Strange blank area
Why do Wikipedia articles leave a large blank and textless area on the right side of the table of contents? I think it's stylistically weak. If it is a programmatic problem, then it could be solved in several ways: 1) possible local variables in the table of contents could be changed to global ones; 2) the width of the inner edge of the text frame on the right may be larger at the beginning; 3) the width of the text frame can be constant, so that the text of long lines continues to the next one, at the same time we would get rid of some very narrow tables of contents. 4) Lastly, the article text could flow free on the right side of the text frame like they flow beside other boxes. Please answer this question and not start changing the subject to vector 2022. Please do not redirect to the programmers' page. The last time I asked there, why does Wikidata give an error message if Finland uses the Finnish hyphens for ISBN numbers and not the American practice. I had 3 references for the hyphens. The answer was one word: "Invalid". Maybe not a war invalid. Jari Rauma (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, Jari Rauma. Not addressing your main concerns, but in case your last sentence expresses genuine perplexity: there are two English words with the same spelling but different meanings – "in'valid" (emphasis on the first syllable) means "someone confined to bed while suffering or recovering from illness or injury", while "inval'id" means, "not valid, or "wrong format" etc. Doubtless the latter was meant, and would have been a completely automated response; I'm sure no human was trying to be brusque. {The poster formerly known as 87.18,230.195} 90.193.130.14 (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Jari Rauma The blank area is there because it's always been there, it's just the way the table of contents was implemented a decade ago when the vector skin was designed. I'm not sure what you're talking about with regards to "local and global variables" or why that would have anything to do with the display of the page, The display of the page is set using CSS. The look of the vector skin has been constant for over a decade and changing fundamentals with the display of the skin at this point would be extremely controversial, so it is extremely unlikely (in my opinion) that the developers would change the way the table of contents is displayed at this point. The new skin that is being worked on, vector 2022, does not embed the table of contents in the article at all, so that it doesn't interrupt the display of the text. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, sir.
You wrote: " I'm not sure what you're talking about with regards to "local and global variables" or why that would have anything to do with the display of the page,". – These variables are basic stuff in programming languages. If the dimension is defined as a local variable and after that static, the variable can only be changed locally. Or the text flow -function doesn't work with the context frame, because the context frame -function has forbidden it by placing a signal: we're are busy, don't write stuff on the right side. So the text flow -function has to wait for a global signal: now the text frame is ready and now the text flow -function can start.
I know that the error has continued for over 10 years. Here is one clarification to my question about the large empty area on the right side of the table of contents (if you didn't understand) and one example. The text: " The last time I asked there, why does Wikidata give an error message if Finland uses the Finnish hyphens for ISBN numbers and not the American practice." should be "The last time I asked there, why does Wikidata give an error message if Finland uses the Finnish practice of placing hyphens between ISBN numbers and not the American practice". Here is one example of a strangely large white area. How stupid! but maybe it's nice for some high-class people who never take notice of their mistakes. And what's your opinion or is it illegal, because in Wikipedia you must ask others what you see: Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration Look it carefully and honestly.
So, You still changed the subject although I forbade. You want to change the subject to Vector 2022. I have a question about that, too. Why does Vector 2022 shows always the index? It's cumbersome. I don't want always to see a book's index when I'm reading a book. But that's the primitive way to narrow the article text column. Maybe you began to understand that narrower columns are easier to read. I have always thought that 1-column articles are from the Stone age. Newspapers got rid of them a few hundred years ago. Jari Rauma (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Jari Rauma I've moved your comment to here- please edit this existing section for follow up comments, instead of creating a new section. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Jari Rauma I still don't understand what you are talking about with "global or local variables"? I know what a global or local variable is, but I don't see how concepts from programming languages are relevant to a mark up language, where you think these variables are located or what relevance they have to how the page is displayed. Do you know how websites work, because a lot of the stuff you're saying about "text flow fuctions" and "context frame functions" and "signals" don't make any sense. Wikipedia is, for the most part, a relatively plain HTML document with a bit of CSS to make it look pretty.
- Problems with ISBNs on wikidata and their integration with Finnish standards should be directed to the wikidata help forum, this help page is for issues with the English wikipedia and most people here will not have the knowledge to be able to help you with that problem.
- I know exactly what you are talking about when you mention the white space next to the table of contents - the point is that it isn't a bug - it was intentionally designed to look that way. The current skin is essentially now being preserved for the sake of people who like the existing skin and who don't want to update - making huge changes to the appearance of pages doesn't make any sense at this point. The efforts to improve the table of content and make it less obstructive to the have gone into the new vector 2022 skin, if you don't want to use it that's fine, but if you're going to stick to a skin that was made a decade ago you aren't going to get new features and are going to be presented with a website that looks exactly like it did 10 years ago.
- You might be able to hack something together with some custom CSS or JavaScript to do what you want but I'm not aware of any existing user scripts that do wat you describe. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- 2022Sir, you can ask more questions about programming from Wikidata. I hope you get a better answer than "invalid". Wikidata shows a bug in two places. In the Finnish Wikipedia articles, the ISBN numbers are hyphenated the same way as book stores do in Finland. And one of the sources said: "The use of hyphens or spaces has no lexical significance and is purely to enhance readability." (ISBN manual, 2017 p. 11) [1]. So this is perhaps also "invalid" according the guys in Wikidata.
- Sir, I prefer professional Wikiwanda to Vector 2022. New Vector has copied a little from modern Wikiwanda-style, but Vector 2022 comes far behind. The main problem is that Vector 2022 still has a big program bug with graphics. It has inherited it from vector 2010. But I write about it later here, because I'm not invalid. By the way, do you notice the big mistake? Perhaps you can figure it out by comparing Wikiwanda and Vector 2022. Jari Rauma (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Jari Rauma: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you're referring to the wide margins around the main content, that is intentional (though not necessarily well-received). See mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Features/Limiting content width for more details. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia uses one column of text because it (like many digital works) follows the paradigm of the vertical scroll rather than the codex. Printed newspapers, like almost all modern printed books, are codices, in which columns are useful because the textual content is broken into individual chunks by pagination at the time of publishing. Each page is seen in its entirety at any given point in a work; therefore, columns are useful because the start of the next column is always immediately accessible simply by moving one's eyes or turning the page.With a vertical scroll, however, the textual content is not broken up by the publisher; the whole scroll itself acts like a long page, successive sections of which are revealed and hidden when reading (in a way, the reader acts as the paginator, dynamically creating individual quasi-pages when moving along the scroll). If the text were broken into columns, in all likelihood the start of the next column would not always be easily accessible: a reader would probably have to inefficiently scroll back through already-read text to find it. This is why, for example, no major online news publisher (that I know of) breaks its text content into columns, even if it publishes a paper version which is columnated.In this sense, though codices are admittedly newer than scrolls, the use of single-column text is in fact a rather new development, based on the modern adoption of an ancient method of text display. Shells-shells (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Jari Rauma: There is already a way {{TOC left}} to do this in individual pages and we could also do it sitewide if we wanted but I don't expect support for either. You can do it for yourself with code like this in your CSS:
#toc {
float: left;
clear: left;
width: auto;
margin: 0 1em 0.5em 0;
}
- PrimeHunter (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
my article got speedy deletion
my first article got the speedy deletion although I have not promoted or advertised any company. Please review it PatrickSmith07 (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- PatrickSmith07 At the moment, Draft:Learnbay still exists, but is tagged for Speedy deletion. You responded on your Talk page, which will have no effect. You also replied properly on the Talk page of the article, which is the right place. David notMD (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: Draft:Learnbay
- @PatrickSmith07 The article hasn't been deleted yet, but it will meet the criteria for deletion as advertising or promotion (WP:G11). The entire thing is full of puffery, "inspirational"/promotional language and seems to exist purely to promote the company, text like
Going out of the box, he dreamt of such a business that will shape the future of professionals.
orMrs. Nisha Kumari was already holding an outstanding level of people management skills, but her passion was searching for such a role, where she could drive job seekers to their best level of career growth and security.
are completely inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. - Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view, avoiding promotion, and should summarise what independent, reliable sources say about the subject. Huge chunks of this draft are completely unsourced and it would need a 100% rewrite to stand any chance at all of being accepted. Start by finding a few pieces of independent, reliable, non-trivial coverage of this company, then base your draft around what those sources say.
- Finally, if you are editing here as part of your job or you expect to receive compensation for your edits please follow the instructions at WP:PAID to make the required disclosures. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. I am going to rewrite the article with more neutral PatrickSmith07 (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you are an employee or paid, declare that on your User page. If not paid or compensated or have a personal connection to the company, declare that on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am not paid writer or employee of this compnay PatrickSmith07 (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have a personal connection to the founders? Or unpaid connection to the company - for example, as a student? See WP:COI for how to declare. David notMD (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @PatrickSmith07 David notMD said " If not paid or compensated or have a personal connection to the company, declare that on your Talk page". This page is not your Talk page. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am editing the draft content. I start research about this company after read the new on financial express https://www.financialexpress.com/education-2/learnbay-goes-offline-with-brick-and-mortar-centres-ends-fy22-with-a-net-profit-of-rs-3-2-crore/2590829/ PatrickSmith07 (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The draft has been Speedy deleted, meaning all public record of creation and edits are no longer visible at your account. If you wish to recover content, you can ask the deleting administrator. Be aware that a draft on Learnbay had been created and deleted in June as promotional and copyright infringement. David notMD (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was the nominator of the CSD G11, and absolutely don't agree that a draft should be started again (
Thanks for your help. I am going to rewrite the article with more neutral
would be hard if you have a conflict of interest). Like what said before, some of the article is a blatant ad: seeMrs. Nisha Kumari was already holding an outstanding level of people management skills, but her passion was searching for such a role, where she could drive job seekers to their best level of career growth and security.
Also, please declare a COI if possible. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)- @VickKiang I do not have any conflict of interest and I am not any paid writer. How many times I need to clarify this. If I am saying that I am doing more research on this and will write again with more neutral. but your this statement (I was the nominator of the CSD G11, and absolutely don't agree that a draft should be started again ) is showing that Wikipedia is not public encyclopedia any more. You are taking decisions like a private owned website. you want to stop public information. there are many pages for same kind of companies. PatrickSmith07 (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @PatrickSmith07: Wikipedia operates on editor consensus and policy, one of the latter being Wikipedia not being used as a means of promotion. The encyclopedia doesn't have an issue with information that isn't written promotionally and is reliably sourced. The excerpts given above are something I'd expect to see in ad copy or bio writeups, and not in an encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Editors, I am writing the Draft:Learnbay again please review and help me to make it more neural.. PatrickSmith07 (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @PatrickSmith07: Wikipedia operates on editor consensus and policy, one of the latter being Wikipedia not being used as a means of promotion. The encyclopedia doesn't have an issue with information that isn't written promotionally and is reliably sourced. The excerpts given above are something I'd expect to see in ad copy or bio writeups, and not in an encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @VickKiang I do not have any conflict of interest and I am not any paid writer. How many times I need to clarify this. If I am saying that I am doing more research on this and will write again with more neutral. but your this statement (I was the nominator of the CSD G11, and absolutely don't agree that a draft should be started again ) is showing that Wikipedia is not public encyclopedia any more. You are taking decisions like a private owned website. you want to stop public information. there are many pages for same kind of companies. PatrickSmith07 (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am not paid writer or employee of this compnay PatrickSmith07 (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you are an employee or paid, declare that on your User page. If not paid or compensated or have a personal connection to the company, declare that on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. I am going to rewrite the article with more neutral PatrickSmith07 (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
my experience with what I thought should be an undisputed minor editing
Hi! In the article of Hospitality Club I've run into an issue that I'd like to discuss and hope it is the right place here:
- Sometimes companies, software products, etc. just run out of business. If they got unimportant over the time, there might be no media coverage anymore. Which means that there is no valid source we can use for mentioning that this product/club/company is not active anymore. The English Wikipedia seems to be very strict on that, but shouldn't we discuss if there is a better way how to deal with these things instead of having an article that sounds like everything still is in business?
