Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1146

Thank you so much 😊 Phillye (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's a pretty representative sample of

WP:UP.) If your purpose is to promote yourself (or anyone else), you're at the wrong website. -- Hoary (talk

) 07:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The "someone else" who wrote the promotionally slanted bio could register for an account and try, but then paid (

WP:PAID) might apply. David notMD (talk

) 10:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd take this to AfD, but I figured I might as well try to learn something. What encyclopaedic purpose does "List of sock manufacturers" have? Or is it just a pointless spam magnet? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: There was an Afd discussion regarding this article in 2016, and the result was 'keep' - here. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

What's the appropriate way to tag this draft? I see these sometimes where it's not strictly {{db-u5}} because it's not a user page per se, and it doesn't quite fit with {{db-g11}} as promotional. It's basically a social media-type page for somebody that is nowhere close to being notable enough for an article. _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@

Apmh

14:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

User @Blaze Wolf asked user @Levi OP for help with this on his talk page, but he's been inactive for the past week.

Can anyone help him with this, as I am no good with wikitext conditionals or templates in general. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 15:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@

SkyeWolf369 is helping me out with it. I wouldn't mind someone else to see if what they're proposing is the correct way to do it however. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk

_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: Whoops. I'm sometimes an idiot Facepalm QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 15:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Its okay don't beat yourself up over a mistake you are not an idiot you just did not know all of the information about something before you tried to help. Thanks for trying to help.

talk

) 15:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

i am new to wikipedia and i want to edit but i dont know how to edit wikipedia so can you teach me how to edit wikipedia and the guidlines to edit wikipedia? Holiday chicken (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Check out WP:The Wikipedia Adventure! -- œ^™ 08:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

A common beginner's mistake is to add factual content without supporting reference(s). New content without a ref is often reverted (reversed) even if true. Practice creating content and references in your Sandbox, then when ready. copy into an article. David notMD (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 10:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Holiday chicken and welcome to the Wikipedia experience. If you look at Help:contents, you will find other portals to articles that can help you know a bit before you begin. And as you begin your first editing actions, you might begin at WP:GettingStarted. Sometimes, knowing how to write the proper source code can be a bit daunting. I first began by looking at the Edit source tab of the article and mimicked what previous editors had done. I still do this for--what are to me--complicated matters. Know that you will make mistakes, and even though there are a few exceptions, the vast majority of editors are gentle, pleasant, and helpful to new editors. Kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I have created a Bio entitled

Mysky2blue1 (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

We cannot help you with any Wikitia issues as that website has no connection to Wikipedia. I suspect it will eventually be updated somehow. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Better, but needs a bit more work before submitting to Wikipedia again. You describe a photo from 1977 as your own work. Really? If not, remove, as in all likelihood, copyright protected. Bit too much about other family members. Your refs (old newspapers, etc.) do not have to be available on line as long as valid. Basically, Wikipedia trusts editors. The thinking is that published newspapers and magazine can be looked up by people with access to a library that has that stuff archived. David notMD (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI

 – Can't provide link, as Wikitia is blacklisted

I noticed that the article I wrote was completely ripped off on Wikitia. What can I do about this, as I cannot create an account. (It says "permission error" when I try)

I am not mad that they copied it, I am mad that they pretend they did it, when, in fact, me, my mom, and 74 other editors did. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 16:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi QuickQuokka. Your post appears to be about https://wikitia.com/wiki/Shahar_Tavoch. I see this at the bottom of the page:

This article "Shahar Tavoch" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical. Articles taken from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be accessed on Wikipedia's Draft Namespace.

Reusers are not required to list the contributors if they link the Wikipedia page they copied from. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That website also has a general statement "Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike. Some of Wikitia's pages are sourced from Wikipedia.org's Mainspace and Draftspace. Wikitia is not affiliated to Wikimedia Foundation, unless otherwise noted." Cullen328 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Oh, oops didn't notice it lol QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 16:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear Volunteer;

My self Sujit Kumar Mishra, I'm Indian Actor and Author and I have to save my Wiki Draft page for final submission but due more then 6 month is over my wiki draft page deleted. And I want to update my data in Wiki pages for final submission. so please re-store as same. As per last conversation you told me there are no expiration of draft page of updating. but unfortunately it's deleted so pls check and revert back. thanks

Sujit0601 (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:REFUND has directions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 17:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Sujit0601, and welcome to the Teahouse. Click on the link in the message about the deletion on your talk page. Repeated here: request its undeletion. That will take you to the request for getting it back. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I wish to have my family history on wikipedia Please help me how to do it Many thanks The Rt Hon Steven Lord Lloyd-Bagrationi 37.131.226.211 (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's some reading, in no particular order:

WP:YFA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 18:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello i need some help with editing wikipedia articles/making articles. Every time i have a draft edit or every time i have a normal edit to an article i didnt make, it has an admin reply in less than 2 minutes telling me stuff that i cant do and this and that and blah blah blah. I just want to make and edit articles so why cant i? Xephrax (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

interactive tutorial.Slywriter (talk

) 18:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Xephrax: Welcome to the Teahouse! While you might have been acting in good faith when you posted the lyrics of "Chocolate Rain", it is a copyright violation and had to be reverted.

Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you have limited experience editing existing Wikipedia articles. To learn how to edit, you could view

notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk

) 18:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: It is not technically a copyvio, because it followed all the license terms.

• Attribution: Clearly stated in article that the song is by Tay Zonday;
• NonCommercial: Yes;
• Derivative work?: No.

QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 18:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:NOTLYRICS still apply. Xephrax may follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and discuss this at Talk:Chocolate Rain. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk

) 18:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: I didn't say he was right, I simply said it wasn't a copyvio. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 18:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) CC-BY-NC-ND is not compatible with Wikipedia's content licensing, meaning it breaks Section 7 c of the Terms of Use and therefore shouldn't be here. Providing Non-Commerically-Licensed Content can be problematic, because Wikipedia's content license allows Commercial Reuse, which means it could not only get problematic if a paid editor would start to edit the article (who would have monetary gain from his contributions, ergo a license violation) but also problematic if others reuse the text on Wikipedia (as Wikipedia cannot grant them the permission to use the text commercially, as we don't have the right ourselves). Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: I was perfectly aware of that, but it is still technically not a copyvio, so... QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 18:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

whenever I submit an article, it always gets declined! the main reason is usually referencing. can you help? JustAnotherUndertaleFrantic (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@JustAnotherUndertaleFrantic: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest reviewing Help:Your first article and gathering your sources before you create a draft.

