Wikipedia:Teahouse

Sdkb, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Cyprus military ranks

I need help with the NCO ranks, i already made the png files how the ranks look but i dont know how to modify the code so i make it look like the greek one, cypriot army have 2 nco ranks for every rank, one for permanent NCOs that completed military academy and the other for SYP-EPY (in Greece EPOP-EMTh) for contracted NCOs that cannot become Warrant Officers, example bellow.

NCO and other ranks

NCO ranks (excl. OR-9 and conscript ranks) have undergone some changes through the years, the latest being in 2004.

NATO code	OR-9						OR-8		OR-7		OR-6						OR-5						OR-4				OR-3		OR-2						OR-1
Hellenic Army																																			Arm/corps insignia only
	Ανθυπασπιστής Anthypaspistis						Αρχιλοχίας Archilochias		Επιλοχίας Epilochias		Λοχίας Lochias												Δεκανέας Dekaneas				Υποδεκανέας Ypodekaneas								Στρατιώτης Stratiotis
Greece (Conscripts)							No equivalent																												No insignia
	Δόκιμος Έφεδρος Αξιωματικός Dokimos Efedros Axiomatikos										Λοχίας Lochias												Δεκανέας Dekaneas				Υποδεκανέας Ypodekaneas		Υποψήφιος Έφεδρος Βαθμοφόρος Ypopsifios Efedros Bathmoforos						Στρατιώτης Stratiotis

References

Notes

• @Hog Farm: Hi. Would you be able to answer this question? I mean, does it come under the field you are knowledgeable about (MILHIST)? I already have a program/bot that finds the creators of discussions, I will ping the OP in few hours. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  found it. the OP is Asd3131, with special:diff/1260033190 —usernamekiran (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Asd3131: Hello. Wikipedia:Wikiproject military history would be better for this question. —usernamekiran (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Rules of recommendations to add links in an article

Hello ! I'd like to know if there are rules or recommendations to add links in an article.

I'm talking about internal links to Wikipedia in English.

As an example. We can choose the article "Bashar Al-Assad".
If there are a section or a sub-section citing "Moscow" (This is an example but I could take another subject mentionned on this article).

If Moscow is linked one time in the article. Can I do it for others sections or sub-sections if this is not the same sub-section or section ?

If you don't understand what I means with words "section" and "sub-section".
You can see the example below.

Can I draft an article about myself and get it published on this site?

Hi Everyone,

I am new here and I want to contribute a page of my own life story, but it may not work with the management since they prefer to have someone else to write about it. That's my understanding, but what if a person wants to do what I want with integrity and facts? I am trying to establish just one short page on the topic to start later edits by other editors. Thank you, Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor. I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything because it sounds like you might be misunderstanding some things about Wikipedia and how it works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

To succeed, a draft submitted to AfC for review must have content verified by references to succeed. You are prohibited from creating a draft about yourself based on what you know to be true with the hope that other editors will provide the references (if there are any). David notMD (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, David notMD. Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, thank you for your suggestion. I've checked the contents you suggested me to look into and I gathered that there would be no chance for anyone to contribute their biography on Wikipedia. The only way apparent to me now is that other people who are willing to cover someone who are noted write a piece about that individual. Am I not misunderstanding now? Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

In addition @Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor

I feel there is need for you to understand basic editing, See WP:Editing before creating articles as this can be very difficult for beginners who just joined the project. Tesleemah (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You're not quite understanding. People who are truly notable can write biographies about themselves and have them published, and some have. But this is hard to do when you have a conflict of interest, as we all do about ourselves.