- I already tried 3O and RfC to discuss the matter in the mentioned article. The whole process of discussing and solving these issues is rather complicated and not welcoming at all. Also you run into experienced users who seem to know the rules by heart but are not willing to show a collaborative behaviour (even if they were told already to do so on their talk page). I'm not a native English speaker, so I just sporadically do minor edits here where things do not get too complicated. Usually I do a lot more work in the Wikipedia in my language. Still I was surprised that the English Wikipedia feels to be so much more stubborn and unwelcoming. Just wanted to mention that this does not seem to be the attitude you'll get new editors to stay involved.
There were the two points I'd like to mention after that experiece. Not an important article though, but maybe it's possible to find better ways how to deal with certain things. - Flexman (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- On your first point, a WP:ABOUTSELF source, if available, could work. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. If I understand, you mean things the company published about themselves? Well unfortuntately their last statment was promising some things followed by years of inactivity. They even didn't do a "we are closing" statement. Flexman (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Then per WP:OR etc, there's not much to do, I think. I'm unaware of any WP:RS that keeps public records on former companies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe one should discuss the rules. But where? Flexman (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Flexman, the policy in question is WP:Verifiability. Attempting to change that policy in order to allow original research would be a monumental task - if it's something you want to attempt, the place to start such a discussion would be: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. Well, I wouldn't want to allow original research. Rules also make sense, but maybe there are other ways to find a solution. It's more the question which kind of sources obvious things need, or if an uptime monitor could be a source there, etc. Like someone mentioned in the discussion, we don't need to list sources to know that the Pope is Catholic or that the sky is blue. So there is not just one valid interpretation of WP:OR. In this case the RfC was rather useless, since also known things were discussed. Maybe it helps more if you can do a yes or no vote in this case. Flexman (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Flexman, the policy in question is WP:Verifiability. Attempting to change that policy in order to allow original research would be a monumental task - if it's something you want to attempt, the place to start such a discussion would be: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe one should discuss the rules. But where? Flexman (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Then per WP:OR etc, there's not much to do, I think. I'm unaware of any WP:RS that keeps public records on former companies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. If I understand, you mean things the company published about themselves? Well unfortuntately their last statment was promising some things followed by years of inactivity. They even didn't do a "we are closing" statement. Flexman (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Help with page tittled Sam Ankrah
Dear all, I recently created an article about a development economist, Sam Ankrah and submitted but unfortunately it was rejected as it was not fit for wiki as at then. I have reshaped it and submitted for further review with link attached (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sam_Ankrah). Someone kindly assist to review it and see if its ok to feature on wikipedia now. Will appreciate any further suggestions to make it better. Thanks in advance Pagefour (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- FYI - Draft:Sam Ankrah was Declined, not Rejected (more severe). You have added content and resubmitted. David notMD (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- In my opinion, non-notable awards and speaking at a conference do not establish notability. WP:TOOSOON may apply here. David notMD (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback but what do you suggest I do to make it acceptable? Pagefour (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Pagefour I appears you have gathered all media mentions of Ankrah, and in my opinion, none of that establishes notability. I recommend deleting the draft by putting db-author at the top inside of double curly brackets {{ }} and coming back to the topic in a few years. David notMD (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback but what do you suggest I do to make it acceptable? Pagefour (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- In my opinion, non-notable awards and speaking at a conference do not establish notability. WP:TOOSOON may apply here. David notMD (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Review Draft
Hello Wikipedia member, please review once Draft:Indian Predator and need to improve article so please add tags for improvement. Thank You. MereBabuji (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi MereBabuji - I am not an AFC reviewer anymore, but I looked over your article and made some changes to the grammar. I hope that helps. You have some good sources in the article. You may want to find a better source for the cast list. Since IMDb is user-generated content (like Wikipedia), it usually isn't the best reference to use in a WP article. See WP:IMDB and WP:Citing IMDb for more information. Don't forget to submit your draft for review when you are ready. Good luck to you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 14:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- MereBabuji Most of your references are bare URL which citation bot can't tidy up (I tried). You need to convert them to full citations, probably using {{cite news}}, giving credit to the authors of the newspaper articles and their publication dates etc. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Hey,any drafts reviewers here.please review once our draft Draft:Indian Predator thank you MereBabuji (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- MereBabuji, you already asked this question and received several replies above. As the notice on your draft says, "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order." 174.21.19.94 (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Have updated the draft with other English sources, although unsure if there are any Hindi-language or other Indian ones available. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 12:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Article name already in use as redirect
Hello, I want to add an article Elisabeth of Hesse-Marburg, but this article name already is in use as a redirect to the article about her husband John V, Count of Nassau-Siegen.
Is it allowed to simply delete the redirect? Or should someone delete the page first before I can add the article?
Thanks in advance for your reply. Regards, Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Roelof Hendrickx, thanks for posting a message at the Teahouse. We had an article on the Elisabeth of Hesse-Marburg. In 2018, Aciram redirected it to what it currently is targeted to. Perhaps a discussion about should the article be re-created now? What sources do you have about the subject? Believe most of the concern previously was a lack of verifiable information. Justiyaya 17:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Justiyaya, thanks for your reply. I understand the concern about verifiable information. For the article I wrote about her, I have used the same sources I have used to re-write the article about her husband. And of course, I have used references in the article. I hope this helps. Regards, Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Roelof Hendrickx: this is an old revision of the article. As you can see it is unsourced and provides no personal relevance. Per WP:NOTINHERITED subjects need to have independent notability. If you can demonstrate they are independently notable of their husband, then by all means be WP:BOLD and replace the redirect with your article. Polyamorph (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Polyamorph, thanks for your reply. That old version of the article is indeed unsourced and provides no personal relevance. I think the article I wrote, does provide personal relevance, so I will be bold and replace the redirect. Regards, Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Roelof Hendrickx Can you post some sources you have here for us to determine notability? Starting a draft then requesting a move to the article space later is also an option if you want to do that instead. Justiyaya 13:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I just have been so bold to replace the redirect. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Looks great. Polyamorph (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Looks great. Polyamorph (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I just have been so bold to replace the redirect. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Roelof Hendrickx Can you post some sources you have here for us to determine notability? Starting a draft then requesting a move to the article space later is also an option if you want to do that instead. Justiyaya 13:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Polyamorph, thanks for your reply. That old version of the article is indeed unsourced and provides no personal relevance. I think the article I wrote, does provide personal relevance, so I will be bold and replace the redirect. Regards, Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Roelof Hendrickx: this is an old revision of the article. As you can see it is unsourced and provides no personal relevance. Per WP:NOTINHERITED subjects need to have independent notability. If you can demonstrate they are independently notable of their husband, then by all means be WP:BOLD and replace the redirect with your article. Polyamorph (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Justiyaya, thanks for your reply. I understand the concern about verifiable information. For the article I wrote about her, I have used the same sources I have used to re-write the article about her husband. And of course, I have used references in the article. I hope this helps. Regards, Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Indentation Plastometry
The development of indentation-based techniques to obtain stress-strain curves (for metals) is an important area, which has been the subject of extensive work over the past couple of decades. The origins lie in hardness testing, which dates back over a century. However, hardness numbers are only semi-quantitative indicators of the resistance to plastic deformation and cannot be used for quantitative purposes. Indentation plastometry is a term now used to describe the obtaining of stress-strain curves from indentation data. This concept is part of an overall activity in which nanoindentation - ie instrumented, very fine scale indentation - forms a part. However, such fine scale indentation, while useful for obtaining information about local regions, cannot be used to obtain the bulk (macroscopic) properties. It is now clear that relatively large volumes must be deformed, although they can still be small enough to allow mapping over the surface of samples and the procedure is still much easier and more convenient than conventional (tensile) testing. There are also several different ways in which the stress-strain curve can be obtained from experimental indentation outcomes. In view of the benefits that will follow from development and full optimisation of a methodology of this type, it would be timely to have an article summarising the main points that are relevant to such procedures. I'd appreciate hearing whether it would be worthwhile for me to draft out a first stab at this. I'd envisage something relatively short, although there are certainly many references that could be cited. BillClyne (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, BillClyne! Please read through the essays and policies WP:Five pillars and WP:Verifiability to give yourself an idea of what Wikipedia needs in the way of WP:Reliable sources on which articles need to be based. (I expect soon someone will add a welcoming message with various other useful links to your Talk page, whose link in your signature will then turn blue.) You might also want to read Help:Your first article, not necessarily because you are about to start one yourself, but to give you an idea of the article-writing process.
- Once you grasp the outlines of what is required, come back here and give links to what you consider to be the three (or a few more, but not a dozen) best Reliable sources that the proposed article could be based on, and responders here will look at them and tell you what they think. Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.169.177 (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello BillClyne. I see that you've been given some general advice about article creation. Given the specialist nature of your suggestion, you might be best to ask editors experienced in Engineering and Materials. You could post at one of the Project Talk Pages, namely WT:WikiProject_Engineering and/or WT:WikiProject_Materials. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks for this. I appreciate that I need to become familiar with various aspects of the Wiki system before I can either edit or compose articles. I will try to do this, although it might take me a little while. In fact, I have made one attempt at editing (adding a small amount of text to an existing article), but without including references. I've been contacted about this and I'm now going to try this again, with the references included - it's simply a question of working out exactly how they need to be added. I do appreciate that there is a lot of helpful information available online. Once I've sorted this out, I'll think about the new article idea. I appreciate that some prior feedback from editors with experience in Materials Science would be helpful and I'll aim to post something as you suggest. Many thanks for your help and advice. BillClyne (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia in schools
Dear Wikipedia, how come you don’t really have that much of a good reputation when it comes to schooling and education, and research? From Maggie Kelsh. 2600:4040:278E:6000:BDCA:E056:4188:3D31 (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- @2600:4040:278E:6000:BDCA:E056:4188:3D31: Without hearing the specific criticism, it's hard to say. You can discuss this subject at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Maggie. That's a very interesting question, and it really merits a detailed essay of a reply (but I won't force that on you!). I suspect you may have a very out-of-date schoolteacher or lecturer who has unfortunately given you their ideas from maybe 10 or 15 years ago which they've not yet shaken off. So, I'm sorry if you've been given the wrong idea about our huge project.
- In its early days, yes, Wikipedia was raw and nothing like as accurate as it is today. We now have innumerable policies required Reliable Sources to enable you or anyone to Verify what published sources say, and those sources include academic books and publications. We even have extra requirements for higher reference standards on articles on medical topics (see WP:MEDRS), and absolutely nothing contentious about living or recently deceased people can be put into articles without proper, accurate and reliable sources supporting those statements. (See WP:BLP for our policies on that).
- Quite a few studies were carried out some years ago (including one from 2012) which have shown that the number of errors in Wikipedia's 6.2 million English pages were equal to and often fewer than those that found their way into formal encyclopaedias written just by a panel of experts. (see List of academic studies about Wikipedia).
- Most vandalism here gets fixed very quickly, and troublesome editors or trolls are eventually blocked, though some clever and very rare hoaxes have indeed slipped through from time to time (see WP:HOAXLIST, but see also Piltdown Man!).
- Wikipedia now works with schools, universities and museums and art galleries to mobilise content, and Wikipedia editors are even employed within those museums in many parts of the world (see WP:GLAM for more details). In one example I personally know of, researchers at the Sanger Laboratories in Cambridge University have even shared their finding on all protein structures in the human genome so that the wider research community in poorer countries can have free access to data that they might not otherwise be able to reach.
- To be honest, I think that for the majority of people, Wikipedia really has become their 'go to' place to get information or to find further detailed references to delve deeper into subjects. For many people, students included, Wikipedia has become the start of their information journey on most important topics. But, because all our pages are user-generated, and simply summarise other properly published sources, we never assert that Wikipedia should be relied upon as the basis of doing writing coursework or essays. For this reason, Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is a great starting place for research but not always a great ending place. So always use the 'References' list at the bottom of every article to do your own research. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Schools and maybe even Wikipedia:School and university projects for our formal advice on that.