• Your Draft:Daniel L. Heitz has only one reference written by Heitz, so it needs multiple independent reliable sources. Reference #11 from List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1970–1974) could be helpful.
• Your other is
  notability guidelines for lists was helpful. GoingBatty (talk
  ) 21:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to make a new draft article for Kavinsky's upcoming Reborn album. The page Draft:Reborn(Kavinsky album) already exists, however it only is filled with a single line - I'd like to make sure I can attribute the article to myself if I am going to fill it almost entirely. I plan on having it ready for submission once sufficient critical reviews within the week arrive. Can I do this? Thank you very much! (Note: I have some experience in generating new articles as I did for Escapades (Gaspard Augé album). Radlrb (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Radlrb, nothing stops you from creating the draft under a different name and noting in the comments where a reviewer should move the page if accepted.Slywriter (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter: He can just edit the existing draft. Nothing is stopping him from editing it. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 18:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd like the article (if accepted) to be rightly attributed to me, though. Would it not matter as the acceptance disambiguates who made the most contributions? Thank you @Slywriter@QuickQuokka Radlrb (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@

this page for more info. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs}

] 18:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka Absolutely. What I meant to say is, that I'd like it attributed to me as the main writer. There's a difference is saying I "own" the article as opposed to describing me as the creator and main contributor. Therefore, it does matter. After all, Wikipedia notes when an article was created by you, or not? At least I got a notification telling me from the editor that the article I created was accepted for publication. Would wikipedia not attribute the article to the original creator once moved to the main space even though he would have only contributed a single like originally?Radlrb (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Your contributions would still be visible in the edit log after moving from draft space, yes. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 18:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright. It's still strange, from the standpoint that there should be proper attribution to creation and development of articles, aside from the edit logs. If I provide a white page for someone to write on, then really that page's final product that is written on was for the most part "created" by the editor. It's just a statistic, but from an editor standpoint of view, it is not fair - if I have white pages myself I would rather use my own since it will be my creation's first draft. After all, Wikipedia articles themselves are creations. Radlrb (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Radlrb: Yeah, you can edit any article you like, as long as your edits are productive, neutral and properly sourced. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 18:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, never mind on this particular article, it was redirected to Kavinsky. Thank you for letting me know specifically. @QuickQuokka@Slywriter Radlrb (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI - There is no such thing as attribution of article creation, nor, as QQ pointed out, ownership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 18:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

What about

Apmh

18:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

We do track this stat, such as this page we are writing on was created by Kaldari. It just should never be the focus and editors have gotten in trouble for being over-focused on this particular stat.And yes G7 does care.Slywriter (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

G7 is a shortcut for deleting drafts. Not so much attribution as 'Nevermind, I give up.' David notMD (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Mine looks different from other non-free album art uploads. I want to learn how to do this right.

Mine: File:Anna Burch - Quit the Curse.jpg - Wikipedia

Example: File:Tyler, the Creator - Flower Boy.png - Wikipedia TokyoBackstreet (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@

Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard when uploading album covers. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk

) 21:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I did use

Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, but I guess I used a different option some how. If I use a {{Non-free use rationale album cover}}, can I remove that "To the uploader:" tag on my own? (thanks for the help by the way!) TokyoBackstreet (talk

) 21:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@TokyoBackstreet: I changed {{non-free album cover}} to {{non-free album cover|image has rationale=yes}} to remove the "To the uploader" tag. GoingBatty (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@TokyoBackstreet: I just looked at File:Princesses Nubiennes.jpg which I uploaded recently using the File Upload Wizard, and it looked the same as your Quit the Curse file did. Guess I never looked at the source code closely before to compare with other files. GoingBatty (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

So would it be proper to add my own {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} after uploading and then subsequently add {{non-free album cover|image has rationale=yes}}? TokyoBackstreet (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The article I have was declined due to references not qualifying to be notable enough. I took the feedback, replaced the references, and got declined again. Are you able to provide feedback on what references should be added or taken out to approve this article? Can you find any notable sources to add? Please advise.

Draft:Avid Health L.knight9604 (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@L.knight9604: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see you asked the same question at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#22:11:32,_17_March_2022_review_of_draft_by_L.knight9604, which is the correct forum. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I want to make a disambiguate page called "Thomas Glass" to link these 4 articles. Are 4 items enough for a disambiguate page? If so, can someone please help me make it?

Thomas Glass

Thomas Glass (physician)

Thomas R. Glass

Tagwadihi Ficaia (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Per

casualdejekyll

00:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ficaia: Welcome to the Teahouse! I believe four articles are enough for you to make Thomas Glass (disambiguation). You can follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages to make a new page, which should look like John Williams (disambiguation) without all the section headers. Let us know when you've made the page so we can all check it out. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, folks. Ficaia (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I have registered on Wikipedia as a user. I contributed to articles in 2015 and 2016. I have read heavily on the tutorials. Not having a lot of luck. I have attempted to download and use Open Office but Safari will not allow it on my Mac. I was trying to convert my doc document to wiki document. I have written an article that has taken me months to compose and research. It is about a notable photographer, Merry Winnett 1951-1994. The article now exists as a Microsoft word document with 33 reliable references. How can I submit this article to an editor who is experience in the field of Women Photographers of Women Artists or Art History? Thanks . I do not have a link but my user name is Photocher Photocher (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

notable to have a stand alone article in Wikipedia. Lastly, you can write your article in "Notepad" application and then copy and paste in draft article using "Wikipedia Article Wizard" where you can find the link on Help:Your first article. Be well and best. Cassiopeia talk

00:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. The references are mostly authored by art reviewers (art critics) who have concentrated an essay on this particular artist. Also there are two books dedicated to this artist. I used the technique of verifying every statement with a publication. So I hope it is enough. I will try the Wizard and the Notepad. It looks like I may need to use a PC? Thanks for your reply. Photocher (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

verification in the article. Be well and best. Cassiopeia talk

00:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Please make an English Written in Cyrillic wikipedia 2601:CE:4002:C4A0:F52A:617F:B843:93B (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that's possible considering Cyrillic characters don't have exact english letter equivalents. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This is unlikely to happen, but regardless, the place you'd want to go is not here, or even anywhere on Wikipedia itself, but

casualdejekyll

00:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't, but can the first page of the Cyrillized English Wikipedia be Spider-Man (2002 film) and Unikitty!? 2601:CE:4002:C4A0:F52A:617F:B843:93B (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Here will be the first page's Cyrillized English counterpart:

Спидер-Ман ис а 2002 Америцан суперхеро филм басед он тхе Марвел Цомицс цхарацтер оф тхе саме наме. Дирецтед бы Сам Раими фром а сцреенплаы бы Давид Коепп, ит ис тхе фирст инсталлмент ин Раими'с Спидер-Ман трилогы, анд старс Тобеы Магуире ас тхе титулар цхарацтер, алонгсиде Уиллем Дафое, Кирстен Дунст, Йамес Францо, Цлифф Робертсон, анд Росемары Харрис. Тхе филм цхроницлес Спидер-Ман'с оригинс анд еарлы суперхеро цареер. Афтер беинг биттен бы а генетицаллы-алтеред спидер, оутцаст теенаге гениус Петер Паркер девелопс спидер-лике суперхуман абилитиес, анд адоптс а маскед идентиты то фигхт цриме анд инйустице ин Неу Ыорк Циты; фацинг тхе виллаиноус Греен Гоблин ин тхе процесс.

