Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1171

This is an current talk page .

This is mainly a question for people in the Mathematics/Physics side of Wikipedia.

So the current Wikipedia policy is that advanced articles in mathematics and theoretical physics are usually completely incomprehensible to anyone who is not already familiar with that field. As it should be, since simplifying it would otherwise make it worthlessly inaccurate to those who need it most. (Of course the idea is to write as clearly and simply as possible as long as one does not loose accuracy). I write articles accordingly.

I just wonder whether it would not be nice to have a simple version of the article somewhere. This could be in a "overview" type section at the start of the article (something that some articles do occasionally do and these do turn out to be often very useful). However, most articles do not have this. It also makes little structural sense for shorter articles (despite it still being useful). An alternative I could see is to have a corresponding article in the Simple English Wikipedia which tries to then explain the topic as simply as possible. Would the Simple English Wikipedia article have to be linked to on the Wikipedia article somehow? Otherwise people will most likely not know it exists even if they need it. For example, theta vacuum is a pretty hard article to read if you don't know much physics. But in principle one could summarize it in a paragraph or two in a much simpler sense (something that would of course be useless to actual physicist, but would be nice for laypeople). Yet such a simple summary also does not fit into the article introduction since the necessary simplification would be often technically misleading, and as far as I know the introduction serves more of an accurate summary purpose.

I don't know. The problem is that it would often be ideal if many of the articles in these areas of science/math had a "technical" (accurate) version, and a corresponding simplified version, whether that be in the original article as a subsection or elsewhere (but still obviously accessible to the reader). So I was wondering what other people think about this issue. There is currently no real push for this type of structure on Physics/Math Wikipedia. Sorry for the ramble of thoughts. OpenScience709 (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC) OpenScience709 (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

OpenScience709, there are 'introduction to' articles, like Introduction to quantum mechanics for Quantum mechanics, or Introduction to viruses for Virus Sungodtemple (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@OpenScience709 The WP:Village pump (idea lab) might be a place to propose and discuss your idea. You are quite correct about those impossibly technical articles. Quisqualis (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks! Didn't know about the Village pump, but that does seems like a better environment for discussing this issue. Cheers! OpenScience709 (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

There is also Simple English Wikipedia. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• @
  WP:TECHNICAL
  is a guideline dealing exactly with that subject. It says that the lead section should be understandable by a general audience. Now, granted, that’s not always possible, but we should try as much as we can.

I have a PhD in physics and I had to focus intensely and read many links before I started to vaguely understand what the lead of

inertial subrange due to turbulent eddy

instability. (That’s not far from what you might find in a graduate textbook.)

Compare the actual lead of our article energy cascade (permalink): it is much better. The above sentence packs no less than six different advanced concepts together (energy transfer, wavenumber, inertial subrange, turbulence, eddy, instability), when the actual lead breaks down the explanation across multiple paragraphs in a logical order. The above sentence uses the technical terms low/high wavenumber and turbulence; the actual lead uses imprecise but easy-to-understand equivalents large/small and motion.

I would think any reasonably-focused reader can understand the general gist of the lead of energy cascade, and anyone with some undergraduate background in a hard-science field can understand it fully. That is no mean feat for a topic that is introduced at the graduate level and the source of many misunderstandings among students. The rest of the article is definitely inaccessible to anyone without some understanding of turbulent dissipation etc. (but even then, it is more clearly written than many textbooks I have read, without sacrificing much completeness). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Good point. I suppose its somewhat of a lead-section-philosophy issue. My view was more on the "summarize" side of it, that is that the lead is a nice summary of what the rest of the article is about. For example the theta vacuum page is an accurate concise summary of exactly what it is. That is that the first sentence is almost a dictionary definition of the topic (which can be often very useful for experts or people actively learning the topic). Whenever the lead does not include it, it can in fact be annoying to dig through the rest of the article to figure out an accurate definition. Like your technical definition of energy cascade is nice to have somewhere; it can tell a physicist a lot of information quickly and concisely with them then having a precise working definition of the topic. Otherwise they may have to spend quite a bit of time on the topic to figure it out for themselves.

But on the other hand the philosophy that the lead should be the nice simple introduction (exactly what this whole thread is about) available to a more general audience is also (if not more) important. But of course it can be a bit tricky to reconcile these two. Maybe one way that one could do this is for the first sentence or two to be the accurate summary, with the following sentences elaborating on it in simpler terms (downside is that a reader may be put off by the first sentence)? For example, for the theta vacuum page one could have another paragraph in the introduction elaborating on what the theta vacuum is in simpler terms. Alternatively the order could somehow switch.

The best solution I see is to somehow have the lead do both things: give a reasonably accurate concise definition-type sentence of the topic and also introduce/summarize the topic in much simpler terms. The question is what is the best way to implement this. OpenScience709 (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Newb here, please be kind.

I was wondering if anyone with experience in the dynamic might talk me through etiquette regarding multilingual pages ie the page itself does appear in English, but the talk page is in another language. I’m not sure if there are different language versions of this page and I can’t see a link to an active user on the talk page. Is there guidance regarding such pages and how they are usually managed? I can see some need for updates and, as it’s a tricky one some mentoring on the talk page would help me decide whether to attempt it or leave for somebody else attached to a specific project. EthicalAugur (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@

ping me when replying

14:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @

WP:ENGLISHPLEASE. The post is over 10 years old at this point, but I suppose you could still run it through Google translate and see if any relevant points about the article were brought up. 199.208.172.35 (talk

) 15:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. I will start with AI translation of the talk page into English. EthicalAugur (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@EthicalAugur We occasionally get foreign-language entries here at the Teahouse. Assuming the translation isn't a foul rant (to be reverted) it is quite acceptable to run it through a machine translation and, in your own reply, add that translation to preface whatever response you give. That saves other readers having to do the same. No-one will complain if you do that on any other English Wikipedia talk page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! EthicalAugur (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

What is the right way to add citations to lists? Most lists I've seen don't have references anywhere I can see, but I have also seen lists that have citation needed tags. Should I put a citation beside the entry in the list? I can't think of any other way to do it. Balnibarbarian (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

There's a few ways one can do it:

• If there is an introductory paragraph to the list, one can add the reference to the end of said paragraph
• If the list is a stand-alone list article, one can just add a general reference that covers the whole list
• If the list is compiled from several different sources, one can add a reference to each item to the source that that item comes from

Does one of those cover your situation? --Jayron32 16:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I think so. How exactly does the third one work? What would that look like? Balnibarbarian (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Balnibarbarian. Take a look at List of members of the Black Panther Party, which I work on occasionally. Unreferenced entries creep in but the large majority of the entries are referenced. Cullen328 (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I know how to do this now! Balnibarbarian (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

After one of my colleagues tried to create a draft page for our company (Codasip Draft:Codasip ), which was rejected, I got involved to cleanup what was done: I know Wikipedia is not marketing! I just want something factual.

However, the page was then rejected again because there were not enough external sources

- I added sources, then it was rejected because there were too many (and some came from the same news site)

- I cleaned-up the sources again, and now I don't get any response...

Could you help me figure-out how to create this page? Thanks! ME - Codasip (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

ME - Codasip, in User:331dot's words:

This just tells about the company and what it does, it does not summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company. I fear that you may be too close to your company to write about it as Wikipedia requires. As odd as it may sound, you actually have too many sources. Fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources.

Also, note that drafts may take up to 3 months to review, since Wikipedia is a volunteer effort. Sungodtemple (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. This comment was given on the previous version. Do you think my new draft still has too many sources? ME - Codasip (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

definition of a notable company, an independent editor will eventually take note of coverage of the company and choose on their own to write about it. 331dot (talk

) 19:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and sorry for using the wrong word.

The goal was not to own anything, just to have a space similar to the other companies (e.g. SiFive, Andes Technology, LowRISC...) that have also participated to the creation of the RISC-V organisation, which is revolutionising the semiconductor industry at the moment. In addition to this, you can see in the draft article that there are reputable books and articles about the company, so I guess it matches the definition of a notable company.

So to come back to my question: are there still too many sources in the article? Now I can delete more if you think they are not useful or relevant.

Thanks! ME - Codasip (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I am a first time contributor. Apparently my contribution was rejected. The contribution pertain to the WIKI subject "Gay St. Manhattan, NY. Moreland Houck 332nd (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@

Easy referencing for beginners to learn how to cite appropriately on Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝

 ) 20:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I know that blog links are not usually allowed for referencing. I've just reverted an edit to article TypeScript. I reverted as all I saw was an added blog. The blog is Microsofts official devs blog which has been used elsewhere in the article as a reference already.

Is it OK, in this instance, to use the official Microsoft dev blog for announcing updates? I feel I might have been too hasty in removing it? Thanks, Knitsey (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:BLOGS. Mike Turnbull (talk

) 21:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Mike, thats very helpful and quick! The new editor has been very polite about it. I will apologise and self revert. Knitsey (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It was almost entirely about me and only referenced my abuser in passing, and I didn't specify the abuse. I CAN specify the abuse, but I wanted to do as little writing on my own page as possible. NVNCVL (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @

living persons are involved. Please give a read to Help:Your first article. 97.113.27.216 (talk

) 13:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed your draft and declined it because there was zero evidence of you passing the

notability guidelines, but more importantly you made very serious accusations about a named person, that is why I also tagged it for speedy deletion as an attack page. Theroadislong (talk

) 13:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

NVNCVL, I can read the deleted page, and although we may have sympathy for you, there is nothing to show that you meet our notability guidelines. Accusations of abuse or other negative behaviour can only be made if backed up by proper independent sources, like a court report. Also, the second of your references didn't even mention you, let alone confirm what you claimed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey, can you refresh my memory? What was the second reference? Was it one of the videos of police brutality against me? NVNCVL (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, because it seems that is what you're here to do, and Wikipedia is not the place for it. 97.113.27.216 (talk

) 13:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

So you're here to be a source of misinformation and not correct any atrocities. Good for you. Golf clap.

Go on YouTube and search "Erin Taylor: Cool Girl Or Psycho?" I had NOTHING to do with the production. NVNCVL (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

we don't do. We are an encyclopaedia, not Amnesty International. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori}

23:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I am writing on behalf of the Save Ellis Island Foundation which is the Non-Profit partner of the National Park Service for the rehabilitation and reuse of the south side of Ellis Island. The edited information which I provide is directly from the Save Ellis Island website saveellisisland.org Fcalella (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Fcalella, welcome to the Teahouse. Please do not copy/paste from outside sources into Wikipedia - 99% of the time this is a very bad idea, and often it is a copyright violation. Information should be summarized from the source you're using, and then, ideally, the source should be properly cited. An organization's website can be useful as a source of small amounts of basic, uncontroversial information, but otherwise an article should rely on what's said in independent sources. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@

removing the material on discovery with extreme prejudice. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori}

23:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fcalella, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Quite apart from the copyright issue, Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of editors revert others' edits during discussions, claiming that the "status quo" version of the article is preferred while a dispute about new content additions are ongoing. However, this seems to be contradictory to

We cannot answer this without knowing more information. In what topic area is this taking place? Are there active sanctions against any of the parties involved? Is the party adding content disregarding the talk page? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The topic is US politics, and has a 24hr BRD restriction. No editors involved have active sanctions, near as I can tell. One editor added content with an edit summary. I reverted it with an edit summary. And a third editor re-instated the content with an edit summary. No talk page discussion had happened yet. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Does this involve the Hunter Biden laptop controversy page? GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Good morning,

I am an English teacher, and something I've noticed on Wikipedia is that certain punctuation marks are being used incorrectly in conjunction with quotation marks. Let me explain.

On Wikipedia, often you will see a period or comma placed outside of quotation marks, when really both of those punctuation marks should be inside the quotations.

For example:

"Blah blah blah". <--incorrect

"Blah blah blah." <--correct

Also:

"Blah blah blah", he said. <--incorrect

"Blah blah blah," he said. <--correct

The only punctuation mark you will ever see placed outside of quotation marks is a question mark, and it only applies some of the time. It applies only when the question begins before the quote.

For example:

Did John really tell you to "get lost?" <--incorrect

Did John really tell you to "get lost"? <--correct

Finally, although punctuation marks are always placed inside of quotation marks, the opposite is true of parentheticals.

For example:

John once said "Blah blah blah" (Blah 2.) <--incorrect

John once said "Blah blah blah" (Blah 2). <--correct

I know there is no central editorial board, but obviously Wikipedia has made the choice to place punctuation marks outside of quotation marks since almost every article has the mistake. I am hereby request, nay, implore you to right this wrong.

Some people think grammar and punctuation aren't a big deal, and that we should worry about mistakes like this. My contention is this: When people lose grip on the language of their society, their society begins to erode. Not over night, but slowly and steadily over time like a patch of rust under your car.

Sincerely, A Concerned English teacher from New Jersey 24.38.36.115 (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. Our guidance is at

MOS:PUNCT. Since pretty much anyone can edit pretty much anything, our articles are never going to be consistent with that, but it's the standard. The only way to ensure articles do meet that standard is for editors - such as yourself - to fix deviations when you find them. 97.113.27.216 (talk

) 13:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Please see

linguistic prescription. a!rado🦈 (C✙T

) 13:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, you might want to read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Punctuation it has a talkpage if you think our Manual of Style needs changing. If we have a common error in not following our Manual of Style then Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks is a good place to go to suggest fixes that can be applied to very large numbers of pages. ϢereSpielChequers 13:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Two relevant parts of Wikipedia's Manual of Style are at

MOS:BRACKET. - David Biddulph (talk

) 13:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a difference between American and British English. The linguistic and (I presume) grammatical conventions of the first few edits of the article are followed, or, if the subject is associated with an English-speaking location, the dialect of that area. See this MOS page. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 13:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it is not. Per Wikipedia:Logical quotation on Wikipedia: There is a common misconception that logical quotation (LQ) is "British style" and that typesetters' quotation (TQ(...)) is "American style" (despite having originated in England, and being as common in Canada as in the US). (etc. - see the whole page). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I see! That's very interesting, thank you. :) סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 14:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

If that's true (and as an essay I'd like to see some citations), then

MOS:INOROUT should be amended. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝

 ) 16:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. English teacher I actually didn't know that. El Pettymars0193 (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

See Tigraan's comment. I was wrong. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 14:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

IP editor: I appreciate you taking the time to put forward your concerns. Thank you. Here is my take on it:

Wikipedia does many things that many people would disagree with. But it tries to do them all uniformly, one way or another. For example, as a biologist, I detest our annoying rule that the common names of species should not be capitalised within articles. I hate that, and I firmly believe it has the potential to introduce many errors and misunderstandings, especially when a rare species has 'common' in its title. For example, a sentence stating that "research has shown that the common gull is rare in many parts of the world." makes no sense at all. But our community voted to accept that - at least, until such time as a better, more persuasive argument is put forward and a new consensus sought and agreed upon to change it. That way, we end up with a 'Manual of Style' we can all understand and adhere to.

Now, personally, I feel

MOS:INOROUT

explains how to approach the issue of punctuation within quotations very well indeed. If we are quoting someone's full and complete sentence, then including their punctuation from their quote is highly appropriate, and it should certainly go inside the quotation marks. But, if we are taking just a section of a sentence that someone said and quoting it, whilst leaving off the end of that sentence, then we should definitely not insert false and potentially misleading punctuation inside their quoted words that they did not, in fact, ever make. To quote Winston Churchill who, when asked if we should surrender, said "We shall." would be quite wrong and place false interpretation on his words. Actually, when asked if we should surrender, Churchill said (and as part of a somewhat longer and famous speech), "We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be."

The danger of misleading, whether by accident or by intent, by selectively quoting just part of a statement is clearly reduced by only including their punctuation if they used it, and I feel that applies to both spoken and written statements. I'd be interested knowing your take on that. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Ummmm, just to try (likely in vain) to save other people some time: I'll bet $100 this isn't an actual English teacher. You aren't actually required to engage with someone who thinks pretends to think that using different rules of grammar than they do will cause the end of society. DNFTT. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam - I'd not looked at their contributions until you posted this. Your point was well-made. But I'll just say that, if other new users benefit from seeing these points discussed, then it could help them understand how we work and avoid being influenced by seeing misleading suggestions. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  Honestly, as a former English teacher... this doesn't smell off to me. -- asilvering (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I signed up a few years ago and did a bunch of videos that were really helpful. But, in the nature of things, I've forgotten what I learned. Now I'm back and want to contribute. I remember there were principles that were really important, and I can't find those videos. Links would be helpful. Thanks. TrouserRoller (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Good day, when I was learning to edit (and still do sometimes), I used the Wikipedia: namespace. The one I learned the most from was

talk

) 02:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

TrouserRoller, if you mean learning (via video) how to edit, then perhaps Wikipedia:VideoWiki/Tutorial and the pages to which it links; if you mean learning how to produce and edit videos for Wikipedia, then perhaps Wikipedia:Videos and the pages to which it links. -- Hoary (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm searching for a citation like {{sfn}} that shows not the author(s), but the title. Does it exist? Gyalu22 (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Gyalu22: Have you read Template:Sfn#No author name in citation template? Does it answer your question? Deor (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, {{harvid}} is what I'm searching for, thanks! Gyalu22 (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'm not sure where to put this so I put it here. If there's a more useful place, by all means point it out or move this.

There's a bit of a difficulty about the Royal Rife page - the section about his life and work, not the section about the various alternative health devices that claim to be based on his work.

The story goes back to the 1920s and 1930s, and there's a shortage of reliable sources. Some of the sources available are:

• Large archives of original documents at https://rife.de/ , https://rife.org/ and https://www.rifevideos.com/ - very extensive and providing lots of information about the nature of the research and who did what to whom when, but they're possibly disqualified as primary sources.
• Write-ups based on these documents on the same websites. Secondary sources, but possibly disqualified as self-published, and rife.de and rifevideos.com are possibly also disqualified as having conflicts of interest because their authors fund the websites by selling modern "Rife machines" and/or accessories for them.
• One lousy journal article (the man seems to have hated publishing anything properly!) - a primary source, but already on the page, for want of anything else. There are also a few other bits and pieces including a letter in Science from the then head of the Mayo Clinic, published in the 26 August 1932 issue https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.76.1965.192 .
• Contemporary newspaper articles, from sources including the San Diego Evening Tribune, the San Diego Union, the New York Times and Popular Science magazine.

By normal Wikipedia rules it seems that the newspaper articles should be preferred over the documents or the websites, as they're secondary sources and apparently reputable. However, in some places, they seem to be just plain garbled. As journalists sometimes do when faced with science that's above their pay grade, they seem to have got a lot of things mixed up. For instance, the Popular Science article https://books.google.com/books?id=9CcDAAAAMBAJ&q=Germs . Comparing it to the archive documents shows that the supposedly newly discovered and mysterious "green ray" described at the end of the article is actually a very confused description of Rife's usual method of using an inert gas discharge tube (this one filled with krypton possibly, by the colour) as an antenna to transmit ordinary radio waves.