- Nowadays, even Google places Wikipedia content in its Knowledge Boxes in most search results, so there are even more 'eyes on' articles, and correction of mistakes, and filling-in of missing content than ever before. We have formal education programmes in place and many universities teach using Wikipedia and set editing challenges in collaboration with trained staff. Wikipedia itself is even the subject of many academic researchers. See Wikipedia:Research, Wikipedia:Researching Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Statistics for further information which I hope may help dispel your misunderstanding of Wikipedia, and any unfortunate view you might have been given.
- Of course, it would be lovely to hear from you why you feel the way you do, or any examples you have found of errors here. We know we still have gaps and mistakes, but all of us here are committed in our own way to making this encyclopedia even better. I hope you might consider joining us in that, so if you need help, just ask. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Are you perhaps referring to teachers not allowing citation to Wikipedia articles in research papers? You really shouldn't be citing ANY encyclopedia in most research papers, not just Wikipedia. What you should be using Wikipedia for is to identify what source Wikipedia uses for a statement and then find that original source and use it in your paper. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 03:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Further information on how and when school children can cite Wikipedia can be found at Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Help with references
So I’m working on a massive addition to the Michiya haruhata page as recently discovered the oricon jp and i am going make a list of all his charting albums and songs firstly should I do this or is this bad should I just listed how many charting singles and albums he has along with his highest and longest charting song and album which is better? and two if I go for the first option is there any effective to shorten the amount of references should I just reference to the home page for him and then people can just find the song or album they want to check because I believe it may take upwards of 25 references which feels like a lot. As all ways Thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Goldsoldier75, if an assertion is worth adding, then a link to the specific source for that assertion is worth adding. And of course the reference should not be merely a "bare URL". You need author(s) (if specified), page title, website title, year/date of publication, date of access..... Articles that have had "massive additions" can easily have, and usually should have, hundreds of references. -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Goldsoldier75, Michiya Haruhata tells us for example: He is a Member of the Fender signature artist club and was added as the first Asian guitarist member, in fact he is one of few guitarists to receive multiple fender signature guitars of which he actually has three different signature guitars. Perhaps I'm unusual (others here may wish to chime in), but I have only the vaguest understanding of what that means. Before thinking of making any "massive addition", perhaps polish what's already there. -- Hoary (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks so I’ll go through my manual citations and try to make them better, and I did think while writing that part out that it was likely to informal and not clear enough or rather simple enough for non guitarists which I guess is kinda of the point of wiki, thanks for your input I will spend some time before I make my large addition to polish up the page and maybe read some stuff on formal bibliography writing (any thing you can recommend)?
- Thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also if I may be so bold can you please explain to me roughly what the problem with bare url citations is.
- Thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Goldsoldier75, thank you for asking. Please see Wikipedia:References dos and don'ts and the pages to which it links, and Wikipedia:Bare URLs. -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are good semi-automatic tools for adding citations/references, but often you have to add some info manually. See WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Goldsoldier75. Reliable sources are required to be published and accessible, but they're not required to be available online. Let's suppose someone wanted to cite a reliable source which was not available online. How would they do such a thing? If it was a book, for example, they might follow the guidance given in WP:CITEHOW and add as much information as they could about the book to make it easier for others to find it if they wanted to take a closer look at it. The same can be said about a WP:Bare URLs. If the link works, then clicking on it will take the reader to the source; in lots of cases, however, links end up being broken in some way or even "dying" which means clicking on them no longer works as intended. For such reasons, it's considered quite helpful and really good practice to provide as much information about the source as possible even when it's still available online because this makes it easier for others to track it down if for some reason the same source should subsequently become no longer available. It might be accessible at some other location online or in some offline way that makes assessing it still possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Cladogram arrangement
I'm making a cladogram for Nasidytes, taken from the describing paper. In the paper's cladogram, the Petralca + crown group Gaviiformes clade has the latter placed above the former, but most cladograms I've seen put crown-groups at the bottom in cases like this. Should I swap their places, or keep the paper's arrangement? Swapping them would not affect the actual relationships portrayed. Zach Varmitech (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Zach Varmitech, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds is the best place to ask your question.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Following the usual arrangement seems better to me. It also has the incidental advantage of helping avoid a "breach of copyright" claim by the papers' authors. Maproom (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
My first time experimenting here it gave me a biography template for a baker woman. Does anybody know how I can access it?
The title says it all 184.58.146.65 (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it does not. What gave you the template? Which template? In what sense did it give it to you, despite denying you access to it? Anyway, before starting a draft on a female baker (if that's what you hope to do), you'd be wise to get experience improving existing articles. -- Hoary (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is it possible you were logged in at the time? If you made any edits while logged in earlier, log back in and click "Contributions" (upper right on desktop version of website) and you'll see every change you published. That might help you retrace your steps. -- asilvering (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- We only have specific templates for certain professions. So Template:Infobox person would suffice for most people - bakers included. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- We have Template:Infobox culinary career and Template:Infobox chef but I don't know whether they are used for bakers. If you mean a woman named Baker then Baker (surname) has many. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I suspect that when you say "template", you don't mean what Wikipedia calls a Template, but I'm not sure. ColinFine (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Alternative rows table
In List of presidents of departmental councils (France), the main table is in the Alternating rows table template, which makes it a bit difficult to edit for regular users. Like I wanted to add numbers 67 and 68 (not in the list), merge them, and add European Collectivity of Alsace instead. But I don't know how to merge in source editing. Any solutions?
One solution can be temporarily replacing the "{{alternating rows table|class=wikitable sortable}}|-" at the start of the template with "{| class="wikitable"|-" for the duration of editing, then after editing replacing it back with the original thing. But that might be a little inconvenient and this solution can't be suggested everytime.
(Sorry I don't know how to type wikicode in that white highlight, I think {{Code}}) Excellenc1 (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Help!!
i have been having issues with editing. Someone please revert my edit on Priah Nicole Ferguson page please. Recently I began seeing unwanted spacious edits I do not know the cause. Uricdivine (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Uricdivine Done I've reverted all your edits to that page. I was unclear if you means all of them, or just your very last one. i did them all, but you can find them all at the View History tab and add or remove any content again quite easily. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nick Moyes Thank you, but I meant the very last one. Am a mobile editor is view history tan where I can remove and add content available?. Cheers Uricdivine (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Uricdivine I've restored your last but one version. Polyamorph (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Polyamorph Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Uricdivine I've restored your last but one version. Polyamorph (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Do I make smaller edits, specific to each section, or large edits over multiple sections?
So I was working on the Virgin Orbit article and had several contributions in several sections, updating the article to today's knowledge. I was generally curious on whether it is a better idea to do smaller edits focused on one section each, or a general overall edit to multiple sections. I went with smaller edits because in case of error I assumed it would be easier to revert, but for future reference which should I choose? Is there an editing policy I overlooked?
(These edits are from a few days ago) Legojrp (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Legojrp, section by section generally better so that if there is something that another editor takes issue with, they can revert (and then discuss) the specific section rather than being heavy-handed and reverting the one large edit. Slywriter (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Legojrp, I agree completely with Slywriter's comment. Smaller, more discrete edits allow other editors to evaluate the appropriateness of each change, instead of trying to evaluate a big bucket of changes. This approach is not required by policy, but I consider it a "best practice" that facilitates collaboration and reduces disputes among editors. Cullen328 (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Postmaster
JohnBravely1991 (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia, JohnBravely1991? Cullen328 (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Undefined Parameters. JohnBravely1991 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @JohnBravely1991: Please specify a specific thing you're trying to do at a specific page and specific problem you're encountering. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Undefined Parameters. JohnBravely1991 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Are you a bot? Polyamorph (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- ooooh...five minute intervals. Interesting. valereee (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Undefined Paramters. JohnBravely1991 (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Are you a bot? Polyamorph (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Undefined Parameters. JohnBravely1991 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @JohnBravely1991: Please specify a specific thing you're trying to do at a specific page and specific problem you're encountering. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Undefined Parameters. JohnBravely1991 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Flipped image from Wikimedia Commons
I'm relatively new at editing and have a question about best practices for making a simple correction to an image. The Nika riots page has a photo from Wikimedia Commons of the "Hippodrome of Constantinople" in Istanbul. When I was looking at details of the image, I discovered that the image was flipped (left/right) when I noticed that writing on a sign in the background was backwards.
I have downloaded the image and flipped it to the correct orientation. As far as I can tell there are two possible ways to fix this: 1) upload the corrected photo (with proper attribution to the original creator) to the Wikipedia Nika riots page or 2) upload the the corrected photo to a new Wikimedia Commons page (with proper attribution to the original creator) and then link to that photo.
Which of these options would be best practice or is there a different way to fix this?
Thanks!
Hermit Pole (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I might be wrong, but if it has the wrong orientation, I think you can hit "request rotation" on the file description page to request a rotation, if that's what you want. Otherwise, press 'upload a new version of this file', which preserves the attribution of previous versions. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 20:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The "request rotation" option only does rotations, not reflections.
- I would upload the unflipped image over the current one. That has the advantage that all pages using the image will automatically get the correct version. The wrongly flipped image will be preserved in the image history. I see no benefit in preserving it as a separate image at Commons. Maproom (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Hermit Pole: The image is not flipped. It looks like your "sign" is the back of a partially transparent banner. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Google Street View confirming the image is right. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wow - you're right! Sorry I didn't check this more carefully. Thank you all for your help. Good learning experience. I'll just leave it alone. Hermit Pole (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Semi Protected Pages
Good Evening!
I am a long time user of Wikipedia, and have edited a few articles etc over the years. I do have one question though. When I went to add the name of the new Mister Supranational 2022, Luis Daniel Gálvez of Cuba, the page said that it was semi protected. I looked up what that meant and, as far as I can see, you have to edit 10 or more articles nd have had an account for at least 4 days. I’ve been on Wikipedia for a fair number of years, so not sure why I dont’t need the requirements in order to be allowed to edit a semi protected page. Thank you in advance for any clarity you can offer. Heidi bradshaw (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Heidi bradshaw: When I edit protected pages, I see editnotices that they're protected all the time. That's normal. You should be able to type in the edit box if you are autoconfirmed and the page is semi protected. You can see your user groups here to confirm that you are in the group 'autoconfirmed users'. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 03:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your reply. I’ve gone back and see I can edit and publish. It just caught me off guard with that ‘warning’ at the top. Have a good night! Heidi bradshaw (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Heidi bradshaw: Welcome to the Teahouse. Autoconfirmed users (defined as users who have made 10 edits and have had their accounts for at least 4 days) can edit semiprotected articles without trouble. I don't think edit notices can be configured to only show for affected users, and sometimes editors want to know when and why protection was given. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Henrietta Müller is she a Chilean suffragist, Chilean expatriate in England, Chilean editor, Chilean women journalist, Chilean people of German descent ???
Hello, I strongly disagree over categories re-added by @Bedivere on Henrietta Müller. Henrietta Müller was born in Valparaiso in an English-German Family of expats. The family settled back in England and she went to college at Girton, then spent her entire life in England as did her family. There is no evidence that as an adult, she kept any links of any sort with Chile, no references, no sources, etc. I consider that she cannot be "categorized" as, I quote, "Chilean suffragist, Chilean expatriate in England, Chilean editor, Chilean women journalist, Chilean people of German descent". Any opinions ? (English is not my native language) Best regards, Pierrette13 (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think this talk should be continued where it is due: at the article's talk page. Having said that, we have no certainty and no possible answer to your consideration ("There is no evidence that as an adult, she kept any links of any sort with Chile, no references, no sources, etc."). I just pointed out a fact: the Constitution of 1833 considers her a Chilean (born in Chile, jus soli applies), and it is unlikely she ever renounced to it. Bedivere (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- "One of these was Miss F. Henrietta Muller, a Chilean-British woman's rights activist and theosophist, then living in London.", "Clara Colby: The International Suffragist"
- Guru to the World: The Life and Legacy of Vivekananda, by Ruth Harris: "Henrietta Müller - of Chilean German origin, but active in London [...]"
