on their reliability. Finally, if you ever have questions about a source not listed, you can search the archives at this board about the reliability of sources or ask a question if you can't find anything. Sincerely, Dilettante22:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Question
I noticed on the page for “List of Point Horror books” it is incomplete. Now, there is a YouTube channel i watch who has a near complete collection of the books. Whould it be appropriate to add the missing entries shown in the video? Blackmamba31248 (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
A "Courtesy link" is made so that Teahouse Hosts know where the problem - in ths instance the incomplete list - is located. David notMD (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Blackmamba31248. If a reliable publisher has published a list of the books in any form (including on their official youtube channel) we can cite it. If a random person (even a famous one) talks on YouTube or anywhere else about the list of titles, that is not a reliable published source and we cannot use it. ColinFine (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
What’s the diffrence? I’ll cite the video and i guess that up for a Teahouse host to decide. Can’t do it now because I’m at school and YouTube is obvisouly blocked. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Also, about the reliability, the guy in the video talks about how he has been reading and collecting the books since he was a child. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Talking of citing "a Youtube channel", Blackmamba31248, is a little like talking of citing "something that's printed". A specific video could be excellent; it could be worthless. I suggest that you rewrite your question above, providing the links to a small number of representative examples among these videos, and that you then post the result not here but instead (and with an informative heading) to WP:RSN. -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Does having taken classes from a professor place me too close?
I would like to create a page for a biologist that I took some classes from in the 1970s. I believe I can be objective. Also I have a photograph that I took of the professor back then. Is it OK to use this photo? He died in 1983. Thank you. Jimpittssky (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
See WP:NACADEMIC. Did the biologist hold an endowed chair at a well-known institution? Awarded significant science awards? Written about? You photo would be OK, but does not factor into establishing notability. David notMD (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. The Biologist was William Clay at the University of Louisville. In addition to his work with fishes, he was also describer of a new species of water snake and documenter of the genus Natrix. He became professor emeritus with more than 35 years of teaching and research at the institution. He wrote a Field Manual of Kentucky Fishes (1962) and The Fishes of Kentucky (1976). There are no web pages dedicated to him. Opinion? Jimpittssky (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Sounds far more interesting to me than the thousands of soccer players we have articles on. (Before anyone gets offended, the same applies to almost all our sports person articles.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Conflict of interest seems to have been particularly on @Jimpittssky's mind when he titled his original message, "Does having taken classes from a professor place me too close?" So aside from answering the question of the professor's notability, JimP. would also have to make a declaration of COI. Augnablik (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Some of my lecturers/professors from back in the 1960s and 70s have Wikipedia articles. I didn't create them, but have made some edits. I don't think having been a student of a now deceased person that long ago demands a declaration. HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jimpittssky As you are a newcomer here, I assume you will use the articles for creation process. Even folk with a WP:COI are allowed to create drafts using that method, so I don't think that this is an obstacle. Disclosure does no harm (e.g. on the Talk Page of the draft) but actually I agree with HiLo48 that classes 50-years ago are pretty irrelevant. Good luck: we need more articles on academics. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you @Michael D. Turnbull I am beginning to think that the COI is not so bad. @David notMD was questioning the notability of the subject. I really would like to have some confidence that the article would not be rejected on that basis before proceeding, but perhaps that is more than I should ask. Thank you for your encouragement. Jimpittssky (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jimpittssky, your main goal is going to be finding reliable sources to prove notability - usually if you can find three good sources that's enough to start with. It sounds like you have some academic experience, which may help because you already know having a few really solid articles or books about your subject is better than having a hundred no-peer-review, vanity-publisher pieces. Have a good read through the reliable sources page and the list of perennial reliable sources, and if you're really unsure about something the reliable source noticeboard seem to enjoy prying good sources out of the detritus of the internet. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
but have two problems:
1) The entry is supposed to have a title "Xuhua Xia", but it shows "User:XuhuaXia" instead. How to change "User:XuhuaXia" to "Xuhua Xia"?
2) I expect the entry title "Xuhua Xia" to be searchable within Wikipedia. However, it is invisible. XuhuaXia (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
If you really, really, truely, truely believe that you are famous enough to be the subject of an article - meaning that people who do not know you personally have published content in reliable sources about you - then use WP:YFA to create a draft. But only after reading WP:AUTO to learn why people almost always fail to crate an article about themselves. David notMD (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Questions on a taken Username and Account Creation.
Hello! I have been discovering along Wikipedia and I want to make a new account or change a username.
My friends mostly know my persona to be based around one of Alice Oseman's book characters Tori Spring, off Solitaire and the Heartstopper Universe. (I tend to see my life is as close as hers and she is one of my faves of all time! I read Solitaire loads :])
I tried making an account as tori_spring, however it seems to be taken (or its near identical!)
Any help finding a solution to this conundrum? It would help lots!
-tori :)
(This is an old account with a username or name I no longer associate with!) Im Haymarket (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Im Haymarket, User:Tori Spring was created on 20 June 2022, and has never edited the English Wikipedia but was first created on the Spanish Wikipedia, which is deemed to be their "home wiki", as shown here, although they have never edited any Wikiproject. In these circumstances, you cannot follow the general advice at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations although you could try Meta, as is linked on that page. I don't know how difficult that is, or if you are likely to succeed. Alternatively, I suggest you try a similar name, but not too similar e.g. not Tori Spring 1. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I’d like to find out which Wikipedia editors have the most people watching their user pages. Is there a way I can find this information, or ask someone really smart to find out? Tykeshay (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
@Tykeshay The most-watched userpage/talkpage is likely to be for User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, at 4103 currently. It is also the most-read and probably the one with the biggest archive. You can use the "page information" tool on any userpage to see the number of watchers it has, just as you can with articles. There is probably a way to do what you want with one of the tools at Toolforge and that's where you should ask. Note that for privacy reasons you can't find out which pages any specific user is watching. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
So I created a "Battle of Vovchansk" page on my userpage. When I thought it was done, I immediately copied and pasted it into the article I created. However, I just found out that this is not allowed, so I should have used the "Move" tool. My question is, I have tried using the Move tool to the Battle of Vovchansk article but it doesn't work. I also tried it on Draft:Battle of Vovchansk but it still doesn't work. So what should I do? Do I have to wait for the Battle of Vovchansk article to be deleted before requesting the article I created on my userpage? But on the other hand, someone has already created a draft of it. This is confusing me. Bukansatya (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
What's the difference between all the different class articles and how do reviewers classify articles as either stubs/starts or something more? thanks. TheBrowniess (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I'd add that in my view a lot of editors don't pay much attention to article classes other than FA and GA these days. Others may disagree with that assessment, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but my sense is that people used to take article assessment more seriously in the earlier days of Wikipedia, including the lower article classes. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
At the other end to GA/FA, stubs are still tracked and sometimes acted upon, but otherwise your assessment that the other classes have become less meaningful seems correct. CMD (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Hey everybody, I was wondering about what the sandbox is meant for and why it would be used in the first place. If there's anybody who could explain this to me, please reply ASAP, thank you! - engineer gamingtalk | contribs22:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@ENGINEERGAMING88 It's mainly for testing stuff, I used mine pretty much solely for futzing about with my signature and making sure it worked properly.
There is the general Sandbox, which is blanked several times a day, and your own Sandbox. If there is a section of an article I wish to edit, I click Edit for the section, copy all content to my Sandbox as a section, revise there, delete/add refs there, then use all that to replace the section of the article. David notMD (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Can also contain a reminder list of articles you intend to work on. And a place to get reference format right before adding a ref to an article. David notMD (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Formal rename request
Background
We're looking for help coming up with a title name that is more inclusive than Murders of Tylee Ryan and J. J. Vallow. So far, no luck. (See the talk page if interested).
"Formal renaming request"
Someone mentioned a "formal renaming request". I have been searching but I cannot find anything about this. Do you know how to request assistance with coming up with an article title when we are stumped? Thanks so much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson Welcome to the Teahouse. We try to answer any question here, or point people to somewhere else where they should get an answer. The title of articles comes within the manual of style and the policy for that is given at WP:TITLE. In your Talk Page discussion, arguments based on policy should win out. One possibility if you can't reach consensus with others in discussion is to alert editors from interested Projects via a neutrally-worded request on a Project Talk Page to come and comment (see WP:CANVASS). Don't forget that WP:Redirects can be used for article titles, so in the end it may not matter much which title is the one used if there are several nearly-equal options. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Title for a9 dualling project in scotland and help
There are various titles that could be used for the A9 project in Scotland including the official A9 dualling Perth to Inverness plus many others like A9 Perth to Inverness. However, I proposed to title it A9 dualling project. I am allowed to copy stuff from A9 road (Scotland) to make sure that I do not claim that I did it myself? I know I cannot use Wikipedia as sources, but what about copying it? I started my draft here. JuniperChill (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@JuniperChill See WP:CWW for the guidance. The more usual case is for translations from other-language Wikipedias (WP:TRANSLATE). Note that there should be no need for massive duplication: you can always add a {{see also}} or similar to the head of one of your article's sections. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@JuniperChill Welcome to the Teahouse. It's difficult at this early stage to know what sources and content you will eventually have, but my feeling is that you would be best to start off by keeping everything together, and simply create a sub-section within A9_road_(Scotland)#Upgrades. If it then becomes so expansive that it deserves its own article, then you can add a section hatnote to refer to the relevant main article.
Yes, you are permitted to copy content from one Wikipedia article to another. You should make an edit summary for that copy/paste action which gives attribution to the authors. You do this by stating what you're copying and linking to that page (see HERE). It is also possible to mirror a section of text so that any changes made to the main paragraph also appear automatically in the new article. But you'd need to think through the need for this, and why you're creating a brand new page for something that could simply be included in the original article. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I was just thinking the reason why I feel as though the A9 project in Scotland deserves a page of its own is because it is not a normal road construction project. Dualling a 10 mile section of road is definitely not worth a page, but for 80 miles and £3 billion, sure. We have lots of small road projects going on, like adding cycling lanes, making residential and city streets 20 mph, and there are too many of them to be listed as a page of its own, or even included in an existing page. Plus, it is covered in many reliable sources. Not only that, but it was supposed to be complete in 2025, but only two sections (out of 11) have been done today, far from it. But will see how it goes JuniperChill (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Draykaayrg Hello. You submit it for a review; I will move it to Draft space and add the appropriate information so you can do so.
Please describe your connection to this musician, as you uploaded a professionally taken image of him and claimed it as your own personal work. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
It is now located at Draft:Draykaay. I've added the information to allow you to submit it. You may just click the "submit your draft for review!" button on the screen in the box at the top of the draft. I advise you to not do so yet, as it is not likely to be accepted. It isn't a good idea to be writing about yourself at all, but if you wish to proceed, you need to remove language about your passion for music and other promotional language, and write in a very dry, matter of fact manner. You need to set aside everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent reliable sources. You also need to show that you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. This is usually very difficult for people to do about themselves. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
If you are an "up and coming musician", I wish you luck with your career, but you do not yet merit a Wikipedia article. Once you meet at least one aspect of the definition of a notable musician, there can be an article about you. It would be best if you or someone associated with you like a friend or agent were not the one to write it. I suggest that you go on about your career and when an independent editor takes note of coverage of you in independent sources, they will choose to write about you at that time. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
The fact that you wished me good luck in my career means a lot to me.
The issue is that independent reliable sources have not taken notice of your career and chosen on their own to write about you and how you are a notable musician as Wikipedia defines it. We aren't looking for a brief mention, but significant coverage of you that details what makes you a notable musician. To put this another way, Wikipedia is the last place to write about a topic, not the first. Wikipedia summarizes what others say about topics. Once you are no longer up and coming, and have arrived as a musician, then an article about you (ideally written by someone not associated with you, or you) can be considered. You can't use Wikipedia to aid your career. If you want to introduce yourself to the world, that is precisely what social media and a personal/professional website are for. I encourage you to direct your efforts there, and go on about your career as if you had never heard of Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay thanks I appreciate. I'm not going to submit it or move it to main space till I'm fully a musician. Please can you move it back to my sandbox please 🙏🏿🙏🏿 I'm not going to submit or publish it as I said, rather focus on my craft 🙏🏿 Draykaayrg (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
It's best for drafts to remain in draft space where they have an actual title. While sandboxes can be used to create drafts, they are meant for more general experimentation and testing. The draft will not go anywhere as long as it remains active(edited at least once every six months). 331dot (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
If you change you mind about ever submitting the draft you can request that it be deleted by putting DB-author inside double curly brackets {{ }} at the top, and an Administrator will deleted it. David notMD (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Please I don't know, what will happen when If I submit my article and wasn't accepted? Will be page be blocked or they'll list the area I need to improve will Draykaayrg (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@Draykaayrg There is no danger of you being blocked for making good faith attempts to create an article, even an autobiography. You will only run into trouble if you repeatedly submit the draft when you have already been told it doesn't meet our requirements owing to your current lack of wikinotability. You can tweak the draft over the coming months and submit it when you believe that hurdle has been overcome. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I have edited the "Hurricane Katrina" wiki article many times, but now I am being told that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. How do I earn that status? Sheldonville (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I wrote a draft of an article for the actor Filip Geljo: Draft: Filip Geljo. But when I tried to move it to the mainspace, it gave me an error message that said "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid." I'm not sure why this is happening, as no Filip Geljo page exists (besides the one I wrote). I have published articles before and not encountered this problem, so I'm confused. Schtamangie (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I figured it out. Apparently "Filip Geljo" was a redirect. So I edited that page and put the article I wrote on instead of the redirect. This might seem like a silly question, but how do I delete my draft? Or what should I do now that the draft still exists as a different page? Schtamangie (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@Schtamangie: Which of the sources cited in the article establish Geljo's Wikipedia notability per WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO? None of them (at least at first glance) seem to be the kind of WP:SIGCOV generally needed to establish Wikipedia notability. Perhaps, that's why the article was a redirect for so long? The redirect actually was protected by an Wikipedia administrator named Schwede66 because of persistent vandalism in the past, and protection might now extend to the article you created. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Marchjuly, thank you for your concern. Two things:
Firstly, based on WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO, Geljo is notable on both criteria. He has definitely had significant roles (a starring role in a children's TV show and a role in Avatar: The Way of Water, among others). He has also definitely been covered in multiple reliable sources, including Variety, Mashable, The Direct, Screen Rant, and others. If you think I should add additional sources to the article, I'd be happy to!
As to the redirect protection, I was unsure if I should put the protection on the article. What is the proper protocol for this?