2601:CE:4002:C4A0:F52A:617F:B843:93B (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Huh, well you've managed to prove me wrong in that it won't work. However, if you can't propose it then there's nothing that can be done. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

by the way I used my transliterator app for Android to do it. And i am banned on discord 2601:CE:4002:C4A0:F52A:617F:B843:93B (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This just seems like a majorly bad idea on the whole, even disregarding the fact that it doesn't fit policy. I'd recommend that discussion here stops before we get too out of hand

casualdejekyll

00:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! There are already Wikipedias that use the Cyrillic alphabet, such as Belarusian Wikipedia, Bulgarian Wikipedia, Macedonian Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia, and Ukrainian Wikipedia. GoingBatty (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I see the quite often but I can't tell what they are supposed to be since it is a part of the link. ExoplanetaryNova (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@ExoplanetaryNova: I think it indicates whether or not you have to pay a subscription to view the ref. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@ExoplanetaryNova and Blaze Wolf: The green open lock icon means the reference is free to view, while the red closed lock icon means a subscription is needed to view the text. See Template:Cite web#Access indicators for url-holding parameters for more details. GoingBatty (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh ok, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the information! ExoplanetaryNova (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

In the articles for American professional sports divisions like the American League East or the AFC East(and all the other MLB and NFL divisions) in the Champions by Year, Wild Card winners produced, and Division Champions sections, why are the World Series/Super Bowl wins in red and losses in green? This seems counter to common color associations and even earlier in the articles, in the Timeline and Division Lineup sections, winners are in green and appearances are in yellow. Is there a color guide that someone could point me to? Or is there a different place to discuss this, as it is something across many pages and at least 2 sports. PetahBread15 (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

PetahBread15, WP:WikiProject Sports is probably the best venue. Fwiw, I do find the color choice odd and the team colors are likely an accessibility issue.Slywriter (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll go ask people closer to the topic. Thanks! PetahBread15 (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

where can i get anyone or a community portal to improve an article i made that has been drafted Newzlighter (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:TUTORIAL has guidance on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 07:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, i'd like to change the image on my wikipedia page. It shows a Russian flag for a company I now no longer work with. I don't know how to change the photo? Collijles (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

File Upload Wizard. 331dot (talk

) 13:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Collijles (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@

declare your COI on your user page. You can then make suggestions for improving the article at Talk:Gareth Penny with the {{edit request}} template. Or, you may use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk

) 18:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you - appreciated Collijles (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove the "comparable ships"/"comparable aircraft by era, capabilities" section in every single military arms page. It is very controversial so just abandon it since we are not analysts nor are we professional experts. You can, however classed them as "similar ships"/"similar aircrafts", by role. I.e. destroyer by destroyer. Still, a Type 045 and Type 055 are some examples why we won't be able to initiate this. Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi

WP:MILHIST instead of here at the Teahouse because it’s probably something that will require some substantial discussion before it can be implemented. — Marchjuly (talk

) 09:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi there - I am hoping to find a wikipedian willing to review an article for which I have a COI. I have tried and failed to make any edits to the article following Wikipedia's guidelines and am hoping that a willing wikipedian might review the article instead. The article has somehow managed to become a lot worse than it used to be as a result of my involvement! Can I have some advice on how to seek out a potential volunteer - the article is primarily about agriculture so someone with an interest in environment/science/agricultural would be beneficial. This is the article in question Soil Association. Thank you in advance for any advice given. DanMor0806 (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

reliable sources. You had one edit request denied There is no such thing as a page without bias, as everyone has biases. Any bias in reliable sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. The sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors. 331dot (talk

) 10:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

331dot (talk) Thank you for your response and helpful advice. You're right - it doesn't need to be someone from that sector. Is there a list somewhere of active contributors who are open to being contacted? I don't mind doing the leg work in contacting them one at a time and of course, respectfully. As for continuing in the same vein with how I am already trying to edit the page I am unsure as to how this can work. My small edit (as suggested by the community) has now been waiting for review for 6 weeks. Despite acknowledging that there is no time limit on a review process, that pace would mean the page being out of date for over a year (and that's if my proposed edit is accepted!). DanMor0806 (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If a Wiki is deployed on to a on-site server, what system capacity rules should be considered? Specifically, HDD capacity, RAM, CPU (qty, cores and speed). Usage model is mostly as a knowledge and document management system. Expected to be relatively small user count (sub 500) but large quantity of documents to be managed. Some files very large (CAD drawings for example). 81.157.37.227 (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid your question is well outside the scope of this help forum for newcomers. You might wish to read

WP:VPT

. I think I have seen a page about downloading an entire copy of one language version of Wikipedia, but can't seem to re-find it for you.

If, however, you are simply asking about creating and running your own wiki from scratch, and with nothing to do with re-using our 6.2million existing articles, then you're asking about specs to run the

Mediawiki software. You should be able to find your answers here. Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk

) 11:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

123japmeet (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Page hasn't been submitted, helping them on IRC. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ThorCon_nuclear_reactor
I would like to see an article on each of several new reactor designs, with enough detail to answer many of the questions raised by anti-nuclear advocates. Are all molten salt reactors a proliferation risk? That depends on the specific design. We need these details.
I have started one of these articles, but I am running into a wall of opposition. The clearest source of design details is the companies themselves, usually on their website. That was the first reject, not independent enough. Then I found the same data in documents submitted to the IAEA, not as clear, but much more thorough. That got another reject. Even though the data was reviewed and published by independent experts at the IAEA, it still ultimately came from the company. I don't think there is any better source of this information.
I have written a response to the second reviewer (See the notice at the top of the article.) Can I get some advice, before submitting it again? I have read the policy on reliable sources, and it is not clear to me why this reject, or how this question can be resolved. David MacQuigg 21:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Macquigg, what you need is reliable independent published sources that discuss the reactor. Your own comment "I contacted ThorCon and got the following comment from Robert Hargraves: 'There were dozens of interactions between IAEA editors and me. The tables of tech specs were required by IAEA and filled in by me and checked by others. There can be no more accurate source.'" makes it clear that the IAEA sources are not independent of the designer of the reactor. Maproom (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The point of the comment was to show that there WAS an actual review by the IAEA. They don't just accept without question the information submitted by companies wanting to build nuclear reactors. Regulatory agencies answer to the government. Their mission is public safety. Their reviews are done by experts independent of the companies submitting applications.

If not a regulatory agency, what would be a better source of information on a reactor design? Would an article in Popular Mechanics be acceptable? David MacQuigg 22:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Macquigg, you need two different types of sources. To show that the article is about a topic already well-enough known to have a Wikipedia article you need two or three sources which are reliable, independent of the company, and have some in-depth discussion of the reactor. ThorCon is discussed in the technical literature of molten salt reactors and turns up in multiple places, such as here and here. However it is perfectly acceptable to also use published company sources for what the reactors do and the design details, from their website or in articles they have written in the industrial literature. These primary sources are fine for such factual statements and are likely to be the most accurate. We use NASA for details about rockets and spacecraft for example. But all sources have to be published. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma Thank you. This is very helpful. I was aware of the first link. The second is also good to establish that this reactor is well-known in the technical community. Thank you also for the clarification that I can use the company website for the design details. I will keep the link to the IAEA document for those who want more detail and have the time to wade through it.