- Bikes and Bloomers: Victorian Women Inventors and their Extraordinary Cycle Wear, "The Müller family left Chile when Henrietta was nine, and travelled to Boston, and then onto London, where they lived for two years. They moved back to Chile briefly before returning to London where they then stayed".
- That's some great sources proving both she was a Chilean and that she lived considerable time in that country (more than a decade for sure - nine years then some brief stay of two years). Bedivere (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, Pierrette13. This is a matter that should be discussed at Talk:Henrietta Müller and I do not think that it is likely that you will find a Teahouse host willing to express a strong opinion about this. I am curious, though, why you so
strongly disagree
about this relatively innocuous categorization of a woman born in Chile who died in 1906? Why are you so passionate about the categorization of a woman who died 116 years ago? Cullen328 (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)- Hello Cullen328 Thank you for your answer, I translate pages from WP:en to WP:fr and especially suffragists, University women pages, etc. In my opinion, a Chilean Suffragist is a suffragist in Chile, not a suffragist in England there is no relevance with this category. I translated Henriette Muller, her sister Eva McLaren. I'm not too familiar with English WP help and so I thought I could find some help over here (I used Tea House once before), I 'll go somewhere else for relevant opinions ("she lived some times from 0 to 10 in Chile" doesn't have any sense for a statement abour "Chilean Suffragist" or "Chilean expat in England"! Best regards, --Pierrette13 (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, Pierrette13. This is a matter that should be discussed at Talk:Henrietta Müller and I do not think that it is likely that you will find a Teahouse host willing to express a strong opinion about this. I am curious, though, why you so
how to make a wikipedia page
can you pls tell me that how can I make a wikipedia profile for me. Thank you in advance Nitin Happy (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nitin Happy Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have "profiles", not a single one. Wikipedia has articles, typically written by independent editor wholly unconnnected with the topic. Those articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability; in this case, the definition of a notable person. It is not absolutely forbidden to attempt to write an article about one's self, but it is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. It is discouraged in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves, and also because it is hard for people to set aside what they know about themselves and only write summarizing what others choose on their own to say about them. We usually recommend that new editors first gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest them before attempting to write any article, let alone one about themselves. However, if you wish to attempt to do so now, please first gather independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about you(not interviews with you or press releases/announcements or brief mentions), read Your First Article, then visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by an independent editor.
- Either way, you may also want to use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Can I Make an Article for myself with describing about myself Nitin Happy (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nitin Happy I've answered this question above. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves, it is for summarizing what others say about a person. If you have follow up questions, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your attempt to create a draft about yourself was nominated for speedy deletion, and then deleted by an Administrator. The reason given was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self-promotional, absolutely unviable draft." Not being an Administrator, I cannot see the draft, but as explained above, Wikipedia has referenced biographical articles about famous people. Unless people with no connection to you are writing about you and your acomplishements - not going to happen. The same thing will happen if you use your User page to compose a self-profile. David notMD (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Darius Bowie
Apparently, somebody created Draft:Darius Bowie and it wasn't accepted as it was for a largely unknown and non-notable stand-up comic. An anon who says they are said comedian, posts a plea on WP:RSN begging for publication. This is obviously the wrong venue and a futile effort. The first response is perfectly adequate in explaining why the draft cannot be published and other policies. But then another user started to unnecessarily comment on the comedy of Darius Bowie and even gaining applause from another. When I commented it wasn't appropriate, they defended the comment saying they linked to WP:RS; which they had except they had changed the display text to "missing heart". Another user even jumped in, saying it was "gentle joshing". I have had WP:RSN on my watch list for six years at least. I have never seen this level of uncouth behavior on this board. Meanwhile, other editors are going about their business, replying to older threads, etc. I am left scratching my head at what is happening here and I don't want to think the worst. The direct link is WP:RSN#Darius_Bowie. I hope someone has time to look at it. After all, it is the wrong noticeboard and it is a non-notable comedian but I don't think we should levy such insults at people and then cheer each other on like it is good fun. Well, good luck to whoever reads this. Cheers, SVTCobra 10:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- SVTCobra Hello. This board is a place for new or inexperienced users to ask questions about using Wikipedia. Issues regarding user conduct are best raised at WP:ANI or at least the associated talk page of the dispute. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @SVTCobra I think you may perhaps have misinterpreted and somewhat over-reacted to the comments at WP:RSN made by User:Jéské Couriano. Whilst I don't understand the phrase "missing the heart" (does it have some insulting meaning I ought to be aware of?), I have looked at Draft:Darius Bowie. It is a classic example of a single paragraph full of disconnected puffery and uncited biographical self-promotion - just like a naff social media profile. TBH: I might have made a similar comment myself, and I do try to be polite when dealing with new users. But sometimes one can be exasperated by the low quality of content people think we'll accept, and the odd comment, whilst maybe not the most supportive, is not anything I would ever expect to see coming to WP:ANI. You made your point there; I think that should suffice. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- The draft is obviously something that will not make it to mainspace anytime soon, if ever. That is not the point. I do not think Darius Bowie deserves an article, but Wikipedians ought not mock him either. The 'missing heart' bit is only about hiding the target of the page. How does help a user? But that's not my issue, my problem is why are we telling a stand-up comic
You can't expect to get by with a stand-up routine that's all disconnected one-liners
That was the wtf moment for me. Changing "reliable sources" to "missing heart" seemed minor after that, but that is what they chose to defend. The insult to the subject was irrelevant to them. Maybe after six or eight hours WP:RSN will address it. It is the weekend after all. SVTCobra 11:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)- I removed all the promotional crap from the initial draft and created the usual sections for an article about a person. Left a note at the creator's Talk page that this may be too soon. Also that Wikipedia frowns on attempts at autobiography. David notMD (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SVTCobra I really don't think there is any need to address anything. Nothing I see in the post you linked to seems surprising apart, perhaps, from your own disapprobation. I see this as a non-story. Had it been said at the Teahouse, you might just have had a point about avoiding sharp comments to newcomers. I really see nothing for you to get upset about, though I do appreciate your moral stance and for you taking the time to raise it at RSN and here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The draft is obviously something that will not make it to mainspace anytime soon, if ever. That is not the point. I do not think Darius Bowie deserves an article, but Wikipedians ought not mock him either. The 'missing heart' bit is only about hiding the target of the page. How does help a user? But that's not my issue, my problem is why are we telling a stand-up comic
Updating a Wikipedia entry
Earlier this year I spent some time editing an entry. I read up on how to articles, but in the end most of my edits were deleted. I am not familiar with Wikipedia's terminology, so I could not address the issues. It is obvious that I need some help with this. Would any of the host like to come and save the day?
Thanks in advance,
Peter PetrusHenricus (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- @PetrusHenricus: Welcome to the Teahouse. The reverting revision was concerned that your contribution was unsourced. Please read Easy referencing for beginners to learn how to cite, which is essential to all articles on Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi PetrusHenricus. (Edit conflict) I assume you are referring to your addition to Nana Araba Apt, which was (see the edit history) WP:REVERTed with the WP:EDITSUMMARY "WP:UNDUE, the addition is good but almost none of it is actually sourced." Although the subject of that article is deceased, we need additions to her biography to be correctly sourced (see WP:BLP for related requirements). So it looks to me that you should read about our basic guide for adding inline sources. After reading these links, see if you can include the source details you are using. Note that Wikipedia does not allow additions based on what you may know personally, perhaps because you were a colleague or student of this educator. We call this original research. Note also that Wikipedia is not a place to create a WP:MEMORIAL for someone. Do come back here if you need further advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Addicted to Wikipedia
i am becoming addicted to wikipedia. now i am wikipediaholic. how to get rid of this ? help me to be productive Baruahranuj 17:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Read thru the archives of WP:AN/I and WP:A/R/E. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Baruah ranuj In all seriousness, the solution is to log out of your account and get off the computer for at least a few days. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 18:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Finding my way around
Am new here and it takes me a little time to get going. So, be patient, please. Mama1Gal (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, Mama1Gal, we can be patient and even expect new editors to make a few mistakes. Just try not to mess things up in a way that causes others here to have to spend ages cleaning up after you. For suggestions on what simple things you could do to improve Wikipedia, take a look at the tasklist. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Wondering what recourse I have
What recourse do I have for someone who is misattributing statements in a talk page discussion to me, deliberately trolling me and personally attacking me by claiming I'm incompetent and need mentorship? OrgoneBox (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, OrgoneBox. You could file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but please be aware that your own behavior will come under scrutiny as well. Cullen328 (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Help with expediting article submitted for AFC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omar_Veluz
Help with expediting article submitted for AFC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omar_Veluz. Please let me know how to proceed Dvpo2 (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Dvpo2: As it says at the top, there are a large number of drafts waiting for review. Be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, Dvpo2. The second sentence of your draft is unreferenced name dropping. That will be a red flag for reviewers. Cullen328 (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- The AfC backlog is not a queue, so Draft:Omar Veluz could be reviewed in days, weeks, or sadly, months. David notMD (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Page still in draft mode : any steps missing ?
Hi, I created a new Wiki page: Draft: Harinarayan Rajeev ,last month and its still in draft mode. Since I haven’t created a wiki page before, It would have been really helpful, if you could please let me know if there are any steps I am missing inorder to have the page published ? or I just need to wait for a reviewer to review and publish the same ? thanks a lot in advance :) 2604:3D08:527B:D500:845D:890E:7B56:6421 (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: Draft:Harinarayan Rajeev 174.21.19.94 (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
How can I access my account if I have changed my e-mail address?
I have a wikipedia a/c but I created it a long time ago and I haven't kept track of my password. I may have used a defunct e-mail address. There doesn't seem to be any way to recover access in this instance. 121.200.5.36 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you don't remember your password, and can't access the email, then the account is lost since there is no way to get the password back. You will need to create a new account. You can add a note on your new user page that you previously edited under the old account name. RudolfRed (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Regarding Mayday Episode 63 - Target is Destroyed - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mayday_episodes
This accident was blamed on the crew flying off course, but I read a book decades ago on the flight that made the case that, not only did the US have a spyplane flying near the flight over Soviet airspace as reported, but the author contended that flight was also monitoring the flight, AND in addition, the US also had a space shuttle overflying the area at the same time, allegedly also monitoring this overflight. Perhaps not so surprisingly then, US President Reagan confronted the Soviets within a couple of months after the incident claiming the US had hard evidence that the Krasnoyarsk radar station (allegedly a significant radar site in the area that could be used for detecting this overflight), was in fact used as part of the Soviet strategic air defence system and not for scientific(?) purposes as originally claimed, making it illegal in the context of existing strategic agreements with the US at the time. The allegation was that the US had promoted this overflight in an effort to make that case. I wasn't sure if anyone else was familiar with the book, or agreed these other statements, if verified, would be worth including in a revision or appended statement to that episode, possibly after the the producers investigated? 2604:3D09:C784:5600:C019:150C:9E19:A344 (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- The purpose of the page is to summarize the information displayed in the show. Information like you described regarding the incident would usually have a place on the page for the incident, however the book you've described doesn't seem to be a credible source. For instance, I don't see anything indicating the space shuttle was ever, in theory or in reality, capable of terrestrial reconnaissance, and the payload of the shuttle up at the time was not capable of reconnaissance either. WelpThatWorked (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Help me to construct my page
Hello lovely people,
I just need your help and expertise to build my bio page on Wikipedia, as I feel almost lost trying to use the template and the website.
I have a published draft already, containing plain text.
Any advice or suggestion is welcomed. Husseinhajj (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Husseinhajj You aren't going to find legitimate help to build your own biography here. It's that much of a bad idea. You might find someone who wants your money and will promise you an article, but that's a scam. Here's where you can start instead of trying to create articles. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 00:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Husseinhajj. You may want to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. An encyclopedia article about you won't belong to you, and anyone can edit it, if they can find a good reliable published source for what they write. Perhaps the time will come when something happens that you'd rather not have the world know about. If the incident makes the local newspaper, then it's published in a reliable source, can end up in your "bio page," and you can't delete that part, for you aren't to be editing an article about yourself. You may want to write about yourself on social media, or perhaps start your own website. That way you can write almost anything you'd like about yourself, and you'd be free to update your biography as you see fit.