What do you usually do if the secondary sources are really inaccurate? Do they still have to be used in preference to primary sources? Wombat140 (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Wombat140. The current version of the article makes it clear that Rife was a fringe theorist and so Wikipedia:Fringe theories is the guideline that should shape the article. Anything published by Rife and his followers should be treated with extreme caution and used in a very limited way. As for Popular Science, I used to read it for fun as an adolescent in the 1960s, but it never has been a high quality source for citing in an encyclopedia, especially regarding fringe theories. How many times have they predicted that flying cars and personal submarines would soon be commonplace? Far better to have a brief, properly referenced article about a figure like Rife, than a longer article that is poorly referenced. Quality is much more important than quantity in cases like this. Cullen328 (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. That doesn't really seem to get me anywhere, though. What kind of "quality" sources would you recommend? As I say, Wikipedia: Independent sources suggests that newspaper reports normally rank higher than some of the sources available, but in this case, many of the newspaper reports appear to be demonstrably not as reliable as some things that would be lower down the food chain. (The San Diego Union and San Diego Evening Tribune ones seem not to have as many provable factual errors, but they seem to have adopted him as a local hero somewhat and don't look very NPOV).

As I say, it seems to be difficult just to get references for basic details of who did what to whom and when. The outline of what happened seems to be that Rife and his team committed the basic scientific offence of rushing into production - with an alleged cure for cancer, of all explosive things - based only on animal studies and one informal 16-patient pilot study that was so badly documented that it couldn't be published, and the AMA understandably came down on it like a ton of bricks. But I can't even find references for that, other than the various archive websites! It's ridiculous - Rife and his research seem to be notable enough, discussed at length all over the Internet and providing the excuse for a large and profitable branch of alternative medicine, but people editing the page had difficulty finding reliable sources for so much as when he was born or where he studied.

The archive websites include internal correspondence, lab notes, etc. from Rife's lab and interviews with various people who knew him and/or worked with him, by the way, not just things that were released to the press. Wombat140 (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Wombat140, as Wikipedia editors, we simply do not care about and are obligated to ignore what unreliable sources "all over the internet" say about the topic. Like separating wheat from chaff, you must separate the reliable sources from those that aren't. Summarize the reliable ones and if the article seems less complete to you as a result, that is an illusion. Cullen328 (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328, I'm referring to how notable it is, not to using the discussions "all over the Internet" as sources. However, on checking the "Notability" page again, I see that Wikipedia doesn't seem to use the word "notable" the same way it usually seems to be used in English - rather than "well-known", it seems to mean "well-documented". And Rife is well-known, but not well-documented. Still left with this puzzle of whether to prioritise inaccurate secondary sources over apparently more accurate primary ones! Wikipedia seems to work on a basis of documenting what other people are saying - but does that extend to even if the other people are saying things that demonstrably aren't true? (Example that doesn't rely on those archives: the Popular Science article currently used as a reference shows a micrograph of a hookworm hatching, taken by Rife, labelled "12,000x". Looking up the size of a hookworm egg shows that they meant 1,200x).

By the way, would you call this a primary or a secondary source? It's somebody else (head of the Mayo Clinic) reporting on Rife's microscope work, but it's only one person. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.76.1965.192 Wombat140 (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS. Cullen328 (talk

) 08:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, the notion that the best sources for things that happened 90 years ago are newspaper articles published back then is incorrect. Recent books published by university presses or academic publishers are far better. Recent peer-reviewed articles published in respected academic journals are far better. There have been outstanding scholarly books published in recent years about the history of microscopes. Here is an example. What do 21st century experts say about Rife's instruments? Cullen328 (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I've just been looking for a list of post towns in Ireland yet I can't find one.

All I've been able to find is this Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland where I have no idea what it's talking about.

The article Post town claims that Ireland has post towns in the opening sentence, however I suspect that is incorrect.

The UK goes Neighbourhood/Village > Post Town/City > County

Whereas Ireland seems to go Neighbourhood/Village/Town/City > County Danstarr69 (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Danstarr69. You'd do better posting this question at the

Reference desk: the Teahouse is for questions about editing Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk

) 11:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

How can I find an experienced writer to create a page for me? 2601:14A:8201:47E0:8C30:3265:3867:F2A1 (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. We prefer the term "article" instead of page- this is a subtle but important distinction. If you are referring to off-wiki efforts, we can't help you there other than to say anyone who edits about you/for you would need to declare a

Requested Articles, but the backlog there is severe to the point of uselessness. 331dot (talk

) 20:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm guessing that "a page for me" means "an article about me or about something I do". If so, please note that

1. An article about you or about an activity of yours is possible only if the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for
   significant coverage
   of you or your activity.
2. If you or your subject meets those criteria then an article is possible. You, or somebody on your behalf, are permitted to write it, but discouraged from doing so, because your
   neutral
   manner.
3. An article about you or your endeavours will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, and may end up containing very different material from what you would like it to contain; it should be almost entirely based on what those independent sources say, not on what you or your associates say or want to say. Please see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.
4. There are plenty of people offering to write Wikipedia articles for payment (you probably won't find any of them via this page). None of them are in any way endorsed by Wikipedia:
   paid editing
   is tolerated, as long as they follow the proper procedures. Some of them no doubt are responsible, and will tell you that they cannot guarantee that an article they write will be accepted, or that it will stay in a form acceptable to you; many of them are scam-merchants.

ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

If you now decide to attempt article creation yourself, common advice is to register an account, and then put in time improving existing articles. This serves to educate you on Wikipedia practices. Then, see

WP:YFA for a guide on how to create and submit a draft. David notMD (talk

) 13:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

May I ask a question about {{Authority control}}? In the source editing, "{{Authority control}}" is all that I find, but I don't yet understand how Wikipedia then finds the right information. Is it not necessary to provide more information like norm data (LC numbers and the like)? I also seek to understand how to provide the quick summary that shows up when you hover over a linked article name, like Al Jolson being "a Lithuanian-American Jewish singer, comedian, actor, and vaudevillian." Maybe you can help. --Melchior2006 (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Melchior2006, welcome to the Teahouse. I tweaked your post to make "{{Authority control}}" display. See Template:Authority control for documentation. It automatically pulls data from the Wikidata item for the article. Click "Wikidata item" under "Tools" in the left pane of the desktop site to see it. The text "Al Jolson was a Lithuanian-American Jewish singer, comedian, actor, and vaudevillian." is automatically picked from the start of Al Jolson by mw:Page Previews. The feature may skip some things like text in parentheses. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have an issue regarding This page.

It says that Senator-elect Fetterman has had his intent for running for reelection unknown.

HOWEVER, according to FEC Filings, he has already filed to run for reelection in the 2028 pennsylvania senate race (see: https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/S6PA00274/1661811)

Does filing an FEC notice count as a message of intent of running for election? Littlepagers (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You might want to ask on the talk page of the article itself, but I would say no, as anyone can file something with the FEC saying they are running(countless people do so to run for President). It's standard procedure to make that filing so it's out of the way, they usually decide later. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Teahouse! I am writing for feedback on the draft article at Draft:Penelope McPhee. I got the following notifications that the neutrality is disputed, there may be a close connection to the subject and it may not meet notability guidelines. However, no specific reasons or sections of the article were given. Can you please provide actionable feedback or updates to improve the article to publish?

Updates have been made to try to address any neutrality disputes. I have not received money to write the article and do not have a personal relationship to the subject. In addition, it seems like the subject's work and awards as an author and television producer, and contributions to art, should meet the notability guidelines.

Thank you.

OmarLetson (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm at a bit of a loss here. On Meridian CU, #REDIRECT is being interpreted as a list and is not creating a redirect. The wikitext here is no different from any other redirect I've looked at. Can anyone figure this out?

--Frogging101 (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

You used a non-breaking space instead of a normal one. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh. I copied from

WP:REDIRECT and the non-breaking space was preserved. I edited that page to remove the non-breaking spaces to prevent future mistakes. Frogging101 (talk

) 19:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I would like to help chip away at this list by converting bare URLS. Here is an example of what I converted. Did I do this correctly? Is this enough to remove the "Bare URL" notice from the top of the article? Or should this remain on the aritcle for any reason? I want to make sure I'm doing this correctly before diving in. Thank you in advance for sparing a few moments of your time. B8dreamlife (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@B8dreamlife yes, you did it right. But only remove the bare URL notice if all of the bare refs in the article are removed. Rlink2 (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate your reply, thanks. B8dreamlife (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to participate in AfD's and help out there if possible (as part of a pre-req too for NPP rights). Can anyone tell me where I would find a list of AfD's that I could participate in those discussions? TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

All of today's AfDs can be seen at

WP:DS. WikiProjects often maintain article alert systems as well. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me

 ; 22:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Moops: Or you can go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, in which the "Current discussions" subsection contains links to each day's log of open AfD's and the "Old discussions (open)" subsection contains links to more-than-seven-day-old discussions that haven't been closed yet (often because the consensus is unclear and no admin has yet been willing to make a determination). Deor (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, im currently writing up a wiki page for a graphic novel, Susanna Moodie: Roughing it in the Bush (not to be confused with Roughing it in the Bush by Susanna Moodie), and want to use an authors note at the end in the page. the co-author of the book, Patrick Crowe, states his reasons for continuing the work after Carol Shields (the other authors) Death, as well as how the graphic novel came into being. Would it be appropriate to cite this in the article, or should i move on.

There is also a website made specifically for the book, and im unsure as to wether i can cite this either, ive added a link to it here HistVa (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @HistVa. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for your rather challenging question. I can't see from your contributions where you have been working on this wiki page. I assume you've done this offline?

My understanding from your question (and from some quick browser searches) is that you want to write an Wikipedia article about a novel inspired by the life of

External Links section. It will have been written/produced by the authors and thus overtly promotional, and not appropriate for citing directly. Just a link should suffice. Does that make any sense? Nick Moyes (talk

) 00:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I realise my first post was a little brief so ill explain in a bit more detail.

I want to write a wiki article on a graphic novel by Carol Shields and Patrick Crowe. the graphic novel is titled "Susanna Moodie: Roughing it in the Bush", and is based on the life story of Susanna Moodie, focusing mainly on the part of her life covered by her own traditional novel, which is also called "Roughing it in the Bush" (It is a quite confusing naming scheme). They are two seperate works by seperate authors, and it is a fully published and printed graphic novel. I feel it meets notability criteria, as Carol Shields is a pulitzer prize winning author. the remaining authors reason for publishing the book is quite important, as it was actually released some time after Carol Shields death and was in part written in memorium of her. The only place i can find this described is within the book itself, in an Authors Note at the end HistVa (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:GNG about what sources meet that standard.Sungodtemple (talk

) 00:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

thanks, will look around some more HistVa (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

There's an article called Global Recognition that has poor writing, the sources are bad news articles and blog posts, and it's an orphan article. I read through the guidelines for content deletion but I'm not sure if these criteria are sufficient.

@

ping me when replying

14:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@

Pseudnaxalbari is referring to Global regionalization instead. Jolly1253 (talk

) 15:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

yes I am talking about Global regionalization. Sorry!

talk

) 15:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@

ping me when replying

15:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Should we flag it as such, then? In the template message?

talk

) 17:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@

ping me when replying

05:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

No I'll try to do it myself

talk

) 07:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm looking at the page for a city and some of the notable people listed were not born there and they didn't grow up there. Is it anyone who was notable and lived in the city for a certain amount of time? Thank you for your help, Tovanish (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Tovanish Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, those sections of articles about cities are for anyone associated with the city, be it being born there or some other type of connection. If you feel a person shouldn't be listed in such a section, please discuss it on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree this gets silly for professional athletes. Shaquille O'Neal played one season with the Boston Celtics, and Sudbury, Massachusetts (a Boston suburb) claims him as a notable resident for the year he lived there. David notMD (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Please, what template do I use in citing a PDF? Thanks. — Python Drink (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC) Python Drink (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not the format that matters, it's what it's a PDF of. If it's a PDF of an article in a journal, user {{Cite journal}}; if it's a PDF of a book, use {{Cite book}}; etc. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

And note that, unless the PDF is the only place that this is published, you are not "citing the PDF": you are citing the article, book, chapter or whatever, with the important information like title, date, author, publisher. As a non-essential convenience, you are also providing a link to where the text can be found online. ColinFine (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

educated low road high stream to mid over e equals MC squared unmetered web portal firewall not found occupied resident. Future direction would be?.. 174.214.50.120 (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

If you have a question about using Wikipedia, feel free to ask it. -- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I made my first article some weeks ago and I started a page on a local person who died not long ago but my sandbox has a "re-direct" message. Can I delete this? what is it? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:B%27art_homme/sandbox&redirect=no

Thank you

Barthomme

b'art homme 15:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B'art homme (talk • contribs)

I just removed it. When you moved your sandbox to article space last time, it left a redirect that you didn't remove when starting this draft. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, so I'm currently working on an article for Roblox Studio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Slo44/Roblox_Studio). There is already an existent redirect which goes to Roblox#Roblox_Studio.

I am planning on submitting my article to AfC later today, but what would happen if it gets accepted? Would this override the redirect page?

Also any feedback on my article would be appreciated, thanks! slo double 4 (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Assuming it was accepted as opposed to declined as redundant with the article on Roblox itself, it would overwrite the redirect. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 17:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. slo double 4 (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there a template I should be using for lists of works and essays? Should this be in reverse chronological order? In bullets? I have seen many different formats. Is there a prescribed way we should follow? If so, I'll fix everything I come across to that format. I would argue for reverse chronological, as that is much easier to read and update. Thank you LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:CHRONO. They should be in chronological order in an encyclopedia. StarryGrandma (talk

) 22:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@LoveElectronicLiterature Whilst @StarryGrandma has correctly pointed you to guidance on how we order events (from earliest to latest) in an article, it might also be worth me pointing you to the last sub-section of this advice about Single article bibliographies from the WikiProject on Bibliographies. Bulleted lists are recommended. Tables could be used but, to be frank, they are a lot harder to edit and to update. You could choose either alphabetical or chronological order. Your choice may depend what your are trying to achieve by including that list of works. I don't recommend reverse chronological order - stick to earliest significant work first, then later significant works after that. Adding new works to the end is a simple task, and doing it that way best shows the subject's development of their publishing/writing achievements. Putting their latest work first is not a good idea, in my opinion. Don't include everything; a select list of carefully chosen bibliographic works is far better than a CV-type list of every little thing that they've ever done. Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. As I edit articles, I will reorder for the chronological order, first works first. I will also try to use bullets--I agree that tables are hard to edit. Are there specific templates for punctuation? I have seen many forms. Is this correct:

• Title, YEAR, any other information

@Nick Moyes LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

That format is quite common, yes. You could use citation templates, for example {{Cite book}}, {{Citation}}, or {{Vcite book}}. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I was using wikipedia a long time ago but forgot my password. could you please help me for this. I requested email to change password, but didn't receive any. 2001:1970:47DE:B700:0:0:0:DC57 (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Nobody on Wikipedia's end has access to your account password. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

How can I reset my password? 2001:1970:47DE:B700:0:0:0:DC57 (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

My username is: Rigolettoopera 2001:1970:47DE:B700:0:0:0:DC57 (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Rigolettoopera has not stored a password mail address in the account (this is optional). If you don't remember the password then you have to create a new account. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You mean email address? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

humming bird 119.18.29.116 (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the teahouse! With questions like these, please use google, the wikipedia page for them or (for more compicated questions that you can't find the answer to) you can ask the reference desk. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I've tried creating a page - Draft:2022 Memphis 901 FC season

i got a response back from a reviewer saying that "This draft has no references. Notability cannot be established without references." but I have references? I'm confused as to what I am missing. Tivo15 (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:2022 Memphis 901 FC season is the link to the draft. Karenthewriter (talk

) 03:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I think this might have been automatic, based on the "unreferenced" tag. I've removed it. -- asilvering (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Asilvering @Tivo15 None of the current references are independent, all are published by the subject itself or close associates, thus they are of no use at all to prove the notability of the subject. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The references might be poor, but they're not entirely absent, which is what the "unreferenced" tag means and what the reviewer comment said. -- asilvering (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I made a correction based on fact to the bio of Sergei Bortkiewicz which was rejected because the mediator considered it "unconstructive".The extract i corrected was From 1904 until 1914, Bortkiewicz continued to live in Berlin but spent his summers visiting his family in Ukraine. Since Ukraine did not exist until 1917, this is historically totally incorrect. Why therefore was my edit rejected ? 79.143.132.145 (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

ukraine, geographically.

ping me when replying

05:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for wanting to help improve Wikipedia. Your edit was unconstructive because it inserted an editorial comment into the article

WP:BRD for how this works. ColinFine (talk

) 13:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

how about "in what is now Ukraine"? DS (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That sounds much better. David10244 (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It is a Tribe Draft Article. This is main purpose of We, the Santals are one of the largest homogeneous tribal communities of India, counting more than 10 million people. Apart from India, Santals live in the neighbouring countries, in Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan. Despite this geographical distance, Santals share the same language, cultural tradition and values. Santals’ social and religious system is very complex and complete in itself. Each village has five representatives who are selected by the village community through consensus to run the village. They are ‘Manjhi baba’ the headman, ‘Jog Manhi’ the assistant-headman, Naike, the priest, Paranik the youth guide, and Godet, the convener. All kinds of disputes, including any family and personal problems, are discussed in the village meetings and are settled through common consent. Golmala (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You need to submit your draft for review. Theroadislong (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

It appears you mean move your draft to mainspace, not remove your draft to mainspace. As Theroadislong advised, the proper path is to submit your draft to the reviewing process. David notMD (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Golmala What the draft is about is confusing. Is it about a Youtube channel? If yes, then all the content about the Santal people does not belong in the article. David notMD (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@

notable enough to merit a separate article. Mike Turnbull (talk

) 14:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Golmala Encyclopedia articles should not use the word "we". Also, curly quotes. David10244 (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Recently some fellow by the name of Chronikhiles has been making edits to several Hindu religion pages, adding artwork of various mythic figures; see Tarakamaya War,Rukmavati,Diti and several others. These images appear to be AI generated original artwork created by the user themself. I do not believe this is allowed, but I want to make sure before I start trying to revert the affected pages. Additionally, if such a thing is not admissible, I humbly request that someone with moderation powers talk to this user so that they stop making such edits. 174.45.253.17 (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

They are AI generated, yes, and released differently, according to the policies of the AI generator websites that were used to generate them. These pictures were generated by the Deep AI website and the Neural love website, and have been released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license according to this license the and policies of the first website, and under the CC0 license - public domain - as authorised by the second website. I do not believe that I am in violation of WP:IUP, but if I am, I am willing to comply with the removal of these images. Chronikhiles (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe you that the relevant images are admissible under copyright. However, your images appear to violate Wikipedia:No original research on the basis of "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments." As most of your artwork depicts mythological figures which have no likeness in historical artwork, they do not fall under the image policy and are thus subject to removal. StatersCollegeTagers (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

As editors, we have a natural pride in our work, whether it's writing, photography, or image-making. But the needs of our readers, and the importance of producing an accurate, well-balanced article must come first. Illustrations should follow the same rules as the text: they are there to inform the reader about the subject. It is appropriate to put pictures of historical artifacts, locations, important figures, pre-existing representations of deities, etc. in articles. This isn't really a copyright issue, it's a matter of which illustration serves the reader best. I'm afraid I feel strongly that these replacements weaken the article. Elemimele (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yup. Images like at Tara (Hindu goddess) can be used, but editor's own depictions are not WP-good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming that image is an "actual" statue and not something specifically designed for the giftshop. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Apparently there are more of these on en-WP. @Theroadislong, other interested, any thoughts on how to proceed? Chronikhiles, fwiw, I don't think there's anything wrong with you putting these on Commons, assuming they are your own work like you stated there and not someone elses. Commons have uses outside WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Noted. If this is indeed the consensus, I will remove the images from Wikipedia articles, retaining them in Commons. I find that some of the images I had included have already been removed, so if other editors also wish to take them down yourselves, you're welcome to do so. Chronikhiles (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I think would be good if you removed them yourself. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The AI generated images have been removed. Chronikhiles (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

And the ones like Bhoothath Alvar? The same reasoning applies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The pictures I've included in the Alvars articles do not fall under this same reasoning, so I must ask you to hear me out. For one, these are historical figures, not mythological. These are images clicked from a modern copy of an actual religious text, whose content revolves around the works of these poet-saints; They are not my depictions, and are published in print according to the author's rendering of these figures. The illustrations are faithful, as they inform the reader regarding the attributes these poet-saints are associated with, as well some of their religious legends. I believe they are as valid as the image of Tara that you mentioned. Chronikhiles (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

If they are not your depictions, why does [1] state "own work"? You can not upload other people's work on Commons as your own. If they are not released under a proper license, or in the public domain, they can't be there. And if they are, "own work" must be corrected. (Ping to @Marchjuly if you feel like commenting.) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's much more that I can add here. If the images are 100% the uploader's

WP:FFD since there's not much that can be done to resolve them here at the Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 07:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I also ask you some info regarding the system of the Redirect page. The new article is about a company, but it has the same name of a cyclist (Mario Ghella). How can it works in this case? I think that the system consider the new page connected to Mario Ghella, but they have just the name in common.