Hi Schtamangie Are his appearances in the children's TV show and the Avatar film significant roles or minor supporting roles? The Legit source seems unreliable to me and nothing but a PR type ofsite. He's only mentioned once by name in the Variety article, and just twice by name in the The Wrap article; so, neither source is going to be considered significant coverage. I don't see either him or his character even mentioned in the People orr the Inverse articles cited in the article; so, they're value is establishing notability is zero. That leaves the brief paragraph about him in the 24/7 Wall St article and more extensive write up in the Looper article goes into more detail, but I'm not sure those would be enough for the article to survive an AfD nomination. If he's received significant coverage in the other sources you've mentioned above, you should add citations to them to the article because (once again) as is his Wikipedia notability seems quite questionable to me and it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
His appearance in the children's TV show (Odd Squad), was a major role; he was one of two main characters that made up a duo that solved "odd" situations :). In Avatar, he had a more minor role, but still a relatively important one. I can remove the Legit article if you think so. Respectfully, the Variety article is about him and the other main actor from Odd Squad (Dalila Bela) leaving the show. He is also mentioned in other articles, but those articles mainly repeated the same basic information, so I didn't think it worthwhile to add them to the source list.
To me, based on the coverage he has received, I think he meets Wiki's notability guidelines. I understand that "significant" is a subjective term, but based on WP:SIGCOV, where it says Geljo (or any topic) "does not need to be the main topic of the source material," I definitely think he has received "significant coverage."
The Irish radio station, TodayFM, released a number of cover albums in the 2000s. This article has the high level details Even Better Than the Real Thing album series. While looking at the pages for each album I saw that volume 3 redirects to the U2 wikipedia page. I think this is a mistake. I'd like to see the page reinstated. What's the best way to go about this? Kertap (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm new to Wikipedia and have a question about how I would reference a source. I'm working on improving the page Split Oak Forest, and it mentions the group Friends of Split Oak Forest as a relevant community organization. I'm trying to document when Friends of Split Oak Forest was created as an organization. It appears to have been started in 2018, per this IRS document confirming its 501(c)(3) status, but I'm unsure of how I would create a reference for this source. Also, would it be suitable to upload this IRS PDF record to Wikimedia Commons to preserve it as a reference? Thanks in advance for the answers. Prosochē (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Difficulty getting an edit accepted
This is the first time I've really ever made an edit. I heard a new song by The Decemberists called 'Joan in the Garden' (which is about Joan of Arc) and it sent me down a rabbit hole that ended on the Cultural Depictions of Joan of Arc page. I noticed that the song was not present under the page's music section, and I thought it would make sense to add it.
I did so, and my edit was quickly removed, with the other user informing me that a source was needed. I found an article about the album, containing a quote from the songwriter, in which he stated very clearly that he was attempting to depict Joan of Arc in the song. This edit was rejected as well, with the same user claiming that it was 'Just a PR release'. He asked to bring the discussion to this talk page, where he informed me that I would need a 'source that is 'independent of its subject.'
Our conversation can be seen on the talk page linked above, and the user eventually suggested that I go here for clarification. My point of view is that the main criteria to include an a work on that page should be whether or not it can be reasonably proven that the work does depict Joan of Arc. If that is the case, then wouldn't a direct quote from the author of the work be the perfect source in that context?
Please, if there's anything about my thinking that goes against Wikipedia's standards, I'd be more than happy to be educated. I'm just not really sure what I could do to get this edit added. Theda19 (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Theda19: I don't think this is the definitive answer, but as no one else has offered one yet, I'll chip in with my two pennies.
I think we can take a close primary source to verify that the song really does depict Joan of Arc; after all, who would know this better than the person who wrote the song?
But that does not, in and of itself, mean that this song should be mentioned in that article, as it may not be notable enough to justify that (it doesn't have an article itself, and gets only a passing mention in the The Decemberists article). By contrast, eg. the Madonna song Joan of Arc which is listed there does have its own article, and is clearly notable, and therefore can be easily referred to in the Joan of Arc article.
In other words, I'm suggesting that notability should be the inclusion criterion for the list of cultural depictions in that article. A parallel could be drawn to lists of 'notable people' or 'notable alumni' found in many articles (see eg. Rotterdam#Notable people and Istanbul University#Notable alumni), where 'notable' means 'they have Wikipedia articles'.
(But, even assuming my rationale here is right, does that mean the said song absolutely cannot be included in the Joan of Arc article unless it first has its own article? No, I wouldn't go quite so far. But I am leaning in that direction, yes.)
Fair enough. The notability question is a whole different thing, and I could completely understand that basis for not including it. (Although by that logic, there are probably also several entries in that section that should likely be pruned. And maybe that would be a good thing, I really don't know.)
I mostly wanted some clarification on the inadequate source argument the other person was making. As I'm new to this, I couldn't quite tell if they were being unreasonable, or if that's just how Wikipedia is intended to function. They also were very quick to ask me if I had any conflicts of interests, or if I were a paid editor, so maybe there's something else going on here that I'm unaware of.
DoubleGrazing (and Theda19), I disagree with the proposition that only things wiki-notable in their own right should be mentioned (if relevant) in another article, let alone that they should both be notable and already have their own article. Without having the chops to do the analyses, I'd guess that strict application of this would remove more than half of all referenced 'facts' in Wikipedia.
The Decemberists are notable, the song is undoubtably theirs, it is relevant to the list in question, and that relevance has been well (if not completely independently) referenced. By my count, 20 out of the 47 songs already in the table also do not have their own article – nor do three of the artists. I think Xxanthippe is being over zealous; perhaps they would like to link to an actual written policy rather than talking vaguely about "contentious areas".
[Disclaimer: I have no previous involvement or interest in this matter, having only read of it on this desk, and I wouldn't recognise The Decemberists if I heard them.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.175.176 (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Note, I also actually previously mentioned on the talk page for the article the fact that many of the entries on the list didn't have sources. Xxanthippe responded by linking the following page: WP:OTHERSTUFF, which didn't feel particularly constructive given the context. Theda19 (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Meep2024. What the reviewer actually said was This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. I agree with the reviewer. Your draft has a promotional tone, and you should carefully read the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. Edit your draft accordingly. Cullen328 (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I think I fixed it. The Cat Main template has a parameter to use if the title of the category is different from the title of the main article. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi
I upload a picture I made on Wikimedia Commons on my personal page. I tried to link it to an article in Wikipedia as I already did many times, but it shows only as a downloadable/clicable line of text instead of a thumbnail... On Wikimedia Commons, my picture shows properly, but for an unknown reason I can't seems to be able to use it on Wikipedia... Can someone help me by explaining me what I do wrong?
Thanks
F. M F Gervais (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
For me, it does not show properly, or indeed at all, on Commons. As its size is reported as 0x0 pixels, I'm not surprised. Maproom (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I've just found that I can download it from Commons, and then view it in Chrome. Something is wrong somewhere (but not at en:Wikipedia). I suggest you ask about it on the Help Desk at Commons. Maproom (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@M F Gervais: MediaWiki tries to display PDF files as a PNG image of one of the pages. Something in the file appears to be incompatible with MediaWiki so this conversion doesn't work. I don't know whether the problem is in the file or MediaWiki. Anyway, PDF is not an image format but a file format which can hold multi-page documents. It's better to upload an image file like PNG or JPG if a PDF file is only used for one image. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
In this one case, you could likely cite the comic itself. The primary citation does not establish notability, however. You could also try looking around the internet for sources. Do not use Fandom as it is User Generated Content. ✶Quxyz✶20:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
If you are on the visual editor, if you click on the quote button and then click on website, you can just fill in all the information. Note that fanmade or pirated content would not be able to be cited; but if it is an online version of a text published by the original author it can be cited per WP:Primary on a limited number of basic things. To switch between visual and source editor, you can click a dropdown button near the top on the screen. ✶Quxyz✶21:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Linked accounts in languages I don't speak
Hi, I accidentally created local Wikipedia accounts of languages I don't speak from my global Wikipedia account. Is there a way to remove them?
Hi Nelisd8, welcome to the Teahouse. A local account is automatically created if you view any page while already logged in at a Wikimedia wiki. It's normal to have a lot of accounts created this way. They cannot be removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Making one of those biography boxes on the left of almost every Wikipedia article.
I don't know what it's called but, in my work, creating an article of Ayten Gökçer I want to know how to make one of those boxes on the far left of almost ever Wikipedia article that contains a picture and info about that topic. Advice for creating one would help with some of my other work too but if you want to make on yourself with this article please tell me how to make one for future use. Thanks, Fewsnake. Fewsnake (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Fewsnake. Those are called infoboxes. There are a ton of them, each tuned to the types of information most appropriate for a certain type of article. One way to learn exactly how it's done (what information to put in each fied, etc.) is to look at a page of interest in the wiki editor. For an actor, that would be {{Infobox person}}. DMacks (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Maxime12346, your question is somewhat confused, so let's take this stage by stage. In one "Cite web" template, you have website=https://www.jti.com/about-us. That produces a syntax error, because the value of the attribute "website" may not be a URL. Correct it to, for example, website=JTI. (I am assuming that you are editing the "source". I know nothing about the "visual editor".) -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Looking for an editor to write an article (Short Bio and Work)
Hi there,
I'm looking for an editor to write an article (Short Bio and Work) on Wikipedia since we can do it ourselves. Ideally I want to pay adequatively a contribution that can help Wikipedia itself.
Can you help? Arnaud Ahmed Segla (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
In general, we're not keen on paid editing (it's barely tolerated). In particular, if a subject isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then paying someone isn't going to fix that. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
You were not notable in Wikipedia terms back in 2019 when you first attempted an article, it is clear from a quick Google search that this is still the case, be VERY wary of paying someone to create this for you, you will be scammed and you will still not have an article about you. Theroadislong (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Theroadislong is right, and what he says is well-intentioned. Now that you've posted here, you may be contacted privately by scammers. (A well-intentioned person would respond here.) Maproom (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Contributions to Wikipedia and the encyclopedias (English and all others) are entirely separate entities. Contributing to the former has no impact on the latter. David notMD (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I hope your day is good. I am trying make a userbox, and I am learning template parameters. I have the userbox in my sandbox. I want there to be a parameter where the user can write it like {{[...]quadball|position}} and it will read as "This user plays quadball as a position" and they can fill in position with whatever they like. I've managed to get that after some learning, but I'd like the template to also be able to just say "This user plays quadball" if no parameter is filled in, but I've read through WP:PARAMETER and I'm still stuck. This is an exercise for me in learning templates, so please explain how it works even if it is not possible in userboxes. Thank you so much!! -- NotCharizard🗨04:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Just to make sure I understand, you will have two parameters, identified by position (1 and 2) rather than name. You want to display some text that contains the first parameter. And you want to display some text that contains the second parameter but only display if there is a second parameter given. The positional parameters are identified as {{{1}}} and {{{2}}}. Each of those expands to whatever value is passed, so you can write "foo {{{1}}} bar" and the value of the first parameter will be filled in. If no value is passed, it expands to nothing. You can use conditional expressions to take different actions depending on various values. See Help:Conditional expressions#Using #if for an example of checking whether a parameter has a value. DMacks (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I've added an article with title Bridge India, but it keeps getting removed. Can I get what exact thing I must do to keep it live and prevent it's removal? Prathmesh9309 (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@Prathmesh9309 Welcome to the Teahouse. There are several messages about this on your Talk Page and the links to the deletion discussions give information suggesting that experienced editors thought the content was promotional, not encyclopaedic. Please read carefully the links at the top of your Talk Page about what is expected in articles (summarised at WP:YFA). Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I have made an edit request on the Ahir talk page but it got no reply nor did anyone add to it. Can anyone help me here? Can anyone add my edit request to the Ahir article? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4085:8d1d:4b36::8849:da09 (talk) 07:12, May 15, 2024
Hello. Your edit request was not properly formatted and is likely to be ignored. An edit request should say "Change specific language X to specific language Y, and reliable source Z verifies the change I want to make". So, make your edit request that way with a template, and maybe another editor will respond. Cullen328 (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
New rules to question reliable sources?
I am very confused. For a second time recently (two or three days) cited content is removed from Lillie Rosa Minoka Hill - or cited content is modified without a new source here and here - because the users are assuming that she is:
not Mohawk, although there are reliable sources, and it's said in everything I have read about her so far
Due to federal government Blood quantum laws and her mixed-race heritage - her father is Quaker - she is not a citizen of any Native American tribe. That is true and cited in the article. It was a means of limiting the number of people that could vote on issues relating to them. I think they are taking this to mean that she's not a Native American, but again, there are sources that she's a Native American, she worked for clinics and befriended many "other Native American" women
"Minoka was the second Native American woman in the United States to obtain a medical degree, after Susan La Flesche Picotte (Omaha)". - is cited in the body of the article but removed again from the intro and "known for". There is no other known person that I am aware of that has this distinction (i.e., there's not a group of Native American or other American people that wanted to ignore her)
Because of the assumptions, they have said that Minoka-Hill is a self-identified Mohawk, when it appears that is all she has ever been told about herself, from her mother's side of the family. This, I think, is the crux of the issue and relates to this essay. I don't see in this essay that cited content should be removed become of someone's thoughts.
Sorry this is long. Has something changed that I am unaware of? At first, I really thought it was possible I was being pranked. The first person (we had extended talk page conversation at Talk:Lillie Rosa Minoka Hill is not a new user who is unaware of Wikipedia guidelines.
Please help - I wasn't sure if this is a third-opinion, ANI, or some other issue. How should this be handled? I feel like I can make the corrections and the article will be modified again.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I could post a don't remove cited content and sources needed for new content message, but I am just not wanting to take the wrong step here. Is that appropriate here - or is some kind of review needed first about why this is happening?–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, CaroleHenson. I am not sure why you think that the Teahouse is the place for a complex content assessment which belongs at Talk: Lillie Rosa Minoka Hill, not here. That being said, the article in its current form is shot through with subjective and non-neutral assertions. Somebody willing to dig into the reliable sources about this person needs to do a major cleanup to bring the article into compliance with the Neutral point of view which is a core content policy. Cullen328 (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Cullen328, Thanks so much for responding. I didn't know where to go.
I just posted a message about returning "self-identifying Mohawk" uncited / within an existing source that doesn't cover that.
I was just about to work on "tone" - which sounds like where you are coming from. Is there a source or sources that you think should be removed from the article?
How can I do the work if the article continues to add uncited content?
CaroleHenson, Wikipedia articles do not add content themselves because they are not sentient entities. Human beings add content. Engage in discussion with those other human beings at Talk: Lillie Rosa Minoka Hill as I recommended earlier. Only if that is not effective should you then try the various forms of dispute resolution that are available to you. In other words, do your best to try to resolve the dispute with the other editor first. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Gotcha about working through the issues, I took a stab at that here. I posted a message on one of the user's talk page. I will copy that to the article talk page.
If you have some specific feedback about the problem - specific sources you think shouldn't be used, etc. that would be nice.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Is it possible to reference the same "efn" footnote more than once, without the note appearing twice in the Notes section? Wafflewombat (talk) 07:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
An "Efn" note? Yes. As a ferinstance:
He claimed to have learned Hamlet, in its entirety, by the age of ten.{{efn|name=precocity_debate|The claim has been questioned; see "[[#Doubts|Doubts]]".}} He also claimed to have piloted his mother's Cessna at twelve.{{efn|name=precocity_debate}}
Is it better to edit Wikipedia with a tablet or a laptop and what operating system is best?