- Best wishes on finding a better platform to publish a biography about yourself. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
What does everyone think of these articles
What does everyone think of these draft articles Draft:Les Coulisses de l'exploit, Draft:Voyage sans passeport, Draft:La Boîte à sel, Draft:Magazine féminin Dwanyewest (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Dwanyewest Why do you ask? I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 00:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @I dream of horses (Contribs) I thought I have done enough to improve these articles with reliable third person sources. I am trying to figure what I have to do to not get these articles rejected or at the bare minimum improve my chances of not getting rejected. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Dwanyewest Wikipedia distinguishes between Declined and Rejected (more severe). David notMD (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Dwanyewest Given that all these articles are about French TV shows, I would have expected them to have decent entries on the French version of Wikipedia (which your drafts make no mention of having WP:TRANSLATED). Is there nothing that can be ported over to expand their rather meagre content? Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Neutrality and Cleanup
Good evening. I am asking a question regarding the page of Andy Slater. There was no content within the talk page of the NPOV dispute and I went ahead and cleaned the page up to take away the multiple sub-headers. What else needs to be done? I went to delete the messages after the cleanup and it got reverted to an older version without the cleanup. Thanks for any help as I am trying to handle this the proper way. BlueMoon87 (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @BlueMoon87: Looking at the history of the article, I see that the {{npov}} tag was added by Treybien2 and the {{Cleanup rewrite}} tag was added by Curbon7. I suggest you post your question on Talk:Andy Slater and ask these users to join the conversation. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your question now moot, as an editor has since removed 90% of the article. David notMD (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Help to save my account
Hello, I help to save my account. I think will not be blocked to editing. I haved a question: The removed has been restored, what should I do now? There are no current to protect in Cardei012597 because the removed has been fixed. I want to try another way and make sure not vandalism to get blocked for me, no matters how you can haved an account. I want to continue Wikipedia and haved an road to victory. Chris troutman let me don’t let vandalism that negatively for the experience for other edits. Anyway, thanks to the help me fixed and make sure to continue before blocked for users in all times. Welcomed. 2402:800:63A5:D160:31B6:B20B:267A:99A9 (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is word salad, likely caused by automated translation. Could you post this in your native language? A translation by a person will make more sense and be more accurate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 05:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- A) Your entry here is from an IP address. If you have an account, ask again after logging in, so that a Teahouse host can look at your past edits. B) Leave Cardei12597's Talk page alone. You deleted content (none of your business) and it was restored by Chris troutman. C) So far, your edits as the IP address 2402 would not lead to you being warned about being blocked, but again, have you been threatened with being blocked on a logged in account? D) I agree that your query was not proper English. Please compose with more care. David notMD (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I can't seem to refill these links
I can't seem to refill the links on Draft:Présence protestante does anyone else know how to do them? Dwanyewest (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- If Refill does not work, then the remaining URLs will need to be converted to ref format manually. David notMD (talk) 06:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Same applies to Daisy de Galard, 36 chandelles and to C'est arrivé à 36 chandelles. And the info box on the last needs to be fixed. David notMD (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Watch time
can i check how much time I used in wikipedia editing in a period of time? Baruahranuj 06:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Baruah ranuj, [3] may have some of what you want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
listing pages
how to create the pages like list of airports in some city or counytry Missdibbles (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Missdibbles, welcome! Some reading: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, WP:YFA and perhaps WP:TUTORIAL. Creating a WP-article that "sticks" is difficult without an amount of WP-editing experience, but I see you have some of that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Making a Donation
hello. I have been receiving your annual request for a donation(£10). I prefer not to use a bank card, for security reasons. I have tried to donate via bank transfer, but my bank are unable to verify the details, as CITI do not have that service. My concern is not so much about fraud, but that the donation could be diverted to an account used in criminal, or terrorist, activity. Do you have a verifiable bank account in UK, or EU - as there is no charge?@ 79.116.73.98 (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Donations are handled by the Wikimedia Foundation that operates the computers Wikipedia is on, not us editors. Please see this page for information on ways to donate(which include mailing a check). If you would prefer to not see the annual donation requests, you can create an account and turn the requests off- the requests are just that- requests- and you are not required to donate. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Reliable sources
WP:RSPSOURCES are these are the only reliable sources for wikipedia? If an article lacks at least anyone of these, the article wouldn't be notable ? Onmyway22 talk 08:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Onmyway22: No, if a source isn't listed there, the only thing it really means is that it hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source is stellar, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it was so obvious. It could mean that the source covers a niche topic, or that it simply fell through the cracks. Or it could mean the source is so obviously poor it never merited discussion. Either way, it's not a requirement for a source to be listed at RSP in order to be considered reliable. ––FormalDude talk 09:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @FormalDude Make sense thank you. But what if an Indian film doesn’t have sufficient coverage from reliable sources other than entertainment portals? Like Draft:Anaganaga Oka Ammai. Are these references in this draft passing notability? Onmyway22 talk 10:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Onmyway22: If you're concerned about any source being used on Wikipedia, you should start a discussion about it at the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN), following the instructions at the top of that page, and after checking the "Search the noticeboard archives" there first. ––FormalDude talk 10:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that your bigger issue is that the film doesn't, in my opinion, meet the notability guidelines at WP:NFO. Even if your sources are entirely reliable they don't demonstrate any agreed notability criterion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @FormalDude Make sense thank you. But what if an Indian film doesn’t have sufficient coverage from reliable sources other than entertainment portals? Like Draft:Anaganaga Oka Ammai. Are these references in this draft passing notability? Onmyway22 talk 10:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
How to use wikipatch for removing wikipedia addiction
this is the article of wikipatch . Click Baruahranuj 08:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Did you see the line which says
This contains material intended to be humorous. It should not be taken seriously or literally
? You might find WP:SELFBLOCK helpful. ColinFine (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)- Actually, having read that more carefully, WP:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer might be more useful to you. ColinFine (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Alternative rows table
In List of presidents of departmental councils (France), the main table is in the Alternating rows table template, which makes it a bit difficult to edit for regular users. Like I wanted to add numbers 67 and 68 (not in the list), merge them, and add European Collectivity of Alsace instead. But I don't know how to merge in source editing. Any solutions?
One solution can be temporarily replacing the "{{alternating rows table|class=wikitable sortable}}|-" at the start of the template with "{| class="wikitable"|-" for the duration of editing, then after editing replacing it back with the original thing. But that might be a little inconvenient and this solution can't be suggested everytime.
(Sorry I don't know how to type wikicode in that white highlight, I think {{Code}}) Excellenc1 (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
User of a deleted or moved page has not responded
- I have gathered the necessary information for creating a new page for an entry "Michael James Jackson, 56, American music producer (Kiss, L.A. Guns). listed under Deaths in 2022 (13 July 2022). When I click on the red link, I get the followng message:
- A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.
- If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.
- 12:48, 2 February 2015 Daniel talk contribs deleted page Michael James Jackson (Deleting redirects to "Michael Jackson (priest)" after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson (priest)) (thank)
- 13:47, 25 May 2011 DBD talk contribs moved page Michael James Jackson to Michael Jackson (priest) (common name & dab per WP:NCWC) (revert) (thank)
- I bave contacted the above users whose pages have been deleted or moved but I have not had a response. My draft article is currently on a notepad and as such, it is difficult to put any citations or ferences to it.
- What should I do? Andymcteddybear (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Andymcteddybear From what you write, I assume your new article is intended to be a biography of a music producer who happens to have a similar name to one on Wikipedia's disambiguation page for Michael Jackson. So first make sure you are not duplicating one of those. Assuming your music producer is someone else, then start by creating a draft article of an appropriate title using the WP:AFC process. Make sure you follow all the guidelines for biographies of living people (which also applies for those recently deceased). Then submit your draft for approval. When moved to Mainspace, the editor who approves it will ensure it has a suitable title to disambiguate it from all the other Michael Jacksons and it can be added to that list as well. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
creating draft
I am preparing a draft page. How can I take over the article in the sandbox to the draft page? Aydbayk (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Aydbayk: It seems you've figured out how to do that, as seen at Draft:Constructed Language ABCL (AYBAY CONLANG), and have submitted the draft for review. It is extremely unlikely to be accepted, as most of the content isn't sourced and also sounds like original research, which Wikipedia does not allow. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- (Edit confloct) Aydbayk There is a template {{User sandbox}} that can be placed at the top of a sandbox and will give a button to allow the draft to be submitted. However, I urge you not to do this for the draft you currently have. It is a classic example of what Wikipedia is not. It cites no sources and describes something you (or someone else) has just made up. It will never make an article in Mainspace and would be rejected immediately if you tried to place it there. Sorry: you will have to find some other outlet for that material. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Need help editing a Template...
Hello everyone,
I tried editing the Template:Infobox economy source, in order to add a new field: "Population at risk of poverty". I feel this is an important addition, bc I have seen important publications/institutions focus on the 'at risk' pop, not just the one that is already below the poverty line... however, I was unsuccessful.
In order to try out this modification, I added at the end of the label list (in the source code):
"label53 = {{longitem|Population at risk of poverty}}"
"data53 = {{{risk of poverty|}}}"
(Ofc, I would like to place it much higher in the code, right under "Population under poverty line" -- so: label19=.... data19=... -- but this was just for test.)
Unfortunately nothing happened, the infobox fields didn't change after publishing. The page says it is semi-protected, so only 'autoconfirmed users can edit it' -- but I believe I am one of those, since I was logged in, over 4 days old + had more than 10 edits performed at the time...
Perhaps someone can help me with adding this field,
Thank you!
Dhyana b (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like the field was added just fine. If you were expecting the information displayed on the template page to change, that has to be updated separately on the documentation subpage. WelpThatWorked (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Statistics | |
---|---|
Population at risk of poverty | 15% |
All values, unless otherwise stated, are in US dollars. |
- @Dhyana b: It works fine as my example shows. Optional parameters are omitted from display if they aren't present in a call so the template documentation uses a special method {{Generic template demo}} to display them, but it requires the parameter names. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ooooh, I didn't know you had to do that (call the parameter separately). I thought the 'Usage' section was just documentation or smth. Thank you for your help! -- Tried it & now the field is being displayed. Appears to work properly. :) Thumbs up! Dhyana b (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Follow-up to Page Review
Hi , It will be good if the admins answer this. The answer is useful to us as experience. That page review was rejected yesterday as the film is a flop. this is the case with another user.[4] ( I created this page but two months ago I did not have experience to submit so I took the help of another user[5] )
Question - Is there a new rule in wikipedia that a page review is rejected because the movie flopped.
My experience with this person today. experience of not reviewing the page if the page does not have a film plot summary of the film. [6]
Question - Is there a new rule that the page will not be reviewed if the page does not have a plot summary of the movie.
The pages I have created is not important to me, my mother tongue is Kannada so I have created that page. Even if you delete all those pages, it will be a learning experience. PravinGanechari (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- PravinGanechari I see that you have succeeded in using AfC to create articles about Kannada films. Is today's question about Draft:Melody (2015 film)? It appears that it has been submitted, but not yet reviewed. Comments from editors are advice on how to improve the article. Comments are not Rejected or Declined. While waiting for a Reviewer, the comment was to add a plot summary. I agree. David notMD (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi David notMD , I have no doubt that he has advised me. Their reply is very important for me. I also asked him a question and he answered my question, I am thankful to him. But the answer to the question I asked him was not right. So I'm here to ask. If this page comes in the main space, then the editor who has seen the movie can write a film plot summary of the movie in it. ( There are so many pages that do not contain the plot summary of film. So that was the purpose of asking the question). Thank you for taking your valuable time to reply me. PravinGanechari (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, PravinGanechari, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no such rule: in fact I can't think of any policy that says whether something can or can't be the subject of an article depending on that thing's qualities or success. Wikipedia has articles on subjects famous and scarcely known, successful and unsuccessful, virtuous and evil: it makes no difference. What makes a difference is the amount and quality of coverage of the subject in reliable sources. If a film does well in the box office but gets almost no press, then it will not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. On the other hand, it is a commercial flop, but for some reason the press get interested in it and write a lot about it, then it probably will meet those criteria. ColinFine (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi ColinFine , There were six to seven sources in that page (There were four reviews and two to three independent sources) Wikipedia was notability and met the criteria as if reliable Source. Thanks for answering the question. PravinGanechari (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi David notMD and ColinFine , Apologies sir for not addressing you as "sir". PravinGanechari (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello again Pravin. I had not looked at the draft: I was answering your question in general.