Thank you! Ddanielff (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

If your draft is accepted for publication, the reviewer should resolve any ambiguity, either by using a

hatnotes. - David Biddulph (talk

) 09:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Can I literally just change one word at the moment in the piece - the wording is wrong, I'm convinced. Should be appearances 'off the bench' not 'on the bench' surely? I did have an interest in this article because of his involvement in the FIFA World Cup. I just want to check first before I touch anything because he is quite a high profile player? PeachyBum07 (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I actually think technically it's right after all, reading through it again Phil Foden - Wikipedia PeachyBum07 (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

What is the name of this template? Something better, what's the name of all templates like this? Oixyplanet (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Oixyplanet: Hello. It is generally called as hatnote. There are quite a few variations, you can find detailed information at Wikipedia:Hatnote. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, maybe Template:About. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that the list of links in and out of articles on the English wikipedia currently has many links that are not actualy in the article. As an example: the article

I noticed the same sort of issue for all articles about clothing. Like Raincoat supposedly links to Jeans, while it doesn't.

Teunduynstee (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Teunduynstee This is an artefact of the use of {{Clothing}} template, for example, in the Raincoat article and the Carnivora one on the Polar bear article. That's where all the links are contained that aren't in the main article's text. There is a search you can use to find "real" links but I forget the technicalities. I'm sure someone else will reply in a bit.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I remember now. Go to the "what links here" page for the article and tick "hide transclusions". Then the links that are left are the article-to-article links only. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC) No, that's not the correct way to do it!

I see. So it is intentional. All articles using one of those templates link to all others. I don't quite see the value of that compared to using a Category, but maybe I just don't understand the use case. But is there a way to get only the direct links from the API? Teunduynstee (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

These are the sorts of questions that PrimeHunter normally answers in a flash. Hopefully, he'll do so now. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Teunduynstee: You may try searching for a specific wikilink code in the article body with a regular expression:

insource:/\[\[[Pp]olar bear/

→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%2F%5C%5B%5C%5B%5BPp%5Dolar+bear%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1

Be aware regex search may be time-consuming, so you may need to wait for a result, or even not get it at all due to HTTP timeout.

--CiaPan (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Teunduynstee Ah! Yes, now I remember it properly. You can prevent the timeout by combining the regex search with a conventional one. For example in this case the articles that link to Polar bear will have the word "bear" so insource:"bear" insource:/\[\[[Pp]olar bear/ should always be fast. In fact it gives 182 hits Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Your search link (not the displayed search text) includes </code> so there are too few hits. @Teunduynstee: User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js makes the link Source links under "Tools" on Polar bear. I think you also have to make a search to find source links with the API. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Duh. Trust me to give the wrong right answer! 1,245 hits it is, then. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

My script uses

linksto: to efficiently narrow the search space from the start. Without this, the search may time out and give no or too few results. PrimeHunter (talk

) 19:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

That is awesome, this should be enough for me to solve my issue. Thanks all! Teunduynstee (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Title. Would "the Vanderbilt family was one of America's richest families" be appropriate? Ricciardo Best (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ricciardo Best Yes, the word is commonly used like that. "William Jefferson Clinton (né Blythe III; born August 19, 1946) is an American politician"/"Robert Hartley was America's first consumer advocate" etc. There are people who consider this use wrong but it's still the way it's commonly used. Context matters and there may be times when other wording works too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, My recent Article Draft Declined On Praveen K bangari Indian Cinematographer, Stating that "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's

can u help me to re edit this article< how to improve it to get approved and get in standards of Wikipedia, Thank You Bangariblue (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I have tidied it up to be more compliant with

notability criteria which is currently fails. Someone might come along and give a helping hand, but as we are all volunteers here and there are millions of articles and thousands of drafts, they might not turn up very soon.  Velella  ^Velella

Talk   15:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@

covers him in some depth. It is unlikely that anyone other than you will put in the effort to find such sources and without them the article will never be accepted. Mike Turnbull (talk

) 15:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I am seeing that some people are using a tag called "Twinkle" when they undo other people's changes. How do I get this tag? Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @

WP:TWINKLE is a javascript gadget that you can install. See the link for details. 199.208.172.35 (talk

) 15:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you good sir. You appear to be logged out. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ghost of Kiev, yes, I am certainly logged out. Please get out of the habit of addressing folks as "sir" by default - I recognize that you're trying to be police polite, but I am not a sir. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry comrade. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Ghost of Kiev for future reference, if you see an IP here that has a Whois relating to the Navy it is this person. They edit as an IP which is their choice. To my knowledge they don't have an account. (on Discord they are known as Tarlonniel(?) tho they may just prefer to be referred to as an IP here) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Folks are welcome to call me that if they like (technically I suppose I am User:Tarlonniel - I created that account years ago, no email attached, never used it and forgot the password), but I'm fine with whatever other designations folks come up with. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Never knew you actually created an account. That would explain the name. I'll probably refer to you as both Tarlonniel and as just "IP" ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this knowledge. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I see this in Dene Grigar's article: NEH But it reads as NEH only, and people may not understand that? What is the proper citation form for acronyms? Is there a style sheet I am missing? Thank you LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The relevant part of the Manual of Style is

MOS:ACRO1STUSE. - David Biddulph (talk

) 18:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

What we see in Dene Grigar is "NEH", coloured as a link, so that if a reader doesn't know what it means, they can click on it and find out. That seems fine to me. Maproom (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

 Sumancranebuddy21q00 (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing this refers to List of highest-grossing films in India, and is about some of the figures being listed as estimates. But the "estimation" was added three years ago in this edit, Somancranebuddy21q00. In any case an estimated figure does not mean it is fake. ColinFine (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I just want to know that is box-office collections in india are all fake ?

Hi Sumancranebuddy21q00, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid your question is very unclear. Who wrote that the box office numbers are fake, and where? Can you provide a link? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Sumancranebuddy21q00, "estimated" is not a synonym for "fake". They are very different concepts. Cullen328 (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello friends,

I copy edited Slow Money, but when reading the article I got the feeling that the company is not all that important. I'm not sure that they should have a Wikipedia page. What is the way to get an article deleted? Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@

Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. It looks like a lot, but really all you have to do is add the deletion template to the article and then click the red link to create a deletion page. Thebiguglyalien (talk

) 17:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this knowledge. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:TWINKLE. Sungodtemple (talk

) 22:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Sungodtemple. Thank you for responding. I installed Twinkle earlier today and it works very well! Ghost of Kiev (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

HI, I just got this email. I can easily provide identification, but this just seems off to me. Was this really sent by wikipedia? And yes, I do have an article in wikipedia, but that is because I love my field and I have been active in it for over 35 years. I do not and will not edit my own article. I am leading a group to help clarify and extend the articles in my field. Thanks for your verification on this.

Here is the email I got. As your user page claims the identity of someone who has an article, please verify your identity by sending proof to [email protected] This is to prevent impersonation, so please take care of this in a timely manner. Slywriter (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC) LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter: Pinging Sly since they are mentioned. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a legitimate message, but Slywriter, this is only usually an issue if they attempt to edit about themselves and/or have their name as their username. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

331dot, review the wikiproject they have created which includes in the list their article and is how I noticed. So, while they can say they will never edit their article, the wikiproject is directly related to their former profession and includes themselves in the scope. Also don't think we should be leaving user pages as a backdoor to claiming an identity of a notable person without verification, though if policy disagree there then so be it. Slywriter (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I am still in my field. I have wanted to update wikipedia for years, as my field is sorely underrepresented in wikipedia. We have about 15 folks in our field who are busy collating references, etc. Finally, I retired from my full time, 60 hour a week paying job, and now I have time to devote to this project (as well as writing my next book). I have been working with senior wikipedians, who have been extremely helpful and kind, to develop a project page where many people can help edit articles in my field.

What proof would you require for who I am and how would I provide that to the Powers That Be without providing any private information on a public channel?

Thank you LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:VRT (via email), not over any public channel. But it's not required from you at present by any of our policies. 199.208.172.35 (talk

) 15:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

THank you. I did respond via email and I did put a conflict of interest statement on my user page, noting that I am not paid or compensated in any way, but I have been in the field for over 30 years. LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

LoveElectronicLiterature, sorry to have alarmed you. The message was posted to your user talk page, not an email (though I assume Wikipedia sent email notification about the posting). There may be a difference of opinion on whether verification is actually needed but I'd still take the position it is better to establish now, rather than have it questioned down the line when someone takes issue with an edit and sees a gotcha moment. Slywriter (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

You might want to use less authoritative-sounding phrasing when there could be a difference of opinion involved. I found this Talk message extremely creepy, and it wasn't even directed at me! I've received obvious phishing emails that raised fewer alarm bells. -- asilvering (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Um, is this directed at me or at Slywriter? I can use a less authoritative sounding message as well... I do want to be a respected member of wikipedia and follow all guidelines. Thank you for any advice you can give me to help our project succeed. LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Asilvering LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@LoveElectronicLiterature: Hello. I believe Asilvering's comment was direct at Slywriter :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, kiran is right, I was replying to Slywriter. -- asilvering (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I has a question in receiving permission to edit the Toronto Blue Jays page. There is a notice that only semi-protected accounts may edit this page, and based on the information I have found thus far I have semi-protected status. I wanted to know the correct protocol on how to go about asking for the correct permissions or if there is another preferred avenue for editing pages like that. Below is the notice from the page:

"Note: This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse. 01:48, 10 April 2018 Courcelles talk contribs protected Toronto Blue Jays [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) (Persistent vandalism) (hist) (thank) View full log"

Thank you, Datsa54 (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:SEMI to find out more about semi-protected articles. Jolly1253 (talk

) 04:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This is quite embarrasing to say, but i made a typo in a draft article typo, and cannot for the life of me work out how to change it. Could someone please let me know how? thanks HistVa (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

i just made another typo in the question on a typo, i meant

"I made a typo in the TITLE of a draft article" HistVa (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

HistVa, view your mistitled draft. Look for the option "Move". This means "Retitle". Move the item from Draft:Something to Draft:Somethingelse. If you don't see the "Move" option or are unable to move your draft, then say here what the title is and what it should be, and somebody here will move it for you. -- Hoary (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Looked for quite a bit but I couldnt find it. I'll link the article, the title should be "Susanna Moodie: Roughing it in the Bush"

Draft:Susanna Moodie: Roughing in in the Bush HistVa (talk

) 04:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Messed up a bit, but I think it should be fine. Jolly1253 (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 AuthoritarianismRules56 (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @

Welcome to Wikipedia! echidnaLives - talk - edits

01:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

AuthoritarianismRules56, an alarmingly high percentage of your edits have been reverted. Authoritarianism doesn't rule here; but even if an edit seems (or is) well-intentioned, if it seems to damage an article, it will be reverted. -- Hoary (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:UP. Is this worth worrying about? David10244 (talk

) 08:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, David10244, now fixed. -- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary Thanks. David10244 (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Can i use the same citations of another language? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@

reliable. → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ

→ 10:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Thehistorianisaac, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question is not very clear: what do you mean by "The same sources"? As darklight says, you may use reliable non-English sources; but (as

WP:NONENG says) you should use English sources if they are available. I can see no reason to use both an English and a non-English version of the same source (if that's what you mean by "the same"). ColinFine (talk

) 10:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I have created a my company Wikipedia page and it got deleted under Speedy Deletion with the code CSD G10. I have created a detailed content with may referebces and Wikipedia is saying that it is a promotional content. Now if we are creating a brand page, it is going to be promotional. We need to talk about details and history of brand.

My competitor has Wikipedia page and they are even mentioning lesser content than us. I don't understand how their page is live from years and mine got deleted. Will be thankful if someone can guide me on how to create a company page that does not look promotional and survive on Wikipedia. 202.14.120.58 (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

G10 means that your page was an attack page.

you do not own the Wikipedia page on your company. If it is promotional, it will be deleted in due time. Ray

04:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. This is your only edit from this IP address. Are you editing logged out from your account? If so, what is your username? What is the precise name of the article that got deleted? When you write my company Wikipedia page, that indicates that you have a fundamentally incorrect understanding of what Wikipedia is all about. We do not have "company pages". Instead, we have neutrally written encyclopedia articles about

Policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk

) 05:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The only way that type of article could get a G10 (rather than a G11 which it otherwise would have had) is if it was used to attack said competitor. Did it include any sort of content that could be interpreted as defamatory?Zorya's Leshak▲ (-10.0) 06:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, please provide that article title for the competitor, so that it can be reviewed. If it does not meet current standards for Wikipedia (older articles often do not), then it either needs to be improved or nominated for deleton. David notMD (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

ping

me when replying) 13:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Roost IP users cannot be pinged. However, I have left a talkback message at the talk page of the IP editor. Jolly1253 (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

For everyone's reference, this user is blocked; they've been advised on the -en-help IRC channel that they need to start by requesting an unblock before anything else. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Is there someone who can update the Pebble Beach Resorts page? They have added new features (noted on their website) including Fairway One accommodations, Casa Palmero renovation, Sloat (a new accommodations building) and The Hay, a redesigned golf course. I am connected to the resort and, therefore, am unable to take this on. The website is pebblebeach.com. Thank you. Mgendronaugustyn (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The place for a request is on the article's talk page, but you'll need to include references to reliable sources independent of the subject. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Mgendronaugustyn (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, All: I have metaverse concept sites (#twelve22vr) on LinkedIn and Facebook. I am impressed by the PV (impression) counts on LinkedIn; however, I cannot access Facebook personal profile data. I heavily use links to drive traffic to Wikipedia, worldwide. Is there a way to access and analyze web logs to gather referrer information?

Thank you in advance, Courtney @CourtneySCalhoun (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:PVS. However, I doubt whether anyone cares about referrer information since Wikipedia is not trying to monetise anything. It relies on donations but currently is not short of money. Mike Turnbull (talk

) 12:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, Mr. Turnbull.

Depending upon the outcome of my experiment, additional donations are forthcoming. :-) CourtneySCalhoun (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I was trying to add these two colors (#E59866 and #aed6f1) to the list related to the latest episode of this show, since on its official youtube account two performances are listed as both 4k and exclusive stages. I tried to add both, but only the first one appears, what can I do? Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

P.S: I don't know why my previous edit got partially hidden from the page history, along with other edits Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bloomingbyungchan, don't worry about it - someone else posted something which had to be removed, and when that happens, all revisions in-between have to be removed as well. You did nothing wrong. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I am a NH resident who has been using wikipedia for a LONG time. I love how the convenience of a physical encyclopedia is at the tips of my fingers and I can gather information about ANY subject in a matter of seconds. With the "death" of my home state's great icon (The old Man in the Mountain) almost 2 decades ago, I was extremely surprised there is NO MENTION on a second great geological pheneomenon that represents a man's face only a few miles away. This granite formation is called "Indian Head" and is widely known throughout the area, yet NO mention on wikipedia. Here is a website that offers basic info: https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/indian-head. I would like to see a page created for this wonderful natural phenomenon, but have no idea on how to do so. Xanman2112 (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

Notable and therefore eligible for a Wikipedia article. It is not a reliable source. So, it is up to you to find higher quality sources if you want to see an article about this rock formation on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk

) 06:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you... I have removed the reference. Xanman2112 (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:GNG. This one [2] looks useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 09:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd prefer to just stick to the profile instead of the mountain it sits upon. I created a draft and submitted for review. Xanman2112 (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

COURTESY: Draft:Indian Head. (So that Teahouse hosts who are curious can view it.) David notMD (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@

And I've created a redirect from

Indian Head (New Hampshire) to the Mount Pemigewasset article. I think any further information about the "face" formation can be added to that article. Deor (talk

) 16:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Ping @Deor, if you have any recommendation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

See above. We apparently edited here at the same time, and I, at least, didn't encounter an edit conflict. Deor (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Me neither. Modern technology. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I made contributions to the page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Nepal_relations#Trade I found two sources that mention different numbers for the amount of electricity that has been authorised to sell. One link mentions 400MW - https://kathmandupost.com/national/2022/11/15/nepal-reduces-power-export-to-india-as-production-dips Another link mentions 364MW - https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/nepal-starts-exporting-364-mw-electricity-to-india/article65516780.ece

What should I do in such a conflict of data? Thank you. ANLgrad (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

If the two sources appear equally reliable, then you should give both numbers, cited to the appropriate source, and leave it to the reader to decide how they want to resolve the conflict. Note that if you round 364MW to 1 significant figure you get 400MW (I have no idea whether that is the issue here). ColinFine (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@ColinFine thanks for always helping out. I initially thought exactly what you mentioned, that 400MW was a rounded up figure. But, since it's an authorised amount, it should be a specific number. I will try doing more research to see what is the exact amount. I am sure it has to be specified somewhere. Otherwise, I will follow your suggestion and include both the numbers with their respective sources. Thank you. ANLgrad (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there a lot of room for discussion around band wipipedia requirements still? I have a band entry that I took some time to find references for. While some references are from online magazines - but general ones like metal.com etc... - I keep getting the rejection reason: not sure if it qualifies for WP:BAND

Band has a ton of requirements but says "one of the following" should be sufficient.