I'm curious to hear from you whether it is better to edit with a tablet (maybe with a keyboard) or a laptop. I currently have a laptop running Windows and I know that editing Wikipedia on a smartphone isn't ideal since editing is designed for bigger screens. The boundary between a tablet and a laptop is blurring since you can do basic tasks easily with both devices. I'm curious to know if anyone has edited Wikipedia with an iPad or Android, a Mac, or a Chromebook and their opinions on editing. What are some things you can do easily with those platforms and what are some challenges related to editing that should be noted? Interstellarity (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I edit on a computer, and I think that it is superior. It has more data processing so it's less laggy. The keys are easy to edit quickly with and the screen is big enough for any article. The only downside is that it is not that portable. (Laptops are probably "technically portable" because of their small size.) Fewsnake (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Whether or not the device has a full-sized keyboard is the most important for me. By "full-sized" I don't mean whether or not it's as big as a (now antique) Northgate keyboard; I'm referring to the distance between the centre of the Q key and the centre of the P key (assuming that it's a Qwerty layout). I might prefer the combination of full-sized keyboard and the OS I loathe most to that of miniaturized input device and the OS I like most. (My laptop is "practicably portable" because of its small size and trivial weight; but I move it around very little as I don't want to risk having its SSD fall in the wrong hands.) If you're tired of Windows, note that you can install an alternative OS. Please don't attempt to start a discussion about which OS is best; you'll find discussions ad nauseam if you care to look for them. -- Hoary (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Here is a different perspective: I have done the vast majority of my editing for many years on smartphones. I have written many articles including Good articles on smartphones. I became an active administrator six years ago on a smartphone. I have answered thousands of questions here at the Teahouse and also at the Help Desk on smartphones. A smartphone is a miniature computer. I wrote an essay called User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing. Cullen328 (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I always edit with a laptop. I start with off-line documents stored on my computer where I collect all my notes from various reliable references. If I have trouble finding needed data I may spend months working on a note file. If I’m going to rewrite a paragraph or two of an article I first work on it offline so that I don’t feel rushed to finish a project before I’ve put sufficient time into it. (I do search for online reliable sources to use in my offline projects, plus I have a collection of printed reference books on favorite subjects.)
I usually have multiple Wikipedia projects I’m working on offline, for sometimes I temporarily set aside some of them, if I become more motivated to work on a different subject. I am an older Baby Boomer female editor, and spent most of my writing life without Internet in my home, so I never got out of the habit of working offline before its time to publish my work. This is what works for me, but everyone needs to find the process that they are most comfortable with.
Unless you can provide references to what people have written about him, there is no potential for your draft to be accepted. David notMD (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Our Wikipage Rejecting issue how to solve
I am already many times try to create our organization Wikipedia new page, but not successful our page was rejected always. our Wikipedia page was "P. Naveenkumar. M.E (Atchayam Trust)". this name display in google . but our content not showing. how to rectify. please help to guide me. HomeforAtchayam2014 (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I was told that edit requests should not include reasons for the requested edit. How does that make any sense? Johnywhy (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Looks like it was on your user talk page. What they mean is that edit requests are for edits that are simple and uncontroversial- where the reason is obvious. If you have to give a lot of reasons, it's not simple and should be handled with a discussion to establish a consensus, not an edit request. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Johnywhy, you are not an Extended confirmed editor, and therefore you are not permitted to engage in substantive discussions about articles in the Arab/Israeli conflict topic area until you reach that status. Only then can you begin such a discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@Johnywhy: Editors that aren't extended confirmed are allowed to make edit requests in controversial areas, provided that the request is not controversial. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Finding a non-controversial edit related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will likely be difficult- that's why the topic area has such stringent restrictions. The community needs to see that you can edit dispassionately before permitting you to contribute in that area- that's the reason for the EC restrictons. If you think your proposed edit is at all controversial- meaning that its entirely possible someone could disagree with it- you shouldn't request it. As a practical matter that would be limited to things like spelling or grammar fixes, nothing substantive. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
The use of "Fox" vs "FOX" for Fox Corporation brands
By selecting the About Us hotlink within the Fox Corporation website, https://www.foxcorporation.com/about-us/, it takes you to a page that demonstrates the use of "FOX" when talking about its brands:
"Under the FOX banner, we produce and distribute content through some of the world’s leading and most valued brands, including: FOX News Media, FOX Sports, FOX Entertainment, FOX Television Stations and Tubi Media Group. We empower a diverse range of creators to imagine and develop culturally significant content, while building an organization that thrives on creative ideas, operational expertise and strategic thinking..."
To me this implies that "Fox" as used in Fox Corporation is the only iteration where this happens. All other Fox Corporation brands use "FOX". This would included FOX News Media, FOX Sports, FOX Entertainment, FOX Television Stations and even the FOX Broadcasting Company. It should also be noted that Fox Corporation refers to itself as "FOX" throughout its website. An example of this can also be found in second paragraph of the About Use page:
"...We have long been a leader in news, sports and entertainment programming, achieving strong revenue growth and profitability in a complex industry environment over the past several years. FOX will continue to invest across our businesses, allocate resources toward investments in higher growth initiatives and take advantage of strategic opportunities, including potential acquisitions across the range of the media categories in which we operate."
My question is whether or not the use of "Fox" should be changed to "FOX" in all instances where it is found site wide except for Fox Corporation? This would include but not limited to:
Not done. Wikipedia is not here for you to push a POV, make WP:FORUM speeches or to berate other editors. Edit requests need to be simple and straightforward, require no argumentation and EC editors will decide whether to implement them.Babysharkboss2 was here!!I killed JFK13:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Wiki was not accepted due to not enough coverage
This is for the coach in the article, are these articles sufficient?
Saul Isaksson Hurst is an individual skills development coach and has coached in Premier League Academy Football clubs including Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur FC. He now works one-to-one and his clients include Premier League Serie A and Ligue 1 players including Samuel Iling Jnr (Juventus) Noni Madueke (Chelsea) Flo Balogun (Monaco), Reiss Nelson (Arsenal) Max Aarons (Bournemouth) Rico Henry (Brentford) Saul is regarded as one of the worlds leaders in individual development. Saul also works with Professional Football Clubs and Federations as a consultant supporting individual technical development. He founded the app Mypersonalfootballcoach in 2013. An app created to improve technical football skills which has been utilised by the Academies of clubs including Arsenal FC. Rosalinda19 90 (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Rosalinda19 90: the first one, I can't tell, as it's behind a paywall. The other two do little to help establish the subject's notability, as they're based on what the subject said, and so not independent. Maproom (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
On the "page statistics" tool, it says it was already assessed as a redirect, and if I am correct then it won't show up on the respective project pages, and it will most likely not be rated for an extended period of time. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 15:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
@MemeGod27: I don't know where that tool gets the assessment data from but there was a redirect version today [5] and the talk page apparently needed a null edit to update link tables so I have done that. The assesment has now changed in the tool. The talk page is in many categories like Category:Unassessed Texas articles where editors can find it but I don't know where interested editors are most likely to look. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I want to upload this photo but dont want it to get deleted is there in an easy way to tell if its copyrighted? please help soon. Thank you!
Shane emihovich (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Shane emihovich. Yes, the photo is copyrighted because it is not in the public domain. The file page says that the photo is your own work and also says This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Did you take this photo yourself? If so, it is properly licensed. If not, the license is invalid and the photo must be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Shane emihovich Well, in the strictest sense, it almost certainly is, since basically, anything with a modicum of creativity is under copyright the moment it's set down in some fixed form. Formally registering a work for copyright does provide benefits, but it doesn't MAKE copyright. This photograph does not look nearly old enough that copyright would have expired. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Inquery
Hello, I came on the Teahouse to question about links and how to mask the link. I want to be able to add a link into text so when you click on the text it brings you to the link. IS this possible? GoodHue291 (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I would like to find a better leading image for the Luke Skywalker page. I would like to find a fair-use image of similar quality to the one used on the Princess Leia page. How would I go about doing that? I've checked Wikimedia Commons and there aren't any good images on there. Wafflewombat (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not surprised you could not find any fair-use images of that character on Commons. By site policy, non-free images are prohibited there altogether. Those sorts of files are allowed in limited circumstances locally here on enwiki, but only if they are actually in use in an article, so there would not be any unused alternatives lurking for you to find here. DMacks (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Do you think it's appropriate to use a fair-use image for that page? In my humble opinion, the current image is pretty terrible. If it's okay to use a fair-use image, how would I go about finding one? Wafflewombat (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I do think a fair-use image is appropriate there since I can't see how we could avoid that situation. The current ones (Luke and Leia) appear to be stills from the various movies (even though the files we have were taken from an intermediate website rather than directly from a known time-stamp in the film itself). That seems like a reasonable source, since the topic is these characters in those films. DMacks (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
@Wafflewombat: Given the popularity of Star Wars, I suggest you be WP:CAUTIOUS here and discuss the changes you think need to made at Talk:Luke Skywalker before uploading any new images or replacing/removing any existing images from the article. You can even seek feedback from WP:STARWARS. Although Wikipedia encourages us ot be WP:BOLD, I suspect that the image use in this particular article is probably something that has been discussed before and a consensus was likely established in favor of the images currently being used. Finally, one important thing to remember when it comes to image use is that fair use and non-free content use aren't exactly the same thing; Wikipedia's non-free content use policy was set up to be much more restrictive than fair use; so, it's probably best to avoid using the two terms interchangeably when it comes to Wikipedia since they're not exactly equivalent in meaning. That's another good reason for seeking input on the article's talk page or from WikiProject Star Wars. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia editing but have some time in web development etc. I've noticed an article that has external links diverting to different sites to what they are listed for.
This article has a link claiming to be to London Evening Standard and another to white collar boxing charity championship. Should I just delete these links?
Sorry if this is an obvious question i just wanted to check before I made the edit.
Thanks PrimeHunter,
I pointed that back at the original article and found something more relevant to point the other one at, I hope this is correct.
Many thanks
DAMOP1208:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Request to raise the protection policy level of Alice Guo's personal page in response to current developments.
Hi, I have never commented or edited anything on Wikipedia, and I don't even have an account. I look at articles fairly often and I was looking into Alice Guo (Philippine Mayor) in response to recent national developments in the Philippines regarding allegations to her place of birth, legitimacy of her citizenship, and her relationship to the Chinese mob. Since this topic has recently developed and seems like it will grow into a bigger issue, I was wondering if anyone who qualified was interested in raising the protection level the Wikipedia page for Alice Guo in order to protect it from vandalism, and spread of unconfirmed information. I think it qualifies as at least semi protected, at least until the topic is no longer covered by the media.
@Loversduet: You can make a request at WP:RFPP. Articles are only protected if there is ongoing vandalism or disruption, pages are not protected proactively. You can use the article's talk page to start a discussion to resolve any content disputes. RudolfRed (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Before requesting protection, please do look at the history in order to decide if you want to request semi-protection vs full-protection. Is it just IPs and new editors involved (with long-standing accounts making good-faith edits, even if the edits do not always survive)? Or are long-standing accounts making bad-faith or otherwise-disruptive edits also? DMacks (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
How to cluster multiple citations and sources leading to different websites into one note? I have already seen many help pages but I think they are not of the 'normal webpage citation' format I want. Thanks, ExclusiveEditorNotify Me!15:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I recently discovered my Father left me Money in 1955, as per his Probated Will. I never knew where my Father banked. Frustrated after writing to banks and Building Societies, I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no real response from any of them. Registered with the Web Site 'My lost Account' for the second time, again nothing. as I understand Dormant Accounts after 15 years Banks forward the moneys to the Government for safe keeping. How and when do the Banks Transfer the Moneys, and which Department receives it. I am 89 so 69 years have passed since my Father died, there must be some Bank employees out there who can direct me, please do so. Jamiesonandy (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jamiesonandy: For the general question How and when do the Banks Transfer the Moneys, and which Department receives it, you may ask this at WP:RD/H. But note that reference desks are not a place of legal or personal advice, and the question could only be asked as a general curiosity question. Also Wikipedia is not a forum. Thanks, ExclusiveEditorNotify Me!14:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Ref. mentioned by others gets in reflist made by you
On talk pages, sometimes you use citations and sources, or that they get added when you mention some part from the article. After this you put {{reflist}}{{reftalk}} on bottom of your comment (if I am right). What this may do, is that citations mentioned by others who had not used {{reflist}}{{reftalk}} under their own comment, will get added in the {{reflist}}{{reftalk}} you added below your comment. What to do in such situations? Thanks, ExclusiveEditorNotify Me!13:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
@ExclusiveEditor: I'd just move {{reftalk}} below everyone's comments, though with the reply tool, that shouldn't happen if you added the aforementioned template after your signature. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: Yes, a part of my doubt was if you could add the template below other's comments. If we could, this would be tedious if the talk page is long with many users using citations without {{reftalk}}, although such situation is rare. ExclusiveEditorNotify Me!14:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
My article was rejected due to not citing enough reliable sources. However, the page I am creating is about a local business. The sources I had used so far have been sources from the business website itself, but I have added some more from local newspapers talking about the business. Would these be classed as more reliable sources? I am struggling a bit. Smolenskycollection (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I have never wrote in this board, I hope someone can help me. I paid someone in March to create a wikipedia page that I needed and last week he wrote to me to tell me the page was put into drafts - I didn't know what that meant so I spent a few hours researching and then I told him, not only that he has told me that because I have tried to edit my own page I will never be able to create a page under my name. I am shocked this could happen. Any advice? I would appreciate it very much EUFilm (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I created that myself this morning, but I cant publish it, he said I will never be able to have an article about me. I am actually concerned cause I do not manage wikipedia well at all EUFilm (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
If you feel that you have edited the draft to the extent where you can prove how you meet our notability criteria for people, you can submit it for review. Just click the Submit the draft for review! button I have added to the draft.
@EUFilm Navigate to the draft (linked above) and you'll see a big blue button in the section at the top. Don't submit it yet: wait until a few more experienced editors have had a chance to tweak it towards acceptability. Meanwhile, you mentioned that he actually blocked my other account too. What account? Unless the scammer was an admin, which seems unlikely, he has no way to block accounts. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry I did submit, I don't know how editors can add on to it, sorry about my complete lack of knowledge. My other account was called film ireland but gives me a message that it is blocked and I can only read but no edit EUFilm (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know, I thought it was very suspicious that everything happened at once, I had that account for a couple of years and I never had problems with it. I didnt use it much TBH EUFilm (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I did! I needed to refresh the page, thanks so much for your help, I will follow your advice on writing autobiographies and make a conflict of interest disclosure. Thanks so much for the prompt help EUFilm (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
@EUFilm The review process is iterative. Having a draft declined (pushed back for further work) is normal. This essay may be of use to you. It is one of many describing a process for creating drafts which are acceptable, assuming notability is proven. That last is fundamental to acceptance. So you have work to do, and it should be fun. Just take the advice of the reviewer(s).