See WP:Golden Rule. That is what's required, in a nutsheell. Are there published reliable sources that are independent of you, providing significant coverage of you? If there are multiple such sources, then yes, you can write a biography citing them. The biography cannot use any information other than what is published, so you cannot write what you know, you must write what has been covered. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and clarification. I do multiple have published reliable sources in English and Chinese that are independent of myself. I think I will tive i.rLetyme know if you have any more comments. I'd appreciate that. now? Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I get it. Thank you. Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor: As posted above, even though creating an article about yourself isn't expressly prohibited, it can be quite hard and those who try often end up feeling quite frustrated when they start running into problems while trying to do so. My suggestion to you would be to use the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process to first work on a draft for an article and then submit that draft for review when you think it's ready. If the draft is declined (even multiple times), the reviewer will explain why and otherwise leave feedback on what further is needed for the draft to someday be accepted as an article. There's no real deadline when it comes to drafts, and you can work at your own pace on it. The only thing you need to do is continue working on improving it and avoid submitting the same declined version over and over again; you also need to make sure you don't "abandon" the draft by not making any meaningful edits to it for six months because such drafts are eligible for speedy deletion. You're not required to start a draft per se, but once something gets added to the Wikipedia article namespace, pretty much anything goes and the page can be edited by anyone at anytime; this could mean improvements, but it could just as easily mean being nominated, proposed or tagged for WP:DELETION. Before pressing ahead, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest editing (particularly the WP:COISELF and WP:LUC sections), Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing because you'll have pretty much zero final editorial control over any article you create about yourself, and all of it's content will be expected to be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which in some cases might not be the same as what you want it to be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the thorough explanations. I have gained a lot more understanding now. So, it's the best for other people to write about someone else. I get it, but how about people have someone other than themselves write their biography, for example, people who know the topic person well, or hired writers? Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It's best to avoid COI editing, especially paid editing. It tends to attract hostile scrutiny.

Depending on who you are, there may be someone who would be interested in writing an article about you. Many editors specialize in certain types of biography: sports figures, academicians, scientists; the bios I write are often about chefs. But that would require you to disclose your identity, which you may not want to do. Valereee (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor: Any type of "paid" editing needs to be done in accordance with WP:PAID; it's not expressly prohibited to have an article created by paying someone to do it for you, but basically that's a contract between you and the other party that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's your money and you're free to spend it as you please, but there are lots of WP:SCAMs out there that promise all kinds of things that simply are impossible to deliver; so, if you do decide to take that path, you should make sure to ask lots of questions before giving someone your money because Wikipedia won't help you get it back if things go wrong. Other options to consider might be trying WP:RA (which seems to be more miss than hit) or asking on the talk page of a WikiProject that might be related to whatever you think makes you Wikipedia notable. Whatever you do, you're going to most likely find it hard to remain anonymous because Wikipedia operates in the WP:REALWORLD, and the way it's set up can make it easy for others to connect the dots and figure out who you really are.

Personally, I still find it a bit odd when people seek to either create Wikipedia articles about themselves or try to find/pay someone to create such an article on their behalf. That sort of indicates to me that said person might be mistaking Wikipedia for some type of social media site or other kind of online profile site, which it's most definitely not. The most natural way for someone to have a Wikipedia article created about them is for them to do enough Wikipedia notable things so that reliable sources start covering them to the point that someone completely unconnected to them wants to create such an article. Of course, since this tends to work better for really famous people like movie stars. musicians, pro athletes, etc. than it does for other types of people who tend to be ignored by main stream media sources, I can somewhat understand feeling "I've got to do this myself because nobody is going to do it for me". Still it comes down to someone wanting to have a Wikipedia article written about them despite the fact that they're pretty much going to have zero control over what that article becomes over time. There seem to be much better WP:ALTERNATIVEs these days for someone to establish an online presence that they'll have total editorial control over and be able to use to let the world know about all about themselves. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. Did you mean that the persons (such as celebrities, known politicians) who have a page written by unconnected people is not able to edit that page which is about the very themselves? Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

They can edit it, but anyone else is free to edit, too. Article subjects have no control over the articles about them. Other editors can add stuff you'd prefer not to include and can remove stuff you'd like to include. Valereee (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Allpeoplearepeopleofcolor: The subjects of articles can edit said articles, but they're going to be expected to do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines just like any other editor; the subjects of articles don't "own" the articles in the sense that they've got total control over what's written in the article, and they can't stop others from editing the article. When the subject of an article has a problem with what's written about them, Wikipedia has processes in place to try and help them sort things out as explained here; Wikipedia, however, doesn't do what the subject wants just because the subject wants it done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The general guidance is that the subject of an article can make minor corrections to grammar, spelling, numers, names, etc, can add citations to reliable independent sources, and can revert obvious vandalism. Anything more substantive than that should be proposed on the article talk page.