This band "Seven Spires" has two studio albums on Frontiers Music and I linked to the band and both albums on that label's site.

The label currently manages a lot of artists that I would think qualify as well known enough to qualify this record label as major enough. They have Def Leppard among other acts and I showed the links to the reviewers.

Reviewers are not calling out any particular references as lacking credibility.

Some of the references are of course from the creative work of the band itself, but these are not the ones that I'm trying to use to substantiate that the article should exists, just ones that a user can use for convenience if they're interested in looking at the band's work. I don't think this is entirely an uncommon practice either as long as it's not the reference meant to substantiate the existence of the article. Dullb0yj4ck (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Seven Spires Jolly1253 (talk

) 09:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

A better try might be to provide GNG-compliant sources. Right now, the draft contains this and that album reviews that probably qualify. (This is an interview hence not independent, and that contains fairly little content about Seven Spires so it’s not in-depth.) If you can find a third source of the same or superior quality, that would probably put any concerns to rest.

Furthermore, you should make sure that the article accurately reflects the sources it is based upon. the band's albums have received strong reviews in particular for their vocal performances is a very partial reading of that review - it contains some negative content, as well. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I was indeed surprised also that the top Google results were all in Germany until I realized that I'm browsing here - I vpn to US on default most of the time. Searching for "Seven Spires Reviews" actually turns up so many results - all of them seem positive - that I don't quite understand why we don't just link that =) At any rate, I did add some references and the most recent reviewer answered that they agree that this particular band meets criterion 5 and the references overall are substantial now. Dullb0yj4ck (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello! How are shutdown (closed) my old account

Hi @СтасС, welcome to the Teahouse. There is no way to "shut down" an old account; you can put a note on the old user page saying that it's no longer in use, and add a link to your new account, if you wish. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I need to talk with wiki-admins or moderators. СтасС (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

How are closed my old account

User:123FM?--СтасС (talk

) 16:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@СтасС, administrators can block accounts (there are no moderators here) - is that what you're asking to be done? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@199.208.172.35, yes, it is.--СтасС (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@

blocks. But perhaps an admin will come along to weigh in on the subject. 199.208.172.35 (talk

) 17:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@wolf, 199.208.172.35 (talk), done, thank you everyone!--СтасС (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Is it very possible to download all of these articles as PDF? Does it happen on all of these content pages?

If so or not, would you like to give me reasons why I should download all articles as PDF? -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:DD9D:F980:1B2C:6117 (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You can download any page as a pdf file using the link located in the menubar at the left. Ruslik_Zero 20:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

What about all of these articles? -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:DD9D:F980:1B2C:6117 (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Which articles? The English Wikipedia includes 6,578,609 articles and it averages 563 new articles per day. It would not be practical to download them all. Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_University_of_Idaho_killings there is an error.

The Latah County Coroner did not do the autopsies. The bodies were sent to Spokane County, where the autopsies were conducted. The Latah County Coroner reported on the findings. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2022/nov/17/medical-examiner-completes-autopsies-of-four-slain/

Could this information be updated? Thank you. 134.39.169.218 (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The best place to make this request is the talk page of the article. Maproom (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Has anybody noticed that the recent promotions section at

@Vortex3427: both the articles you mention were recently moved. The bot which updates the recent GA list (User:LivingBot) doesn't seem to check whether an article title which newly appears in the list of GAs was previously listed under another title, so it gets confused when an article is moved. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm relatively new and went a bit overboard with my edits to a page which has serious POV issues, however my edits were poorly thought-through, overly editorialised, and just as POV as the article itself. As such they were understandably reverted. Following feedback I've gone for a more relaxed, incremental approach. I proposed a new edit that's limited to one paragraph, more neutral and better-sourced. I was just wondering how long it is customary to leave such a proposal up on the talk page for comment before implementing it, assuming no objections obviously. The article is Firehose of falsehood and the proposed edit discussion is at Talk:Firehose of falsehood#Specific Edit Proposal for Lead Paragraph. Thanks! ShabbyHoose (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse @ShabbyHoose! I would leave it for about a week. It might be worth leaving notes on the relevant WikiProject talk pages if it's a larger edit (which in this case looks like WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Media and WikiProject Politics), but it's up to you. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 23:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC).

Thank you @EchidnaLives! Appreciate it :) ShabbyHoose (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I recently created the article Me and My Dysphoria Monster without a cover image, and I just noticed that a user recently added a cover image to the page. I followed the link the Commons location of the image, and saw that it was uploaded under CC BY-SA 4.0. I'm certain the image is copyrighted!

Since the image is a low-quality, however, I think it is still fair-use, but I don't know how to update the license on commons / which to use etc. to indicate this.

I have to catch a plane soon so unfortunately I don't have time to look up what to do, hence why I'm making a post here.

Could someone please make the appropriate license adjustments? (And maybe send a friendly-ish message to the user who uploaded the image that they cannot simply upload images of other people's artwork as CC BY-SA 4.0 to Commons!)

Thanks, Neuroxic (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

Non-free images policy. I will remove the image until it is uploaded properly. Cullen328 (talk

) 01:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I Added a new tab called Article list to the Template:Code for Africa Climate Change Project but this does not show on the view page, I would be grateful if I get assistance. Thank you. Jwale2 (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jwale2, the best place to ask questions about meta is on meta - they have a forum here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Jwale2 (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I want that title of my userpage will look like this "𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️", for that I have done many efforts like I inserted this template Template:DISPLAYTITLE but I didn't worked so can anyone help me to change my title without changing address of my userpage. Thanks ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ 04:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@LordVoldemort728: Try using a colon (:) instead of a pipe (|) per the template instructions. Also the title needs to match your userpage, so you may need to do something with wikimarkup such as {{DISPLAYTITLE::User:'''LordVoldemort728'''}}. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Can I add "🧙‍♂️" in the title. If yes so how? ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ 05:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@LordVoldemort728: You might try it with the raw HTML entity codes, but I doubt it will work. The username characters in the template must match your username. An emoji is a character that doesn't exist in your username.

I suggest also, if you have a custom signature, to include a talk page link in it. That's where most people will go to communicate with you. Few will want to look at your user page unless they are curious to learn more; you shouldn't force people to go there first. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk} ! 05:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

SCP – Containment Breach: Revision history - Wikipedia / Or just search scp containment breach and look at view history.

This is because on sources. "Another enemy faction to the Foundation that causes these breaches is a group only known as the Chaos Insurgency (a faction made up of rouge members of a taskforce known as the Red Right Hand." The original was staff/personnel, but I replaced it with members of a taskforce known as the Red Right Hand which there is evidence on scp wiki dot. This person says that I needed a source for that, but I don't recall there being one for the staff/personnel. Even if I could I do not know how. can somebody help PugAngel 11 (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The SCP wiki wouldn't be a valid source here. It may take inspiration from the wiki, but it does not mean the lore is the same as the official SCP wiki lore. It may just be staff/personnel who defected in this game's lore. You have to collect

reliable sources showing proof that they are, in fact, Red Right Hand members that defected. Ray

04:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

How do I do that aka showing reliable sources PugAngel 11 (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, PugAngel 11. How can anyone here comment when you do not provide a wikilink to the article in question? I guess you expect other editors to search your edit history instead of being clear with us. Cullen328 (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not know how i also am quiting for the foreseeable future PugAngel 11 (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, I have searched your edit history and I guess this has to do with the page about a horror video game called SCP – Containment Breach. I truly have no idea under the sun why anybody would waste their time arguing about this gameplay section. This is not Reddit or 4Chan. And this "lore" commentary by another editor is equally mystifying. This is a neutrally written, well referenced encyclopedia. It is not a place for video game fans to argue with each other. Cullen328 (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

could you stopp replieing its no point i quit for now for hopefully a long while so don't replie to me. the notifications are annoying PugAngel 11 (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I was asking for the editor to collect sources to help his claim about the chaos insurgency and whatnot. I asked him to look for stuff that actually corresponds to what he is saying. I'm not a fan of this game; I haven't even played it. Ray 06:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

okay? well that dude i argued with he sucks PugAngel 11 (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi all! I have been staring at the 21st century in literature page for the last ten minutes to better drive myself up a wall. I think the page does not need to exist, or at least exist in its current format of listing Nobel Prize winners and a seemingly random selection of almost entirely Western books, particularly when a [year] in literature page exists for every single year covered in this article. By contrast, 21st century in poetry is just a gathering of said links (already gathered in a template box but okay) and does not have any mentions of specific poetic works.

I'm torn between a WP:BOLD prod nomination (sorry inclusionists) or revising it to be more like the poetry page, or neither! Any suggestions and help would be appreciated, I just know I don't want to leave it as it is! Kazamzam (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Whoa. This page hurts to look at. Is it a disambiguation, or an article, or a list? I would go with AfD, as that could get some eyes on it and it could end up being improved, but a PROD would probably be fine. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 23:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC).

It's also strongly biased. It lists about 20 works of literature, every one of them in English. Maproom (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I made a wikipedia draft for the articles

NotOrrio (talk) 02:39 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@NotOrrio I'm not sure that the News and One Event links are relevant.

But, do encyclopedias need articles about bus routes? Should every bus route in every city in the world have an article here? Who will keep all of that information updated? Should we include the fares? We could go even further, adding the average ridership, the model of the bus itself, the name of the usual bus driver, and so on.

No... I think the web site of the local tourist bureau or visitor's center, or just a web search engine, is a much better place for people to find this kind of information. I don't think any of this belongs in an encyclopedia, but that's just my opinion. Although,

WP:NOT says "Wikipedia does not aim to contain all knowledge" . David10244 (talk

) 08:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you missed the entire point of my question. If you arent going to answer my question do not ping me NotOrrio (talk) 09:11 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@NotOrrio I said that I didn't think the links to NOTNEWS and ONEEVENT, which came after "This submission appears to be a news report of a single event ..." were relevant, meaning I wasn't sure how they applied to your draft. That was my attempt to answer your question. Sorry if that didn't help you. I am allowed to make other comments on the draft; feel free to ignore them if you wish. David10244 (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:SIGCOV due to the lack of significant coverage. The references are not wholly independent of the subject and multiple sources are either passing mentions or just noting what places the route connects. Ray

04:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I need Dance art Admin to watch my Page. All pages what i have created about Dance sphere and Famous dancers were nominated for deletion by one user. LoveInDance (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Some kind people above gave me

this link. I hope that it helps you. Ghost of Kiev (talk)

19:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, LoveInDance, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no such thing as a "Dance art Admin": Admins have no special authority, they are just people who have been trusted to use certain tools that the rest of us don't get to use.

The fact that you have had so many drafts declined or deleted suggests that you haven't understood something fundamental about how Wikipedia works. Please study

WP:NARTIST carefully. You might also like to ask some of the people participating in WP:WikiProject Dance if they will work with you (it appears that the project itself is inactive, but some of the members may be still active). ColinFine (talk

) 20:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It's you. You have been creating articles in mainspace without going through the articles for creation creation/review process. Your articles have been either Speedy deleted, nominated for deletion or draftified. Some of those drafts subsequently submitted to AfC and Declined. Please slow down. For the articles at AfD, you have about a week to improve the articles before an Administrator makes a decision. You can also add Comments at the AfDs. David notMD (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Please pay attention to the advice you have received, including mandatory disclosure requirements. Blanking your user page is not sufficient. The articles have been nominated because you are disregarding the feedback you received. Please disclose why you're in a rush to have these in mainspace and are not respecting the process in place for new editors to improve articles in advance of publishing them. Thank you Star Mississippi 20:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The "one user" thing. Often, when a new account has a significant problem with article creation or editing, experienced editors will look at their other posts to see if similar problems exist. To the new editor, this may feel like malicious persecution. It's not. You have been advised to slow down. I will add, focus on getting one draft approved (or one AfD decided in your favor). That will be part of an education process which increases your likelihood of being more successful going forward. David notMD (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Khura14. In my judgment, you do not have adequate English language writing skills to contribute successfully here. I suggest that you focus on editing the Azerbaijani Wikipedia at least until your English skills are much better developed. Cullen328 (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Khura14 I agree about the English language fluency. All articles that I see by you do not use correct English, unfortunately. David10244 (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Can u correct them? LoveInDance (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Khura14 If most of your articles are being deleted or turned into drafts, as David notMD said, then it won't be a good use of my time to fix the wording. That's not the primary reason the articles are not being accepted; the subjects don't appear to be notable.

Also, it's a bit confusing when your username is not part of your signature. David10244 (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I've seen on several Wikipedia articles like those about extremely notorious/infamous topics like the Arab Israeli conflict and Hitler that some of these articles are "level 4 like" extended confirmed user edit protected and are related to some "Arbitration enforcement", what does that mean? Is it usually reserved for topics that cause so much heated debate between Wikipedia editors due to their inflammatory nature? Hgh1985 (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:PROTECTION as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 09:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

HELP!! How can I get Monroe Veach from Trenton, MO (1896-1986) added to Wikipedia?? On Famous Veaches / On Well Known Missourians / On Western Saddle (under Premiere Saddle Makers). See: https://shoptalk-magazine.com/2019/11/18/monroe-veach-a-ten-dollar-horse-and-a-forty-dollar-saddle/ I have plenty of stories, articles and pictures. He was a Trick Roper, Cowboy, Saddle Maker, and there were 4 VEACH Saddlery places: Trenton, MO (still going at 103 years!), Tulsa, OK, Branson, MO & Colcord, OK. Lonny M. Veach, 77, Grandson Lonnyveach (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@

edit request or reach out to some people in WikiProject Missouri or other relevant areas but you cannot "get" an article on a topic added to Wikipedia simply by wanting it or claiming its topic is notable. That's just not how it works and those claims need to be evaluated and supported by independent third parties. Kazamzam (talk

) 23:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:YFA. If the draft gets accepted as an article, and if you wanted to make any additional changes, you would then be restricted to making edit requests as @Kazamzam said. Creating a new article takes a bit of learning. Good luck. David10244 (talk

) 09:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Do we need to give source for plot section of a movie or not?? What if I have written the plot from a website; should I need to mention the source in this case? Ps103ankit (talk) 07:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:COPYPASTE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 09:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you sir for clarifying my doubt. Ps103ankit (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no financial interest. I would like to publish an article on my famous, deceased father in Law. A page for him would be a good fit for Wikipedia. Are there changes and steps to declare my conflict that would allow publication? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Edward_Eaton_Mason ParaDocs (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, ParaDocs, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, conflict of interest does not make it impossible to publish an article, but it does tend to make it harder to write the article, because it is often difficult to see whether one is writing sufficiently neutrally. Disclosure is not mandatory if there is no payment involved, but it is highly recommended, at least on the talk page of the draft or article. Please see

WP:PSCOI for a summary). ColinFine (talk

) 20:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@

Wikipedia:Golden rule for an overview of what is expected. ~Anachronist (talk

) 20:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@

verifiability of info in an article, by other readers, is a core concept in Wikipedia. If you have those sources that you can cite, great! Carry on, using the Articles for creation link that the experienced editor Anachronist gave. In case you were not aware, all of these blue words are links that contain a lot of additional information. (I see that I repeated some of what Anachronist said. Oops.) David10244 (talk

) 08:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@

notability criteria, which is the main hurdle to getting the draft accepted. Mike Turnbull (talk

) 15:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull

I would love to place a WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDEPENDENT

source list at the top of the draft. How do I

format comments in the draft document? Thank you. ParaDocs (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@

verify what you are claiming he won. Try to make their review easy! Mike Turnbull (talk

) 11:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi DavidTanCreti. In addition to the concerns raised above about the textual content of the draft, there are also issues related to the images you've uploaded to Commons that are being used in the draft. You seem to be misunderstanding some very important things about c:Commons:Licensing and copyright ownership in general. Pretty much all of your file uploads, except one, have issues that need addressing in order for them to be kept by Commons, and you can find out what these are by checking the notifications I posted at c:User talk:DavidTanCreti. You might want to take a look at c:Commons:Own work because "own work" has a very specific meaning when it comes to copyright law, and this meaning might not be familiar to you. Generally, it's the person who takes a photo who is considered to be the copyright holder of a photo; not the subject of a photo or anyone possessing a physical copy of a photo. So, "own work" would only apply to these photos if you actually were the person who originally took them. Photographing, scanning or otherwise digitalizing a photo originally taken by someone else doesn't make the original photo your "own work" and doesn't void any claim of copyright authorship held by the original photographer. In fact, in most cases, such a thing isn't even considered sufficient to generate a new copyright for your recreation. Even in cases where you're actually photographing someone else's publicly displayed creative work (e.g. a sculpture, a store signboard, a window display), you may need consider the copyright status of the original work. Bascially, you can't release someone else's work or a photograph of someone else's work under a Creative Commons license without their c:COM:CONSENT or providing evidence of a copyright transfer agreement. Image copyright can be tricky to figure out sometimes; so, if you have a specific questions about a particular file you uploaded, feel free to ask them on your Commons user talk page. Just post your question comment below the notification I added for the relevant image and I will try and answer it. Since whether the draft you're working on is ultimately accepted by English Wikipedia is not related in any way to the images being used in it, it's much better to specific details related to the your file uploads over at Commons and keep the discussion separate from what's being discussed above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I would like to ask for your help in publishing the translation for the "Porto Montenegro" page in English. The page already exists in Serbian, I translated it in English, but I can't publish it because I don't have enough experience on Wikipedia. I can only save it as a personal draft version. Vujacic99 (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

You'll find advice at

references to independent sources, & remove external links from the body text. - David Biddulph (talk

) 10:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Vujacic99, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added a header to your translated draft so that when it is ready for review you can easily submit it for review.