However, there is an important and unanswered question. What is the purpose behind your desire for an article about you to be published? Thyere is only on good reason, which is verifiable notability. Set agains that there are many bad reasons, the most awkward is a desire for publicity. Remember, you will not own the article. Assuming you have done questionable (and verifiable) things then editors are free to add them. I am not accusing you of having dome any. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
My Reply to a Comment in a Talk Section Keeps Being Deleted
Then I replied to Levivich's reply to my own post and it is being deleted over and over again by [SelfStudier]. Given that this is the Talk section and I am citing my sources, I do not understand why I am getting deleted. Can someone pls help or explain? Lionbear10 (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:PIA, only editors with 500 edits and 30 days on their account are allowed to participate in discussions regarding topics relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As a non-EC editor, you are allowed to make simple and uncontroversial edit requests (e.g. identifying grammatical errors), using the WP:Edit request template, and are not allowed to further argue the case for your edit if it is declined.
I/P topics, alongside the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the Holocaust, represent the topics on Wikipedia that are the most stringently restricted, due to past, pervasive disruption related to these topics. For what it's worth, you were expressly notified about all of this on your talk page about an hour before you made this Teahouse post. signed, Rosguilltalk15:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi DanganMachin. The name= field in a reference isn't for what you were hoping there, it's for reusing references not labeling them. {{notetag}} does what you wanted, I've added it to the article so it should be rendering as you wanted now. -- D'n'B-t -- 16:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Can I use a picture I found that while I can't find the copyright is more likely than not in the public domain ? As it is a picture of someone who died in 1929, meaning it is at least 95 years old and more likely even older than that ? DanganMachin (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Gosh, it is really very poor, isn't it? I would suggest that your approach should be roughly in this order.
Read the article
Read each reference thoroughly
Re-read the article and ask yourself if there were any key facts in those references that were missing from the article.
Critique the current article and think what anyone wanting to know about the topic might expect to find within it.
Consider all the sections of the article, both present and missing. The lead is very weak and doesn't even wikilink to Special education (make sure you read through that first, too) Think whether the article needs a section on laws, international children's charters, support groups, prosecutions of extreme cases, etc.
Make a list of key things missing from the article and go look for sources that would help you fill those gaps.
So, how prevalent is abuse in special education? (I found one sources in a few seconds suggesting it's 4 times as likely to happen than in normal schooling, but maybe there are national or cultural variations?) Is it more likely in certain settings or with certain groups of special education needs, or certain ages?
Try to find academic studies on the subject, not salatious news stories that talk about one particular incident at one school somewhere. UNICEF type-reports, not tabloid media tales.
Try using Google Books to find best academic or scholarly sources. Read and reread the sources, maybe working in your sandbox to collate additional text and citations ( or in a wordprocessor if you prefer)
Think globally - most editors seem to take an Americo-centic perspective, but this is surely a worldwide issue? If so, demonstrate it with sources. How have different countries addressed the issue?
Whatever you do, write new content in your own words and enjoy the challenge of being able to turn a poor article into something quite, erm, encyclopaedic! Good luck. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I can't believe such a weak article was published in Wikipedia! It looks like what you'd expect only at a draft stage. I'm really surprised the article has been up for a few months (I checked its History page) without receiving at least one tag pointing out the need for specific further work to be done on it.
Nick has laid out a good comprehensive set of steps for you, but I'd like to add to the discussion by saying how I'd start out if I were taking on that article — assuming I didn't have a strong background of knowledge about abuse in special education beyond what I've read in the news. I'd do a quick Net search on ABUSE SPECIAL EDUCATION ... then skim through the Results list for sources with titles that seem to be about the topic at a general level ... then I'd go to those sources to get an overall idea of the situation.
— For instance, I'd want to know the different areas within special education where abuse has occurred most.
— And depending on how broad I wanted to make the article, I'd also try to get an idea of where the abuse has particularly been found to occur (like, just in the US? or worldwide?).
Once I felt a bit familiar with the situation — but not until! — I'd start moving ahead on the job.
This is a more "top-down" approach than others might find works best. For them, a more "bottom-up" approach might work better. The world, after all, can be divided into those who are more deductive and those who are more inductive when approaching new tasks and learning new material. Of course, there are also many folks in between; even so, most of us lean somewhat more in one direction than the other.
I mention all this because you have a pretty big job ahead of you with that article, and knowing yourself in this way can help get things off to a productive start. Good luck. You're brave to take this article on! Augnablik (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Where's the help to lookup the source codes that are available to format quotations? I believe that Visual Editor makes formatting visually easier, but it's not available everywhere on Wikipedia.
I know the source codes are different when composing in an article versus in a Talk page's topic. For example, a block quotation's source code in a Talk page should be: {{Talk quote block|text=block}}. rootsmusic (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
@Rootsmusic When I started editing here, I encountered the same problem. I first bookmarked really interesting pages in a dedicated section of my main userpage see here. But I subsequently created a separate subpages for the myriad of lesser, but nevertheless quite valuable pages I encountered that I wanted to refer back to. See User:Nick Moyes/infopages. Sadly both pages are a bit of a mess, but that's just me. Maybe you'll be better organised! Hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
(Thanks @Nick Moyes for the examples from your User page.) In a Talk page, I've striked-out my own paragraphs because they were wrong. How can I also collapse the striked-out paragraphs to not clutter the topic? rootsmusic (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
You can use the template {{collapse}}. For example:
I mean, it depends on the length. If it's a long section, absolutely use the template 2NumForIce described, but if it's just a small part of one of your own comments, {{collapse}} is easier. Cremastra (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with an infobox on this page. I would like the item "Leia Organa Solo (daughter)" to stay on one line, like it does on this page. I can't figure out how to do it. I even tried putting it under the "family" heading like it is on Vader page, but that didn't do the trick. Wafflewombat (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
The only difference I can see between those two pages is that the padding in the middle of the infobox for Darth Vader skews a little more to the left than Padmé Amidala. I'm not sure if the {{show}} templates are affecting the spacing in the former. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Wafflewombat. I don't know why but the line wrapping in the long image caption in Padmé Amidala causes the first data column to be a little wider than necessary to hold the longest text "First appearance", and then the second column doesn't have room for "Leia Organa Solo (daughter)". If the caption instead forces a newline with <br /> before or after "in" [6] then the issue goes away for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
@Nedia020415: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1224. Some people that have been around long enough like to give themselves the moniker, but anyone's allowed to answer provided they know what they're talking about. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, NeD1a. While there is not a formal restriction on who may answer questions here, please see WP:Teahouse/Host start. From time to time we get enthusiastic newcomers here who are keen to help, but have not yet learnt enough about Wikipedia to give accurate and helpful answers. If you do start answering, please be certain you know what you are talking about when you try it, and accept any feedback with good grace. ColinFine (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Page numbers in citation of ebooks
I wanted to use an ebook as a citation in an article, but since ebooks don't have page numbers, how can I use that ebook as a citation? VKwiki10003:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
@Vkwiki100, we still need you to do the best you can with location in a lengthy source. Wikipedia:Citing sources says If there are no page numbers, whether in ebooks or print materials, then you can use other means of identifying the relevant section of a lengthy work, such as the chapter number or the section title. Use the "at" field as n "|at=Chapter 2" in "cite book". StarryGrandma (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
CanonNi, what I'd do is reply to the comment, suggesting to its author (whom you should ping) that they should post it in the AfD page itself. The author can then take this opportunity to revise the comment if they wish. -- Hoary (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, could someone explain templete categories to me? I noticed that the majority of uncategorized pages are templates but don’t really know how to categorize them. Fernmyne (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Templates would go in either categories of templates on a certain topic, templates for a certain type of use, or templates associated with a certain context. So for example, is templates used to format cited sources and Category:Chembox templates is templates used internally by the {{Chembox}} infobox. There are currently 25,564 categories with the string "templates" in their name. If you have a few example templates in mind, someone can probably suggest a few cats. With practice in general, or in collaboration with a wikiproject, you'll start to recognize certain sets of category-names. DMacks (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
@Fernmyne: Template categories should be inside <noinclude>...</noinclude>. Otherwise the category will also be added to pages using the template. On a documentation subpage categories are placed inside <includeonly>...</includeonly> and the parent template transcludes the documentation inside <noinclude>...</noinclude>. Many template subpages don't require a category. To find suitable categories, you can look at similar templates, search the category namespace (e.g. with category:) with templates or intitle:templates included in the search, or navigate template categories like Category:Wikipedia templates. Don't create new template categories unless you are familiar with the area. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Simoncreates. Without knowing more specifics, it's hard to give you anything but a general answer. If the typo is in content about a source that was added to a Wikipedia page (e.g a citation template), then it possibly can be edited. On the other land, if the typo is in something find on an external website that is being cited as a source on a Wikipedia page, then there's no way to edit that via Wikipedia. If you can provide some more details about this typo, then it would be easier for someone to give you a better answer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. The Wikipedia article in question is about an individual. I wrote a piece about this individual for a local alt weekly, which is listed as a source. My name is misspelled as the author. I would like to correct the misspelling. 2600:1700:77C0:3BE0:45E5:D8D0:9010:67F4 (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Article rejected
The page is that I have created is not unambiguously promotional, because I have deeply researched about the topic and after collecting the relevant references and then drafted the content for that. Previously I have written the article but same reason was given, that it's an advertisement. I'm well aware of all the rules, regulations and guidelines of wikipedia and before drafting the content I have first gone through other bunch of pages and there writing procedure. Inspite of writing clearly and concise on the subject it's rejected without any proper detailed explanation. I dont know whats wrong with the people and why they think that the people like us who are experience content writers and editors are only working and taking money for writing any content. Cant we just make it more easier to present you thoughts, but whatever I write everything is rejected. Now, I want the proper clarification because this is not the first time my article is being rejected. Provide me the solution for publishing the content on the subject, not just that its advertisement and we cannot publish it. Vivekupadhyay1 (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Is "a reputable firm in the tech space, it provides innovative digital solutions" something that you would expect to be in a neutrally written encyclopedia article? What about "...brought a wealth of experience and a visionary approach to the company" in reference to that company's leadership? If you saw those phrases in an article you hadn't written, would you honestly think that it sounded less like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article? -- D'n'B-t -- 11:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Thankyou for your feedback, But can you provide me the better way to use words. As if I'm writing about any organization, then It's wrong to use or mention the CEO or the leader? I will make changes accordingly but will you please help me to streamline that as it has only 4 lines. Vivekupadhyay1 (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
[Edit Conflict] The solution is for you to study and absorb the principles in Wikipedia's WP:Five pillars, and develop an understanding of what 'promotional' means in Wikipedia terms. Having done that, you need to rewrite the Draft in accordance with Wikipedia's requirements: Help:Your first article may be of assistance.
Something can read like an advertisement even if the writer is not being paid to write it. Your repeatedly Declined (not Rejected*) draft includes very few facts and a great deal of empty praise for the subject, and is very far from having a Neutral Point Of View. As for your four references, some if not all are clearly from associates of the subject, or reprints of PR releases from it, so are not independent and cannot demonstrate Notability, which is essential.
(* "Declined" means "not up to standard yet, please improve before resubmitting"; "Rejected" means "no hope of becoming an article, please stop trying".)
In future, please do not write in all-bold: it appears aggressive and will not encourage sympathy. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.173 (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Thankyou so much for the proper explanation. Now, I know what kind of links are valid and can be used in the wikipedia article. If you dont mind can I share the links here only to get the validation on are the links valid and can be used in the wikipedia article for the particular subject? Vivekupadhyay1 (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
So is what you are saying is that you coincidentally decided to edit about a company with an employee of the same name as you? I'm just wondering if that's what you are saying. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure it's not- and that wasn't what I was getting at. But can you at least understand how this looks to everyone else? 331dot (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
@Vivekupadhyay1 You appear to be ignoring steadfastly the formal question on your user talk page regarding paid editing. You should note that the question may not be ignored, and your edits in this thread count as editing further. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Are there short cuts available to use when doing Wiki editing on a mobile phone? If so, where can I find a list of them?
This question came up after often wishing I could quickly go from places like the Teahouse to my user page. My workaround to do that is unbelievably cumbersome. Augnablik (talk) 05:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
If you are using the mobile website (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/), you can go into "Settings" on the left-side menu and turn on "Advanced mode", which will provide you with additional options for navigating to your watchlist, user page, contributions, etc. If you are using the app I have no idea unfortunately. Reconrabbit14:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi MaribelCasey178. Are you asking about a specific edit or just about editing in general? If you're asking about a specific edit then it would help to know the name of the Wikipedia article/page where the edit in question was made. If you're asking more of a general question, then,in principle, pretty much every edit made to a Wikipedia article/page can be undone and every edit that's undone can be subsequently restored by undoing the undone; in many cases, though, edits are undone for a good reason (i.e. some Wikipedia policy or guideline related reason), and they probably shouldn't just simply be restored just for the sake of things but only when underlying reason has been satisfactorily addressed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I do not have an account and so cannot rollback obvious vandalism (3 edits) at Tartan. The "editor" User:Kilt Designer already has a spam warning from self-promoting elsewhere. Can someone here revert it and ask the admins to ban them for this? 212.79.110.147 (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello there! It's been some time since I've been here. I'm planning on being more active and I've decided to change my user name (if possible) and my signature. Can somebody provide me with the corresponding links? Also, I've been part of the Women in Red community for some time and I would like to join some more communities that have to do, for example, with music etc. Do you know where to find those as well? Thanks in advance and have a good day! fenia🖤tellmehi14:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
@ExclusiveEditor The guidance is at MOS:BOLDSYN, which says that bolding is reserved for significant alternative names (which should usually also redirect to the article). One example at least, namely Kaiwan redirects elsewhere, so breaks this guidance. Others may do so, too: I haven't checked them all. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
using articles in different languages
i noticed there were a lot of articles in chinese that were well written but stubs in the english version. i was wondering if i can just translate them into english and use the same references or would the references also have to be english sources?