That's after the article has been published. While it's still a draft, the subject is free to make any edits to it, and a reviewer would either accept the draft for publicaiton or decline it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Sandbox

Is there any way to use existing articles as template sorta things for the sandbox? Any help is appreciated! Willzdawgh (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Willzdawgh. Yes. you can copy an existing article into your sandbox, but for attribution purposes, you should use an edit summary of something like "Copying (article title) into my sandbox for article development purposes". Wikilink the article in question where I said (article title). Cullen328 (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Copying Donald Trump into my sandbox for article development purposes

Like that? Willzdawgh (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

That is a massive and highly controversial article, Willzdawgh. Why on earth would you select that article? Cullen328 (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

srry if I did something wrong bro. I'm new and I also forgot to mention that I was wanting to do this merely bc I was bored. I'm sorry if that's a problem. More specifically I wanted to mess around with hypertranslate and replace the article's text with the result on hypertranslate. I'm sorry if I'm unknowingly planning on doing something I'm not allowed to. I'll refrain from doing this if that's the case. Once again, very sorry. Willzdawgh (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

No need to apologize. If you're here to experiment, I recommend scouting scouting out stub articles via Special:RandomPage, pasting the wikitext into your sandbox, and messing around with the source there. If you need any help, you can refer to the tutorial at Help:Wikitext, the cheatsheet at Help:Cheatsheet, or an experienced editor (not me.) Thanks for asking, Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 04:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Something like that should be done either A) on your computer or B) in your sandbox. Certainly not on a massive and controversial page like Donald Trump User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Willzdawgh Applying the Hypertranslate software to the text of an existing article and then replacing the original text would be considered vandalism and would result in your account being indefinitely blocked. If all you are is curious about what repeated Google Translate would do to any Wikipedia text, do that on your own computer and do not bring it back to Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Passive voice in articles

 Courtesy link: Sacred Reich (sandbox)

I'm working on a draft for the Sacred Reich article (at my sandbox) for a major edit, and I ran my text through numerous grammar/spellcheckers like EasyBib and Grammarly. The most common—and most confusing—is on the use of passive voice. For context, passive voice is "the ball was kicked by Jeremy", while active voice is "Jeremy kicked the ball". I don't know whether or not I should be using passive voice in my prose (i.e. "Greg Hall was fired from the band and was replaced by drummer Tim Radziwill). I have attempted to use featured articles as examples, but usually doesn't seem to happen because of the abundance of information on the subject (i.e The Beatles or Alice in Chains) compared to a band like Sacred Reich. In my opinion, I'm not sure whether or not to use passive voice because it sounds rough when introducing a new member.

For example, "Greg Hall ... was replaced by Dave McClain ... later that year." vs. "Dave McClain replaced Greg Hall later that year." usually justifies using passive voice, but in context, this his first mention in the article and it disrupts the flow of the prose. In context:

Sacred Reich toured for nearly two years in support of The American Way, headlining major tours with Atrophy, Obituary, and Forced Entry. They also supported Venom in Europe and for Sepultura on their Arise tour in both Europe and North America. In 1991, the band released an EP, titled A Question. Former S.A. Slayer member Dave McClain replaced Greg Hall, who found their extensive touring to be difficult, later that year.

I'm still not sure if it justifies using active voice or not. If it does, please let me know. On a side note, I've noticed an abundance of the phrase "later that year" in my writing, and I don't know how to rewrite it properly because of vague dates in the source material. If anyone can help me with that as well, please let me know so I can get rid of the repetition. Thanks for reading. —Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 04:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's clunky because of where you put 'later that year'. It reads much better if you put it first - Later that year former S.A. Slayer member Dave McClain replaced Greg Hall, who found the extensive touring difficult. I don't think you should worry too much about active vs passive voice. Despite what grammar checkers might tell you, there's no one right way to write. Blackballnz (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Blackballnz. I appreciate the advice, it does actually seem more about the word placement than the voice construction, and I'll make sure to refactor the article to read better. Thanks, Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 06:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

In my view, Sparkle & Fade, the active voice is almost always best for writing encyclopedia articles. We favor a direct, clear and concise style of writing. Here is a good explanation from the University of Wisconsin - Madison. Wikipedia:Writing better articles also offers a lot of good advice. Cullen328 (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

passive voice is best used when you have to avoid to ascribe an action to someone. Example: somebody was fired from the band. The reference uses passive voice, thereby avoiding to say who did it. Now you have a choice. Either search for a reference, that says who was firing or use passive voice too to avoid to say who did the firing. What you can't do is to figure out who could do the firings in general and then ascribe that firing to him in active voice! 176.0.139.10 (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

When it matters (and you know) who took the action, use the active. When it's not important who was the actor, by all means use the passive. Grammarly and its friends express a prejudice against the passive which appeared in the early 20th C, often by writers who failed to follow their own injunction, and sometimes appeared unable to detect a passive accurately. See http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/003380.html. ColinFine (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

here's what every professor in college ever told me about writing expository, "use active voice!" It doesn't always sound good, but we aren't trying to be artistic or poetic with expository, we are trying to be clear and concise, and active voice is always the clearer choice.