- As for not addressing us as "sir": I have never ever once addressed anybody as "Sir" (or "Madam", or "Miss", or any other honorific) on a Wikipedia discussion page. I am aware that people from India and nearby countries often write their posts here more formally, but you certainly don't need to apologise for not doing so. ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi David notMD and ColinFine , Apologies sir for not addressing you as "sir". PravinGanechari (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi ColinFine , There were six to seven sources in that page (There were four reviews and two to three independent sources) Wikipedia was notability and met the criteria as if reliable Source. Thanks for answering the question. PravinGanechari (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Default to citation style 2 in visual editor
How do I default to citation style 2 in the visual editor? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
What should I do if I spot plagiarism?
Good day Teahouse hosts. What is the recommended action that an editor should take if they see a case of blatant plagiarism in Wikipedia? Or, perhaps more accurately, a case in which a large chunk of text has been copied and pasted from another source without citation or acknowledgement?
A case in point is the section "Musical score" in the article on The Court Jester. This entire section (three paragraphs) has been copied from this review of the film. (Actually, there are a couple of minor changes in the wording, but I did those myself before I realised that the text had been copied.)
I know I could paraphrase the original text in my own words. But that would take some time. In the meantime, I was wondering if there was a template that can be inserted that flags the text as having been copied? Or is there some other appropriate action? (I have read WP:COPYPASTE and WP:PLAGIARISM, but they only deal with reasons to avoid copying rather than what to do in existing cases.)
As always, any advice would be appreciated.
Mike Marchmont (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure this is a reverse copyvio in that the website (which did not exist until 2018) copied from Wikipedia - the content that is hitting as copyvio has been there since 2011. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. The content also appears in Vic Schoen#1950s, dating back to 2010, and added by the same editor, with a strong interest in Schoen. The review is dated May 2021. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Mike Marchmont: TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Timtempleton: and ::@Praxidicae:, thank you both for your replies. Most helpful. Based on what you said, my best approach might be to find a reliable source for the information about Schoen, and to rewrite the section based on that source. I don't know if I'll manage to do that, but at least I understand the situation better now. Mike Marchmont (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
new to wiki help
Hello, trying to make a post on a gamer and cited all my sources videos, news, and other official bracket and verified world records. But it says not credible. I am confused since there are pictures and proof with links and other things. I am very confused and want to do my first wiki right. JJJ2JJJ (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Courtesy: This is about Draft:WickedxMage. DEclined. Per the reviewer's comments, many of the references are not from what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. That would include almost all Youtube. David notMD (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, JJJ2JJJ, and welcome to the Teahouse. Nobody has said that WickedxMage is not "credible"; what they have said is that your draft does not provide enough suitable sources to establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria on notability. Note that 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.
- I notice that you have uploaded File:Wxmtransparent.png to Commons, and claimed it as your own work. Does this mean that you are WickedxMage? If so, then you should be aware that writing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged, as it is likely to be hard to write in an appropriately neutral manner, and to restrict the article to information that has been published. You should also be aware that an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.
- If you are WickedxMage, and you decide to continue with this, you should declare your conflict of interest on your user page. If you are not, you ought to explain how it is that you are claiming somebody else's logo as your own work. (Are you aware, incidentally, that in uploading it, you have given irrevocable permission to anybody in the world to reuse or alter that logo for any purpose - commercial or not - as long as they attribute the source? ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Is wikipedia this toxic to all newcomers, or is it the topic I happened to first edit an article about?
I am new here, and the very first edit was undone, possibly twice, immidietly despite being backed up. I then did a diffrent edit from one of the sources that was also undone. After that in the talk page I found some old discussion of the issue that summed up as "let's wait for more sources" (it was a developing story quite recently and in a way still is), which I actually brought. I discussed the issue in the talk page after seing the discussion was already there, and got a bunch of complicated rules dumped at me, and while I understand some of them, others are odd (why do we need official sources for everything? Is this a summary of worldwide institutional websites or what?), and it is defenitly not what a first edit should require for an open site. Is all of wikipedia this toxic, or are there just a few powerfull lobies on controversial issues you need to stay clear of? If so, what subject are theese lobies trying to police, and precisely what opinion are tyey trying to enforce? Ho ho ha hay (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- You picked possibly one of the worst articles to edit - Jane's Revenge falls under WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion's discretionary sanctions and WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2's discretionary sanctions. As a rule, topics under discretionary sanctions (1) have heightened administrative scrutiny and (2) are extremely difficult to work in at the best of times due to partisanship. I suggest finding an article in a topic area not listed at WP:General sanctions#Active sanctions to work on instead. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- 1. Are the complex rules everywhere else?
- 2. Is there any moderator of moderators if they go to far on theese sanctioned pages? I don't know that such a thing is happening but it might have Ho ho ha hay (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Discretionary sanctions (and its community-authorised cousin, general sanctions) only exist in specific topic-areas; the list of topic-areas affected is, again, at WP:General sanctions#Active sanctions.
- There are, though usually they either act unilaterally or in responce to a complaint at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement or WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The main thing is that they don't make a big show of issuing sanctions, which in turn would only inflame matters (again, partisanship is a consistent problem in these topic areas). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Ho ho ha hay: Welcome to the Teahouse! While Wikipedia is the encyclopedia everyone can edit, there are significant rules, such as verifiability via published independent reliable sources. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you're welcome to post your suggestions or concerns on the article talk page: Talk:Jane's Revenge. You may also be interested in reviewing Help:Introduction if you haven't already done so. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
My page
I am new here, so how can I make my page suitable to publish? Erdan5 (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, Erdan5, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I'm afraid that the answer is probably: You can't. Unless you can show that Vaneé meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then no article on him is possible. In order to do that, you will need to find several sources, each of which is all three of reliable (pubished by somebody with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking), independent (not written, published, or based on the words of, anybody connected with Star Wars), and containing significant coverage of the character.
- Generally, people who try to create new articles before they have spent some time (at least a few months) learning how Wikipedia works by making small improvements to some of our six million articles, have a frustrating and miserable time; so I suggest that you put this project aside for a while. Once you have become more familiar with Wikipedia's requirements for sourcing and notability, you can come back to it and see if you can find adequate sources.
- I remember fifteen years ago how I desperately wanted to "make my mark" by creating a new article; but now I know that this is not the only way, and often not the best way, to contribute to Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
My article got deleted because of unreliable sources. Why are they unreliable? And how could I make this page appropriate for Wikepedia? Erdan5 (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Erdan5, I've combined your two questions - please add any further replies here, rather than in a new section. Did you read the advice given to you above by ColinFine? Did you follow any of the links in his reply? You also received some good advice at the AfC help desk. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, didn`t notice that. But I have a question, why are there some articles of Star Wars characters like Cad Bane or Mace Windu? Erdan5 (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Poet John Grandits and notability
Last year my daughter was assigned to write a brief report on poet John Grandits during her 8th grade poetry unit. In her research she found no wikipedia page. So we made one, but it was declined due to lack of notability. Grandits has 5 non self published books, is an innovator in concrete poetry and was instrumental in the early days of children's magazine Cricket. Middle school classes were assigned to write about him (the whole class!). What more do I need to prove notability? Vousc (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Vousc: Hi there! The specific notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia poets can be found at WP:POET (which may be different than your daughter's teacher's criteria for inclusion in her class). GoingBatty (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Vousc: I looked John Grandits up on Google and couldn't find much more than links to his books, and a few blogs. Wikipedia's sourcing requirements for notability purposes require that there either be things written about him in independent sources, or reviews of his work in known review sites. There may just not be enough, unfortunately. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Nathan George Evans and the barrelito story
The page for Nathan George Evans includes a line (2nd paragraph, last sentence): During the thick of the fight, he was everywhere, closely followed by an aide carrying his "barrelito" (small barrel) of Evans' favorite whiskey on his back.
I think that a statement like this should either cite its source or be wrapped in wiggle words so that we know that it cannot be proven. For instance, we could precede it with "There are rumors that..."
Should I just add the wiggle words myself? Joefioramonti (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Joefioramonti. You should not really be using "wiggle words" or any of the types of wording mentioned here, unless they are words used by reliable sources and properly attributed as such. Article content should try and be as precise and encyclopedic as possible, and also as verifiable as possible. If you feel an unsubstantiated claim is being made, follow the guidance given here; sometimes that might mean finding a supporting source yourself, adding a template to let others know about the issue, or removing the questionable content outright. If possible save as much as you can, and remove stuff that absolutely needs to go. Please note though that content about living persons tends to require much more care be taken and exceptional claims often are removed outright out of caution. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to add a missing "note" per the comment made below. -- 08:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)]
Does Wikipedia use British English or American English for articles not about British or American topics?
For example, Hong Kong? George Huntley (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- In general, as per WP:ENGVAR, whichever language was first used, however, Hong Kong is covered by MOS:TIES "For topics with strong ties to Commonwealth of Nations countries and other former British territories, use Commonwealth English orthography, largely indistinguishable from British English in encyclopedic writing" - so, as a former British territory, use Commonwealth English = British English - Arjayay (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- There're also Australian and Indian variants of English as well. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are also many other English variants that we accept. The article Hong Kong carries the template
{{Use Hong Kong English}}
. —Wasell(T) 🌻 07:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are also many other English variants that we accept. The article Hong Kong carries the template
- There're also Australian and Indian variants of English as well. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi George Huntley. The relevant Wikipedia pages on this type of thing are MOS:TIES (MOS:DATETIES) and MOS:ENGVAR (MOS:DATEVAR). Generally, the long-standing consensus has been to defer to the style already established through consensus (which can be through editing in some cases) or the style chosen by the article's creator or first primary contributor. When in doubt, it's generally considered best to be WP:CAUTIOUS and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Since a Wikipedia article can be edited by many different people from many different parts of the world at many different times, differences in style often can and are found in articles; in such cases, consistency is preferred and generally that means being consistent with the established style of the article. Given that Hong Kong was formerly under British rule, my guess is that there are many people who probably feel that British English should be used in the article. My suggestion to you would be to first check Talk:Hong Kong (including any archives) and see if this has been discussed before since perhaps a consensus was established regarding this. If a consensus was established and you feel further discussion is needed, then you may propose a change. If a consensus wasn't established, you may propose that one be. Absent any major policy or guideline reason, it's generally a bad idea to try and unilaterally change the style of an article without at least posting something about the change on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Citation formatting (wikipedia specific)
How is it that some users create citations with this format <ref name="xyz">[https://www.theurl.com whatever the title is]. ''[[the website]]''. 20 April 2022.</ref> ?
I use a mix of source editor and visual editor but my citations always come out like this <ref name-"xyz">{{Cite web |last=schmoe |first=Joe |date=2022-04-19 |title=the article's title |url=https://www.blahblah.com/help |access-date=2022-04-20 |website=Blah blah |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220420185212/https://www.blahblah.com/help |archive-date=2022-04-20 |language=en-US}}</ref>
I'm curious because I've gone to add archived urls or author information to these citations and ended up rewriting the citation in the format I know because with the first example, I just don't know where I should insert the author name or archive url or other stuff like that. I looked around at the guides on citation tools and couldn't find anything. Didn't look like it's a result of any of the gadgets I could find either (though I think I'm really starting to like ProveIt). Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Jasonkwe: It's just two different ways of citing sources. You can read about the shorter format at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Links and ID numbers. I prefer the full citations myself, like Template:Cite web. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Timtempleton Ahhh, I did not see that. Thanks! Is there some kind of editor that does use this format? I wondered if others still use this format because it's the default used in some gadgets...? It just seemed strange because I never saw any instruction on how to use that format (until now) and don't know how else you could implement it other than remembering the exact syntax to use (which would be tedious to say the least).