--Eternal Wisteria (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
The references don't have to be English, but they do have to be WP:Reliable sources. The reliability would depend on the article subject. Medical articles citing sources promoting TCM would likely not pass WP:MEDRS, and political articles citing Chinese news agencies would likely be deemed unreliable. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
adding a column to a page to an exisiting table
hey there
can someone add a column to a table
Add a column to IML Contest Winner Table[edit]
Hey there can someone create another column on this page - https://wiki.eso.workers.dev/wiki/International_Mr._Leather IML Year - then add a column IML Class then add 1 to 46 - including the covid years as 43 & 42
Source: IML Executive Facebook page 25th May 2020 "To honor this year, with great respect for the world's situation, we choose to not ignore 2020 and will put International Mr. Leather 42 and International Mr. Bootblack 28 in the books as "the year without winners". Instead, we move forward to the future and International Mr.Leather 43 and International Mr. Bootblack 29 when we can be together in May 2021. In Leather, IML Executive Committee" 2A01:4B00:D214:8000:C570:9AD9:4AF2:9DC0 (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
So I was recently watching a Youtube video by Dime Stone Adventures, where he goes over this old dance prompter/fiddler/farmer from Eastern Connecticut named Gurdon Cady. I noticed there wasn't an article for him on here, and I thought it would be a good idea to add one. However, I'm new to making and editing, and I know how strict stuff can be. So I would like be some senior/experienced article editors to help me create the article and to also seek approval of them to do so. Another problem I have is that there is not many sources of this man's existence outside of local newspapers, articles about his unique headstone, and that youtube video by Dime Stone Adventures that I mentioned earlier. Because of that, I feel like it would be to find accurate sources that we could easily link. If we are to go through with this, I should probably email (if I can) Dime Stone Adventures if we can link his video as a source or if he could help us create the article.
Hello, Creamymemes5. The New York Times published an article about Gurdon Cady in 1897, and a Google Books search shows that he is discussed in several books. So, I think that trying to write an article about him is worth the effort. Your first article has good advice. As for the Dime Stone Adventures YouTube channel, that appears to be a one person operation and is unlikely to be considered a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Creamymemes5, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's great that you want to contribute to Wikipedia, and that you have seen a possible subject for an article - and from what Cullen says, you may have hit on a subject who actually meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, so an article is possible. (This is already doing better than hundreds of new editors who plunge into creating articles where that is not the case).
Having said that, my advice to new editors is always to not even think about creating a new article until you have spent a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making edits to existing articles. Once you have grasped principles such as verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view. and notability, then you can read your first article, and give it a go.
It is not impossible that somebody will come forward to help you on it, but in all honesty, it is not likely. You are the person who wants this article: unless you happen to fire somebody else's imagination, they're not going to put effort into the ground-work of researching and writing this article, though people will be happy to answer specific questions, and if you submit a draft for review, reviewers will give you feedback. ColinFine (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
ColinFine, I started editing roughly 15 years ago and made 15 edits in my first four weeks. During those weeks, I spent a lot of time studying Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and ways of doing things. 29 days after I started, I wrote my first article, Dirk van Erp, and have written over 100 new articles since, not one of which has been deleted. So, I do not believe that several months of experience is required if an editor is willing to learn. Cullen328 (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Excessive zeal about permissions or rights about images
A long time ago I gave up uploading images to Wikipedia. No other place in the Internet is so full of rules, more rules, a LOT OF RULES about permissions, rights, licenses, etc. of images freely available everywhere you look, and many times some idle & worthless "editor" has decided it should be removed. The result is an encyclopedia that seems proud of being poorly illustrated. Many WP Admins seem to share a common paranoid fear that Wikipedia could be sued for "copyright infringement", but stubbornly deny it, citing their rules instead. It's no use, and it's frustrating too. AVM (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
The rules aren't complex. In fact, there is just one simple rule: The Wikimedia Foundation publishes images that have been released under an acceptable free license. That's it. If you take photographs yourself, you can upload them with such a license. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, AVM. I hear your frustration.
Unfortunately, copyright law hasn't quite caught up with new-fangled things like photocopiers. The fact that much of the internet ignores copyright is unfortunate, but the Mediawiki Foundation has chosen to do its best to comply with the law. ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
In fact, precisely because of the paucity of free images, the English Wikipedia has chosen to allow non-free content in certain circumstances; I believe that some Wikipedias do not allow that. ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Wait, did no one else hear this guy call editors who get rid of copyright violations worthless? Please be WP:CIVIL and understand people aren't worthless because they do something you don't like. Industrial Insect(talk)18:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Editors who improperly upload copyrighted images created by others to WP or to Wikimedia Commons usually claim in the form-filling process that the images are their "own" creation, which is false, and thus constitute outright theft of the actual creator's property. Carlstak (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
how to do two disambiguations in a hatnote
for the page for tire there is only one disambiguation link in a hatnote leading to Tire (disambiguation). I feel there should be two since the british spelling (tyre) has its own disambiguation page (see Tyre (disambiguation). im not sure how to make it dispaly two disambiguation links at once in the hatnotes, so if someone could help it would be greatly appreciated. Gaismagorm (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
The best option would likely be to review the material given to you by whatever person or organization is administering the exam, or alternatively look for practice material online; we can't help you very well here. If you have a specific question about a particular topic you don't understand, you could ask at the reference desk. Tollens (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
question
Hello, I've been wondering about this for some time now.
On some movie and film articles, especially where you get into the 'plot' section of it, does there need to be any sources of the plot? How do we know what is true and what isn't true about it, if there's no sources on it. GoodHue291 (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
@GoodHue291: References aren't required for plot sections, because the work itself is the source; you can verify the accuracy of the plot summary by viewing the work. See MOS:PLOTSOURCE – while quotations from the original work or secondary sources are helpful in some circumstances they are not required. Tollens (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Hey thanks. I actually had another question for you. Is there a limit on how much questions you should ask on the Teahouse? GoodHue291 (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
There's an issue at the Yahaya Bello article. There's a user that is constantly adding information there that seems out of place, also not acknowledging our edit summaries too. I want to know if you could do something about it. I feel like it's biased text. GoodHue291 (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
A biased POV is a very different thing to vandalism, but it is still very much a problem the edit warring that is going on with that article. -- D'n'B-t -- 20:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
How do I remove a reference and mark it as [citation needed]
I updated an out of date level count number on the article for the game Baba is you but the old reference is still there, how do I remove it and replace it with either a newer reference or the citation needed thing? Personfromthegalille (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
You probably shouldn't change it until you find a source with the updated number, as the new number would be unsourced, and could be reverted by someone else. I'd just leave it as it is until a new source is found. miranda:321:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I just had this conversation on my talk page about an image insertion I reverted. Essentially, the editor has uploaded an image of a minor onto Commons and then placed that image in an article on English Wikipedia. I reverted that insertion, partly because I thought it was vandalism (given the edit history of that page), and mostly because I was concerned about the image. I asked the editor if they had the consent to post such an image of a minor. They said they knew the minor depicted in the image, but did not gain consent from the minor's guardians yet. I advised them to delete the image until consent via a model release was obtained.
I was surprised WP:IUP (and WP:CHILDPROTECT) was not clear about consent and images that deal with minors in this type of scenario. I did try to quickly look through those policies' talk pages and the talk pages of WP:Teahouse and WP:VP to find other similar cases. I was going to post this on WP:VPP requesting an update to the policy language, but before I do, I want to make ensure I am not overlooking some other Wikipedia/Commons policy or past discussion where this is addressed?
Do you think my actions were logical in this scenario? Did it follow policy? If so, which policies? What would you have done here? Thank you in advance, --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me.05:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Request consideration of increased page protection for all political candidates
I have submitted a request for page protection for one state legislator page after seeing that Other Editors have noted changes to the page that may be from a political opponent.
Right now the page I reviewed has been edited recently to focus mostly on political positions rather than on the person's biography. I recommended that protection be installed immediately for that page to prevent any further biased posting and vandalism.
Now it occurs to me that perhaps we need a blanket increase in page protection for all political candidate pages at this point, since primaries are coming up in many states in the next few months. ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 05:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
How do you save edits/changes to an existing article?
Sorry, a bit new here and can't seem to find the answer to this question. Also, where do you put the recommendations for new edits/editors to an existing article because you don't have enough knowledge about the subject to do the necessary changes? Eleniofillyria (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Your first question: First use "Edit", and edit. Then "Preview changes", and check that what you did doesn't have any unwanted problems. Then "Publish changes". Your second question: At the foot of the article's "Talk" page. -- Hoary (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Use of a Picture from the Commons on my Free Web site
I have a blog I use for very nerdy articles. Most are very nerdy topics. I'm stretching myself a bit by writing up an article on the Turing/Church proofs that the Entscheidungsproblem has no solution. I have no adds on my site, I don't have any way for people to even give me money if they want to. It isn't all altruistics. I'm more interested in attracting a (very small but focused) audience and that sometimes leads to business. Anyway, sorry this is way too much detail My question is if I take an image from Alonzo Church's Wikipedia page and use it on my blog are there any ownership issues? All I know about content ownership, copyright, etc. is I don't understand it but know its easy to do something you shouldn't. I would think this is fine perhaps I should provide some attribution. Please any suggestions. Sorry for the long email, its late and I've been working since... actually 5am. And I'm more or less retired. What can I say I like my work. Wikipedia rocks! I used to edit and still do once in a while and when my old boss gets depressed that the Internet didn't turn the world into a utopia of open information as he thought it would I remind him that we have things like Wikipedia one of the most wonderful examples of people doing things because they want to. Cheers! MadScientistX11 (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, MadScientistX11. Your header indicates that you are asking about images hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Every image or media file there (and there are an amazing 105 million of them) can be used by anybody for any purpose including commercial purposes without any restriction or asking for permission, except that many of them require attribution to the source. So, that is the general answer about Commons images, but then you mention Alonzo Church, and it is there that a problem arises. The portrait photo in that article is not hosted on Wikimedia Commons but rather right here on English Wikipedia. That is because the presumption is that the copyright to that photo belongs to Princeton University and that the photo is therefore neither in the public domain nor freely licensed. The English Wikipedia has a policy on use of non-free images. The policy is strict and the image must be low resolution, as is the case here. The circumstances where non-free images can be used are limited. One of those allowed uses is in biographies of people who have died, when no freely licensed or public domain image is known to exist. Clearly, it is not possible to take a photo of a man who died in 1995. So that justifies the use of the photo on English Wikipedia. The bottom line is that neither English Wikipedia nor Wikimedia Commons can give you permission to use this portrait photo, because the copyright presumably belongs to Princeton. The charmingly nerdy non-profit nature of your website has no bearing here. The principles I am describing apply to giant multinational corporations the same way as they apply to your website. If you decide to use the photo under the legal principle of fair use, then I suggest that you look for a higher resolution version on Princeton's websites, and credit them on your website. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Almost all of the images on Wikimedia Commons should be freely reusable, but the requirements surrounding attribution and similar may vary, you can see c:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. However, some images on English Wikipedia, including the image on Alonzo Church(File:Alonzo Church.jpg) would be, or are assumed to be, under copyright, and can only be used under the fair use doctrine. This is generally because no freely reusable alternative can be located.
For the use of copyrighted works under fair use in US law, 17 U.S. Code § 107 considers the following 4 factors:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
In the Vector 2022 skin, main pages will be displayed at full width (like special pages). The goal is to keep the number of characters per line large enough. This is related to the coming changes to typography in Vector 2022. Learn more. [10]
On the user contributions, I wonder if I can search for the specific page e.g. 'France' to see how many times or not they had edit this particular page? MoCars (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
@MoCars There is a good tool which includes this information and is reached from the bottom of any user's contributions page. The tool is the "Edit count" link and in your case gives this from which individual counts are part of the output. I can see you made 16 edits to Toyota Yaris Cross, for example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Divisive Examples of Neutral Point of View on Help Page
Hello. I have recently commenced as editor here and am excited about all the great work being done to preserve our knowledge.
I find the examples to be a bit contentious and the explanations to be paternalistic.
Examples include objective truths which you are taught should not be mentioned. And lack of evidence of causation presented as evidence of no causation.
I can see that the page has not been commented on since 2022, and wonder if it is time to discuss the examples again, as this is a page that many new user will visit.
Hello. The point is to provide examples that are obviously incorrect in order for the user to be able to see the correct ones. That said, you should discuss your concerns on the associated talk page. If it doesn't get enough interest, you can make a formal Request for Comment. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Team, please help me get my draft page done better and approved faster. The page (https://wiki.eso.workers.dev/wiki/Draft:Talkio_Mobile) is of a telecommunications company launching in a few months in Uganda. This implies that not much information on it is available for reference, but quite more will be in the near future. There have been questions of how related I am to the party, or if I have a conflict of interest in the submission. The answer is NO! I have been a growing technology journalist for the past 8 years and I have helped report on the underreported sector here in Uganda and Africa. It hurts when efforts like these, to make the unknown more known, are instead painted to be for selfish and personal interests. It discourages us as editors and makes us think that probably we are undervalued and have no regard paid to us. Kikonyogod (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
@Kikonyogod: I asked you a perfectly standard question about a possible conflict of interest, no need to get worked up about it.
And Wikipedia is not here to help you promote upcoming anything. If the company hasn't even been launched yet, it is virtually guaranteed to be non-notable, and you will find it pretty much impossible to have an article on it accepted. Sorry to be blunt, but that's just a fact. Maybe give it a year, and try again then? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
@Kikonyogod: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1224. As DoubleGrazing has said above, the subject appears to be too soon to have its own article for the time being. As an aside, your §Services section comes off as very promotional and would be unfit for an encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Kikonyogod, this draft comes with one reference. The source to which it points doesn't mention Talkio Mobile. You give me no reason not to think that an article on Talkio Mobile would contravene WP:CRYSTAL. I do not understand why you can't wait till more information about Talkio Mobile becomes available. (NB This information would have to come from reliable, disinterested sources.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Shirt58, I did. Why the "located" within "Poland is a country located in Central Europe"? ("Poland is a country in Central Europe" sounds better to me.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the relevance here as the draft's avoided the use of first- and second-person pronouns. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Is this a split or a merge?
Hi! I was looking to create a discussion on combining parts of two articles (SEPTA City Transit Division surface routes and SEPTA Suburban Division bus routes) into a new, separate article called List of SEPTA bus routes. The City Transit Division and Suburban Transit Division are each notable enough to have their own content (they have distinct histories and strikes will be specific to either the city or suburban divisions), but with modern wayfinding changes to SEPTA, it makes no difference to everyday users whether they are on a city bus or suburban bus. Therefore, having a listing of SEPTA bus routes on Wikipedia would be best achieved in its own article rather than straddling two separate ones.
My main question is whether such a thing would best considered to be a split or a merge. It would be splitting the content from both articles, but also merging them both simultaneously... which approach would I take for starting that discussion? Emma Lexi Triphora (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I think the only way that distinction matters is if you're trying to find a top-of-page banner to draw attention to your proposal. It sounds more like a split, since that offers ways to have the target be an article that does not yet exist, whereas merging seems to require that the target does exist. As long as both articles are tagged and point to the same one location for discussion, that's all that I think really matters. Be sure to alert WT:PHILLY. DMacks (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Id like to add something but theres not really any citations for it
So i wanted to add an Imageboard to the page for them, but i cant post it since my only valid proof is a reddit post by the creator of the Imageboard on Reddit (aswell as the site link of course)
This is what i tried to post
9chan is an imageboard that emerged on Reddit around April 2024.<ref>"9chan Introduction", blaqberry, Reddit post, January 2024, [Uhh i made an imageboard : r/teenagers]</ref> Not much is known about its past since it seemingly hasn't been archived, although it appears to have originated in 2022. It was created by two people, 'blaqberry' and 'njln_'. The imageboard itself resembles 4chan from around 2004, with a few slight changes. It's not indexed by Google, according to blaqberry, but you can visit it by going to https://9chan.000.pe.