Also, if you move "later that year" to the beginning of the sentence as one contributor suggested, please put a comma after "year" as it is a prepositional phrase. I.e. Later that year, former S.A. Slayer member... BTW, I do agree with putting it at the beginning. It sounds better and makes the sentence clearer. Dougjaso (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

However, also note what our Manual of Style says in MOS:PASSIVE:

The passive voice is inappropriate for some forms of writing, but it is widely used in encyclopedia articles, because the passive voice avoids inappropriate first- and second-person constructions as well as tone problems. The most common uses of encyclopedic passive are to keep the focus on the subject instead of performing a news-style shift to dwelling on a non-notable party.

CodeTalker (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

New editor needs some help.

Hi there, I'm new. I wrote 2 drafts: 1 about an Internship Program which I found interested in, 1 is a course in social science field. I submitted 2 drafts and all rejected.

After editing few more things. I still don't know how to make references more reliable, or which content is the promoting material?

Here is my 2 drafts: MIP and Vietnamese writing practice Miyano25 (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Miyano25 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Note that "rejected" has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Your drafts were "declined", meaning that they may be resubmitted.

Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability- such as a notable organization. Regarding MIP, you did a great job telling about the structure of the program and its offerings- but that's not what we're looking for(alone, at least). We're looking for a summary of what others say about the program. The same goes for the Vietnamese course. You can't "make references more reliable"- they either are, or they're not. Reliable sources are those which have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control- like reputable news outlets(just one example). 331dot (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see, thanks for explaining. Is it okay if I can summarize what other people say about the program but don't have a source to back it up, or have a source but it's not reliable to make it as a source? Miyano25 (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Watchlist preferences and settings

My watchlist continues to show categorization edits, despite checking <Hide categorization of pages> in my preferences. I've tried both the javascript and the non-javascript watchlists. The unwanted watchlist edits that do appear seem to all be made via either HotCat or Cat-a-lot. They aren't marked as minor edits, but I actually don't want to hide all minor edits. I have also selected the watchlist filter <Human (not bot)>, without luck; perhaps because they're merely semi-automated edits (as opposed to actual bots?). I have checked the tag to exclude all AWB edits, which does work for those. Does anyone have any thoughts? Scottyoak2 (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you speaking about the Watchlist for Wikipedia in English language ?

Can you make screenshots ? I can possibly help you with some screenshots but I can't guarantee I can help you with efficiency. Anatole-berthe (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The English Wikipedia, yes. I just was hoping that someone might already know how to filter out streams of edits made with HotCat or Cat-a-lot that sometimes flood my watchlist. If not, I can take a pair of pruning shears to my watchlist--an activity which might make a good New Year's resolution. Scottyoak2 (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you seeing edits to pages on you watchlist that happen to change the categories? Or is the category itself on your watchlist? Because I think the "Hide categorization of pages" setting only applies to categories you are watching. So if you uncheck that preference, and you add a category to your watchlist, you'll see any page that is added to or removed from that category show up in your watchlist. With the preference enabled, you won't see those changes, but you'd still see changes to the category itself, for example to the description.

I'm not sure if there's an easy way to filter out category-change edits to pages you see watching, because those edits are fundamentally just regular edits. And they are usually not minor edits, because category changes can be quite controversial sometimes, especially around BLPs or other contentious topics. --rchard2scout (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Technical question about the long hyphen

Hi!

I've been editing the timeline of Polermo where the long hyphen dominates, but I can't seem to generate one.Typing a regular hyphen, gives me just that - a regular hyphen, typing two hyphens gives me two hyphens (--) and trying to make one through the keboard shortcut which I found on internet forums (Alt+0151), just gives me one that's too long (—). So far I've been copying and pasting existing long hyphens which is kind of annoying, does anyone have any better solutions?