The fact that it exists in another Wikipedia is not sufficient to get the translation included in English Wikipedia: it must meet English Wikipedia's requirements for

referencing and notability. At present it has no independent sources at all, and so does not establish that the marina is notable according to English Wikipedia's requirements, and so it has zero changes of being accepted in its present state. ColinFine (talk

) 11:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

One other point: I see that you created your account on sr-wiki two weeks ago, and every single one of your edits both on sr-wiki and en-wiki has been on the subject of Porto Montenegro. This pattern of editing usually means that the editor has a close connection with the subject. What is your connection with Porto Montenegro? You need to read about

paid editing. ColinFine (talk

) 11:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Who may I send my article to to proofread so it doesn't go up for deletion? Feyisara99 (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

G11. Jolly1253 (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC) (Original article was deleted, draft was created later on) Jolly1253 (talk

) 10:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

For clarification, the draft

user sandbox draft at User:Feyisara99/sandbox/Rasheed. - David Biddulph (talk

) 11:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It does not need proofreading, and lack of proofreading is not a criterion for deletion. What it urgently needs is

WP:PEACOCKing. Shantavira|^{feed me}

10:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@

platform for promotion. If these conditions are met, you may resubmit the article. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits

10:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC).

 Courtesy link: Draft:Rasheed Sarumi exists, with no references. The awards are minor, and thus do not contribute to notability even if those were referenced. David notMD (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I now have references. Rifken (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

you have moved your draft to The Still Life (2007 film). This is permitted, but unwise unless you are very sure that the draft is good enough for main space. Yours is not, so I expect that somebody will shortly bounce it back to draft space. ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I say it is not good enough for main space because the referencing is a mess. Please read

WP:RS. Some of the later refernces might be valuable if they were formatted properly, but the first four are red flags saying to a reviewer "This was written by somebody who does not understand Wikipedia referencing". ColinFine (talk

) 18:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Is my account eligible for creating a new article? Santhini Sekar (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

neutral point of view), and it takes time to get familiar with them all. It's suggested that newcomers spend time improving existing articles first; there are over six million articles already on Wikipedia, and many of them could use plenty of work. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk

) 06:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I have seen your sandbox draft, and you need to read Wikipedia's advice against autobiography. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Ten edits and four days allows editors to create articles in main space. However, new editors are STRONGLY advised to use the

WP:YFA process to create and submit drafts to the review process. Any submission that by-passes Articles for creation (AfC) will be seen by New Pages Patrol, where it can be accepted, flipped to draft, or deleted. Your attempt at an article about yourself has no potential to succeed because it has no references that confirm your notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. David notMD (talk

) 13:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I have found an editor on Wikipedia who persistently makes bad edits. This includes the unnecessary removal of wiki links across multiple pages, idiosyncratic edits with no edit summary (this user also stated on their talk page that they will refuse to use edit summaries going forward), and stylistic edits that are either redundant or inaccurate (e.g. adding 'CEO' to Bill Gates' opening sentence). Most of the edits are style changes and seem to be in good faith, but the guy's edits are often questionable and subsequently reverted. He's been warned about his edits on his talk page a number of times (I haven't interacted personally), and I'm just wondering what can be done to prevent further bad edits in the future. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Dawkin Verbier (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Your edit history shows you undo a lot of editor contributions. Which one is this about? David notMD (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your time! I've noticed that in most cases, retroactive translations of foreign words or names are given an in-line list, even in cases exceeding three languages. From the Ruthenia article:

Ruthenia (/ruːˈθiːniə/; Latin: Ruthenia or Rutenia, Ukrainian: Рутенія, romanized: Rutenia or Русь, Rus, Polish: Ruś, Belarusian: Рутэнія, Русь, Russian: Рутения, Русь,) is an exonym, originally used in Medieval Latin as one of several terms for Kievan Rus', the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia and, after their collapse, for East Slavic and Eastern Orthodox regions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland, corresponding to what is now Ukraine and Belarus.

Other articles, particularly significant ones, contain such a list in an explanatory footnote after the term. From the Abraham article:

Abraham[efn, three languages] (originally Abram)[efn, one language] is the common Hebrew patriarch of the Abrahamic religions, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

I feel that the latter is a much better way conveying this information, particularly with longer lists, mainly because it looks a lot neater and easier to read. I also find it kind of distracts from the content to have a word explained in a multitude of languages, often in scripts many readers can't even read without transliterations, making the in-line list even longer. Are there any rules governing when to use an EFN and when to write them in-line, and would I be wrong to change some of the longer lists I find to EFN's? Kaasterly (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@

MOS:FOREIGN but didn't see anything about EFN, except "Foreign terms should be used sparingly". I agree with you that in the Ruthenia example an EFN would be better. Where the cut-off of "too long" should be, I don't know. Mike Turnbull (talk

) 11:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Aah, thank you for your response! It seems not much is written about it in the Help docs, but this provides some clarity. I'll continue using EFN where reasonable. Kaasterly (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'm trying to edit the Perseus Digital Library page (known as Perseus Project here).

I'm wanting to add an infobox among other things, and I just wanted to check that I should use the Template:Infobox_website and not the Template:Infobox_library which seems to be for buildings. Library seems more precise, but since it is digital, it is not a physical building.

Any advice on infoboxes?

Thanks in advance!

Tsiluciole (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tsiluciole Welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest you look in Category:Digital_library_projects and see whether any other similar articles have a relevant infobox. I took a quick look at a few and found none that used one: infoboxes are certainly not obligatory even in otherwise highly-rated articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't know there was such a category. I'd still like to have an infobox if possible, but I'll check what I can find! Tsiluciole (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

There was an anti-semitic incident at Cranbrook School, Sydney. It made the news and I added it to the page. Wik-ed100 has removed my sourced edits a number of times - without any explanation. I added something to the talk page - nothing. I don't want to get into an editing war, but how do I deal with an editor who is basically initiating one. He doesn't discuss why he's removing the sourced material. Sure he doesn't have to like the content on the page, but there are processes involved. There's no justification for just deleting it - over and over and over again. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You have already asked this on the Help Desk, and had a response there. Please don't ask the same question in more than one place, it can waste hosts' time. Maproom (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually I posted here first ;) I only posted there as well as no one got back to me. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I have created a new article in sandbox mode, and now cannot move it into the public Wikipedia area, because there is no menu button right of the little star. Can anybody help? Thank you. Doctorshresta (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @

WP:BLP

with only a single reference, and that reference is to Wikipedia itself (the German version). This is entirely insufficient on English Wikipedia.

 Courtesy link: User:Doctorshresta/ElinaSchnizler - 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick answer. I can add all necesssary citations, but the MOVE button will still not appear. Or will it? Doctorshresta (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:BLP issues are taken very seriously. 199.208.172.35 (talk

) 15:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Articles for creation instead of attempting to move it to the encyclopedia yourself. If you move it yourself, you may be setting yourself up for disappointment, which no one wants to see. 331dot (talk

) 16:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Got it. Thank you. Doctorshresta (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not disputing the statistics in the article on "Abortion statistics in the United States".

I am only saying that the tables in it need some clarification. I don't know how to do it myself, so I leave it up to the experts.

Specifically, the tables need an explanation for what constitutes "abortion rate" and "abortion ratio" for each of the two data sources:

-- the Guttmacher Institute and the CDCC.

Currently, the tables look something like this (for the year 2016):

                           (abortions per             (abortions per 100 pregnancies
                            1,000 women                 ending in an abortion or live birth,
                            ages 15 to 44)              excluding miscarriages)
                                                                                          

                                   (abortions per     (abortions per 1000 live births)
                                   1,000 women             
                                   ages 15 to 44)          

Thank you very much,

Steve Maricic 192.231.202.250 (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Have you considered discussing this at Talk:Abortion statistics in the United States or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abortion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

How does one export the entire Revision History table for a specific page? I have found how to export an article itself, both the text and the XML, but I would like to export the Revision History page related to the article. 1n44n6 (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@

H:PH. I've never tried to do this myself, so I don't know how it copes with long-standing articles with huge histories. Mike Turnbull (talk

) 16:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

ComplexRational, how I create the article about 2,3-Dichloroaniline? This chemical substance exists!

85.109.136.232 (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Merely existing does not mean it qualifies for an article. You need to first establish whether it meets the

general notability guidelines. Shantavira|^{feed me}

15:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

read up on help:your first article. → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 15:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

IP user. Note that the compound is mentioned at

WP:AFC process if you have not previously created an article for Wikipedia, so experienced editors can make sure you have satisfied the requirements. Given the extensive literature in Pubchem and elsewhere, there should be no problem meeting the notability guidelines. Mike Turnbull (talk

) 16:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, how does it work when I cite something in another language? Can I get a Czech editor on my page to help me? How do I request that? GlobalAaloo (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

For citing in another language, add |language= and |trans-title= (optional) for the translated title. ██

Wikipedian

. 10:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@GlobalAaloo Editors who are willing to do Czech -> English translations can be found in Category:Translators cs-en. You could take a look at some of these to see who is currently active and then ask them politely via their Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The way current cricket tour pages are named are something like
[ visiting country ] cricket team in [ host country ] [ year ]
which is not the way cricket community, or rather any entity refers to cricket tours. The correct way is
[ visiting country ] tour of [ host country ] [ year ]
With 10s of pages named in this undesirable way every year, possibly >100 pages would need to be renamed. What is the correct place to build consensus about this. An RfC? Somewhere else? >>> Extorc.talk 14:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Examples of pages effected can be seen at Catagory of International cricket tours

• Afghan cricket team in Ireland in 2022
• Australian cricket team in Sri Lanka in 2022
• Bangladeshi cricket team in Zimbabwe in 2022

List continues >>> Extorc.talk 14:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Within the cricket community the wording you suggest might be reasonable, but in the wider world we need to be unambiguous, hence the inclusion of the words "cricket team". Your proposal would therefore be unlikely to be successful. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@David Biddulph But here, should COMMONNAME be taken into account how literally sites like cricbuzz, espn cricinfo and even the official ICC website use the exact same naming convention. Shouldnt cricket be the primary topic with this naming convention? >>> Extorc.talk 14:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@David Biddulph, Anyway, I'd like to try. >>> Extorc.talk 14:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Extorc, you seem sure about "the way cricket community, or rather any entity refers to cricket tours". Wikipedia is an entity, so we already have one exception. As for the "cricket community", if some cricket organization or magazine writes or speaks of "Belize tour of Sri Lanka 2017", nobody will think that it might be talking about a hockey team or symphony orchestra of Belize; and therefore its specifying "cricket" would hardly be more helpful than its specifying "AD" for "2017". But Wikipedia is outside the "cricket community". Nobody here can stop you from trying to effect a change towards ambiguity and confusion, but perhaps nobody here will help you either. After all, your attempt would obviously be doomed. -- Hoary (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Hoary. If I saw an article titled "Afghan tour of Ireland 2022", my first thought would be that it was about a musical group named "Afghan". If I had 100 guesses, there's no way I would guess that it was about cricket. I would advise you don't waste other editor's time with this proposal which will certainly fail, and would degrade the usefulness of the encyclopedia if it somehow did manage to succeed. CodeTalker (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Extorc I was going to say what Hoary said -- a title like "Australian tour of Sri Lanka 2022", as an article title, is extremely confusing. Also I don't understand your question "Shouldnt cricket be the primary topic with this naming convention". Are you suggesting that all readers should know, or learn, that article titles in this form are about cricket? If that's what you meant, that is not realistic, but surely you were asking something else.

If we somehow knew that we are in the cricket world, then your proposed titles might be ok. But the title doesn't let us know that we are "in cricket". I don't think the existing titles are "undesirable"; I think they are fine. I have to disagree with this proposal. David10244 (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

A workable alternative wording could be Bangladeshi cricket tour of Zimbabwe in 2022 in place of Bangladeshi cricket team in Zimbabwe in 2022. Looking at just this example, the lead sentence starts "The Bangladesh cricket team toured Zimbabwe in July and August 2022 to play …", so it's explained to the uninitiated that a tour is something undertaken by a team. On the other hand, the short description is "International cricket tour" : search results that show title+SD will already be clear that the article is about a tour. To me, tour (singular) seems to imply all games were played in a single visit. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 18:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Typing "Bangladeshi tour of Zimbabwe 2022" in the search box doesn't produce any suggestions, only "search for pages containing…". The full results do list

Bangladesh tour of Zimbabwe 2021, though that doesn't help if my search phrase has different word order "Bangladesh Zimbabwe tour". ⁓ Pelagic ( messages

 ) 18:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• @
  WT:CRICKET would probably be the way to search for that consensus. In light of the current opposition (with which I agree), youm might want to reconsider, and/or open a non-RfC thread first to see if you have any support before committing to the full bureaucratic stuff. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)}
  17:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Extorc! You could ask the folk at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 18:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I am building up the publications section on this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henley_%26_Partners

For better understanding, I am trying to highlight the reports and index like it has been done here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwatch

Right now, the Publication section on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henley_%26_Partners has a brief description of only one report - Investment Migration Programs Health Risk Assessment Report. There are other reports, but only the names are mentioned. I feel adding one line brief outline of the other reports will help the readers. Also, subsections will organize it.

Could you please tell me if this will be a good way to improve the publication section?

=== Africa Wealth Report ===
The Africa Wealth Report is an annual report which lists private wealth in the African continent. The 2022 report was released by the company in collaboration with New World Wealth.<ref name="africa report detail">{{cite news |last1=Rahhali |first1=Lamine |title=Morocco 1 of 5 Countries with More than 50% of Africa’s Private Wealth |url=https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2022/04/348605/morocco-1-of-5-countries-with-more-than-50-of-africas-private-wealth |access-date=15 September 2022 |work=[[Morocco World News]] |language=en |quote=The Africa Wealth Report is a yearly report that lists private wealth in the continent.}}</ref><ref name="africa wealth report">{{cite news |last1=Benson |first1=Emmanuel Abara |title=10 African countries with the highest number of dollar millionaires, according to latest ranking |url=https://africa.businessinsider.com/local/markets/10-african-countries-with-the-highest-number-of-dollar-millionaires-according-to/ntd6by1 |access-date=7 September 2022 |work=[[Business Insider]] Africa |date=27 April 2022 |language=en}}</ref>

=== Henley Passport Index ===
{{main|Henley Passport Index}}
The Henley Passport Index is an annual ranking of countries for the 199 passports in the world based on how many travel destinations are accessible to the passport holders without a prior visa.<ref name="index 199">{{cite news |last1=Report |first1=Dawn |title=Pakistani passport remains ‘fourth-worst in world’ |url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1700802 |work=[[Dawn (newspaper)|Dawn]] |date=21 July 2022 |language=en |quote=The Henley Passport Index is a ranking of all the world’s 199 passports according to the number of destinations their holders can access without a prior visa}}</ref><ref name="about index">{{cite news |last1=McDonagh |first1=Shannon |title=These are the world's most powerful passports in 2022 |url=https://www.euronews.com/travel/2022/01/31/this-country-will-have-the-most-valuable-passport-in-our-post-pandemic-world |access-date=15 September 2022 |work=[[Euronews]] |date=31 January 2022 |language=en}}</ref>

=== Investment Migration Climate Resilience Index ===
The Investment Migration Climate Resilience Index by the company assesses a country's climate resilience and ranks climate resilient locations for migration. It is in collaboration with Deep Knowledge Analytics and the 2022 report evaluated 180 countries based on five parameters of 900 data points.<ref name="parameters migration climate">{{cite news |last1=Chadha |first1=Sunainaa |title=Best investment migration options to improve climate resilience |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/best-investment-migration-options-to-improve-climate-resilience-india-ranks-35-us-ranks-1-followed-by-germany-and-uk/articleshow/91631246.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_camp |access-date=29 September 2022 |work=[[The Times of India]] |language=en |quote=The study comprises over 900 different data points within 5 parameters}}</ref>

{{reflist-talk}}

ANLgrad (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:BOLD and make the change. If you find that others object, discuss it with them on Talk:Henley & Partners. Mike Turnbull (talk

) 18:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Thank you for helping out. Last time I had posted on the talk page, I didn't get much response from the page watchers as I don't think they are very active. So, I thought I would get to reach out to a wider set of people here on Teahouse, who can tell me if this is a good improvement. ANLgrad (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:NOWIKI is sufficient to allow others to assess the proposed content without the formatting of the content being enabled. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 23:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't checked the sources, but on the face of it your addition seems reasonable, ANLgrad. If each report is described in one or two sentences, you might consider whether a bullet list or just plain paragraphs would look better than subheadings. A plus for subheads is you get hyperlink targets without resorting to {{anchor}}. E.g. Henley & Partners#Africa Wealth Report. Once this thread is archived, you could drop a note on the article talk page linking back to this discussion so that others can find it. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 19:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there a tool that helps when I want to translate an article from another language? I want to translate https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B8,_%D0%90%D0%B1%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B0_%D0%98%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 to English but I don't know how to make the fact box show up right on this Wikipedia. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ghost of Kiev: I don't think that you have enough edits (500) to be able to use the content translation tool, and in any event I don't think that it helps with infoboxes. You'll probably just need to use {{Infobox writer}} and fill in the fields by hand. You'll definitely want to read Help:Translation, though. Deor (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this knowledge. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ghost of Kiev: (edit conflict) I suggest you run it through Google Translate, and use {{Infobox writer}} as Deor said. Fill in the fields that are recognizable in the Google-translated version. You would have to re-do the wikilinking with this method, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ghost of Kiev. First note that you can use a Wikilink to the article ru:Дерменджи, Абдулла Ибраимович (make sure you put a colon (:) before the "ru:", or the software will think that you are saying that that article corresponds to this page that we are on!)

I won't duplicate the Information Deor has given you; but note that each Wikipedia has its own policies on things like notability. My Russian isn't very good, but it doesn't look to me as if the three sources in the ru article are sufficient to establish notability for en-wiki. My advice is to treat this as a new English draft, maybe translating some text from the Russian, but certainly finding and using better sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this knowledge. This person has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine (https://esu.com.ua/search_articles.php?id=26271). Is that enough to get an article on Wikipedia? Ghost of Kiev (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No, that is not enough. It may indicate that there are suitable sources that will meet English Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and perhaps even point to them; but as an encytclopaedia, it is a

tertiary source; Wikipedia requires secondary sources. ColinFine (talk

) 23:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a moderator @

Wikipedia:GS/RUSUKR. Абдулла́ Ибраи́мович Дерменджи́ is a Crimean Tatar, but the man died in 1976, so I do not think he is related to the war. How do I appeal Mr. Weller's decision? I think he is wrong. Ghost of Kiev (talk)

14:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I might be wrong. But you were told that this edit [3] was a violation bu User: ToBeFree. Perhaps he will comment. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not think that the unsourced statement that the 1900s stopped using "the" in "the Crimea" is part of the war, but even if it is I undid my edit on my ownhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&diff=next&oldid=1123113121 before @ToBeFree wrote on my talk page about it. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. That's correct: Special:Diff/1123113121 is a violation of the restrictions. It removes a link to a Washington Post article titled "To understand Crimea, take a look back at its complicated history". This is clearly related to the Russo-Ukrainian war. And because it was self-reverted and Ghost of Kiev seemed to be genuinely unaware of the "broadly construed" nature of topic bans, I simply informed them about the issue.