Hello everyone. I've been looking for what to do in this encyclopedia, but it looks like everything is in order. Is there a to-do list or something like that to get started? JLCop (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
@JLCop First off, welcome, nice to have you here. Second, there isn't necessarily a to-do list, more a rather insane amount of things you can do. I'd personally advise going to the task hub to see some of these examples. Citation hunting is a good way to find articles to improve, as you can come across articles in rather desperate need of improvement.
Hi @JLCop, when I first started I found the homepage really useful, it gives suggested edits. Once you spend some time doing this to get used to how to use Wikipedia, there are then plenty of projects you can get stuck into :) Qcne(talk)15:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Request userboxes
Hello! I'm SniperTron12, for a living, I put a nuclear block on a vandalizer, but I'd want to do something different! If you want me to create userboxes, I'll be there to help!
PS - I dont know where I SHOULD place this statement.
Company logo reverted to outdated logo on company page
I updated my company logo on our company Wikipedia page as we rebranded last year but the logo reverted to our old logo. Justin Oram (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Your edits were reverted wholesale, as they were found to be promotional. The logo was collateral damage in that.
You must disclose your paid-editing status. After that, you should not edit the article directly, but make edit requests via its talk page instead.
Please note also that this is not "[y]our company Wikipedia page", but rather a Wikipedia article on your company. It is editable by anyone, and not 'owned' by your company in any sense of the word. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
@Justin Oram: The logo update was OK. I have redone it and added the official website.[11]. I guess you also made this edit four minutes before creating your account. That was not OK. It said customers use your product to "consistently delight guests, retain staff and grow margins". The revert said "promotional b*llsh*t". I have to agree. We are an encyclopedia, not your marketing department. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Website blocked
I was attempting to edit Elaine Carroll to add their website, but the edit was blocked because the site uses .xyz as the TLD. The notice about this issue indicated that I could submit a request to have the specific domain allowed, but I'm not totally certain how to submit a request about this. The noticed mentioned two different filter lists and I couldn't tell which one was blocking this edit. I created a note about this under the discussion section at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist as well. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
On March 6 the entry I created for the artist Bertrand Meniel was rejected because I didn't have the right references. I have since corrected all this following the suggestions of Utopia. I resubmitted the entry and it has now been more than 2 months. Anyone have any suggestions on what more I can do to enhance the entry for publication? I don't know how to indicate where you can find the entry now, as it is in limbo. Fracy Pants (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I've no opinion on whether your draft establishes that Meniel is notable. But there's a couple of external links there that you'll need to remove or convert to references. Maproom (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Can someome do a small edit in Template:Infobox Paralympic sport?
Hi! I'm not new, but ask here anyway. Can someone please add 2024 to Template:Infobox Paralympic sport? I was looking at the code, but think I better ask for help. (I don't want to mess up things, and I'm not so used to the en-wp version of Wikipedia.)
Computer Engineering Future
For many years, computer engineering—a profession that combines computer science with electrical engineering—has been at the forefront of technological progress. Future developments and technologies have the potential to significantly alter the field of computer engineering.
The Quantum World
Computer engineering is about to undergo a revolution thanks to quantum computing, which makes use of the ideas of quantum physics. Quantum computers, as opposed to classical computers, employ quantum bits, or "qubits," which are multistate entities that may exist simultaneously. This enables quantum computers to carry out intricate computations at rates that are not possible for conventional computers. Although quantum computing is still in its infancy, there are a plethora of possible uses for it in drug discovery, cryptography, and optimization issues.
Both machine learning and artificial intelligence
Healthcare and finance are just two of the industries that artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have already begun to revolutionize. Computer engineers will be essential in creating effective hardware and algorithms to enable AI and ML applications as these technologies grow. AI will probably be included into more commonplace gadgets in the future, which will contribute to the development of smart homes, driverless cars, and customized healthcare.
Internet of Things (IoT)
The network of physical objects, ranging from industrial machinery to household appliances, that are linked to the internet in order to gather and exchange data is known as the Internet of Things (IoT). Computer developers will face issues with data security, privacy, and the creation of high-performance, low-power technology as more gadgets become "smart."
Engineering with Neuromorphic Properties
A recent development in computer engineering is called "neuromorphic engineering," which entails creating systems, circuits, and algorithms that resemble the neural networks and processing power of the brain. This may result in the creation of extremely effective, intelligent computers with learning and adapting capabilities.
Online safety
The significance of cybersecurity is increasing along with our dependence on digital technologies. It will be necessary for future computer engineers to create systems with strong security features in order to defend against more complex cyberattacks.
Conclusion
In conclusion, computer engineering has a promising and bright future. Computer engineers will continue to lead innovation and shape the future of our digital world as technology advances at an unparalleled rate.
@SHRIDHAR ADHIKARI, Your draft is not supported by reliable sources which is needed to establish notability of the subject. Please cite reliable sources that will improve the article. GrabUp - Talk09:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
SHRIDHAR ADHIKARI, the subject of your User:SHRIDHAR ADHIKARI/sandbox is "Computer Engineering Future". As explained here (NB a policy page), this is not an encyclopedic subject. For this reason, if I had reviewed this draft, I would not have declined it. Instead, I'd have rejected it. Please stop working on it. -- Hoary (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Just curious about the above question in regard to the name of this Wiki area. Perhaps it was the preferred beverage of the members of the naming committee?
@Augnablik: A question like this is probably more suited for Wikipedia talk:Teahouse. Despite it's name, the TH isn't really a forum for water cooler types of discussions like this or even the WP:THQ#Memorable editing tales? discussion that you started above. This my personal opinion perhaps, but it's probably best to not try and stray too far outside the scope of the TH with your questions. Having said that, you can probably find out much more about the "history" of the TH in its talk page's archives, and there might be relevant discussion related to its name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
@Augnablik The answer lies in the very top of the page, in the "About the Teahouse" link, where it says The name Teahouse is meant to evoke the idea of a comfortable social space for meaningful personal interaction among peers. The name Teahouse is also a nod to the English Wikipedia essay a nice cup of tea and a sit down, which urges editors to acknowledge one another's good points, and is often used to nudge people towards being congenial when things get heated.CommissarDoggoTalk?21:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, though it could also have been a nice cup of COFFEE and a sit down. But how about we clear the cups and table the discussion — I guess it was more of a fun question than a true help topic (even though I really did come to wonder about the name). Augnablik (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Addition to an article
The page on B-24 Liberator Accidents could be updated with information I recently discovered about my great-uncle, Robert Larsen.
Sergeant Larsen served with the 539th Bomb Squadron, 382nd Bomb Group, from Pocatello Army Air Base during World War II.
While on a flight from Pocatello to Hamilton Field in Northern California, a fire caused an explosion aboard B-24D Liberator #41-24255, and the bomber crashed one mile northeast of Nubieber, in Lassen County, California. (His death was Aug. 5, 1943)
Nine Crew members were killed: 2601:603:1081:60E0:6C7C:992E:4F8E:8484 (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article might indeed be updated - but only if you have a reliable published source for the information. I'm afraid unpublished documents and personal recollections are not accepted as a basis for information in Wikipedia articles.
So, I've written and fulfilled nearly a dozen article requests in the Military History section. Are the fulfilled requests supposed to be removed from the list or should they stay as is? Thanks. TheBrowniess (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, TheBrowniess. I commend you for working on requested articles. Once the new article is in main space, then please remove it from Requested Articles, with an edit summary stating that you wrote the article, with a wikilink to the new article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
So should I include links to all the articles in a single edit summary or should I create a separate edit summary for each one? TheBrowniess (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
That is up to you. My choice would be individual edits and summaries for each article. Very lengthy edit summaries are unwieldy in my opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
This is my first time asking a question here so forgive me if I do something incorrectly.
There's an IP user who is spamming numerous automotive vehicle articles with very excessive wikilinks to other vehicles that are at best tangentially related. It's not just a few vehicle links, but sometimes dozens, for example: [12][13][14][15]. It seriously harms readability and is completely unnecessary.
I've left more than one message on their talk page trying to describe why these edits should stop but they keep on putting these links to other vehicles in. I don't want to revert them too much lest I breach 3RR and I don't know if these edits cross the line into outright vandalism. I'm not exactly sure what I should do in this situation. Is this something for ANI or some other forum perhaps?
Any assistance from more experienced editors would be much appreciated! Sigma440 (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, @Sigma440, and welcome to the Teahouse. (deafult welcome response))
Unfortunately I'm not an expperienced editor here, but I've seen the vastly redundant addition of information in one of the edited articles. I think this is vandalism to some extent.
maybe you could contact a moderator here, ask that mod to place some restrictions on this IP user, or to contact this user.
or you could summarise all the added info.
Or you could just painstakingly remove all the addidions one by one.
@Sigma440 These edits seem non-constructive, and if they don't stop when told, could be vandalism. You should leave a warning on the IP editor's Talk page telling them not to do this. If they still continue, you can report them at WP:AIV, which is the usual place for reporting vandals to admins. Toadspike[Talk]08:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Trying to translate Wiki page but confused about requirements
Hey, I'm trying to translate a wikipedia (specifically, Yuba County Five) to Russian to help practice and keep up-to-date my Russian skills (I've been studying it for multiple years at University). However, I'm confused about the requirements that I must meet to do so. I got a message that says I should set up my Babel, I did that, but I'm unsure where to go from here to be able to edit the Wiki page. Roblewi (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
@Roblewi There are no official "requirements". If you believe you are able to translate the article, you may. WP:Babel is just something you put on your userpage to let others know what languages you speak. Toadspike[Talk]08:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Fiona la Rue. When it comes to English Wikipedia, machine translations aren't really desirable for the reasons given in WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. Russian Wikpedia might have policies aren't as restrictive, but you'll need to ask there to make sure. Personally, I wouldn't really recommend using Google translate unless you're fairly competent in both the source language (English) and Russian to be able to check the translation for mistakes. You might be better off seeking help from one of the users listed at WP:TRANSLATORS to see if you can find someone good enough at Russian to help with the translation. You could also try WP:RUSSIA since there may be some members of that WikiProject who are also good at Russian.In addition, one important thing to remember about WP:TRANSLATEUS is that not all Wikipedia projects have the same policies and guidelines. Translating an English Wikipedia article into Russian is fine if you're just doing it for practice and for personal enjoyment. Translating and English Wikipedia article into Russian for Russian Wikipedia, however, can be trickier because you're going to need to make sure that the subject matter meets relevant Russian Wikipedia policy and guidelines, particularly when it comes to Russian Wikipedia's guidelines on Wikipedia notablity (ru:Википедия:Значимость). You shouldn't just automatically assume that because an article exists on English Wikipedia, it also should exist on Russian Wikipedia. This is also something else you're going to need to ask about at Russian Wikipedia.Finally, in your post above you stated Ok f we want to help translate, but it's not clear who the "we" is. Assuming that you're only referring to yourself, then it's not big deal. If, however, you perhaps referring to yourself and others who might also be working with you on this project, the please take a look at WP:SHAREDACCOUNT for some information you should be aware of. As long as everyone creates their own Wikipedia account and only one person uses it to edit, things should be OK. If, on the other hand, people start sharing accounts, then that would be a problem that could possibly lead to the account being blocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed page created from redirect
If a redirect is turned into a full page, does it need to be reviewed before it can been seen on search engines, or does it just take time for the search engine to realise that it is no longer a redirect page? Anguswiki (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
@Anguswiki: also to be noted, regardless of the time of the review, it is totally upto the search engine when to list/index the article on the search engine. —usernamekiran (talk)11:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Snipertron12. Please be aware that Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia, not some gigantic video game. Always keep your eyes on the prize, the real prize, which is improving the encyclopedia. Improving articles should always takes precedence over stylizing your signature. Cullen328 (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
If an article detail data is not available in any site except on one then I can put it's external link
I write article on much unique famous peoples who are not on Wikipedia then what is good way to publish here can it's necessary to add external link or citation because when Wikipedia has no any data then how can i add links or citation on Wikipedia AimaanKhann (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I would support deletion. But the user is new, and that might appear harsh. At the minimum, I think it should be draftified; it's certainly not fit for main space. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
How Poor Can Sent Own satellite to Space or Raise money for Completion of Moon Visit?
Word " Poor " is changeable with " Deserving " AG.PAK (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
This is a forum for questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? -- D'n'B-t -- 18:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
@Abigailka Reviewers usually don't review drafts on request. Like the template says, This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,709 pending submissions waiting for review.'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Abigailka, the text of Draft:RG Qluck Wise cites only two sources. The first appears to have been written by the subject, and the second is based on what he's said, so neither is independent of him. Please read about Wikipedia's concept of notability: to get your draft accepted, you'll need several reliable independent published sources. Maproom (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Same as on desktop. Since you're new you'll need to go through Articles for Creation. Read and inwardly digest the instructions there, then click on "Click here to start a new article". -- D'n'B-t -- 17:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I was browsing through categories when I found the article for Yatai City. The point of view seems skewed and the sources seem either dubious or outright deprecated, as in the case of the Epoch Times. When I tried to find better sources with a quick google, there are only a few that seemed good. I just wanted to check that attempting to fix the article (which would probably require a full rewrite) was the correct course of action given that based on its recency and lack of a talk page I don't think it's been reviewed. Zygmeyer (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it's very much the correct course -- unless, of course, the reliable sources aren't sufficient, whereupon AfD is called for. I note that the city is "strategically situated" (as if many others were situated by somebody blindfolded and sticking a pin into a map); and that "infrastructure construction" [can't we coin "infrastruction"?] was "on wasteland" -- as major "development" so often is, at least until one examines the criteria used to dub it "wasteland". Et cetera. Unfortunately I can't read either Chinese or Burmese and so can't help, but I wish you well. -- Hoary (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
@Hoary: "strategically situated" is actually a term, and used often in military/conflicts related stuff. —usernamekiran (talk)12:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
That being said, you'll generally want to have some decent experience under your belt to make sure you understand how citations and the manual of style works; that's why people generally advise that you stick to making improvements to other articles until you feel absolutely ready and know that the article you plan to make is notable. CommissarDoggoTalk?22:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
searching for the appropriate place to discus misconduct by fellow editor?
I have tried writing in the reliable source notice board and Found out it was not the right place, what is the right place? 79.180.47.77 (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
It's not clear what is exact issue. First official policy you need to consider WP:AGF i.e. assume good faith.