Thanks! Moonshane1933 (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Moonshane1933. I think you're talking about an em-dash. See MOS:EMDASH ColinFine (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes! That's what I meant! Thank you! Moonshane1933 (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you could find a better character in "unicode table".

This "article" is listing the most common characters.

There are also the "Unicode block" entry on Wikipedia that can be maybe helpful. Anatole-berthe (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you too! Moonshane1933 (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think ressources I shared with you will help you but I hope it will. Anatole-berthe (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring the Minus sign, there are three 'horizontal line' characters most commonly used in text, the hyphen, the N-dash and the M-dash. There are various ways to insert the latter two; usually I do so with [alt]+0150 and [alt]+0151. Despite being a former professional book editor, I have not previously encountered a "long hyphen" (a term not found anywhere in Wikipedia). Note that the lengths of all these characters may look different in different typefaces: I suspect your "long hyphen" is an N-dash. [Apologies for semi-overlap with answers above.] {The poster formerly known as 897.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Moonshane1933 If you use the source editor, which you can do even if you mainly edit with the visual editor, you'll find that the N-dash and M-dash appear at the foot of the editing window, where you can click on them to insert them into text. Other useful tags like <ref></ref> are also available with a single click. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

OOOOOOOHHHH... THANK YOU! That makes life easier! I hadn't even thought of looking at the source editor, because it always looks headache inducing to me. I'll give it a try. Thank you so much. Moonshane1933 (talk) 13:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, well, the "long hyphen" is a term that I coined, simply because I lacked the knowledge of its correct name, So I would have been very surprised if it had appeared in Wikipedia. Anyway, thank you, oh mysterious IP poster, I hope our paths cross again! Moonshane1933 (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

This may be the wrong place to mention this

On the page Lowercase Sigmabot |||, there is a infobox; in that infobox lies an image of a supposed “plane” labeled “Lowercase sigmabot ||| archiving a discussion” or something like that. Is this a joke by the moderators of Wikipedia? Selectortopic (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not an article but an Userpage. Humor is allowed on this kind of page.

If you click on my nickname. You could read my page. Anatole-berthe (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

No, @Selectortopic, it's a joke by whoever edited that page (actually the user, @Lowercase sigmabot III). We don't have moderators, and admins have no role in the content of articles (though the users who are admins may have, but not in their admin role) ColinFine (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Selectortopic: It's a humorous remark added by the bot operator [1] who is not an administrator. Many bot operators are normal users. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Someone know how to create a bot for a repetitive task ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Anatole-berthe See WP:BOTR page where you can make a request. There may already be a bot to do what you want and you need to explain in detail what you want and why. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks ! Anatole-berthe (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

How can i improve my page?

I'm actually working on the wikipedia page Villa Fraccaroli for a university project, i need to improve the page to be categorized as B before the 31 of december to get a good mark (it's actually start class), it is really difficult to find some good and reliable sources. Thank you in advance! Liucmicol01 (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it is not realistic to expect this page be categorized B before the 31 of december.
Anatole-berthe (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Liucmicol01, the lead (opening section) of an article should summarise the body of the article. As faar as I can tell, the second paragraph of Villa Fraccaroli does not relate to anything in the body of the article. Maproom (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

That seems like an unreasonable expectation, as the assessment depends on someone else doing the assessing, and Wikipedia has no deadlines. If your prof -- Limelightangel, it looks like? -- wants to do the assessments, they can, but it's not really reasonable to expect assessments to be done by others. Valereee (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Liucmicol01. As you were told two days ago, there is no way to guarantee that the article will get any particular rating by a particlar date, and few editors are much concerned with ratings anyway. But since you are concerned with ratings, you would do best to ask at the talk page of one of the Wikiprojects related to the article. ColinFine (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Liucmicol01 .... or just assign a "B" yourself and hope that your instructor doesn't notice who did that edit ;-) Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Although as MDT pointed out, you could yourself change the rating from C-class to B-class, don't. The article does not qualify. From just a quick look at some of the content and references, the refs do not always verify the content. David notMD (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Search suggestions have changed for the worse

I have always been able to count on Wikipedia's search function to provide me with a list of articles connected with the term entered in the search field. Today, however, I'm not getting these, but rather only short and apparently arbitrary lists of articles that I've viewed or edited. When I type "A", for example, I get:

ajedrez
Angelou
Alvin Bragg
Abbot and Costello
Athena
Ari

When I add a "b" to this, the list becomes:

Abbot and Costello
Abe Fortas

When I add an "r", I get nothing, no Abrahams or anything else.