The translation tool is unavailable for unrelated reasons; the low quality of newcomers' translations led to the restriction of the translation tool.

I'm not too happy about having this discussion here, though. With every argument and complaint, with each "I think he is wrong" and attempts to circumvent the restriction as far as possible, an impression is strengthened of Ghost of Kiev being a single-topic editor who is unhappy about having been prohibited from editing about their only topic of interest. Ghost of Kiev, if you have registered only to edit about these topics (as your name seems to imply) and can't find unrelated topics interesting enough to edit about, then that's unfortunate but something you'll need to accept. Edit some of the over five million completely unrelated Wikipedia articles or don't. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

CURRENTLY KHAJURAHO-PANNA-REWA - RAIL ROUTE IS BEING PREOARED. IT CROSSES SATNA ALLAHABAD ROUTE NEAR SUB STATION SAGMA . IF SAGMA IS DEVELOPED AS SATLITE STAION THEN PEAPLE COMING FROM EVERY FOUR DIRECTIONS WILL GET EASY APPROCH TO ANY DIRECTION FROM HERE WITHUOT RUNNING TO DIFFERENT LOCATION AT SATNA TO GET CONNECTING TRAINS TO OTHER PLACES . IF KAIMA IS DEVELOPED THAN PERSON WILL HAVE TO RUN 7 KM. TO CATCH TRAIN OF OERS ROUTE FROM SATNA AND VICE - VERSA . KINDLY TAKE NOTE OF THIS WHILE PLANNING . IT IS REQUESTED. 103.160.49.119 (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Please stop

WP:SHOUTING.- David Biddulph (talk

) 08:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

You are asking Wikipedia editors to take note of this while planning what? David10244 (talk) 09:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• This is Wikipedia, and wikipedia does not control rail ministry of India. But if you'd like, we can order the Enterprise to establish an interstellar base at the location of your choice. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  Assuming that I don't send the T'au and Havenites there first to fight over it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Is there a way to view a history of pages added and removed from a category?
• Is there a way to recursively view all items in a category and all of its subcategories — that is, view all items contained in a given tree of categories?

Thanks. --Frogging101 (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Frogging101. Two interesting questions there!

I'm willing to be proved wrong, but on your first point I believe the answer is 'No'. Categories are not edited in the same way as pages are, so there's no history to see what was added to that category, and what was subsequently removed. You could check the View History' tab of one page that interests you to see what categories it has had throughout its life, but not vice versa.

However, your second question can be answered more positively. You can read more about how to display a Category Tree here. I believe I have in the past encountered various user tools created to display further Category information, including a full list of pages within a tree. I can't find it at the moment, but you might wish to try searching through the 98 Category tools listed at Toolhub, one of which might meet your needs. I helps this helps a bit. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! I was wondering if there was any way to find out the largest number of edits I've made in a single day? Thanks!

EpicPupper I assume you are asking if there is something more efficient than consulting your contribution history and counting- that sounds like something that might exist, but I'm not familiar with it. 331dot (talk

) 21:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@

WikiProject Edit Counters for a bit and found WikiChecker. I’ve already inputted your username in the link. Just enter the number of recent edits that you’d like to analyse. Enjoy! ◇HelenDegenerate

◆ 21:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @

talk

) 22:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @

EpicPupper, welcome back :D the discussion was here Justiyaya

01:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

editing 105.242.104.17 (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. What is your question? - David Biddulph (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I've submitted my first page for review about 18 days ago. However, I'm not sure if the references which I've provided are good enough. The page which I've created is for actor/model.

• Draft:Aberaam Varma

I've provided citations from new articles which are from the top e-papers within our state. Can anyone go through the page and share their thoughts? Crishna nandyala (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, but all of your claims in the article needs to be cited. I see some statements without sources.

ping

me when replying) 11:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there any WP policy or guidance on this topic? For example, I recall seeing subsection breaks added to long talk page threads, in the format e.g. "===Arbitrary break===" in order to make it easier to edit the page. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:TLDR applies and it would be better if everyone concerned was much more concise! Mike Turnbull (talk

) 15:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I was browsing through the wiki page titled: "List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Tyne and Wear" and I noticed under the "Herrington Hill" SSSI link sent to a wiki page of a Herrington Hill in Antarctica (which is wrong). I'm not proficient with editing Wikipedia so just wanted to let someone more clever know about it and fix it! Thanks! 5.65.129.10 (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have an article about the relevant Herrington Hill, and as far as I can tell, doesn't even mention it anywhere else. So I have removed the wikilink. Maproom (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Dealt with. It's now a redlink. Thanks for letting us know. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, How do I report mispellings of names in entries. Knud Lonberg-Holm has his name spelled correctly and also as "Londberg-Holm (which is incorrect) in the same entry. I would have contacted the person who made the entry but don't know how to do that. Thanks, Fred 2603:7000:DC3C:D48A:34C3:A4F7:A3FF:28F1 (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Fred, and welcome to the Teahouse! It seems to have been fixed now, but for almost all articles, you could have done it yourself! Click "Edit" or "Edit source" near the top of the article you want to improve and be

WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 18:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

... just a comment, if you do make name-corrections yourself, it's a good idea to use the "Edit Summary" box to explain why you're doing it. Edits from IP addresses that change names very often get reverted by well-meaning people watching recent changes as they leap to the conclusion that the IP editor doesn't know what they're doing, or has failed to notice that someone has alternate spellings and Wikipedia's presumably selected the most commonly used in source. Sadly, the recent change patrollers are often right. If you find that when you change names you get reverted a lot, you might consider registering yourself for an account. It improves your privacy by hiding your IP address, makes it easier for people to communicate with you via a talk-page, and other editors automatically assume you know what you're doing, rather than assuming you don't. Elemimele (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I was checking Thiazepine, and I found that the first part of the article matches some text in this source "https://meshb.nlm.nih.gov/record/ui?name=Thiazepines".

While it might be a wikipedia mirror, the earliest revision lists it as a source (unless I can't read these things. On the other hand, removing it would take a large chunk of the article away, and I do not know enough about chemistry to feel comfortable redoing it.

Any help would be appreciated!

Balnibarbarian (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Balnibarbarian, as a US government website, its contents are in the public domain; see here for more detail. Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Balnibarbarian (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Balnibarbarian:, @Zoozaz1:, yes-and-no. Yes, it's okay to use text copied directly from the source because it's open-source and that's specifically allowed in the license. However, the license also specifically requests that the source be acknowledged. It should have been, and wasn't. There's no indication in the edit history that it's a cut-and-paste copy. The source has been cited, but we'd cite a source even when we paraphrase, so merely citing doesn't indicate a copy. There is nothing in the edit summary to record that this is a copy-paste of someone else's work. Instead there's a hidden note in the text itself indicating that the source is open-source, but that's also irrelevant because again, it doesn't say why open-source matters: that it's a word-for-word copy. We also owe it to our readers to distinguish between situations where we paraphrase multiple sources, and situations where we reduce Wikipedia to being a mere mirror-site by copying text verbatim. Having said all that (big whinge), in this case, the text is one simple statement of what these chemicals are, which could hardly be written differently. If you asked 50 chemists to describe that structure, ten of them would have used the source's words even if they'd never seen the source. So it's not a big issue! But pedantically speaking, this wasn't done correctly... Elemimele (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The text is in the public domain so we don't actually have to obey the source's request for attribution. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Madeline:, no, technically we don't have to, but it's somewhat disrespectful to the original author to ignore their request. Also, as a community who care about sourcing and accuracy, we owe it to our readers to make it clear what we're doing. Copying word-for-word without proper attribution is not a great look for Wikipedia. Elemimele (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've cited it now, so it's no problem anymore. Balnibarbarian (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

My first attempt at a Wikipedia article was declined due to lack of sources. Because of the nature of my article ( a dinner party group) I am unsure how I would be able to cite sources, unless I merely linked it to other wiki articles such as ‘dinner party’. What can I do to have my page accepted? RaleighGibbs (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:GNG, you can't make a WP-article that "sticks". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 07:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

General notability guideline, A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Without significant coverage of the topic in independent, reliable sources, it is not possible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk

) 19:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. ScientistDurandDurand (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

ScientistDurandDurand, you haven't said who your professor is, what their discipline is, or what the company is. That makes me a bit suspicious. Your purpose seems to be to improve the image of professor or company. That it not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia can change its readers' perception of subjects because its readers trust it to be impartial. Contributors who have a conflict of interest, as you appear to have, are strongly discouraged. Maproom (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank your your answer, I am deeply sorry if I was was misunderstood by I am just a student the professor is called Massimiliano Fusari and one of field that he is researching on is the visual storytelling we notice that there is not particular wikipedia page about this branch of the story telling the company and is

My goal is to understand the possibility of developing such pages. Do you think that creating so would create a conflict of interest even if, from my understand he may have the notability, is that right?

Thank you for your help :) ScientistDurandDurand (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@

mercenary bullshit lie at worst. As such, you're not going to get much in terms of a useful responce. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori}

20:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Sincerely I didn't knew what is WikiED, I still really knew at this platform. I will ask him as soon as possible? Thank you.

Thank your reply.

I am student I have no interest beside the academic research about this topic, I deeply sorry if I gave this impression. I didn't meant to create bad impression

The professor is called Massimiliano Fusari and the discipline is called visual story telling, the company is called visual story telling academy. I trying to figure out if it would be possible to explore this path to create celebrate and create trust with wikipedia around him. ScientistDurandDurand (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

We have an article called

MrOllie (talk

) 21:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

We straight up do not celebrate and create trust^[sic] with topics. We are an encyclopaedia project, not Cision. Any trust created is, as noted by Maproom, because our articles are impartially-written, something which someone in your position is unlikely to be able to do without expending a lot more effort because your view of "neutral" is compromised. That you assume we "celebrate" article subjects is evidence that you've got, at best, screamsheet knowledge of Wikipedia and haven't bothered to look any deeper at how things work here, whether from a cultural or policy standpoint. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I think given your advice @

MrOllie @Jéské Couriano

, I will reconsider this study case.

But for example, Tony C Caputo why this is not a conflict interest?

he wrote one of the two articles referred in the Visual Narrative and his company have a low level of citation + he got his own page on Wikipedia.

I humbly assuming that there a lack of neutrality. In my point of view this affect how the user feels and perceive about him. Can you give me a feedback? ScientistDurandDurand (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The reference to Caputo's book was added by a long-term Wikipedia editor who has no connection to Caputo.

MrOllie (talk

) 22:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@

Tony C. Caputo. That's why there's a tag about it on the article. If you think the article subject does not meet our notability standards, you are free to nominate it for deletion. 199.208.172.35 (talk

) 22:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

unreferenced claims in it, and a massive chunk of its sources have rotted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori}

22:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

thank your reply

@

MrOllie, to give a more neutral point of View and not reference the visual storytelling just at Tony C caputo boom, wouldn't be better to add more references on the Visual Narrative page? ScientistDurandDurand (talk

) 22:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

sorry for my grammar mistakes, but I am working/studying since 15 hours and i am a bit tired. Thank your for understanding ScientistDurandDurand (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your professor.

MrOllie (talk

) 23:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistDurandDurand: how do you plan to measure trust? Will you have subjects read the Wikipedia articles and fill out a questionnaire? Or do a guided interview? I don't have a marketing background so honestly don't know what methods are commonly used in the field. What is the control condition? Will some read materials like a company web page and score trust based on those? I strongly suggest you use an existing set of Wikipedia articles rather than trying to create some for the purpose. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 20:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I am creating a article about this community. But I do not know where to find the geographic names information system summary about it. I use the database to create articles about communities in the USA. Does anyone know how to find this community on the database? I am working on it in User:HelpingWorld/sandbox. Any help is appreciated!`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 04:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@HelpingWorld: There is no GNIS entry for a Cedarview in Summit County, Utah. The only entry for a Cedarview in Utah is for one in Duchesne County. Deor (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah thats the one, thanks!`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 21:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi I want to make sure that people can find writers, even if they have used a pen name (Mark Twain should also return results for Samuel Clemens, etc.) Is there a way to do that?Marjorie Luesebrink LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

M.D. Coverley does redirect to Marjorie Luesebrink. What was your question? - David Biddulph (talk

) 01:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Samuel Clemens" can be got to redirect to "Mark Twain", then see this. For more on how, when, why, etc, then Wikipedia:Redirect. -- Hoary (talk

) 01:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary

Ah ok, so I would create a redirect page that would be something like this:

#REDIRECT [[M.D. Coverley]] ::{{Redirect category shell|h=This is short for '''{{-r|Marjorie Luesebrink}}'''.| ::{{R from personal name}} ::{{R from short name}} ::{{R unprintworthy}} ::}} ::{{DEFAULTSORT:Luesebrink, Marjorie}} [[User:LoveElectronicLiterature|LoveElectronicLiterature]] ([[User talk:LoveElectronicLiterature|talk]]) 20:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

All of Marjorie Luesebrink's fiction and electronic literature works are under her pen name M.D. Coverley. So would I need to include all of these warnings? Thank you LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

M.D. Coverley redirects to it (and has done so for the last seven years). Are you perhaps hoping to switch these around (to title the article "M.D. Coverley", and have "Marjorie Luesebrink" redirect to this)? If so, such a reversal isn't something that most people are able to do. (That's because it involves the deletion of a page, something that admins, bureaucrats and so forth can do, but regular users can't.) Instead, it's something you have to ask for. Because such a retitling is potentially controversial, it's better asked for at WP:Requested moves#CM. -- Hoary (talk

) 22:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I am having this issue on my sandbox when everytime I add a template to an article I work on, it goes above the references. Any help is appreciated.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 22:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Merely adding the header "References" doesn't trigger a reference dump, which by default occurs at the foot of the page. Where you want the reference dump to be, add <references /> -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi editors,

I have recently been patrolling recent changes and, I must admit, I feel a little bit

On a broader note, I notice that recent change patrollers often simply revert valuable but problematic material from IPs (e.g. unsourced but factually correct and verifiable) instead of fixing it. As stated above, I understand that patrollers don't have time, but surely this can be remedied by more manpower/resources. I would welcome others' input on this. Fermiboson (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Commenting only on the paragraph immediately above: if someone adds content that is unsourced but verifiable, it doesn't somehow become someone else's duty to add a source. If you somehow know that it's verifiable, and its removal bothers you, you can restore it and add the source yourself. Maproom (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

That‘s fair enough, and has been what I have been doing (and, you will note, the cause of the second warn). Fermiboson (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that if someone removes the unsourced but verifiable information, although someone else can put it back in, they may not be aware that it was ever there, so they have no motivation to go looking for the facts and the sources. Avid readers of this Teahouse will know that I very much favour quality over quantity. It is better (in my personal view) to go to the trouble of checking a fact is verifiable before deleting it. Unsourced, accurate facts are neutral: they don't mislead the reader, but they don't help much because there's no way to tell if they're true, or read more about it. Missing facts are negative. Sourced facts are positive. Incorrect facts are negative. Faced with an unsourced but correct fact, the only way to improve Wikipedia is to add a source. When people merely delete unsourced facts in hopes that this is improving the encyclopaedia, they're taking a punt on the fact also being wrong.

My problem with recent page patrolling is your first comment, "I understand that speed is essential in recent changes patrolling"; no, it isn't. There is no point in trying to accumulate kudos by out-gunning Cluebot. As humans, we can actually do google searches, check facts, employ a human brain. Instead of knee-jerk reverting anything inserted by an IP editor, we can use their edits as a spring-board to genuine improvements. The world won't stop because Wikipedia briefly thinks California is in the UK; before reverting this fact, it's worth doing the search, just in case the editor is right. Elemimele (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry you feel bitten, that's certainly not the intent here. Also apologies for not getting back to you sooner, I was asleep not long after you posted your reply on your talk page.

No ones out to block you or dissuade you here, though I can appreciate that the automated templates can certainly be perceived in many ways - please let me state that they are nothing at all personal. I am sorry that our tools automatically escalated the warnings made to you on your page for your manual of style issues, that wasn't necessary. When I get a moment, I will try and work on Huggle, our anti-vandal tool, to see if I can add a feature to not escalate for different categories.

Wikipedia usually goes through high periods of significant vandalism, and in many cases, especially last night, there may be only 1 person online actively monitoring recent changes. It's not a race, and no, it has nothing to do with out-running cluebot, (which btw only looks for really evident vandalism, and wont take action on many of the issues discussed here). At times there can be over 30 changes a minute, and if we stop to manually search and add sources, or manually fix template mistakes, we would be -massively- outpaced by the rate of changes, and our beloved wiki would be worse off. I very much agree its a people power issue here, if we had lots more folks working on patrolling changes, I would LOVE to do research and add sources. When I find down time, or low rates of changes, you will see that's actually what I do; but alas, it's not always possible.

At the end of the day, it's the authors job to add sources, and there's a lot of precedent for reverting changes. It's also extremely easy to revert my changes through the history tab of the article; I'm not going to back and forth edit war with you (unless it's blatant vandalism!). I can see you've made lots of good edits, so please keep up the great work!

P.S. It's not all doom and gloom from me, you will also see I have left you several thanks for your recent edits as well. When I see good edits or corrections made, I do make an effort to also send positive reenforcement too! Mr.weedle (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply and very much appreciate your compliments. I do understand the stress factor involved which is why I tried not to come across as too confrontational above. If you (or anyone else here) could explain in more detail which part of the MoS I didn't follow, that would also be appreciated so I can go back and improve my edit, and hopefully also the erstwhile IP's. With the manpower issue, I would love to help patrol recent changes in any limited way I could (as I was trying to do, albeit at a much lower efficiency, when all of this occurred).