Now I need to convey this information to the next person who responds when I click SUBMIT. Should I just copy your comments into the template at the top of the article? David MacQuigg 01:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

{{u|David MacQuigg]],That comment alone will not help you. You need to show

WP:DUE once the article establishes notability, but they are useless for establishing notability itself.Slywriter (talk

) 16:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter Are you saying the two links cited by @StarryGrandma are NOT sufficient to show notability? David MacQuigg 16:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

David MacQuiggThe 2nd is sourced to ThorCon for the very limited mentions it makes of the company. The second also seems to be using the company as its source. So I don't see how either contribute to notability of Thorcon. Another reviewer may find differently.Slywriter (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@

TMSR-500 is the existing article about the reactor. The two sources I mentioned were to show that the reactor turns up frequently in the technical literature; there are more as well as the news media coverage. The point is that sources for facts don't have to be the same sources that show notability. StarryGrandma (talk

) 17:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

StarryGrandma, agreed though getting the draft accepted is not as simple as referring to your comment and expecting a reviewer to accept that as proof of notability nor would those two sources necessarily convinced every reviewer. Though all moot, as the article already exists and the technical information should be incorporated there. Name change might be justified but I haven't done any review of which is common name.Slywriter (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter@StarryGrandma

On the question of notability, can I appeal to common sense? Understanding some important details of these new reactor designs is super important to the debate going on now over renewables vs nuclear. ThorCon is one of the leading contenders (not my favorite), but certainly worthy of coverage.

On the question of reliable sources, can we accept company websites as authoritative on the details of their own designs? If there is a challenge, we can dig deeper. If that still doesn't resolve any question of fact, let's have a brief point-counterpoint on the talk page. See the examples in the draft I submitted.

On the existing article, TMSR-500 appears to be an old name. I don't see it anywhere on ThorCon's current website, or in their filing with the IAEA. The old article seems too promotional to me. We need a short, factual article, focused on the issues of safety, waste management, weapons proliferation, and cost. Everything else is readily available on the company's website. If there is something you think is important in that old article, let's merge it into the current draft.

I will be writing articles on a few other reactors, the ones I find most interesting. I suggest we try to establish a common format, so readers can easily compare one to another. Surely the four issues I listed should be prominent.
David MacQuigg 22:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:RM. So with that established, notability is not currently being questioned since the article already exists in main space. What's not going to happen is your article being approved when an existing article already exists. Also please see WP:Advocacy as we are here to inform readers, not lead them by the nose to a desired outcome. Additionally Talk pages are for discussing the editing of an article and not for further discussions or information on the subject or related topics.Slywriter (talk

) 23:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@

here. StarryGrandma (talk

) 23:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter@StarryGrandma

I worry about getting into an edit war with whoever wrote the TMSR-500 article, but I will give it a try. There is nothing provably wrong with the existing article, so it will probably end up like the mush I see in other articles on nuclear power.

I have no desire to "lead them by the nose". If that remark is in response to the draft, I would sure like to know what you are seeing.

If the talk pages should include only editorial, not substantive issues, I will need to remove the point-counterpoint summaries on the current talk page. How about we make a sub-page: "Thorcon nuclear reactor/Q&A" where both sides can have their say, and keep the controversies off the main page.

I agree, the UCS analysis should be included, but not without fact-checking. Also UCS is far from neutral on anything related to nuclear power. I guess you didn't see that I included their statement about this reactor on the Talk page, followed by a statement from the company that seems to settle the matter. I think the only legitimate challenge to this would have to be a statement from a nuclear engineer, not affiliated with UCS or any other advocacy group, saying that while the ThorCon design does not have the alleged problem, it won't work as designed. If true, the company will have a big problem with getting approval by the regulatory agencies. If the question can't be resolved between neutral experts, our readers should see that. David MacQuigg 01:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

orginal research

.

On the edit-war, we have policies to prevent that. You can be

WP:DUE for inclusion and the talk page shows other editors had concerns with the article even after cleaning up. Though some of the sources may be useful as general references or basic facts so they can support notability since your draft is currently based entirely on primary sources.Slywriter (talk

) 01:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, you say I am "looking to provide analysis to the article". I don't understand that, and I still don't understand how I am leading the reader "by the nose". The "analysis" you refer to (I am guessing} is the point-counterpoint on the Talk page. I see my role in this as being that of a reporter, gathering the most important facts, and getting exact quotes from each side where there is disagreement on the facts. I am not a nuclear engineer, so I would not even try to inject my analysis into this debate.

"we never engage in orginal research" I am guessing this refers to my digging up quotes from both sides?

What is the best way to handle the point-counterpoint I have shown on the Talk page? David MacQuigg 04:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Macquigg, digging up quotes is perfectly fine. Providing both sides of an issue as long as its not false balance is also great practice. The concern was statement here about the importance of this issue, followed by seeing a talk page that has a mission statement, point-counterpoint companion to the article and then a link to a facebook discussion. They gave the impression of trying to start a conversation and that's not what wikipedia is for. If I misunderstood the intent then my apologies.

Anything the reader needs should be in the article with sources or listed as further reading they can explore themselves. The talk page is not a resource for readers. So to the specific question, the point-counterpoint should be incorporated into the article along with all the relevant content from your draft and any corporate double-speak should be eliminated. You are on the right track with content and your reporter belief is mostly correct though unlike journalists wikipedia prefers boring, dry facts over sensationalism.Slywriter (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter OK, I am encouraged. I agree, no false balance (he-said, she-said, ignoring facts), and no sensationalism. That is not what I think of when I say "journalist".

I see now that the point-counterpoint on the talk page does not belong on a page focused on editorial issues, and where personal opinions on these issues are freely stated. I have moved this to a Critiques section in the main article.

As for the link to a FaceBook discussion (in the point-counterpoint on Waste Management), this is early-draft. Maybe I can dig further and find something quotable in the UCS "Advanced isn't better" paper. I could add a note at the top of that section - "Please help us find a better source for this critique of the ThorCon reactor. Loose talk on FaceBook is not good enough for a quote in Wikipedia. Does this reactor have any problems with waste management?"

"boring dry facts" yes. I assume the reader came here to learn something. We don't need to draw them in. David MacQuigg 14:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been recommended to go to the

@

plot summaries of films or video games, do not require a secondary sources, and the primary source (the film or game) can be used as the citation/reference. Let us know if you have any other questions! ––FormalDude talk

03:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

significant coverage to the topic. Then and only then is it acceptable to write a plot summary based on the work itself. Cullen328 (talk

) 04:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

And take care that any plot summary is strictly that. Just relate what happens in the story, do not insert personal opinions or interpretations.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

For instance, Star Wars#Plot does not mention (either way) the Han shot first controversy.Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Go to infobox, Reference#3 at bottom, cant make my source go to December 2021 PDF for Midway International Airport. Looks like I typed in URL correctly. Please fix. Thank you. Theairportman33531 (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Theairportman33531 Welcome to the Teahouse! What is the correct URL? Instead of typing a URL, I prefer to copy and paste to prevent typos. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Was corrected by another user I contacted today. Is done.Theairportman33531 (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to set up my userpage but I'm not sure how. Any help would be appreciated! EarthCore9999 (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

EarthCore9999 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have already edited your user page, what more are you looking to do? 331dot (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been looking through other user pages, and have noticed little embed boxed to the sides among other things. Are these custom features? EarthCore9999 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @EarthCore9999: Welcome to the Teahouse! Your user page is a place to share what you like doing on Wikipedia, and a little about yourself if you like. I suggest reviewing Wikipedia:User pages, especially the sections on what you may and may not have on your user page. When I see other user pages that I like, I've examined the source code and done something similar on my page.