Usually I always say is if content dispute goes of the track then go back to the track according to the WP:DR. If your real concern is content then Would strongly advice to avoid personalization of dispute as much as possible.
Any personal issues still remain discuss at user talk page. Next step you can inform at admin talk page if any admin has handled the article or talk page. Follow WP:DDE protocol.( Emphasis added). Last resort is WP:ANI. Before going to WP:ANI you need to know WP:BOOMERANG. Bookku (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Hey Bookku, thanks for the replay!
unfortunately, the editors from the group which I have suspicion in collaboration and "gaming the system" have also informed me I am Not Allowed to describe or discuss my Issue related to the topic as non-register user or it will count as "forum shopping"/"canvasing", and that basically I am Only allowed to Raise Edit Request that ~99% with the editors will agree with in that topic. (at least that what I was able to understand from the response)
.
for that reason, I will keeping my question Hypothetical and not exact to understand the policy and good editorial standard.
I've re-read all the policies and I am more confused then I was before :)
according to WP:DR,
if an editor try to gain consensus thro BOLD editing, and another editor remove his sources material, in requisite that the source is biased source, and he re-instate it without gaining consensus, then he has started an "edit-war", am I correct in my interpretation of the rule?
basically, I am Asking is what are the correct steps that I should Take if I see something like this happen again as an unregister user see Wrong Information That Have been inserted to Wikipedia. 79.180.47.77 (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
IP, you are trying to edit contentious articles with an IP. Some but not all contentious areas have seen enough disruption in the past that more severe remedies are in effect and more stringent rules apply than are explained for the general case in our policies and guidelines. The other editors are correct that you should not be editing Isreal-Palestine area as an unregistered editor. You need to register an account and gain sufficient experience editing elsewhere. This is so that everyone can get to know you as an editor and you get to know Wikipedia better before you dive into controversies from which very few editors emerge triumphant. — Usedtobecool☎️19:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Hey UsedToBeCool, thank you for your comment,
just a clarification, I Am not trying to Edit contentious articles without register, I am trying to understand how unregister users can ask for clarification regarding violation made by registers users in the contentious fields articles, via edit request like it is allowed according to the policy.
IP, it is generally expected that established editors working that area will be the ones to bring up issues with other editors working in the same contentious topic area. If something is obvious, severe, etc. you could potentially bring it up and get it addressed but it is unlikely you've found something that all others have missed. There is very high level of vigilance and scrutiny in place on almost every article and every editor in that area from groups of editors with high level of competence and experience. If you must, you could bring it up with the editor concerned on their talk page, and failing that on the talk page of one of the admins. If you really have found something that everyone has missed, you may get the intended result. However, that is unlikely. More likely, you'll be raising one of the many common complaints editors on each side have about another, which lead nowhere, because if they could, they would have already. And you will likely get yourself blocked, because there is no way to tell a good faith unregistered passerby from a malicious actor that's using IPs to harass the opposiing side or continue previous beefs with editors concerned, anonymously. Yet again, if you are at all interested in the editing in this area, I would advise you to register an account and edit for a month or two in non-controversial areas, before you dive in. Best, — Usedtobecool☎️02:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, let me tell you a scenario. I want to create a battle but I'm not sure how to add references in the battle infobox. Could you please tell me? I want to use a reference i got for the infobox, and for something else. Basically, I'm going to reuse the reference i put in the battle on other paragraphs as well. Thanks. Also, what is the difference between footnotes, references and sources? Thanks so much and have a good day! :) Fauji Enthusiast (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
but the thing is they haven't reused the reference again, i want to reuse the reference in the infobox and not make duplicate references. Thanks for the help though! Appreciate it! :) Fauji Enthusiast (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
It's really easy if you use Visual Editor. Press "Cite" and then go to "Reuse" and select the reference you want to reuse — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Question regarding 'Draft:Nicole Sahin'
Hi there, I wrote this article (Draft:Nicole Sahin) a few weeks back, and subsequently received feedback that the tone of some of the content was promotional and that some of the references weren't reliable. I have rectified the issues (or at least I believe I have) and I would now like to know where and how to ask one of you special Wikipedia souls to review it. Can you advise, please? KWriteReturn (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
KWriteReturn I (who am soulless) just looked at a single sentence, namely:
In 2005, Sahin joined the newly founded High Street Partners (HSP), a software-enabled international business services firm which facilitated the international expansion of fast-growing tech companies including Tesla and Duke University.
This cites one source, which doesn't mention "Sahin" (whose referent I think I understand) or "software-enabled" or "business services" (whose meanings, if any, I don't understand). (Does "business services" here mean advising businesses about all sorts of regulations? The source does talk about that.) It doesn't say that Tesla was growing fast.
Incidentally, "an extended period of time travelling" made me think of something about Doctor Who; but on rereading, it seemed to mean just "a long period travelling". Well, how long? (Just be direct: "after two years travelling" or whatever. Citing a reliable source, of course.)
The whole thing is in a kind of corporate-advertising-speak.
Thank you for being upfront about article creation for income. Hope you're being paid handsomely! -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
If she's both (A) "best known as the CEO and founder of G-P (Globalization Partners)" and (B) notable, I'd expect G-P to be notable. And if G-P is notable, I'd expect that it would have an article here ... but it doesn't. -- Hoary (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Great point @Hoary. I've come across a lot of secondary sources for G-P which would attest to its notability, so I'm sure it's just a matter of time. Does this preclude Sahin from having an article of her own? KWriteReturn (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I haven't examined the history of the draft in detail, but it does look as if the warnings at the top were placed there by JSFarman. I'd ask (on User talk:JSFarman) if they are still needed. If they are, improve the draft so that they're no longer needed. If/when they aren't, submit the draft for review. -- Hoary (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The lead of the article gives the latest valuation of her company, without providing a clear explanation of what it does. This makes it look like a WeWork-style scam - such scams often try to use Wikipedia to promote themselves. It doesn't look good. Maproom (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Please note that blocked users are not allowed to edit even from a different IP address; the block relates to you personally. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Does the protection status of the page need to be adjusted, or is this simply an edge case not covered by the wizard? Will my edit request still be processed even if this warning appears? Yawkat (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi IP Editor. I would have agreed with the removal- most of it is routine business activities based on press releases, which Wikipedia is not interested in.
There is currently a backlog of ten thousand pages to be reviewed, so I suggest you wait the 90 days. What's the rush? Qcne(talk)12:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
@Mnationonly: Patrollers don't have to work on the oldest articles first and the time varies greatly but it's often much faster than 90 days. A review or 90 days is required to allow indexing by external search engines. We don't control when they actually do it after that. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
My article got rejected as it sounds more like an advert. It is a company page. Looking for suggestions on how to improve Pooja Hearzap (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I am a "techno-peasant" and want only to add the name of a missing professor to a list of "notable professors" on the existing Wikipedia page of an art academy. I have tried to learn how to do this online following Wikipedia "instructions" without success (too technical for my old brain!). Can someone guide me through this simple editing task in a simple way? Thank you! Sandramaura (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Reliable sources on niche non-English topics and WP:BIAS
I am editing an article on a Japanese film that is considered niche in the west, and its reception section has many citations of western critics and academics. I am Japanese and am familiar with the film and also the topic in general, and I feel that many of the western sources being cited are of very low quality, being filled with demonstrably and factually wrong statements. However, when I called attention to these sources, I was told that they count as reliable by Wikipedia standards. An example of reasoning was "because this book was published by a reputable British publishing company" but I find it dubious that anyone at this company could possibly have the knowledge necessary to fact check such a book. Another editor posted a profile of the writer of the book, saying it makes him a reliable source, which basically read "this person has a PhD in an unrelated field and also wrote this book" - I questioned whether the book is a reliable source, and was told that going by Wikipedia's guidelines on reliability, the book is reliable because the author wrote the book. How does this make any sense?
Regarding a different source I also pointed out how it was filled with factual errors, with an especially bad one that it claims is "well-documented" with no sources, that the Wikipedia article itself refutes. Yet when I pointed this out, I was told "as an editor, you cannot bring your own perspective to shape the topic and override reliable sources". The only perspective I am bringing here is one of a Japanese person who is familiar with the topic. Am I not allowed to question sources that are clearly of low quality yet are being claimed as reliable?
It would be one thing if these sources were clearly marked as providing a western perspective on the topic, but some of them claimed to be speaking about Japan (and were clearly wrong), and others were presented as impartial objective fact despite being highly subjective if not demonstrably false. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
A single source provides the perspective of its author(s), I wouldn't extend it to sum up a "western perspective". If the source is wrong that can be raised on the talkpage, as you have done. You may find that supporting your statements with other sources, in any language, will bolster your case. CMD (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
That was simply an example of one particularly bad source being pushed as reliable. Before I started editing the article, all of the sources listed on that article's reception section were western ones, and the entire reception section pushed a narrative that the film, I quote, "did not do well with critics on its release" completely disregarding that at the points in time of the western critic reviews (mostly 00s) the film had in fact been critically acclaimed for decades.
My question is, what am I even to do when there are so many bad western sources filled with demonstrable factual mistakes on a niche Japanese topic, with English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries insisting that they are reliable sources nevertheless solely based on the authors or publications and not on the actual content no matter how much the problematic content is pointed out. You say to find other sources, even in other languages, but sometimes claims in these English sources are so outlandish that nobody would even think to write down something that would refute them.
This is thankfully not quoted in the article, but the source I listed above said "this film remains obscure in Japan" which is obviously false because there were magazine articles and books writing about the film and posters in train stations all over Tokyo, which meant that nobody in Japan bothered to write down "this film is not obscure". Since this source is considered reliable, anyone could argue that because this white man said it was obscure in Japan, and nobody said it wasn't, it was obscure in Japan, facts be damned.
And again, when I questioned these sources, I was told "Please remember that as an editor, you cannot bring your own perspective to shape the topic and override reliable sources" so what can I even do about them if I am not allowed to bring my perspective as someone who actually knows about the topic/understands the language/actually saw things with my own eyes, and "override" clearly factually wrong sources?
Then what you need to do is find in-depth discussion of the movie in Japanese sources, and present those. On Wikipedia, we can only go from what sources say- so if you think what a source is saying is wrong, the only way you can counter that is by providing a reliable source that says the opposite. I'm familiar with the fact that, due to language barriers, two Wikis will have an article on the exact same topic that presents the subject in two very different lights. It's frustrating- but the only way to deal with it is to simply find other sources, prove they're reliable, and be very careful to not insert your own opinions into a conversation. It just unfairly prejudices other editors against you. So, instead of saying "It wasn't obscure in Japan- I saw tonnes of posters about it!" say "These high quality magazine/newspaper reporters wrote about this film at the time, saying XYZ about it. How can we fit this into the article?" GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
And what about claims that are so outlandish that there are no sources arguing against them because of how obvious they would be to any Japanese person? They are to be left as they are, perpetuating WP:BIAS and violating WP:NPOV? For example, the discussion regarding Yasuke often results in people bringing up the supposed Japanese saying "For a Samurai to be brave, he must have a bit of black blood" which simply does not exist in Japan. There are no writings about this at all in Japan because nobody has heard of it, meaning there are no writings refuting it. It actually originates from how a white man made up a racist lie 150 years ago[1] Yet there are many western English language articles, many on "reliable" websites, just bringing it up like it is fact. If someone were to quote that, is it simply to be taken as fact? 27.84.15.217 (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC) 27.84.15.217 (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Reddit is obviously not a reliable source except for WP:ABOUTSELF since it consists of user generated content, so I am unsure why you linked to Reddit. The ability to evaluate the reliability of a source, and to explain convincingly why a given source is or is not reliable is among the most important skills of a productive Wikipedia editor. As for Yasuke, please note that Talk: Yasuke includes serious discussion of the reliability of sources. For some reason that I do not understand, that article has recently become highly contentious. Reddit, maybe? Editors need to insist on the use of the highest quality reliable sources, whether in Japanese or English or any other language. If ample high quality reliable sources about a Japanese topic exist in English, then use those sources. If the only high quality sources are in Japanese, then use the Japanese sources. When you write The only perspective I am bringing here is one of a Japanese person who is familiar with the topic, that is a classic example of No original research, which is forbidden on the English Wikipedia. You are just another random person on the internet. How does anybody know that you are actually Japanese instead of a glib Ethiopian who has read a bit about Japan? How does anyone know that you are "familiar with the topic" as opposed to being a convincing bullshit artist? We know that you are a productive editor based only on the quality of your source analysis and the quality of other reliable sources that you bring to the discussion. Unsubstantiated ad hominen remarks about "Western sources" accomplish nothing here, and leads to other editors ignoring your input. You need to be precise and analytical on the talk pages of the specific articles, instead of hurling divisive generalities around. That accomplishes nothing, except frustrating yourself and the other editors you interact with. Cullen328 (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I purposely cited Reddit there , which is not considered a reliable source, because that post is the only accurate information I have actually seen in English regarding the supposed Japanese saying "For a Samurai to be brave, he must have a bit of black blood" which is otherwise uncritically accepted as fact by sources that Wikipedia might very well regard as "reliable."
If you had bothered to actually read my posts, you would have seen that I mentioned pointing out demonstrable factual falsehoods in multiple western sources on a niche Japanese topic only for users to tell me that the sources are reliable by Wikipedia standards, because are published by reputable western publishers/websites. You appear to be intentionally mischaracterizing my concerns about low quality sources as "unsubstantiated ad hominem remarks" but them being western is relevant because that suggests they would not have the ability to fact check content on a niche Japanese topic. I was highlighting the systemic bias present in relying solely on Western sources for articles on non-Western topics, and was told that questioning these sources is "original research", a claim you are repeating, and I find this tone offensive, as it sounds like racially-biased gatekeeping and gaslighting against non-western editors. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
This is not about Japanese sources. It is about the systemic bias WP:BIAS caused by English sources of dubious quality which are judged as reliable sources by Wikipedia editors due to factors like their publishers being counted as reliable, because WP:SOURCES does not account for things like cultural contexts for niche non-western topics which a western publisher might have no expertise in and cannot fact check as a result.