- But I agree, I do prefer full citations as well. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Jasonkwe: I keep a file with helpful links, and I include a dummy filled out cite web citation that I just cut and paste when I need it. I usually keep it simple with just title, url, website, accessdate and date. Others include the first and last name of the writer(s) and other fields. The goal for filling out sources well is twofold - to allow others to confirm the source says what the person adding it says it does, and if the link is ever broken because a web site reorganizes, there should be enough info to allow others to find the new link to prevent link rot. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Jasonkwe! The first format you're referencing is an older format. The {{Cite web}} format (WP:CS1) is preferred by most modern editors and tools because it keeps track of the metadata better, but you'll come across the older one in articles/tools that haven't been updated in a while. Because of WP:CITEVAR, the first format isn't wrong per se, but in practical terms you can generally convert it to CS1. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sdkb Got it, thanks! Yeah, I got the impression it was an older system but I was surprised when I saw it still being used recently to add sources that are from the past two years. *shrug But we're all creatures of habit. Because of citevar and the general "follow the existing format in use" guideline, I don't go changing those citations willy nilly just for the heck of it. But when I want to add an archive link or the author or other info, I'm not 100% sure how to format within the older system so I often end up converting to the CS1 style. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Jasonkwe! The first format you're referencing is an older format. The {{Cite web}} format (WP:CS1) is preferred by most modern editors and tools because it keeps track of the metadata better, but you'll come across the older one in articles/tools that haven't been updated in a while. Because of WP:CITEVAR, the first format isn't wrong per se, but in practical terms you can generally convert it to CS1. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Jasonkwe: I keep a file with helpful links, and I include a dummy filled out cite web citation that I just cut and paste when I need it. I usually keep it simple with just title, url, website, accessdate and date. Others include the first and last name of the writer(s) and other fields. The goal for filling out sources well is twofold - to allow others to confirm the source says what the person adding it says it does, and if the link is ever broken because a web site reorganizes, there should be enough info to allow others to find the new link to prevent link rot. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of article
My article Hertelendy Vineyards was deleted because it didn't state why the subject was important enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Wouldn't stating that be considered promotional or biased? Please advise. Cabernetbaby28 (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Cabernetbaby28, if an editor says that the subject of an article is important (or notable, outstanding, renowned, famous, etc), this is very likely to be interpreted as promotional. If the author describes the subject in such a way as to demonstrate that the subject satisfies one or other of Wikipedia's criteria for what it understands as "notability", and if the author does this without saying that the subject is important (or notable, outstanding, renowned, famous, etc), this is not promotion. -- Hoary (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Hi Caberbetbaby28. What you're going to need to do is show that the subject you want to create an article about meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The best way to do that would be to show that the vineyard has received the type of significant coverage in reliable sources that is described here. My suggestion to you would be to work on a draft for an article and then submit the draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation once you think it's ready for review. You're not required to do this, but such an approach is recommended for user who aren't very experienced in creating articles. Some more pages you might find helpful are this, this, this and this. In addition, if you're connected to the vineyard in any personal or professional way, you should also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for reference as well. If you're just a fan of the vineyard, then that's fine; deeper connections (particularly financial ones), however, mean you should familiarize yourself with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines on conflict of interest editing if you want to create or edit content about the vineyard on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Cabernetbaby28 Simply stating that something is Notable is Promotion; but demonstrating it (using Reliable Sources in a neutral manner) is pecisely what we require. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Cabernetbaby28 last year I created the article David Cory (author) because I thought he met Wikipedia’s notability standards. I didn’t state that he was notable or important, but I said that he’d written more than fifty children’s books, and his stories were syndicated in newspapers for forty years. I felt reviewers would see those referenced statistics and believe he qualified for a published encyclopedia article.
- When you write a draft article don’t use promotional language, just state why reliable sources say that Hertelendy Vineyards is notable. If it has won an award, or a well-respected reviewer says it bottles excellent wine you can state that, as long as you have good references to prove what you write. But don’t write it won "the highly coveted, prestigious XX Award", just state it won "the XX Award". Best wishes on writing an improved version of your draft article. Karenthewriter (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, Cabernetbaby28. I am an administrator and have read the deleted article. I also lived in the Napa Valley for 30 years, still own property there, and have written and expanded a number of articles about wineries. Your article had a glaring problem. The only references were to the website of the winery itself. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic say about it. Take a look at an article I wrote, Hagafen Cellars, paying attention to the references. There are 32 references and every one of them is independent of Hagafen. Cullen328 (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! I appreciate the insight. Cabernetbaby28 (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the example and insight! Cabernetbaby28 (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, Cabernetbaby28. I am an administrator and have read the deleted article. I also lived in the Napa Valley for 30 years, still own property there, and have written and expanded a number of articles about wineries. Your article had a glaring problem. The only references were to the website of the winery itself. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic say about it. Take a look at an article I wrote, Hagafen Cellars, paying attention to the references. There are 32 references and every one of them is independent of Hagafen. Cullen328 (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Stupid question
This is probably an infinitely stupid question because such an error on such blatant display is so unlikely, but I really don't get it.
https://www.wikipedia.org/ shows links to Wikipedia in various languages, like "English", "Deutsch", "Italiano", "Polski", etc. But the link for the French Wikipedia is titled "anglais" instead of "français". I gotta be missing something here. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: I think you're right - it should say Français. Maybe leftover from an April 1 prank? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not a stupid question! The Polski link points to pt.wikipedia.org (as does the Portugues link). Methinks, someone found a way to vandalize the page, though I have no idea where it is edited. SVTCobra 23:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The error in question has already been fixed, but it'll take a day or two for the fix to filter through to the page itself. (The page controlling this display is translatewiki:Wikimedia:Portals-language-name/fr, which said "anglais" between 10 July 2022 and 18 July 2022.) The translatewiki interface is really confusing, and makes it look a lot like you're supposed to translate "English" into your own language (rather than the name of your own language into itself); although there's an editnotice, it's possible that somebody missed it. --ais523 23:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is the Polish one being fixed, too? Because in that case, it's the link which is wrong, not the display language. SVTCobra 23:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not confident that I know what's responsible for creating those links – it doesn't seem to be translatewiki. So I don't know whether it's currently being fixed or not. --ais523 00:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, the Polish and Portugese links look correct for me (going to pl.wikipedia.org and pt.wikipedia.org respectively). If they're wrong for you, the error must be caused by something specific to the person viewing the page (probably browser or language preference – quite a bit of the site in question is responsive to the viewer, e.g. the list of languages is reordered based on the language preferences of the person viewing, so it's quite possible it could work for some people but be broken for others). --ais523 00:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is the Polish one being fixed, too? Because in that case, it's the link which is wrong, not the display language. SVTCobra 23:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
names of victims in Wikipedia articles
What exactly is the policy for including the names of victims in Wikipedia articles? 73.167.238.120 (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are WP:VICTIM and WP:VL as policy pages. It would be helpful if you linked the article to which you think these policies might apply. SVTCobra 02:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, rather than "policy" they are a guideline and a well-respected essay, respectively, on the topic. SVTCobra 02:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that it is safe to say that a substantial number of editors disagree with the Wikipedia:Victim lists essay. I certainly do. As for WP:VICTIM, that deals only with the issue of whether or not to write a biography of a victim. It has nothing to do with whether or not victims should be named in an article about a notable crime. At this time, this matter is decided on a case by case basis. Cullen328 (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, rather than "policy" they are a guideline and a well-respected essay, respectively, on the topic. SVTCobra 02:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- There's also an ongoing [discussion] right now at the "What Wikipedia is not" talk page, which is trying to get a request for comments drafted to address this issue. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- previous comment updated by Mathglot (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC) for clarity
- Wikipedia:Casualty lists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Casualty_lists includes "Naming the dead is also appropriate as it personalizes the subject for the reader in a way simple facts such as age, gender and ethnicity do not.". Mcljlm (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- previous comment updated by Mathglot (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC) for clarity
Articles
I need help and explanations on how an article is actually created Albakry028 (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Did you try Help:Introduction? SVTCobra 06:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Albakry028: Try WP:Your first article. Mathglot (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- You recently created Oyebada Adebimpe as an article, and an editor moved if to Draft:Oyebada Adebimpe because it was not good enough. It was submitted and then Declined, with the reasons given by the Reviewer. You should work on improving the draft, and then resubmit. David notMD (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Look to for the many examples of successful articles. David notMD (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- You recently created Oyebada Adebimpe as an article, and an editor moved if to Draft:Oyebada Adebimpe because it was not good enough. It was submitted and then Declined, with the reasons given by the Reviewer. You should work on improving the draft, and then resubmit. David notMD (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Question regarding odd editing on article
I came across a weird pattern of edits and I did not really know who should look at this so maybe you guys can help or direct me to the correct noticeboard: Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency (2022 Q3) The Joe Biden timeline articles are full of edits by an IP that is kind of vandalism and not the type of editing that should be in the article. Kind of spam per se and not relevant to the actions of the Biden administration. Hopefully, you guys can help me clean this up or tell me where I should post this so someone can direct their attention to it.
Thanks TippedNotion (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- While I am concerned that such an important article is dominated by a single editor, I don't see vandalism. I only glanced, but I don't see POV pushing, either. Can you explain what you mean by spam/vandalism by citing specific edits on this page? Cheers, SVTCobra 06:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Sources
How do I cite sources? 209.97.89.182 (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- See Help:Citing sources. Mathglot (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Interlanguage links between different Wikidata items
Ricciocarpos (Wikidata:Q17280751) is a genus of liverworts and Ricciocarpos natans (Wikidata:Q2148806) is the only species in it.
English Wikipedia have an article on the genus and have the species redirected to it. However, Wikipedia in some other languages do it in the other way around, having an article on the species and have the genus redirected to the species. The problem is that the article in English Wikipedia is linked to to Q17280751, while articles in some other languages are linked to Q2148806.
How can I fix it so that articles from both Wikidata items could be linked together?
--Klein/KLsz 08:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, KLsz, and welcome to the Teahouse. The simple answer is that you can't: a Wikidata item can be connected to only one article in a particular Wikimedia project, and (conversely) an article in an edition of Wikipedia can be connected to only one Wikidata item. This is well-known problem that nobody has found a satisfactory solution for (IMO). The issue, and some workrounds, are discussed at d:WD:Bonnie and Clyde. ColinFine (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Help with Draft
Any good tips or essays about writing about military bios (for this draft)? Thanks — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 09:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Vortex3427. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history is a pretty active WikiProject with lots of members. Perhaps try asking about your draft there. Maybe some of the project's members would be willing to look over your draft and offer suggestions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Updating my organisation's page
My organisation is looking to update our page to reflect operations and research, but we understand that this may be conflict of interest for us to do so. Is there best practice available to help with this, or should we use the request an edit function? JackHRUSI (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for asking, JackHRUSI. On Talk:Royal United Services Institute, please make specific suggestions/requests for the article. After a week, if you've still got no response, go to the talk page of any one of the "WikiProjects" advertised at the top of that talk page and invite readers to go to Talk:Royal United Services Institute and consider those suggestions/requests of yours. -- Hoary (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, JackHRUSI. I see that you have declared your COI on your user page: thank you. As Media Manager, I suspect that you have more than a conflict of interest, but that you count as a paid editor: if so, it is mandatory to declare that.
- To add to what Hoary said, if you tag your requests as edit requests, they'll be put on a list that some editors keep an eye on.
- Please see the links I have included, for more details on both points. ColinFine (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Editor Possibilities.
Is there any way to receive more visual editor possibilities? If yes, how so. Enternian (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Enternian: Welcome to the Teahouse! To suggest more VisualEditor possibilities, please see the feedback links at Wikipedia:VisualEditor. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
British spellings in an article about a British topic
Hi again. I am writing to ask if I have done the right thing in rolling back another editor's input. I saw this amendment in my watchlist and I have reverted it as surely incorrect. I realise the site is an American enterprise, but are American spellings the norm? If an article is exclusively about a British topic, I would think British spellings must be appropriate. Are there any policies or guidelines on this? If I was wrong to revert the edit, I will restore it. Thank you.