I also suggest reviewing

The Wikipedia Adventure. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk

) 21:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I will do that. Thank you very much! EarthCore9999 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@EarthCore9999: I gave you some pointers in your talk page. Check them out. Magik 3099 (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm currently writing a draft for the OneZoom not-for-profit organization, but i can barely find any citations for the company (that aren't from James Rosindell, the lead of OneZoom). I have a handful of articles that i listed here:

• https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001406
• https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/2041-210X.13766
• http://resp.llas.ac.cn/C666/handle/2XK7JSWQ/343936

Please help! Dontuseurrealname (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dontuseurrealname, it is unlikely that you will be able to find enough independent sources for a small non-profit project. The ones you have are either written by people associated with it or are interviews with them. You may have better luck looking for sources to write an article about Tree of Life Explorer instead. There is a review of it here in an American journal for biology teachers. There may be other independent reviews. The application may also be discussed in articles about data visualization. I don't have access to their content but try here and here. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

Regarding this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Guard_Extensions

There are a number of incorrect statements and missing information. This page involves a product of my employer, so I don't think I can submit edits directly based on the Conflict of Interest rules. How would I go about requesting edits and offering citations without editing directly? Thanks!

Mike Portland, OR 134.134.137.81 (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@

edit request mechanism. Victor Schmidt (talk

) 21:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

But typing "Adirondack Council" into Wikipedia takes you to a section of the "Scouting in New York" page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting_in_New_York#Twin_Rivers_Council), namely the section on the Twin Rivers [Scouting] Council, which was formed from the merger of various other boy scout councils, including one named Adirondack Council.

So ... how do I go about requesting that "Adirondack Council" point to a new page about the environmental organization, and not a defunct scouting council? (or at least that it point to a disambiguation)? CallOftheLoon (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Help:YFA first.) -- Hoary (talk

) 22:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

In the article "Edmund Gurney" the entry "Hall 1964" appears in the References many times, but that is the full extent of the detail there. The section "Sources" contains the entry "Hall, Trevor H. (1964). The Strange Case of Edmund Gurney...". Is it supposed to be self-evident that they are the same thing? It would be nice if this was made more explicit somewhere. The entry "Hall 1964" is a link, so I clicked it in the hope of getting such confirmation, but up came another opening of the "Edmund Gurney" article I was already reading! This is utterly pointless. Can something be changed so that clicking the "Hall 1964" entry does go to the detailed entry in the Sources? Thanks. 61.68.250.211 (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

hi ip user! yes, the reference does refer to the book The Strange Case of Edmund Gurney, which the source link already redirects to. if I'm correct it's a physical book instead of the usual webpage link and the individual references are referring to pages of said book (for example Hall 1964 p. 27 refers to page 27 of said book). happy reading! 💜  melecie  talk - 13:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

When you say "which the source link already redirects to", do you mean that if I click any of the "Hall 1964" entries (which ARE blue links) in the References section, it IS supposed to display or lead to the full-length entry in the Sources section? (The second of the three entries there, which for me is entirely white and not a link AFAICT.) That is not what happens for me - I am viewing on a Galaxy tablet, not a PC. Could that be making the difference? 61.68.250.211 (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

That isn't a limitation of the device that you are using to read Wikipedia. It behaves the same on a Windows device. It is supposed to be self-evident that "Hall 1964" is a short notation for "Hall, Trevor H. (1964). The Strange Case of Edmund Gurney...", and that that is a printed book. There probably isn't any information available on the web. Wikipedia requires that information in articles be

verifiable, and it is, by finding the book in a library, or buying the book second-hand via Amazon or eBay. If Wikipedia required that all references be web links, that would exclude the ability to list information such as this that is found only in printed books. The source is a printed book that may not exist online. Robert McClenon (talk

) 14:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I am not asking that the reference itself should be on the web; I can see that it is a book. I am asking (perhaps only wishing) that the short-form entries in the References "Hall 1964" when clicked should lead to, or display, their long-form entries in the Sources section (totally within WP). The system already does seem to be trying to do this, but it only opens the TOP of the same article over again, when it should at least be going down to the Sources section, and preferably be displaying only the text of the relevant entry. It is this action that I feel may be deficient on a tablet. 61.68.250.211 (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you not seeing Hall 1964 in §References as a link? When I click on them, they take me to §Sources and highlight the Hall source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

For me, both in the Firefox browser, and in the Android Wikipedia app, if I pick (eg) reference 21, it takes me to the top of the "Sources" section". On Firefox it highlights the particular source, as Tenryuu says. In the app, it offers me a new page, but when I go it it, it opens at the Sources section. ColinFine (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not clicking any reference by number in the body of the article. I have the References section open and I DO see (eg:) "Hall 1964" as a link. If I click that link it is the same as if I clicked the link to some other article: I see the title and the introduction to the article, only it is the SAME Gurney article that I was already viewing. It stays at the top; it does NOT "take me to Sources and highlight the Hall source". I am using the Android Wikipedia app, but obviously the "go down and highlight" function is deficient on this tablet. Perhaps I should try to update or reinstall the app - AFAIK it has been unchanged since I got the tablet. 61.68.250.211 (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah okay, I booted up the Wikipedia app on my Android device to see if I can replicate your issue. I went into the article, scrolled to §References, and tapped on one of the linked Hall citations. A prompt comes up with "Open a new tab" or "Read article". Picking "Read article", the app directs me to §Sources to display the full Hall citation. What version of the Wikipedia app are you using? I'm on version 2.7.50396-r-2022-03-03, which was last updated on 3 Mar 2022. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Both of you may be having problems due to using the Wikipedia app on an Android. Some editors advise against using the Wikipedia app on an Android. Use the Firefox or Chrome web browsers on the Android, either in mobile view or in desktop view, but the Wikipedia app is worse than either mobile view or desktop view. That may be the problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't encounter any problems: the link seems to be working on the app as intended, just like ColinFine. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

When I view the article in my Chrome browser and click one of the short-form links in the References, it DOES display in a pop-up the corresponding full text from the Sources, ie: sensible operation. My copy of the Wikipedia app IS (rather to my surprise) the 2.7.50396-r-2022-03-03 version as reported by Tenyruu. So it seems that "using the Wikipedia app on an Android" is indeed the problem. Thank you all for your help in discovering this. Is it worth reporting this to the appropriate area, or would they already know, or is it a lost cause? 61.68.250.211 (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia App is fine for reading but for editing, I find it quite inadequate.

casualdejekyll

14:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The feature I'm complaining about IS used when only reading ... That last reply, and some of the earlier comments, suggest that the candid answer to my last question would be: no, yes, and yes ... But nevertheless, I will ask one final question: Where is the appropriate area to report a deficiency in the Android Wikipedia App? 61.68.250.211 (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see mw:Wikimedia Apps/Android FAQ ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I logged a ticket at Phab:T304186, but I couldn’t find appropriate tags to add for Android App. Andre is tagged automatically, so presumably he will do the triage and categorisation. Don’t let that stop you from reporting via email per the page Colin linked. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 23:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear friendly editors, I'm happy that Mako001 has rapidly read the draft and rejected it.