The other concern I have is that, now that I have three warning templates on my talk page for vandalism, the next time I make a mistake a random admin might just wander across and slap a block on me. Is this worry warranted and/or is there any way to remedy it? I don't want to blank talk page warnings before asking. Fermiboson (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Please rest assured, no admin is going to block you for that. You can definitely blank the talk-page warnings; there is very little you can't blank on your talk-page. Blanking them is regarded as acknowledging you've read them, but otherwise carries no consequences. Also, the admins are decent people, who are really rather reticent to block. They will block people who attack others, and they will block people who repeatedly show themselves unable to make good edits, but even then, usually only after a really good attempt at communication. It's quite hard to get blocked here! Also I think everyone appreciates that the templated warnings, while useful and convenient for the busy reviewer, are a bit of a blunt object: they don't always fit the situation perfectly, and some look scarier than they are. Many good editors will have had plenty of them stuck on their talk-page, so you're in good company. By the way, Mr.weedle, I apologise if I came across too ferocious! I do appreciate that there are different approaches to life: some people zap stuff that's not supported on sight, others prefer to pick one thing and make it right. I'm in the latter camp and tend to be a bit disparaging about the former, but the truth is that Wikipedia is greatly strengthened by having a diversity of editors all working in different ways to make sure the information here is accurate and sourced. Apologies! Elemimele (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, appreciate it. Fermiboson (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

For other websites that use a wiki engine like Wikipedia and Fandom, does that mean that their technical ways of for example editing articles or equivalents/pages, and putting codes in articles to perform specific functions in editing, as well as having "revision history" of articles/pages etc universal and with the same procedure? Like does this layout apply to all wiki website? Like will typing Wikipedia in brackets in any wiki editor make it into a hyperlink and similar things? Hgh1985 (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Mostly. However just typing [[Wikipedia]] in an wiki editor won't work unless that wiki has a page/article for Wikipedia. However linking any page/article that is on the Wiki works the same. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Fandom and other websites use the same software called MediaWiki. See Category:MediaWiki websites. If they don't then it might not be the same 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I keep receiving a mobile notification thanking me for my first edit, sometimes it's tenth or 100th. I'm up to 900 edits and started editing over a year ago, but it still spams me with these. Is there a way to turn them off while still being able to see talk page messages and relevant communications? Zorya's Leshak▲ (-10.0) 23:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

ping

me) 00:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've turned off "edit milestones", I'll see if it fixes it. Zorya's Leshak▲ (-10.0) 01:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@

Wikipedia:APP Has a link to the FAQ for that app, maybe that will help you RudolfRed (talk

) 00:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I think if you go to Settings in the app, then notifications, you can turn these off. I had a similar issue on iOS and it worked, but I don't know about android. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 00:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC).

@Zorya's Leshak Thanks for this note. We'll investigate why the app might be sending erroneous notifications. In the meantime, you can indeed disable just the "milestone"-type notifications: Go into the app, go to the Notifications screen (bell icon), go to Notification Preferences (from the three-dots menu at the top), and tap "Customize push notifications". You should see a list of all the types of notifications, with checkboxes to enable/disable each one. DBrant (WMF) (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Zorya's Leshak. I have been using the android mobile app for a few months now. This sounds like it might be a technical issue since it keeps happening, so I'll ping DBrant (WMF). He might be able to explain what's going on and fix it if there is an issue with the app itself. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm on Android, too. I just got a notification that a page I created months ago was reviewed... so it's not just the milestones. Zorya's Leshak▲ (-10.0) 02:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Another alternative, Zorya's Leshak, is to use the fully functional desktop site, which works perfectly well on Android devices. I wrote an essay about this, User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing. Cullen328 (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll probably just disable notifications from my phone's settings. It's just annoying to not get relevant notifications. Zorya's Leshak▲ (-10.0) 03:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll point out that this question is about push notifications, which the desktop site does not provide. DBrant (WMF) (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@DBrant (WMF) The mobile app seems to be pretty crappy all around. No notifications is better than incorrect notifications. David10244 (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Clovermoss🍀 (talk)

11:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

That article was created via AFC, so it's probably a bug, as all the redirects I created relating to it in mainspace were reviewed many months ago. Oddly, your mention displayed properly this time on mobile. Zorya's Leshak▲ (-10.0) 04:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Zorya's Leshak: Do pings usually not show up the way they should? I haven't had those same issues with the app as you have, although occasionally I'll get delayed notifications about other people mentioning me, usually push notifications. I think that has more to do with my phone settings, though. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there a rule against any and all forms of cussing/cursing/swearing when it comes to talk pages and editors and discourse etc.? I am aware of the whole

There has never been any general rule about cursing. Ruslik_Zero 20:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

People are allowed to swear, especially if they're venting or emphasising, as long as they're otherwise civil, not attacking other editors, etc. Besides, legislating morality in this fashion just plain doesn't fucking work - people are going to vent one way or another, and it's counterproductive to tone police them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:Wikipedia is not censored. Cursing at others, however, would be seen as a violation of Wikipedia:Civility policy, so be judicious in your use of such words, reserving them for emphasis only if absolutely fucking necessary. ~Anachronist (talk

) 05:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I see what you both did there. David10244 (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

But some words will get you in trouble. Even discussing the word nigger is risky, though we have an article on it. And using the n-word in practice is skating awfully close to hate speech or racial vilification. The c-word ("do you think I mean country matters?") is marginal, where I'm from it has more shock value than the f-bomb. There is precedent for it being tolerated here; for some it's a feminist issue and could get you embroiled in a culture war. I think part of the difference is that words like fucken (general intensifier) and shitty (bad) have acquired more general senses, where the n- and c- words are still fairly specific. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 20:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Slurs are a special class of profanity and should be avoided. While there's some variety in severity (e.g. "boche" vs. the n-word), they are generally treated as fighting words on Wikipedia. See also WP:Hate is disruptive _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It is best to not cuss at someone.Cwater1 (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! I notice that the watchlist button icon has changed to an all-black version. Is there a page documenting the reasoning behind this change somewhere? Thanks!

I think it did on the skin you are using.Cwater1 (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Friends, I have made an article that got declined. Please help me with this article. Here is the article Draft:R. Rajiv Gandhi

Thanks in advance. Keech KeechB (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Your First Article. 331dot (talk

) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm new to this website and I don't know how to make the text bigger on articles, anyone know how? Sairaraosucksfrfr (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sairaraosucksfrfr: What text do you want to make bigger, on what article, and why? Section headings should normally be placed between pairs of equals signs, which caused them to be displayed in bigger print, so for example if you click the "edit" link for this page section you will find the heading looks like this:

==Help please! ==

Other than section headings, article text should not normally be put in large text. JBW (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sairaraosucksfrfr: If you mean that you just want the text to appear bigger in your browser for easier reading, that's a function of your browser settings. Most if not all of them allow you to enlarge the appearance of the text. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Please provide additional information on why would my article get denied after providing multiple citations, having no errors in grammar, and publishing a notable person. Liamkingbme (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Your First Article. 331dot (talk

) 10:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

STATUS: Draft:Anderson Ohiaeri Obiagwu submitted, declined, revised (more content and refs) and resubmitted. Obiagwu is founder of a magazine about African music. The magazine/organization also has annual awards for different catagories of music. David notMD (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello there anyone, I'm "kindof" new in Wikipedia and have never had this problem before so I'm not sure how to deal with it. In the Merdeka page, an IP had done a significant change which includes many typos, grammar mistakes and basically bad editing/writing. Which comes into question whether what the IP writes is really reliable. Feel free to see the edit changes, I really believe it makes the page worse for other readers.

I've reverted the edits but just for the edits to be reverted back by the IP. Is there a formal/usual way of (escalating) bringing another editor or admin into this? For them to review and remove the edits if it is as bad as I believe it is. Danial Bass (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @

(talk)

03:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! Danial Bass (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Danial Bass. Consider also asking for protection (see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection), as that would stop IPs and newly created accounts from editing the article. David notMD (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Danial Bass The edit summary is "Best sentence editing". Tbat's a bit weird, like the edit itself. David10244 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Based on https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/38-1/s134#details there were 3 Democratic Senators that voted in favor of the 13th amendment to the constitution, yet on the 13th amendment and Senator James Nesmith's pages, they claim that only 2 Democratic Senators, James Nesmith and Reverdy Johnson, voted in favor of the 13th amendment's passage.

The missing Senator in question is Benjamin F Harding. His page, alongside Reverdy Johnson's, has no mention of their votes in favor of the amendment.

I was planning on correcting both claims in the two articles alongside adding the claim to the pages of the 2 other Senators. The claim on the 13th amendment is not sourced, but the page is semi-protected and I don't want to step on any toes editing something there. So I figured I'd change it on the 3 men's pages, and whenever I'm more confident in my change, I'll try adding it to the article.

I also ran into a bit of a dilemma on James Nesmith's page. The claim there is sourced twice in two different books. I have been able to read the first source online, and the claim is dubious at best. The page they cite has no mention of either James Nesmith's vote or Reverdy Johnson's vote. It mentions Reverdy Johnson's support of an amendment like the 13th and the previous pages spoke of other prominent Democrats that supported such an amendment, yet no mention of the actual voting. Reading past the page they cite will require I get access to the book. I plan on doing so if I can find it at my local library.

I have not been able to view the page of the second source, if my local library has it I'll try and read it. Though if it's as dubious as the first citation I doubt it has the facts to back up the article's claim.

Am I in my rights to add the note to the articles of Reverdy Johnson and Benjamin F. Harding if I leave the other two articles alone? I was planning on doing so but thought it'd be strange to have these claims hyperlinked to James Nesmith's and the 13th Amendment's pages with contradictory statements.

So, can I delete the claim on James Nesmith's page and add my correction? The two sources are only used once in the article, in the claim I'm disputing, so I'd feel bad for the person who originally put the effort in publishing the claim only for me to remove it and their two sources entirely. ~~~~ Jinandwin (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

consensus with other editors as to what the article should say. Perhaps the other editors of that article are aware of the information you have, or if they aren't, can work with you to present all the sources of information. 331dot (talk

) 11:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Asking for consensus on their talk pages may be useless, as the articles about these men get few visitors, and even fewer visitors to the Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

When not entirely sure of myself on an article with light traffic, my method is to propose my change in the talk page. Usually there is no answer in a few days, so I go ahead. Yes, it may still be reverted, but the ensuing discussion is likely to be constructive. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Recently one of my draft articles had tags stating [non primary source needed since two of the sources with the tags clearly had a secondary source backing up I removed the tags, later the person who added those tags accused me of white washing and explained my intent was to decieve editors keep in mind there were two more sources with that tag and 2 more with a different tag that I didn't remove. I explained that both of sources I removed tags for had a secondary source backing them up, I later recieved a reply from another user stating that if the primary source is backed up by a secondary source the primary source should be removed.

I either have 2 options here

I can either keep both sources?

Or remove the primary source?

Which one is better to do?

Draft talk:903 (PTV Bus) NotOrrio (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It is rarely necessary to have more than one citation for a particular piece of information, and doing so often looks like an editor trying to make up for quality with quantity. (Of course, sometimes a sentence will contain more than one claim and two sources might be needed). I haven't looked at your draft to see the specifics, but if the secondary source verifies the information, what would be the point of keeping the primary source as well? ColinFine (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

How can I write my own article? Alyssap167 (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Alyssap167, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. Please see

Your first article

. I strongly advise you to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to some of our six million articles before you embark on that often frustrating journey.

If the article you want to write is about you, or somebody or something you are close to, I advise you not to: please see

WP:COI. ColinFine (talk

) 16:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

If you mean an article about yourself, then you shouldn't. Please read the advice against autobiography. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Lastly, you will not "own" what you contribute to Wikipedia. In general, any editor can edit any article, as long as content is verified by reliable source references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 17:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I am simply trying to set a genuine page for a legal business, I am having some issues, please help. Downtown Heroes FC (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Your draft was blatant advertising and totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The deletion was the second. The first deletion was of a draft created by another single-purpose account. That was deleted (by Deb) two years ago as a copyright violation. The recent, second deletion (by 331dot) cited "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Yes, it was unambiguously promotional: if I'd seen it before 331dot did, I wouldn't have hesitated to delete it for that reason alone. But unambiguous promotion wasn't all. It didn't just sound like recycled publicity, it was recycled publicity. It came from this downtownheroesfc.com page, at the foot of which we're told "©Downtown Heroes Football Club". So the rightly deleted Draft:Downtown Heroes FC was a copyright violation. -- Hoary (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You don't set up a "page" about a business--legal or otherwise--in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory or social networking site. If this business is sufficiently notable to have been written about substantially in several reliable and reputable sources--sources completely unconnected with the business--then someone here, ideally not connected with that business, might undertake to write an ARTICLE about the business. And then, others (ideally not connected) might edit that article--trivially or substantially. And the result might or might not be to the business's liking. But if it's all properly and reliably sourced, if it doesn't violate copyright, and if it follows a couple of other rules, then the business will not be able to do much about it. Uporządnicki (talk)

Hello people, as I am still learning how to edit, I wanted to ask if there's somebody I could ask to improve an article visually, and on a similar note is there an article detailing how I could make graphs and add tables to an article? Thank you for your help. Wpakxl (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Wpakxl, and welcome to the Teahouse. You didn't specify the article you're interested in improving but, for learning about graphs, you may wish to carefully read and work through Wikipedia:Graphs and charts, and for tables (which are not the easiest things to deal with) see Help:Table. For improving article layout and content, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Please be aware that you've asked about three very complicated areas, so you will need to work slowly and carefully though each one in turn to understand what's involved.

We're happy to answer more specific questions, but context is everything. regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your reply. This is the page I wanted to improve upon : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chief_ministers_of_Delhi. There's too much empty space for my liking and the textboxes feel like they haven't been formatted properly, Wpakxl (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Wpakxl The large amount of empty space towards the top is caused by the long infobox on the right being followed immediately by a table. Because of the table being present, there's little we can do about that, except that I've moved the 2nd paragraph of the introductory text into a 'History' section, which fills it out a bit more. (Feel free to revert this if you don't think it was a good idea.) You could do the same with the section after the tables, entitled 'Living former chief minister' - that would occupy a bit more of the white space, too, and fit in with the 'History' section I made.

I am unsure what you were referring to by "textboxes feel like they haven't been formatted properly" but I urge you to take extreme care when editing tables - they can very easily be damaged by a careless edit, so always check afterwards and be prepared to revert your own edit if you make a mistake. I often advise people to copy a table's wikicode into their user sandbox and play around with editing that first, before trying to alter the article itself. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your help. As for my textboxes comment, they looked a bit off-centre to me then, but now they appear to be fine. I think I will leave the article as it is, for some future editor to improve, while I try to gain some more experience with formatting and such. I will keep your advice in mind, and thank you again for assisting me. I really appreciate it. Wpakxl (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

In this article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shintaro_Ishihara#Personal_life_and_death - an editor has added a 'citation needed' for the place where Mr. Ishihara died, and most of the news articles talk about Mr. Ishihara dying at his Tokyo home but they don't mention that it was in the Ota Ward of Tokyo : https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14537506, under the image it is mentioned his house was in Ota Ward and in this article https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/society/general-news/20220618-38766/, the author's house in Ota Ward, but because these facts aren't directly linked to each other, and you have to put two and two together, how do I add this note to the article? Thank you for your help. Wpakxl (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Wpakxi. I'm afraid that that looks to me like

WP:IAR). ColinFine (talk

) 17:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, now that you mention it, it does sound like it is original research, I think I will change it to just Tokyo and remove the 'citation needed' warning. Thank you for your help. Wpakxl (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I Accidently messed up My Gym Partner's a Monkey season 2 episodes! I need help restoring, Jacksoncochran048484 (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Think this is ok now. I looked at the changes you had made through viewing history, and put the double {s back. All ok. Tacyarg (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I am writing an article Draft:Lewis A. Novack, but my rejection is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Any advice on advancing the article

- Seven3531 Seven3531 (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Seven3531, it was rejected. It says at the top: "Stop". "Stop" means stop. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary for the advice. Seven3531 (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

can someone direct me to someplace in wikipedia that serves as a chat room? Allaoii ^talk<:/span> 19:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Allaoii Please see WP:IRC. You may also ask questions here. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Why do you want a chat room? Discussions on Wikipedia are meant for

general discussion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori}

19:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming they want a chat room about Wikipedia. Frogging101 (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

i have a question that doesnt fit normal wikipedia talks and since im on a whitelist this is pretty much my only option Allaoii ^talk 19:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Allaoii, if you can't use IRC or Discord, then the Teahouse/Help Desk areas are as close as you can probably get to a general-purpose "chat room" for Wikipedia related things. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

this is a question that is related to a topic covered by wikipedia, not wikipedia itself Allaoii ^talk 21:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Reference desks. Cullen328 (talk

) 21:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

there's no way theyll take it Allaoii talk 02:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a dispute on the talk (and article) page of Lodz. I believe that a particular song about the town should be mentioned. Another editor, Merangs, writes it off as trivial. The song was Vicky Leandros's first number-one hit in Germany and has become an evergreen. Since the Lodz page has a section on the town in literature and film, I don't see why music should not also be included. Can we get outside input? Kdammers (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy links: Łódź and Talk:Łódź#Song Jolly1253 (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Afternoon Wiki Land

I am looking for someone to write a Wikipedia page for me - Please advise what I am do here. I am a complete Rookie

IT isnt really the easiest place to work things out

Dave

Feeling lost and confused in Wikipedia land. KahuKiwi (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @

(talk)

03:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

General advice is gain experience by improving existing articles before attempting to create an article. Requesting that an article be created rarely succeeds. David notMD (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@David notMD Should the editor's phone number be redacted from their talk page? (Search for "0468"). David10244 (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @KahuKiwi, you can add it to Wikipedia:Requested articles.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 05:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

KahuKiwi, adding a suggestion/request to Wikipedia:Requested articles is usually just a waste of time. Plenty of outfits offer to create articles for money, but we take a dim view of this. The general recommendation is DIY. However, (i) you need to acquire skills and experience before attempting a new article, and (ii) if the subject you're suggesting is yourself, please don't. -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @KahuKiwi You started by putting article-like content on your User page, which was the wrong place, hence deleted and the comment on your Talk page. You have since created Draft:Kahu the Kiwi Rugby and World Sports and submitted it even though it has no content. Hence declined. You will succeed only if there are published articles about this topic that you can cite as references for verification. What you personally know to be true contributes nothing to Wikipedia notability. From what you wrote on your Talk page, I strongly doubt that this topic qualifies for an article. I suggest you abandon the draft. Six months from now it will be deleted for lack of progress. David notMD (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@

Horay, how is it a waste of time, its sometimes active and people add articles and remove them from time to time.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸)

23:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@HelpingWorld, the trouble is that "time to time" is getting longer, while the list itself continues to grow. It's pretty much not for the impatient, nor for the merely mortal. Quisqualis (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not want all that stuff all over the page your autobots just posted.

Delete it now! #Angry

~~ Missbellanash (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Missbellanash: If you are referring to your user talk page, you could edit it yourself and remove it. Also, note that Wikipedia is not social media. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

It is sm if I want it to be, stop being instructive and ignore the things you can't do.

Take that ridiculous fake code out and put a name in, it says "name" for a reason.

~~ Missbellanash (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

What name? I can't find any use of the word "name" in your user talk page. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Missbellanash Your talk page says "Please do not place signatures on the same line as comments". Editors making comments and replies aren't likely to follow that request, nor should they need to.

You said "It [Wikipedia] is [social media] if I want it to be". Just so you know, you are wrong about that. David10244 (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You can opt out of notifications. I don't think that will stop the messages from being written. You can delete the message though.Cwater1 (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You have a robust turn of phrase, Missbellanash. This doesn't worry me personally, but do note that WP:Civility isn't a mere essay, it's a policy page. -- Hoary (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Policy Bashing i one of my pastimes, probably not a good idea to compliment me..it just gets worse. Heh

@Hoary I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving and weekend! Take care, #best!