Sistorian (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Sistorian. You might find the answers given above in #Does Wikipedia use British English or American English for articles not about British or American topics? helpful, but basically different varieties of national English are considered acceptable for Wikipedia articles as explained in MOS:ENGVAR. In articles exclusively about a British topic, MOS:TIES may provided further guidance. In general, it's a good idea to check the relevant article's talk page (including any archived pages) to see if the matter has been discussed before and a consensus established as to which national variety to use in the article. If there's been no such discussion, then generally the variety used by the article's creator or by its first primary contributor is generally deferred to, unless a change is so obviously needed. Even then, it can sometimes be better to be WP:CAUTIOUS and propose the change first just to see what others might think. FWIW, your revert back to British English spellings was correct in my opinion and not something requiring discussion. The IP editor you reverted made their edit in good faith, but they were probably unaware of relevant Wikipedia guidelines on the matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, Marchjuly, and thank you. Those links are very useful. I believe the IP editor made a honest mistake, thinking it is an American site which should have American grammar and spellings. I am pleased the principle is by article and not by site. I can see that care is needed if a topic is multi-national. I have remembered seeing this template, Template:Use British English, which should help if needed. Thank you again for your help. Much appreciated.
- Sistorian (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Paid Editor Guidance
I'm trying to negotiate my way through the minefield of rules and guidelines as a paid editor. I understand the disclosure - done that - then came across something that said I need to propose outline changes to an existing article in advance before being allowed to make edits: did that and got a response along the lines of "noted", which isn't a yes or no. Can I just start work, or do I need to submit each update separately in advance? I'm working on an existing article that needs quite a few updates, I was going to create and upload one section at a time (which I thought might be easier for the reviewers). Some guidelines suggest paid editing isn't allowed at all; it's all very confusing as I just want to do the right thing! Are there any simple step-by-step guidelines or rules, or is it indeed forbidden?
I love Wikipedia - but sometimes it's impossible to see the wood for the trees. Any advice from anyone who knows will be gratefully received! Aiiaan (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: Talk:Rafael Bonachela#Updates and Reorganization of Article. Deor (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Aiiaan. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editing says
you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly
. Articles are front-facing Wikipedia pages: this page is not an article, nor are the talk pages of articles. And it is in these non-front facing pages that paid editors should restrict themselves.I think your main area of confusion is the function of an edit request, and it's incredibly common. An edit request isn't a request for you to be permitted to edit an article. It's a request for some other person to implement changes in an article. At Talk:Rafael Bonachela#Updates and Reorganization of Article, you talk about general improvements to be made, but an edit request should say things like "Correct the typo 'accauntant' to 'accountant'" or "In the second paragraph of 'Background', add the sentence '...'[1][2]".If you want to make large-scale changes then you must get consensus through discussion before making an edit request. You can do so by, for instance, creating a mock-up in your userspace like by creating User:Aiiaan/Rafael Bonachela or User:Aiiaan/Draft article or whatever you want to call the page. You could then start a discussion on the talk page asking "Should this content (link) replace the current 'Background' section?" And neutrally advertise the discussion at relevant pages e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment.The reason that this process is cumbersome and often confusing (other than wide differences of opinion within the community) is that paid editing is not the way Wikipedia has been built or should be built, it undermines our editorial independence, and we do not encourage it. Each paid editor creates more labour for volunteers, in scrutinising the paid editors. What we want is more volunteer labour. Nonetheless, given that we recognise paid editing will happen no matter how much we try to stop it, we have processes outlined to bring some good out of it, and I appreciate you are trying to co-operate with these processes. — Bilorv (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)- Depending on what it is you are being paid to do, Aiiaan, I would add to Bilorv's excellent advice that should paid editors wish to draft an entirely new article on a topic not yet covered in Wikipedia, this is allowed provided the article for creation process is used (click that link for details). The draft would be accepted (or not) by experienced editors who would check it met our policies and guidelines. Once accepted, the paid editor would be expected NOT to edit it directly any more but proceed solely via suggestions on its Talk Page. (There are minor exceptions if paid editors are correcting typos or obvious WP:VANDALISM). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the guidance. This helps enormously. Aiiaan (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
« Draft: François Escuillié » rejected
Hello :) It has been suggested to me to write a message here after the rejection of my article about François Escuillié, a french paleontologist (Draft: François Escuillié). The submission has been declined by @Theroadislong, the reason given is that the subject would not be noteworthy. I respect this opinion but I don’t really understand. Because, for exemple, this draft is a translation of the french version (François Escuillié). The admissibility of the French article is being validated because I had to change some sources but the notable aspect of the subject has never been questioned. I also changed the sources on this english version.
What should I do at this point ? I’m opened to debate the noteworthy of the subject. Should I just submit it again ?
Thanks for your answers,
CoraLacoire (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that the problem is that the article is about what this academic has done, rather than what has been written about him by authors independent of him. You should be trying to establish his notability as defined by the English Wikipedia. This may differ from that use on the French Wikipedia (or it may just be one of their substandard articles). Does he have any really highly-cited papers that could be then described as having a major impact on his field, or any other of the criteria at the link I provided? Resubmission without establishing notability would be a waste of your and everyone else's time but it is relevant that the article draft was declined (so it may yet proved OK) rather than rejected (which means there is no hope for it). In drafts like this, "less is more": the reviewing editors want it to be obvious the person is notable, they would not have needed to see a full list of his publications, for example. Also, you seem not quite to have met the guidance at WP:BLP stating that every single fact about the person's life must have an inline citation to a reliable source. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- CoraLacoire I do not know French, but I did a quick search to see if I could find some good references for you, and when the French Wikipedia article about François Escuillié was shown I clicked on it and saw it was tagged for what I believe was a need for better references. I suspect finding enough good sources to show notability may be a problem. That said here is one source that may be of help. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/rescued-fossils-are-going-home is from National Geographic. You need to sign up with the organization to read the article, which I didn't do, so I don't know how much is written about François Escuillié. I would suggest you spend a couple of weeks looking for sources showing François Escuillié is notable. Search online (there's nothing in newspapers.com), go to local libraries and ask librarians if they have any reference sources mentioning the academic. If you can't find anything showing notability you may want to move on to another project. Karenthewriter (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Apollo 10 Turd
I am a creator of wiki pages, I made La Mancha Negra, which was to be put up for deletion but it got saved becasue other people helped add to it and find relaible sources. if you look up La mancha negra it is there, thanks to a creator named Zia Later and others. now i face the same predicament with the Apollo 10 turd, there was a transcript written and Nasa reveals it and show that the transcrip shows astronauts arguing about who pooped in a toilet. it sounds ridiculous but its still history at the end of the day and i need your help to verify it and make it happen. please help. it seems like prrof from NASA is not enought to make the page , so please can you help me. i need youre help- Plazmid Plazmid 16:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plazmid (talk • contribs)
- @Plazmid: In order for Draft:Apollo 10 turd to become an article, you would need multiple independent reliable sources providing significant coverage of the incident in order to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, and then expand the draft into more than two sentences. You might have better luck posting at Talk:Apollo 10 to see if there are enough sources to add a brief mention in the Apollo 10 article. GoingBatty (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Plazmid: I see a discussion already happened at Talk:Apollo 10#Space turds = notable? You're welcome to contribute there if you wish. GoingBatty (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I cannot imagine a situation where this incident warrants a free-standing article. If it is as noteworthy and historical as you suggest, I think it just belongs in a paragraph in the article about the Apollo 10 mission. --SVTCobra 16:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Help
Hello I would like to hire someone to help me with my page. Is there someone I can contact if yes can you please give me their name info. I am disabled and need some help. Thank you my name is Tina Bagon Thanks Little Piggie Shoehorns (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Little Piggie Shoehorns This is not a place to hire Wikipedian to create your page. DIVINE 16:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Little Piggie Shoehorns, welcome to the Teahouse. Most people who offer to write Wikipedia articles in exchange for money are scam artists; they will take your money without bothering to verify whether the article subject meets our standards for inclusion (called "notability"), so the article never gets made, or is deleted if they try to push it through.
- I highly recommend changing your user name, since it appears to violate our username policy - you should not use the name of a product or a business. You can request a change here, or simply abandon this account and create another one with a different name. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Paid editing creates a conflict of interest and is generally frowned upon. There are many volunteer editors who are happy to help for free. However, and as mentioned above, Wikipedia has a notability standard which must be passed before a topic merits an article on Wikipedia. Speaking from my own experience, I do not see "Tina Bagon", "Little Piggies Shoehorn Co" or "Bright Kids LLC" meeting these standards at the present time. Sorry, SVTCobra 16:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please note that promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia. If at some time we have an article about you or your business, whoever writes it, the article will not belong to you or be controlled by you, it will not necessarily contain what you want it to contain, and it should be based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with your have chosen to publish about you, not on what you or your associates say or want to say. ColinFine (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Oops: Submitted Article by copy/paste
In my Sandbox, I've been working on an article on English writer Lettice D'Oyly Walters for over a week now and was extremely confused about how to put it into the main space for editing. I read somewhere that you should click on a link from a space that listed the article needing creation; that gave me a blank page. I copied and pasted the article from my sandbox onto that blank page and then worked out that I had to do "move." Worried that the article will be rejected because there's no edit history, which is apparently all in my sandbox?? I'm a new editor, so sorry about the mistakes--any advice welcome!! @Treesiati Treesiati (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Treesiati It looks as though others have sorted this out and the article now appears in Mainspace, as your link above points to. So well done for creating a nice piece of work! Why not try submitting it for a WP:DYK next (see that link) and get something on the Main Page in due course? Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- For the avoidance of doubt (as lawyers say) it is possible that the new pages patrol could check the article and conclude it should not have been placed directly in Mainspace but in my opinion it is perfectly fine and has already been edited there by experienced editors. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, Treesiati. The best method would have been to move your sandbox directly into an encyclopedia article. The intermediate step was not necessary, but no harm has been done. Your article is better than what the vast majority of new editors come up with, so thank you. I have done some minor edits to it. Cullen328 (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- For the avoidance of doubt (as lawyers say) it is possible that the new pages patrol could check the article and conclude it should not have been placed directly in Mainspace but in my opinion it is perfectly fine and has already been edited there by experienced editors. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Possible content/article dispute
I and Lockejava are having a content/article dispute over whether to disambiguate a currently-bloated article which has a section compliant with WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:OR needs to spin-out to a separate standalone article. What is the dispute, you may ask!
There was this page move by Bianca Anne Martins from "Barbie (film series)" to "Barbie (franchise)" and this page move by TheFallenPower from "Barbie (franchise)" to "Barbie (film franchise)". I invoked a successful requested single-page move back to the second title since this article link already covers the topic's main history and this article link talks about the non-media components related to the topic. I guess I will have to move fast before confusion becomes an edit war because the general "Barbie" topic remained dispute-free before 2017.
I have started an RFC so this will soon enough, I've remedied half of this confusion and I'm requesting assistance for a total wipeout of this dispute because I want this topic not to require any page protection. Thanks. Intrisit (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Intrisit, with very few exceptions, you should not attempt to correct other folks' talk page posts. I've reverted your changes above. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Making a Wikipedia page for a PR client
Hi, I'd like to create a Wikipedia page for a PR client of mine. How can I do this? 2603:7000:5000:5D02:25C9:C7A3:3AAC:7A1D (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- First, read WP:PAID and disclose. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. I see you've also asked at the Help Desk (though you didn't mention them being a client) - please only ask in one place or the other, to avoid duplication of volunteer effort. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Please help
Hey, can someone help me understand why did my article get declined? Because the guy who declined it says that (person from the article) doesn't meet notability criteria, but without specifying how should criteria be set.
Thanks.
Draft:Miran Kujundžić Narmerae (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)