He has asked me to include good sources, however because of the nature of the industry, there are not many good sources written about this subject.

I intended this page for informational purpose only, and definitely not as an advertisement.

I would appreciate any specific steps to help to improve the article. Thank you so much for reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_OpenDAO Angyts (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

notability. Sungodtemple (talk

) 17:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If your article has only primary sources and no secondary coverage (news articles, professional reviews, etc.), then it's more likely to be rejected. Not because the draft is bad, but because it lacks established notability. Not that the topic isn't important to you personally, or that it might not become more important in the future, but notability is generally something established through unbiased secondary sources, at least in my experience. PetSematary182 (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

thats the problem with this industry, every source is bias!! hahaha they are either trying to blow their own position or bash it because it threatens them hahaha Angyts (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello there! I'm very new here so I'm sorry if I'm doing anything wrong or there's any confusion (I haven't used the talk feature until now haha)

But, I was looking over Wikipedia when I stumbled on the page

However on further inspection, I found that they were actually two different rappers, which explains the confusion.

I'm very new here, and am not sure on how I could do this myself, but is there anything that we can do to clear up/stop future confusion on this page (whether from editors or readers)? I know some articles have a "See: _ (disambiguation)" -I'm not sure if that or something else is the correct thing to do here.

Thank you for any help,

Syddii (talk) Syddii (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

If the rappers have separate names then they should be at separate titles, with no redirects but a {{for}} at the top of the page pointing at the other one. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Only one of the rappers has a Wiki page at the moment, what should I do? -🐄Syddii (💬) 🐄Syddii (💬) 00:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@

talk, contribs

) 00:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay! Thank you so much for your help, and yes haha I found that user quite... interesting, but figured I would check either way.

Btw, am I not supposed to sign my name with tildes on here? It keeps signing my name twice- 🐄Syddii (💬) 🐄Syddii (💬) 00:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

If you're using the reply tool it autosigns for you. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 01:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi again teahouse, EarthCore here. I've made some contributions by reverting some major vandalism on some articles. However, I've not made any edits that a typical user would do, such as tone adjustments, spelling corrections, etc. I'm unsure about the protocol here and I get nervous from editing worrying that it isn't good and will get reverted. I'd like to start my Wikipedia "career" by fixing articles with tone issues, but I'm having trouble finding it. Is there any way you can help? EarthCore9999 (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@EarthCore9999: There's Category:Articles with a promotional tone and Category:Wikipedia articles with style issues by month. ––FormalDude talk 00:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I can't wait to start contributing and making Wikipedia a better place! EarthCore9999 (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@

talk, contribs

) 00:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, your assistance is greatly appreciated! EarthCore9999 (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

EarthCore9999, here's a specific recommendation. En:Wikipedia has squillions of articles, and very many of them (certainly including most that I work on) are not on matters of very great importance. By contrast, just last night I wanted to read up on Moldova–Russia relations; so I did, and I was disappointed by the quality of the article. It really needs editors who can read Romanian, Russian or both; however, even with no knowledge of either, I believe that I could make at least minor improvements to it. If I could, you could too. I very much hope that Moldova–Russia relations do not suddenly become very newsworthy; whether they do or don't, the subject merits a better treatment than what it now gets. So there you are: Moldova–Russia relations. All the best with it. -- Hoary (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Thank you very much for the help. EarthCore9999 (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I am new at this and have tried putting categories into my article in my Sandbox for Adelaide Motorsport Festival but they do not appear correctly (eg: not in a Category box) and I don't seem to be able to include an Info box either WinterCup (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@

subst:submit}} to the top of the page), it will be categorised. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝

 ) 03:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you - As this is my first article, I am hoping I have done enough to have it accepted. I also understand I can place {{User WikiProject Adelaide}} on my user page, but not sure how to do that either WinterCup (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Create your userpage by clicking on the red link WinterCup and then type the text {{User WikiProject Adelaide}} in it. -- Abdul Muhsy talk 03:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I need help! A person has created a Wikipedia account and its username cusses me in Hindi! His username link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tamjeed_Ahmed_ne_apni_ammi_ke_chut_mein_peshab_kiya Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:UAA, so they should be blocked for an offensive username once an admin comes along. Alternatively, an admin may see this post (it's clearly offensive in Hindi, according to Google Translate). Joseph2302 (talk

) 17:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

thanks a lot sir! Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@

Apmh

18:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

His older account was blocked by Wikipedia but it is still showing in search. And he has created another account with Hindi cuss words. Can you ask Wiki admins to block his IP? Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

For the global lock and hide, you need to go to meta:SRG instead of here. Best wishes. Pavlov2 (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

In my talk page and sandbox, I accidentally pressed the "edit visually" button when I want to edit the source itself. What should I do? Magik 3099 (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Magik 3099, just click out of it back onto the 'read' tab. You can then select 'edit source' from there. Given that you have posted this comment, you have probably already figured it out. Sungodtemple (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Sungodtemple, this problem is only happening on my User page and sandbox. No where else is it happening. Magik 3099 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Magik 3099, this might be an issue with your editor preferences. If you're still having issues probably consult mediawiki. Sungodtemple (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Visual editor isn't available on talk pages, so you won't have it there. Try the pencil icon top-right to switch between visual and source mode, Magik 3099. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 03:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks, Pelagic and Sungodtemple! Magik 3099 (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The page should already be live as soon as it was created unless it was removed from the mainspace by an administrator. Could you please post the link to the page? Urban Versis 32 (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@WinterCup: I've gone ahead and added a template for you on the page. When you feel it's ready for review, you can click the blue Submit the draft for review! button. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear I am having such trouble - I renamed the article Adelaide Motorsport Festival and now it won't let me submit for review even though I put Draft: Adelaide Motorsport Festival as the draft article. WinterCup (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

hi WinterCup! you may've moved the page to mainspace Adelaide Motorsport Festival instead of Draft:Adelaide Motorsport Festival. if you think it's already ready, you can keep it there, or move it to draftspace if you prefer to improve it or formally go through WP:Articles for creation. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 09:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I created a infobox in Zaza Korinteli added all stuff, moved birth date behind his name in lead but a user is saying, I was doing a test, experiment but I wasn't, he reverted my edits without writing proper reason in summary. Is any new rule say that, you can't create a infobox in BLP articles.Success think (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: This appears to be about these edits, reverted by Theroadislong in Special:Diff/1078012519/prev, citing Reverted good faith edits by Success think (talk): I can see nothing to justify these edits. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes I come across a fact in wikipedia that is really useful. I would like to thank the author of the sentence if possible. Other times it is interresting how only a certain section of a page changed. Is there a way to look something like this up? TheFibonacciEffect (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi

WP:THANKS feature that allows you to do so, but you can also leave a more personal message on their user talk page if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 12:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I have been an active editor of Wikipedia for several years (4,600 edits), but I only now noticed that, on the Revision history pages of entries that I've edited, my name appears in red, whereas most of the others do not. I figured out that that is because I never created a User page. Should I? Does it serve a purpose? I've looked at a few other editors' user pages, and they contain random information or no information. If I have nothing I want to say on it, should I create it anyway so that other editors can write to me on it? But that's what my User talk page is for, right? Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if other users wanted to reach you the proper way is the Talk page, not the User page. SunDawntalk 12:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I put a simple sentence on your User page, so that your name now appears blue. Delete it or replace it as you wish. David notMD (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks David notMD, but I still don't know what to use the User page for.Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Guidleines are a bit flexible when it comes to userpages; you can simply put some important links there which you need to access regularly, or somes things/tasks you plan to do, or draft notes. It is like a personal organizing space. See

WP:UPYES-- Abdul Muhsy talk

13:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been working on an article - Draft:Deborah Gail Stone - that needs more sources. I've come across some legit news sources that are cited in it from CityNews (2004), but unfortunately the only copy of this media report I could find was scanned and posted to somebody's blog, so even though the CityNews magazine is a reliable news source, the blog is not. It's kind of a strange situation. I was also wondering if anybody knows where to find reliable legal reports on this case. Despite the family's settlement with Disney Corporation being private, the initial lawsuit was public and in the California Compensation Cases. Before I resubmit my draft, I want to have stronger sources. Debbie Stone is a notable figure and a woman who achieved a lot in education and athletics before her death, so I want the article to be approved instead of declined, but I need better sources first. PetSematary182 (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Refs do not have to be accessable on line, so cite CityNews, not the blog. David notMD (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: PetSematary182 —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@PetSematary182 I looked at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and went down to section 6, People notable for only one event. That section begins with “When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual,” which leaves unclear whether Deborah Gail Stone is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. It comes down to good references, and as it is written in Your first article "In general, sources with no editorial control are not reliable." Unfortunately, most YouTube videos, Find a Grave, and question & answer websites such as quora.com are listed on Reliable sources as generally being user-generated, and considered unreliable.

Have you seen the article America Sings, which has a section entitled "Deborah Gall Stone Incident"? If you are not able to have your article about Deborah Gall Stone accepted you could at least go to America Sings and add a bit more to the section on the tragic accident. Best wishes on finding good references. Karenthewriter (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

That I likes to watch movies, I likes to eat vegetarian food, likes to travel, likes to read history, story books, newspaper, And all that kind of stuff. Success think (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

You can write it as you've written above, you can express it via so-called userboxes, or (best of all) you can forget about your user page and demonstrate your enjoyment of reading various kinds of stuff by applying your reading to the improvement of articles (of course, citing your sources). It's articles, not user pages, that matter. -- Hoary (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary: I want to add these things, user boxes. How can I do it? I want my user page to be good and pleasing to eyes, you know.Success think (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Success think, see Wikipedia:Userboxes. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Userboxes can be displayed horizontally (See my User page) or in a vertical stack by using userboxtop and userboxbottom, thus terms being put inside double curly brackets {{ }} before and after your list of userboxes. Having a good-looking User page is self-rewarding, but keep in mind Hoary's admonition - we are here to improve the encyclopedia, not self-aggrandize. David notMD (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@David notMD: Hi, your absolutely right. Success think (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

hello! I want to edit a picture on a semi protected page and I wondered if you can tell me how to.

thanks! 0riyaxxxzenocars (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello 0riyaxxxzenocars. You can make an edit request to suggest edits to a protected page. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have to give my rationale in a proposed deletion template but can't make it concise enough, would someone help me word it properly please? -- CalSmith2 (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

hi

WP:AFD to get an idea on how to nominate a page. 💜  melecie  talk

- 23:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

forwarding from my talk, the reasonings given are Article cites only one government data source, sparsely (failing WP:1R), Unlike the Mayor of Greater Manchester as a whole, insufficient sourcing is available, I can't foresee a scenario were the topic becomes WP:Notable or gains sufficient coverage outside the government data site, WP isn't an indiscriminate collection of information were the reasonings given for this PROD.

for @CalSmith2, I'm thinking that you could write this as Article fails notability, and cites only one government data source, with insufficient sourcing compared to Mayor of Greater Machester. however then again I don't work at PROD or AFD, so this can probably be improved. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 09:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Melecie -- CalSmith2 (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I saw someone mention a bot that would archive all the sources in an article at various archiving websites. Could someone direct me to that bot? TipsyElephant (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant

InternetArchiveBot, you can access it by clicking "Fix Dead Links" at any articles "view history" page Rlink2 (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

How is mentioning John Mearsheimer's contention that the Israeli lobby wields disproportionate influence over US foreign policy in the introductory section of his article not biased? 194.223.185.231 (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The sentence in question reads, "In 2007 book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy Mearsheimer argues that the Israeli lobby wields disproportionate influence over US foreign policy." That is an assertion of fact. The question is whether it is accurate, not whether it is biased. Whether Mearsheimer's argument is biased is a separate question and is discussed later in the article.Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this matter is Talk: John Mearsheimer. Cullen328 (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, is it possible to create an new infobox with a universal parameter, that the user could place under any other parameter? If so, what method could be used to create it? Thank you in advance. Your admirer

Hello @

templates. Also, read Help:Infobox and Help:Designing infoboxes. Hope that helps. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk💬 Contribs✏️

) 18:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, i was exactly looking for this. Huge thanks :)

talk

) 18:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

de olhos firmes naturêsa seguimos, segurança e transparencia do google é nossa noção. 2804:214:85B5:DD6C:30DD:9FC1:D3AF:C933 (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Translation (Portuguese): with firm eyes nature we follow, security and transparency of google is our notion.

Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you have a question about editing or using Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it standard practice to create redirects for URLs to the article about that company or group? I don't see anything at

Hi

redirect category dedicated to domain name redirects, {{R from domain name}}. Domain name redirects help our readers quickly identify the organization associated with a website. This is especially handy when there are multiple organizations with similar names (e.g. The Telegraph and The Times) and when the website is in a language other than English. Personally, I create these redirects when I see the opportunity to do so, and I encourage everyone else to do the same. — Newslinger talk

19:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

How are you all doing? Apex Lugia (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Apex Lugia. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? Cullen328 (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

No, not right now. Just wanted to say hello Apex Lugia (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Apex Lugia, hello to you too and welcome to the Teahouse we are glad to have you, please whenever you have a question to ask about editing, please feel free to stop by . Celestina007 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

On Svdden Death's article, there is a single missing from the Discography section which has had two titles: it was originally released in April 2021 with the title "SLB 2021", but appears on the newly released album VOYD Vol. II as "Shallow Land Burial". Should it be listed in the table of "Other singles" under the former title, with a note saying that it appears on VOYD Vol. II as "Shallow Land Burial"; or under the new title, with a note saying that it was originally titled "SLB 2021"? Sporeball (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Why not both? It could be done as a combined footnote, with only a linked superscript character in the table entries themselves. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.229.59 (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

They are Engish Victorian painters who are often confused, sometimes as father and son (particularly on art sales index type web sites eg Junior/Senior, Younger/Older, I/II). The younger artist whose professional name is William Oliver (William Oliver (artist)) is actually William Oliver Williams (1823-1901). I am writing an article on the older artist with the draft title 'William Oliver, Artist (1804-1853)'. Hopefully this could help to reduce further confusion, particularly if the birth and death years were added to the Wikipedia title of the younger artist. Would this be possible? BFP1 (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC) BFP1 (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for typos BFP1 (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi

WP:MOVE the page (at least not just yet) but rather wait until the article about the elder William Oliver has been created. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 11:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:REDIRECT. The key thing is to get the page content written. I hope this helps? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk

) 11:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: and @Nick Moyes:That's very helpful BFP1 (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@BFP1: A commonly used disambiguation style in situations like this would be to title the articles "William Oliver (artist, born 1804)" and "William Oliver (artist, born 1823)". But, as you have been advised above, there's no need to worry about the exact title of your article yet. Deor (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Deor:. More thanks BFP1 (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I have now submitted the draft BFP1 (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The article has now been created with the new title 'William Oliver (1804-1853)', while the other article has been retitled to 'William Oliver 1823-1901)'. However, I think I prefer Deor's suggestion above indicating that both were artists. Can the Deor option be Implemented?@Deor:@Marchjuly:@Nick Moyes:

I have moved them to William Oliver (artist, born 1804) and William Oliver (artist, born 1823) per #The Two William Olivers Disambiguation. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This follows on from the previous Teahouse dicussion titled the 'Two William Olivers'. An article on the older artist has now been created, titled 'William Oliver (1804-1853)', while the existing article for the younger artist has been retitled 'William Oliver (1823-1901)'. In the previous dicussion an alternative suggestion for the two titles was 'William Oliver (artist, born 1804)' and 'William Oliver (artist, born 1823)'. I prefer the versions where 'artist' is included in the title. If this is considered reasonable could this be implemented? In the previous discussions helpful suggestions were given on how to do this. Unfortunately my Wikipedia technical knowledge is weak and and I do not know how to carry them out. Therefore I would hope that an expert could do this for me.BFP1 (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Valid point, as there are William Olivers who were not artists. David notMD (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

And this is what Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Disambiguating says: [[Name (qualifier, born YYYY)]]. I have moved them to William Oliver (artist, born 1804) and William Oliver (artist, born 1823). PrimeHunter (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you PrimeHunterBFP1 (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you DavidBFP1 (talk) 09:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

What should I do if someone harass me, talk hate speech about my country on Wikipedia for no reason? FoxtAl (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Reference - Talk:2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes#missed the target but claiming intentionally missed to cover up the failure —--FoxtAl (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:ANI § Xtreme o7 and Indian hate speech regarding this. Bsoyka (talk

) 07:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Should the comment by Xtreme be deleted? I almost did. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

What is sandbox? 2001:44B8:41C6:F700:548:3E48:AC7:668 (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP 2001:44B8:41C6:F700:548:3E48:AC7:668. A Wikipedia sandbox is sort of a place where you can practice editing Wikipedia. You can use the sandbox to make test edits, try out new formatting, see how templates work, and make other types of edits that you might want to check before trying to make them anywhere else, especially to Wikipedia articles. There is a main sandbox that all editors can share at

rake over the sandbox and make it "new" again for the next person or for your next practice session. A sandbox, however, is still not a place where it's OK to publish anything you want, and you still need to make sure that any sandbox edits you make don't violate any major Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, but for the most part you will be left alone to experiment as long as you're experimenting doesn't get out of hand. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 11:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Meena-Mina controversy -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda: I don’t think there’s enough material here for a standalone article. It should be merged to Meena as a section called “Spelling variation”. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aram_Khachaturian there needs to be a additon to the listing of "other compositions": "Chamber Music - Trio for Clarinet, Violin and Piano (1932). Publisher: www.editionsilvertrust.com" Doing this edit is beyond me, please have at it if you know how this editing process works. Thanks. Beach1bum9 (talk) 05:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

See if you like what I did. I saw no reason to include the publisher. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Kindly help me improve this article. Draft:Madhuja Mukherjee Ninjakiller07 (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

See comment on draft. The refs that mention the films as her work (9-21) do not describe at any length what her roles as scriptwriter or director were. David notMD (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The links and the data given in the links clearly describes her role as a director. Ninjakiller07 (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

That she was the director - yes; about her as a director, at some length and detail - not in my opinion. David notMD (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Ostracism I continue to modify the page Kosem Sultan indicating it correctly, with explanations and with source as the mother of Sehzade Mehmed, in line with the most modern and accredited historiographical research. The relationship is correctly indicated on the pages of his father, Ahmed I, on that of Mehmed himself, and on the wikis of other languages. Yet it is routinely deleted by a user who refuses to provide explanations or best sources for his belief that Kosem is not Mehmed's mother, as well as to at least indicate that the matter is controversial. Instead, he requested to block the page changes. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that grows from everyone's contribution and from the awareness that no one knows everything, but this user acts as if he were the owner of the article and the only one authorized to modify it, without in any way accepting that he may not be the only one with knowledge about it, or not knowing everything. Is it possible to do something? 31.156.255.6 (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. You are having a

pinging

them). It is now up to Jacob Historian to enter in a discussion with you - they should not have reverted your edits without at least an edit summary explaining.

Please read

AGF. Somebody reverting your edits, even repeatedly, is not ostracism, and is not usually even personal. ColinFine (talk

) 13:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the reply. I apologize if the title is not appropriate: I do not think it is personal, however that there is a thread of arrogance in canceling any modification, even justified, and without explanation, yes.

But I don't think I am doing edit warring: it is true that I have made the change twice, but only because I thought that the first one had been canceled because it was badly formatted. The second was perfect, with links and sources, as well as an explanation of why, but was deleted in minutes and again without explanation. I will certainly not rewrite it, as it takes more time to create it correctly than it is for him to delete it. I don't claim to be right, but if I'm wrong, you should at least provide me with an incontrovertible source. If, on the other hand, it is his personal conviction or simply a different historiographical interpretation, I think my modification should be left, perhaps indicating the alternative in a note. But the attitude of arbitrary cancellation without explanation annoys me. I will be waiting for Jacob Historian's response, even if I'm not very good at online fights and if he cancels the change, I can't do much about it no matter what and how he will respond. For this I wanted to try with a third evaluation that judged whether the change is valid or not and how to point it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.156.255.6 (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I have already said that, in my opinion, Jacob Historian should have explain their reversion in an edit message or on a talk page. You don't need to rewrite anything: your previous edits are there in the history of the article, and if the consensus is to incorporate some or all of what you wrote, you can retrieve it. ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Commonedits Admin here. You don't need to worry about moving it yourself as you need to resubmit it for a review. If accepted, the reviewer will arrange for it to be moved. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

(

Draft:Chahat Pandey since it was declined on 13 March - so it clearly is NOT ready to be moved to Main-space - Please improve the draft until it is acceptable - Arjayay (talk

) 11:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Chahat Pandey. Anyhow thank you ✌👍 Commonedits (talk

) 11:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:COI. Thank you Commonedits (talk

) 11:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi

WP:AFCHELP. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 11:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you so much for explaining everything Marchjuly😘😘 Commonedits (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Commonedits If other drafts are accepted and should not have been, please discuss that with the reviewers of such drafts. It doesn't mean that more poor drafts should be accepted. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

331dot I never said more poor drafts should be "accepted". I meant the reviewers here have a very "biased" system of reviewing drafts. Commonedits (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)