I was asking for advice on how to deal with particularly bad cases where a statement might be so obviously outlandish as to be something natives would not even bother to write about, meaning there would be no sources to counter the false statement. My intention of mentioning the fake Japanese saying in relation to the Yasuke topic was to highlight how western media, many of which are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia, sometimes parrot such falsehoods without any factchecking at all, and the link to Reddit was to show how sometimes sources deemed unreliable by Wikipedia can be far more accurate than supposed reliable sources as that post bothered to look into the source of the supposed saying and posted sources proving its origins. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
All reliable sources make mistakes, being reliable does not mean being infallible. Similarly, not being considered a reliable source does not mean a source is wrong, just that it is difficult to use it on Wikipedia. This applies to English and non-English sources. If the phrase you mention is used somewhere on Wikipedia, you should raise the issue on the relevant talkpage. CMD (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
When I questioned some "reliable" sources that were clearly filled with demonstrable factual falsehoods on Talk:Angel's Egg I was told "as an editor, you cannot bring your own perspective to shape the topic and override reliable sources" and that the source is still reliable solely because of its publisher (a British publisher, with the topic being that of a niche Japanese film. As I highlighted above, why should this publisher be considered reliable in this specific context?). Also, the person saying that did not address the issues regarding the source I brought up, only saying that the publisher makes the source reliable and that I am not allowed to question it. What is one even to do in such a case? 27.84.15.217 (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I think others here have echoed my sentiment. An editor cannot quote their brain or life experience to overturn what is printed in reliable sources. If an editor believes that a reliable source is potentially incorrect, find other reliable sources commenting on that point (not just a source that says the opposite), and report it all per WP:SOURCESDISAGREE. (And especially being honest in reporting if they find more reliable sources agreeing with that original perspective.) We do it all the time with film articles' critical receptions where some commentators will have different takeaways in analyzing the reviews.
Here, I was worried about how the book Stray Dog of Anime: The Films of Mamoru Oshii by a reputable publisher and a credible author was considered to be not reliable and not fitting WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Any book focused on the filmmaker is going to be context that matters, more than some generalist newspaper making an offhand comment about the film or the filmmaker.
If reliable sources contradict, we as editors cannot profess to know the truth. Maybe sources had access to something we don't. Maybe we are misled by our own firsthand or secondhand experiences. Our presumptions have to be put aside because that's not verifiable, unlike what is in reliable sources. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)17:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:TRUTH may be of interest. I don't know why a western publisher would be unable to fact check something you say is so obvious, but if the facts are as demonstrable as you say, you should be able to demonstrate them. HerrWaus (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
This also seems to be an overreading of the comments in question. Anyone can question a source, but as noted above there are ways to better convey the issues. CMD (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I was going though the Citation Hunt Tool, finding something that looks like mathematics, but looking into it, I don't know this came to be. The baseball example was added in 2013, but the latitude was added in 2022. If it's pure mathematics, does it need a citation, or would an explanation work?
Also, while researching, I found things that this might've been copied from, or maybe it's the other way around.
Page 9 of this scribd upload is almost one-to-one. I don't know where it comes from, and it doesn't show the latitude. After that, I also found this book "Bang to Eternity and Betwixt: Cosmos", which seems to have copied the Coriolis force article, and many, many more. I believe the entire book is almost entirely made up of Wikipedia articles.
I am unsure of what to in this situation. Should I just delete the [citation needed] on the basis of discrete mathematics, or should I continue searching for an example that might've just come from Watchwolf49z, and the latitude from finding ϕ in the Rossby number equation? Goofierknot (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The page was not recreated by you, but by the person who renamed you. It is common (and seems like it's policy) to leave the old talk page as a redirect to the new talk page, so that all your old signature links aren't broken, and so people can find you under your new name. Based on a quick scrolling thru the rename log, that's what happens to everyone who is renamed, except for people who (a) are vanishing, or (b) did not have a user talk page when renamed. If you have some kind of special situation, I'd recommend asking User:Ternarius, the person who renamed your account, if it would be OK to delete the page. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
(more) it's also OK to blank it, rather than keep the redirect, if you prefer. That makes it a little more difficult for people to find you, though. But speedy criteria don't apply here. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Removing Bharat Mehra Draft page in sandbox
I created a draft page for Bharat Mehra but did not submit it for review as my colleague advised me to practice in the Sandbox. Well, I created a page for Bharat Mehra in my sandbox and submitted what I thought was a practice publish where the sandbox software would flag what was wrong with my entry! Well, the submission was real time and rejected because it was duplicate of my unsubmitted draft! Here's the help I need:
@Researcherasc You can just WP:BLANK your own sandbox. Your draft has a lot of problems. In no particular order: 1) remove all external links from the body text; 2) remove all but the most important publications by Mehra and provide evidence that the ones left are indeed notable (e.g. based on citations); 3) remove anything not backed up by reliable, published sources and give inline citations for all that remains. The latter is a policy described at this link. You must show how Mehra is wikinotable, as described for academics. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull thank you! This is helpful. Re draft: I deleted most of the external links and will keep checking. I managed to find his Google Scholar page - which I could not before, another problem to sort out for another day - but I have added Scholar and deleted most publications. Yes, my colleague who enticed me back into wiki editing did review the page over the weekend and emailed me " the main hurdle for page approval is notability and Dr. Mehra's page certainly exceeds those requirements. (Wikipedia:Notability - Wikipedia)." I will re-read the inline cite policy again and also keep improving as I find the time. Thanks, again! Best, Anita Researcherasc (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Researcherasc. I used to work at a University where one of my tasks was to create academic bios on our research impact portal.
Your draft really reminds me of when I used to write those. That is not a good thing! A Wikipedia article is not a place to place a full resume.
I think Bharat does meet our WP:NACADEMIC criteria, but I would remove the Impact, Professional Associations, and Grants (Funded Research) sections entirely. They really don't provide any encyclopaedic value at all.
Hi @MrInteractions2. Our article Pencilmation discusses the 2004 YouTube web series. YouTube was not around in 1992, so perhaps there was another media franchise titled Pencilmation? However after a cursory Google search I cannot find anything from the 90s called that. Qcne(talk)19:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Question
Hey Teahouse, for sentences in an article, is there a limit on how many citations/references you can put in a sentence?
So if I put 1,2,3 or 4, or even more citations for this sentence: "The dog went over the lazy cat" would it be acceptable on Wikipedia? GoodHue291 (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I found an image that I’d like to add to an article, and it has this license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/. It can be a bit confusing figuring out what licenses allow me to post what images where, so I thought I’d check here. Can I upload an image with this license? If so, should it be to wikimedia commons or to this local wikipedia? Hopefully this is a fairly straightforward query, but any help gratefully received. Thanks. SwollenSails (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, SwollenSails. That is a non-commercial license which is not acceptable for Wikimedia Commons. Acceptable licenses do not restrict commercial re-use, which is commonplace for Commons images. As for uploading to English Wikipedia, the image would have to comply with the very stringent standards described in the Non-free images policy. Since you have not described the image, I cannot give you any further guidance at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate content
Hi everyone,
I noticed that there are templates for duplicate content, such as Template:Duplication. I'm curious if Wikipedia has any specific policies or guidelines regarding duplicated content. Additionally, what steps should be taken if an editor continues to create duplicate content? Is there a user warning template available for this situation, and can editors be formally warned?
@Ckfasdf If an entire article is a duplicate of another article, it can be tagged for speedy deletion under A10. Editors are allowed to copy part of one article into another article, if it makes sense to do so; they should say where they copied the text from in their edit summary. If the text they are adding makes no sense, then they can be warned for vandalism, and if they do not stop, you can report them to WP:AIV. Toadspike[Talk]10:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing and Toadspike: The example are like this: an editor made an article, let's call it Article X. It has three sections, each one copied from sections of Articles A, B, and C. Since it's duplicating from three different articles (A/B/C), using A10 is tricky because A10 only applies to duplicates of a single article/section/source.
There is also straightforward example like this: the editor added a section to Article D and then copied that same section into Article E, which is a spin-off of Article D. Now, both articles D and E have exactly same section (or duplicate content). Ckfasdf (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
@Toadspike: Even though it is duplicate content? Please note that the entire article X is essentially an exact copy of one section taken from article A, one section taken from article B, and one section taken from article C. IMO, duplicate content makes it difficult to update the information, as we usually simply update it in articles A/B/C, but now we also need to update it in article X. I also believe duplication issue is the reason we have A10. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
If you link a specific article, maybe I can address this specific case, but as a general rule duplicate content is okay. If you’re worried about updating the same info across pages, you could set up one page to transclude content from the other. Articles need context, and sometimes several articles need the same context; we can’t ban people from explaining the same thing twice anywhere on the encyclopedia. Toadspike[Talk]14:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The example of this issue was the List of active Japanese military aircraft, which had 3 sections for each branch of the armed forces. The Air Self-Defense Force section was an exact duplicate of the aircraft inventory table found in the aircraft section of the Japan Air Self Defense Force. The Maritime Self-Defense Force section was an exact duplicate of the aircraft inventory table found in the aircraft section of the Fleet Air Force (JMSDF). Lastly, the Ground Self-Defense Force section was a duplicate (although not in the exact same format) of the aircraft inventory table found in the aircraft section of the List of equipment of the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force. As an editor who often updates aircraft inventory tables, I find it difficult to manage the same table across multiple articles. It would be more efficient if the inventory table were only included in one article. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Ckfasdf Wikipedia articles tend to be written in summary style and things like WP:HATNOTES and WP:WIKILINKS often make it possible to avoid unnecessary duolication of detail when there's really no encyclopedic value to it. Figuring out what those cases are, however, often involves editorial assessments that can vary (perhaps quite a lot) from one person to the next; so, often the best thing to do is to discuss the matter of the relevant articles talk page to allow others to participate. Have you tried doing this with respect to these particular tables? You don't need to start a discussion on each article's talk page, you can just pick one and then add {{Please see}} templates to the other relevant article talk pages, and even possibly to relevant Wikipedia project talk pages as a way of letting others know about the discussion. While you might personally find it difficult to manage these tables across multiple article, nobody is expecting you to do it alone; moreover, others might not see that matter as being much of a "problem". You probably won't know that, however, until you start discussing the matter with those who appear to be most interested in these kinds of articles. Of course, you can WP:BOLDly remove the tables if you want, but they could just as easily be WP:BOLDly restored by someone else; so, it might be better to be WP:CAUTIOUS here and start discussing the matter on an article talk pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Since at least the 2022s, I have initiated discussions about duplication on those articles. Participants generally agree that duplication is an issue and aligns with WP:REDUNDANTFORK, usually resulting in the removal of the table and the inclusion of a wikilink/redirect instead. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I forgot that we have WP:REDUNDANTFORK, a guideline that is against duplicated content. The issue is that an editor keeps intentionally creating duplicate articles. Can I issue a warning for ignoring this guideline? Ckfasdf (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
You don't need anyone's permission when it comes to issuing warnings and long as you think doing so is in the best interests of Wikipedia (i.e. the other person's edit is clearly not an improvement and is clearly a serious violation of one of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines). Issuing a warning, however, doesn't necessarily mean that the other user will heed it and stop whatever they've been doing; moreover, it can add more heat to an already heated discussion. In addition, a user warning also shouldn't be seen as a substitue for discussion or as a way to try to resolve a disagreement in one's favor.Have you tried directly engaging with thie other user via article talk page discussion to clarify why you feel their edits aren't in accordance with relevant policy or guidelines? Are you just reverting this other editor and "explaining" things to them edit summaries? If there's been a clear and strong consensus (involving multiple users and strong policy-/guideline-based arguments) established through article talk page discussion against including these tables, then are you including links to the relevant discussion in your edit summaries or in follow up article talk page posts. The other person is going to be expected to honor an established consensus or seek a new consensus to replace it. If they refuse to do either after being made aware of its existence, then they're moving into disruptive editing territory and you can seek administrator assistance either at WP:AN3 or WP:ANI; you should, though, be aware of WP:BOOMERANG before you do because your part in all this will also be looked at too.If you've tried article talk page discussion but had no success, maybe try seeking input the WikiProject level to seem what others interested in this type of article have to say. At some point one of you is going to need to intiate discussion about this at some level because continuing to revert each other is not good. In your case, I don't think reverting simply based on WP:REDUNDANTFORK, WP:CAUTIOUS or WP:WHENTABLE doesn't seem like it's going to be considered an exception to 3RR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Questions off limits?
As a Wikipedia member since 2009, with just dozens of [edit] edits over that period of time, I hope you can help clarify participation in Talk discussions.
I asked two questions today in discussions, related specifically to article information policy, and making no content changes. Both questions regarded editing clarification. Both questions were deleted without explanation. I have linked the two instances below for your easy access. Can you help me understand why questions would simply be deleted rather than at least referred to sources relevant to answering them?
Hi Jetpower, welcome to the Teahouse. The reason for the reverts was explained in the edit summaries: [16][17]. Blue text like WP:ARBECR and WP:ECR is clickable links (leading to the same place here). "see header notice" in the first edit summary refers to the box "Warning: active arbitration remedies" near the top of Talk:Gaza–Israel conflict. The box can also be seen at Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement. Your account has too few edits to participate in discussions about the Arab–Israeli conflict, maybe the most contentious topic in Wikipedia where numerous unproductive discussions have gone out of control. The account must be over 30 days old and have over 500 edits. Your account creation was actually in 2008 but you only have 64 edits. It may seem unfair that you aren't allowed to participate in those discussions but the decision wasn't taken ligthly and you haven't seen the problems which caused it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Jetpower. The articles and talk pages you are trying to edit are under strict Extended confirmed protection. All articles without exception having to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict have these heightened restrictions. Edit requests are limited to utterly uncontroversial things like typographical errors or misspellings. Other than that, you are not permitted to edit in that topic area. Your account is old enough but has made only 64 edits. You need to make at least 436 more productive, useful edits, and do not try to crank them out thoughtlessly. Cullen328 (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks; PrimeHunter. As a sometime forum moderator and social media group leader, I am familiar with challenges of "gone out of control," and I empathize with the folks who deal with that here. I also understand and agree that some consensus-based guideline is necessary to facilitate participation in content editing. With that in mind, "Talk" sections provide insights into the whys and wherefores of articles. I believe that finding a way to increase "Talk" section interactivity with non-veteran yet verified editors can serve to improve content - especially with contentious topics - and to increase the understanding that Wikipedia strives to inculcate in viewership. Thanks again. Jetpower (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Your are certainly entitled to your opinion on this, Jetpower, but over two decades of experience has proven over and over and over again that there are certain highly contentious topic areas that brand new editors are almost universally unable to participate in without significant editing experience. The editing community has decided that any editor working in highly contentious topic areas like the Arab-Israeli conflict, or the Israel-Hamas War in Gaza or Israel-Palestine more broadly must have an account that is over 30 days old and has over 500 edits. These restrictions are supported by editors with personal points of view on both sides of the conflict, and are intended to prevent well-meaning new editors from being blocked because they simply do not understand how we edit about highly contentious topics, and the elaborate, lengthy negotiations that must take place to build consensus among editors with divergent viewpoints in these topic areas. Cullen328 (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Display newcomer homepage. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:Franki Love. As the text of the draft has only ever been one sentence long, the "advertisement" tag seems inappropriate. I note that the references currently numbered "3" and "4" are to two versions of the same source. Maproom (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Upstate United F.C.
Done. Grabup (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Not done for the reason of
48JCL (talk • contribs) 01:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Already done by Sigma440 '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Like '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy ping: Erik, who made the comment. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