~~ Missbellanash (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I’m the Christian Cartoonist. I desire to be a Wikipedia article creator, but it’s difficult with all the procedures and what to put in there. What are some things I can do? The Christian Cartoonist (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

General advice is gain experience by improving existing articles before attempting to create an article - a difficult task for beginners. David notMD (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! One thing you can do is to make sure you have the sources required at

WP:YFA on how to start an article. See "Help out" at Wikipedia:Community portal, there's much to do besides making new articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 08:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

How can I created article in wikipedia Hey Samsung (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, if you want to create an article you should read here for instructions:

WP:MFA. Remember to keep your language encylopedic and to source any claims you make. FishandChipper 🐟🍟

13:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

new user tutorial. 331dot (talk

) 13:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I would like to get permission to use my alternate account, User:Villanykörte. I will mainly use this account for editing tests. Ricciardo Best (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

You're generally allowed to use alternative accounts for test edits. The best way to do it is to create a user page and make sure it says on your page what your alternate account is. Read the sockpuppetry page for more information on when you can and can't use alternate accounts. Usually you don't need a second account to do testing though unless you're working with scripting or something like that. Your sandbox is a good place to do test edits, and you can always create a second sandbox if you need to. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

My site was banned from wikipedia for creating a talk page or including it as a business. It was banned back in 2021 I came to know just a few weeks ago. How do I request for excluding my web address from banned list? Jabbar132 (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Flatly speaking, you don't. While you technically could appeal a blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist (assuming it was blacklisted on the English-language Wikipedia) in practice requests to remove one's own website from the blacklist are summarily rejected. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 07:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I presume you are talking about your website being added to either the local spam blacklist or the global blacklist. If so, either of these has a talkpage (local | global ) where delisting requests can be made, however, the chance that requests from site owners are granted are extremely low.

If this is about gari.pk, for which you made a whitelist request in June this year, the reply you recived by Anachronist is still valid. gari.pk is on the global blacklist (added here) and as such a delisting request would need to be made here.

If this is about something else, woould you please specify what? Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes I request about gari.pk but got no answers, As you mentioned let me check and continue if still problem occurs I'll ask here Jabbar132 (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It is about gari.pk but I found no way of requesting unban of site or I'm missing something. Can you help me out Jabbar132 (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Personal websites are not allowed on Wikipedia. There is nothing you can do to unban it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I archived an article at archive.today but then thought it might be better to use Wayback Machine. Now I have archived versions from both and am wondering if I can somehow use both or if one is preferable to the other. Mcljlm (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

There are a number of archiving services available. The biggest advantage of Wayback is that it does a lot of pro-active archiving, and you often will have a large selection of existing archive versions to choose from. Also, Wayback generally will have linked pages archived as well, which can be critical to the usefulness of an archive link.

I had been using archive.today in many cases when there were issues with Wayback. However, their on-screen advertisements have at times become excessively intrusive, and even though the archived page from archive.today may seem acceptable today, if they change how the ads display, that will affect previously-archived pages. As a result, I have started to look for alernatives. In particular, Wikiwix seems to be a popular alternative, though I have been using ghostarchive. Every archiving service will have its peculiarities. Unfortunately the interfaces are all different and not all web pages can be effectively archive on all the archiving services. I'm mostly concerned with having workable archive copies and not too concerned if Wikipedia readers have to put up with these slightly different interfaces. Fabrickator (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

And yes, i have a question. Do i need to start to edit a wikipedia article? Some random account on this website (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Some random account, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see my reply to the previous question.

Sorry, I've just realised you weren't asking about creating a new article. I'm not sure what you were asking. You can edit most articles (a few are semi-protected so that new accounts can't edit them). But you should make sure you follow Wikipedia's policies on

Help:Intro. ColinFine (talk

) 17:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

It's ok, some people can make mistakes. Some random account on this website (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

And thanks for the answer! Some random account on this website (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Some random account on this website I wonder if your question is, since you've set up an account, are you required to start editing something. As far as I know, the answer is no. Uporządnicki (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

ok Some random account on this website (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Is it at all possible to get help creating an article from a semi notable band Infamous Sinphony? I tried in the past with no success only reason I ask for help. Thanks!

Here is their official website and a couple other sources: http://www.infamoussinphony.com/ https://www.n1m.com/infamoussinphony https://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Infamous_Sinphony/11263 Pjryb (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@

too sparse). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori}

08:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Pjryb, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to your question is that is is not impossible to get some help, but there are some significant hurdles that you will need to overcome. Remember that Wikipedia is entirely edited by volunteers, who work on what they choose (for example, I mostly choose to help people here and at the Help Desk, and don't do a huge amount of work on articles). So in order to get help, you will need to get somebody's interest up enough that they choose to work with you. It is possible that you can do that by asking here, but not very likely. You might have more success asking at WT:WikiProject Metal, but there are no guarantees.

In any case, one of the things that somebody who helps you will want to be sure of is that their work will not be wasted, and so they will want to be sure that Infamous Sinphony meets Wikipedia's requirements for

significant coverage of the band which are an absolute requirement. If you can find them, then there is a chance of an article, either by you or if you can find a collaborator. (Follow the blue links to learn what those terms all mean in this context). If you can't find the sources, you'll know to give up. ColinFine (talk

) 15:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @

(talk)

20:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I am the 2nd daughter of two biological daughters of Charles "Charlie" Applewhite, and there is no family (wives, children) information listed. I added under "Notes", because I did not know how to list a ref. Could you please let me know how I should do this? Best, Lisa Applewhite Kimbell (redacted) Apple1954 (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

reliable sources that can be verified state. There needs to be such a source for family information in order to include it in an article. 331dot (talk

) 17:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@

sources. Thus whatever you happen to know but has not been published in such a source cannot be in an article here. I will revert your addition in a moment and place some further information on your Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk

) 17:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

How do you prove that you are the daughter of someone you are trying to write about, and/or is this a conflict of interest? Apple1954 Apple1954 (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Apple1954 We don't necessarily need you to prove you are who you say you are- but you do likely have a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is almost certainly a

reliable published sources say about the subject. In principle the subject's daughter can do that as well as anybody else, but it may be difficult for her to confine herself to what the published sources say, especially when they appear to say something different from her memories. ColinFine (talk

) 17:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear ColinFine,

Thank you, for the information. BTW, you write beautifully!

Best,

Apple1954 Apple1954 (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Apple1954 It seems to me that you don't have to prove that you ARE the daughter; you only have to document the existence of the daughter. And actually, it's probably better done by someone who is not the daughter. Uporządnicki (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Lisa. For notes, we often use the template {{efn}}, which is the approach used in Charlie's article. If you're new to Wikipedia, that is quite esoteric! I'm just mentioning it so that you may know how explanatory footnotes are created, though I realize it's not your primary concern. I hope you can find a source that mentions your name. An offline obituary maybe? Our article does say that he had two daughters, but I can't access the supporting sources to see whether names are mentioned. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 22:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello there, I would like to know, how do I join this lovely place? Kind regards, H2Perkins. H2Perkins (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems you already have. All you have to do now is make edits that improve the encyclopedia. Fix errors when you see them or add content based on reliable sources. What I suggest you don't do is ruin pages that you don't like, like you did on the talk page for Brazil. We're happy to have you here as long as your edits are helpful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Oops - editor now blocked for making unconstructive edits (per filter log). Nick Moyes (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Please any one can teach me how to edit wikipedia article in simple way. Hey Samsung (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

You can start at Help:Introduction. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear. User now blocked as a

WP:SOCKPUPPET. Nick Moyes (talk

) 23:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Can any one create about Gopal Tamang and Sabina Bajagain article in Wikipedia for some information in people Hey Samsung (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey Samsung I get the sense that English may not be your primary language; have you considered editing the version of Wikipedia that is in your primary language? 331dot (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you go to create Wikipedia Article about Gopal Tamang and Sabina Bajagain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey Samsung (talk • contribs) 15:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I personally am not going to; you may request it at

Requested articles but there are many thousands of requests there, and it may be a long time. Could you answer my question please? 331dot (talk

) 15:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Indef blocked as sock. David notMD (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

if your a youtuber what number of subscibers do you need in order to have a wikipedia article Joel clements is D E A D (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Finn McCool (youtuber) echidnaLives - talk - edits 02:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not based on number of subscribers, it's based on

WP:CREATOR. ––FormalDude (talk)

02:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I follow a singer whose page's photos haven't been updated in awhile. If I have a great photo of him that I own the copyright to (because I took it during one his concerts) am I allowed to post it on his page, including replacing the current photo in his page's infobox? I know that I'd have to upload the image to the Wikimedia Commons first. I understand the technicalities pretty well; I need advice on the legalities. Thanks. Kirkdudley (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Kirkdudley, welcome to the teahouse! You can use these images, but generally they should be high-quality enough that the musician is recognisable. So, if you were close-ish to the stage and got a good quality picture, great! But if you were at the back and can barely make them out in the image, maybe not... But, there is no guideline/policies based on this, just a community norm.

Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 04:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC).

Thanks! Kirkdudley (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kirkdudley: Images should be posted on Wikimedia Commons, and into a Wikipedia article from there. You won't be able to post them directly into Wikipedia. Also, please be selective - each picture should highlight something from the article, not just "here are a hundred pictures I took".--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Recently I send a new craft about our musical group 'popeye(band)'. But it's declined because of "not adequately supported by

Your First Article. 331dot (talk

) 08:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! It helped a lot. Agentsame (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I have another question relating to the same article as before : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shintaro_Ishihara#Books_written_by_Ishihara in this an editor has added an template asking for sourcing to be added to the bibliography of Shintaro Ishihara. Does Wikipedia require a list of books authored by a certain person to be sourced from secondary sources, because by what I can tell most western authors' books on here are either referenced by their ISBN code or have sources added only if their books won an award. I am pretty confused. What steps can I take to help add references for the books? Thank you again for your help. Wpakxl (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

My first reaction, Wpakxl, was "Of course that's not necessary"; but I took a look at the list and yes it does need referencing. Not "<ref>blah blah</ref>" referencing, but referencing all the same. For any book whose first edition has an ISBN, provide the ISBN. For any whose first edition does not, provide the NCID or a good OCLC or (better) both for that first edition. There's your referencing done. And of course it's not merely referencing: it helps readers locate the books. (Here's a model.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

PS, Wpakxl, strictly speaking, an ISBN is not a reference. The ISBN for a book doesn't even prove that a book matching the ISBN even exists. However, a typical ISBN can be used for finding bibliographical information for a real-world edition of a book. Somebody could reasonably question the accuracy, usefulness or validity of this or that particular ISBN, but I don't think that they could reasonably claim that a set of demonstrably valid ISBNs for a writer with print runs as large as Ishihara's was insufficient evidence for the existence of those editions. -- Hoary (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your reply. I will do as you say. I wanted to ask if there is a need for the bibliography to be in the form of a table like something over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_King_bibliography or is the current format sufficient? Also, as I can clearly see you have sufficient experience in editing pages related to Japanese culture, would it be fine if I could come to your talk page to ask your for any doubts I might have? Again, thanks a lot for your advice. Wpakxl (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Wpakxl, I don't like the King bibliography: the complexity of its layout seems quite unnecessary, and the fact that it's tabular greatly increases the amount of scrolling that's needed. Other editors here may well have very different opinions. One thing that doesn't satisfy me about the Ishihara bibliography is that the status of many of the English titles isn't clear. When this is on a book published in Japan, is this an alternative, English-language title that actually appears in or on the book (as frequently happens for all-Japanese-language books), or is it a nonce translation by a Wikipedia editor? You're welcome to ask me questions; but if these are about a specific article it's better to ask them to nobody in particular on that article's talk page, and if you don't get helpful answers, then to ping me to get my attention. -- Hoary (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

Dumb question maybe but I want to add an English translation to this page.

I got my edit reverted because I didn't cite my source. I realize that is bad practice so sorry :)

Someone on this website insists they own the copyright to the translation.

Clearly the translation there was verbatim copied from a comment 7 years earlier on a imperial Japan reenactment forum.

Are forum comments in the public domain?

Thanks,

Rishi RishiKakade (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@RishiKakade: No, forum posts are not usally in the public domain. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, wether the translation was copied from lyrictranslate.com or tapatalk.com is a distinction without a difference since neither has any evidence on it that its freely licensed, and Wikipedia assumes things to be under standard "all rights reserved" copyright unless there is evidence to the contrary. (Courtesy Ping DanCherek as the revdelling admin) Additionally, translations are derivative works, so there are actually two copyrights to consider, the copyright of the original work (I am not an expert at Japanese Copyright, but if the song was released in 1885 its probbably PD now) and the copyright of the translation (which is still copyrighted). Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, RishiKakade, and thanks for your question. I'm afraid that forum contents are not in the public domain (unless there is a specific and clearly-stated agreement that those who post to it are releasing their words under a Creative Commons commercial license, just as we do here. That would be quite unusual, I suspect, and so the content would be the copyright of the person who posted those comments. But there is a bigger issue here - discussion forums are not seen as reliable sources because anyone can post anything to them without any editorial oversight. Therefore we do not permit them as sources, just as we don't accept personal blogs and personal websites, or self-published vanity books. I don't know enough about translations from Japanese to English to know whether there would be intellectual copyright on a high quality translation. The song you want to write about is clearly long past any copyright issue. I might have to leave that for others to comment on. But because it is a simple matter of copying the Japanese into Googler translate and coming up with a poor, but workable translation, I wonder whether it would be best not to include any translation in the article at all, and let readers do it for themselves until such time as a reliably-sourced, high-quality translation can be cited. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

A quick check online shows that human-made translations are copyrighted, regardless of quality. For translations on public domain text like in this, the copyright is usually held by the translator. – robertsky (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Just a comment, Nick Moyes, an appreciable number of forums state in their terms and conditions that the copyright of any text posted belongs to the forum, not to the person who posted it. This makes logical sense as the forum owner may wish to protect themselves from someone mirroring the entire forum, and if posting is anonymous, sorting out who owns the copyright would otherwise by quite tricky. A lot of forum users have absolutely no idea of this, and don't bother reading the small print. It's generally not a big problem, but I've seen it become an issue in a self-help forum where one particularly regular poster was considering using her accumulated posts as the foundation for writing a book, and was a bit shocked to realise she needed the forum owner's consent! Elemimele (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Can someone fix this? What user did this? 174.27.66.83 (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

For some reason it was removed over a year ago with this edit by @One-Winged Devil. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Greetings:

I would appreciate a second look at this page Draft:Norma Jean to help point out anything that needs editing to meet the Wikipedia standards. Angelagh (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Angelagh Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for declaring your paid connection to Norma Jean. Where did you get the information about her early life and career from? Most of that content is unavailable in the cited sources, so please delete them. We don't want to know what the subject says about themselves and their backgrounds - only what reliable sources have written about that person. There are far too many External Links; one official website and one social media account will suffice.

In essence, collate only what others have already published about this person, and ensure you cite each of them properly. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes THANK YOU! I see your point! I missed where I was referencing that information. I have removed it now. I also removed several external links. I'm open to any other recommendations as well as if it is perhaps at the point to be accepted for publication. Angelagh (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh - I found some of that content, but that raises another issue, now. Never do what you did here and copy paste from other websites (https://normajeanactress.wordpress.com/about/). That content is copyright of its authors (even if that person is you), and would need to be rewritten to have a more encyclopaedic tone of voice and not to closely paraphrase the original in any way. Not only that, the information comes from the subject's own website, and is not acceptable for Wikipedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes I just realized I didn't publish the latest changes where I removed a lot of the content. Hopefully the latest edits have removed the questionable material. thanks again! Angelagh (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Please go to above article. Scroll down to pitchers section. I dont know how to seperate from hitters section, should be individual box by itself. Need help. Please fix. Thank you.Theairportman33531 (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe I made the change you wanted, let me know 2011 Los Angeles Angels season Angelagh (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, however, one more thing. Where it says Pitching statistics; move that all the way to the left, please. Thank you for your help.Theairportman33531 (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Theairportman33531 It is left aligned now :) Angelagh (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I am a new editor and tried to make a draft on “Simon Barrett” Sadly I could not find any reliable source as the decent ones were “LinkedIn” and “Find and update company info service” which are not moderated, Any Help?

Read My Draft Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Simon_Barratt

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that if you (who are the one who is interested in writing about Simon Barratt) cannot find any reliable independent sources, it is likely that he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. (I'm extremely dubious that Four Door Lemon meets those criteria either. It was created in 2009, when we were less careful about standards).

Note that writing a single word of an article before finding the reliable sources is usually a waste of time, because either the sources aren't there and the subject isn't notable, or if the sources are there, it's quite likely to need to be rewritten from scratch according to what the sources say. See

WP:BACKWARD. ColinFine (talk

) 16:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, thank you, I'll make sure to take note.

talk

) 16:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Black hat (computer security) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamaal5 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC) please look at the edit, it uses Wikipedia as a source multiple times, and Wikipedia is clearly not a reliable source in and of itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamaal5 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:BITE, anyone?), you did remove a lot more then just the Wikipedia citations. casualdejekyll

17:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jamaal5, and welcome to the Teahouse. You're right that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and cannot be used as a reference. However, deleting the reference while leaving the text in the article is not helpful. Either the information can be found in a reliable source, in which case cite that; or it can't, in which case the information should be removed from the article.

In fact, the sentence you removed the reference from in your last edit, is copied from the article white hat (computer security), where it has proper references. A more helpful thing to do would be to copy the citations from that article. ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I apologize if I am in the wrong place.

There is a need for a page indexing all Wikipedia-listed health campaigns, it would be useful for public officials, nonprofits, researchers, and providers.

For instance, there are these one-issue campaigns:

March of Dimes

Easter Seals

Great American Smokeout

How many more are there?

At the same time, there are multi-issue, regional/state-wide/nation-wide/worldwide campaigns, which are so important, but many of which do not have a Wikipedia page:

2019 Arizona State Health Assessment https://directorsblog.health.azdhs.gov/public-healths-10-essential-services/

Virginia Well-Being https://virginiawellbeing.com/

Blueprint for Coachella Valley: https://coachellavalleyweekly.com/blueprint-for-the-coachella-valley/

I thought about trying to start this myself, but just simple Wikipedia edits take me over an hour... if someone wants to work with me, contact me. Thanks. BooksXYZ (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Village Pump. That said, most of those articles are members of categories that seem to be similar to what you are suggesting(such as Category:Health charities in the United States). Are you proposing a new category? 331dot (talk

) 19:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@BooksXYZ: We also have Category:Health campaigns but based on your examples you may not have the normal meaning of health campaign in mind. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)