And so on. This is a purely arbitrary example, but I hope it serves to illustrate. What I would always get before would be a list of a dozen or so articles, which was limited but very often helpful. I checked my preferences but all I saw was "Disable the suggestions dropdown-lists of the search fields", which was unchecked as always. Any info or advice on this would be very welcome, thanks. Bret Sterling (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I personally always use advanced search, but you can try google with the modifier site:en.wikipedia.org to force it to only search wikipedia (or just type "wikipedia" before your search query) Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 17:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bret Sterling Are you using the current default WP:VECTOR22 skin? I find that its search box is better than for other, older, skins and the results for "Abr" are perfectly sensible, with the first suggestion being Abr. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions, Cmrc23 and Michael D. Turnbull. The Advanced search option does provide me with many good finds and I should have been using it previously, but Content pages gives me results like I used to get directly under the search text field only more of them. I checked my WP skin and saw I was using the current default but still not getting the suggestions, so then I could figure it was something on my end and checked to see if I had "Block scripts" activated in Brave Shields. I saw that I did, deactivated it and now I'm getting the suggestions as before. Sorry, false alarm, this wasn't a Wikipedia change as I wrongly suspected. It's interesting that I could get suggestions on pages I've frequented by turning "Block scripts" back on, and I'm curious as to how that works – I mean the apparently default behavior without whatever the script is. Bret Sterling (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

But wait a minute. Now I'm not getting the alternative search options (Content pages, Multimedia, Everything, Advanced). Claude AI tells me to type "Special:Search" in the search box to access these and this works, but I had them there just now today without doing this. (I couldn't have done it because I was unaware of the possibility.) So how did I have those options for a while but then didn't have them afterwards? And (what may be the same question) how do I get them without having to type "Special:Search" in the search box? I can do that, but it seems clunky and I have to remember the text to type it. Bret Sterling (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

There a variety of userscripts to enhance the search function: Wikipedia:User_scripts/List#Search_form Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 10:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bret Sterling I assume that by turning on "Block scripts" Brave Shields is preventing Javascript from running in your browser. The problem is that, as WP:JAVASCRIPT explains, Java is a core part of how much of Wikipedia works, both the standard Mediawiki software and many optional extras like gadgets and userscripts. So, if you are prevernting that running, you are sacrificing functionality for security. Is there an option in Brave Shields to exempt the Wikipedia domain from the block? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Timezone

Out of sheer curiosity, what Time zone does Wikipedia operate under? I'm in the Pacific Standard time zone, and the Did You Know... and On This Day... update at around 4:00pm every day. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Shovel Shenanigans WP operates under UTC but you can change the defaults you see in your preferences. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Shovel Shenanigans If you need help to change this in your preference. I can help. Anatole-berthe (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Anatole-berthe That's okay, thank you! Honestly, the daily change at 4:00 helps me stick to my schedule. Since I almost always have Wikipedia open, I know it's time to take a break from my other computer-related work when the DYK and OTD changes.

@Michael D. Turnbull Thanks for the quick reply, and my curiosity has been sated :) Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

That's wonderful ! Anatole-berthe (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Papiermark and other money from Weimar Germany

Hi, I inherited some German banknotes from between 1908 and 1923 and I was wondering wether I could upload scans of them to Wikimedia. I scanned them in out of personal interest and then thought they might be useful.

My main question is about copyright, as in, do I have to ask someone for permission and if so who? But also whether I should digitally sharpen them and how do I properly sort them in? I'm quite new to this and any help is appreciated! The scans are at 1200dpi and saved as 98% JPEGs, with filesizes between 5 and 20MB. I already skimmed over WP:IUP but couldn't find anything related to money or bank notes and I read the copyright data of this scan but I'm unsure if this also applies to my case. Skylar Mlem (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, do you know who made the designs for the original banknotes? You might want to review the copyright information for this file: File:Banknote - Sächsische Bank zu Dresden - 100 Mark - 1911.jpg Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 19:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Skylar Mlem. The best place to ask about this sort of question is WP:MCQ. ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Skylar Mlem Another place, possibly better?, is at Wikipedia Commons where you will upload your images, and ultimately will have to defend copyright status. The help center for copyright issues at Commons is at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. You might find this old, archived Commons discussion on the copyright status of § German currency interesting as well. Mathglot (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

How do I welcome a new user?

I noticed a new user that hasn't been welcomed yet. I've seen the templates used on other talk pages; should I just copy paste the source and adapt, or is there a welcome button I can use instead? guninvalid (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Guninvalid. There are a number of welcome templates to choose from. Also, if you enable WP:TWINKLE, it has a dropdown menu that lets you select the welcome message that you want to leave on a user talk page, much easier that way. (Twinkle has a bunch of other really useful functions as well.) Hope that helps. Schazjmd (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Guninvalid this might be of use to you, Wikipedia:Welcoming committee Knitsey (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't matter anymore, the user I wanted to welcome got blocked by the checkuser. I only wanted to welcome them because I posted them on WP:AN and I noticed they had never been welcomed. guninvalid (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Mystery Dungeon additional info

Hey I just noticed that the mystery dungeon series is missing an entry and I wasnt sure where to ask to add it, this just seemed like the closest thing to an editor contact place. The entry in question is "Chocobo's Mystery Dungeon Every Buddy!" , released back in 2019 176.6.56.156 (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The article "Chocobo (series)" is not at all long; adequately referenced material about individual items in the series could be added to this article. -- Hoary (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I have a edited page when I was not logged in,now I am logged in,how do I get it back?

How,how do I get it back? 219.78.249.54 (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You were not logged in when you made this post. When you are correctly logged in, you can edit your userpage to reflect articles that you have worked on as an IP editor. Cullen328 (talk) 07:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

And to find the pages you edited, look for your contributions: Special:Contributions/--Your-username--. eg Special:Contributions/219.78.249.54 shows editing Residence Oasis, but Sumanuil reverted all the edits. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Moving my English Wikipedia user page to media wiki for a global user page

I can move my English user page to media wiki to have a global page for all sister projects? I know I can just ask to delete my English page and make a media wiki one but I kinda wanna move it for the edit history. If I can't move it to media wiki ill just move it to User:Anthony2106/old user page Anthony2106 (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

What you are asking for @Anthony2106: is an import. You would have to find an administrator on meta, but even so may not be actionable. Instead I would advise you just to create a new page yourself on meta, as you will find that many templates are unavailable there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You saying they will only import important things -- not user pages? Also i'm not worried about the templates as I can use {{:w to get wikipedia templates. Anthony2106 (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

On this topic, I was wondering if making an account on english wikipedia counts as a global account for wikipedia purposes Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 10:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cmrc23 Did you created your account on "Wikipedia in English language" as first account for projects of Wikimedia ?

If you go on any Wikipedia language version or another Wikimedia project. If you click on "login" you can log into it.

I created my account on "French Wikipedia" as first account for projects of Wikimedia.

I can create accounts with the stuff I explained. Anatole-berthe (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

So there are not enough userboxes on meta-wiki and that trick {{w: didn't work so maybe ill just leave it on Wikipedia. Anthony2106 (talk) 06:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Problematic BLP and stubifying

I've come across a BLP, Clifford M. Sobel, which seems to be highly problematic. There is a high amount of unsourced information and likely original research, and also substantial edits from a user named "SOBEL1" who I'm 90% sure has a conflict of interest or is a UPE. Digging through the revision history, there doesn't seem to be much salvageable revisions/info to revert to, and I'm considering stubifying it. However, I have concerns regarding if I should do it or not. Should I try and seek consensus to do it, if so where? Should I contact VRT? If anyone can give me an answer on this, it'd be appreciated. —Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 06:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the question, @Sparkle & Fade. Per WP:BLPRS (specifically: contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion emphasis not mine), you should be free to remove such poorly sourced content since you're challenging it. Unless you're successful in finding good sources of course. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 06:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

2024 events

What local incidents around the world, like the 2024 Magdeburg car attack are allowed to be mentioned in the events section of the 2024 year article. Marksaeed2024 (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Marksaeed2024. In my view, this tragic attack which has been the subject of significant coverage worldwide, ought to qualify. But potentially gigantic list articles such as year articles need to be restricted somewhat by consensus among editors interested in year articles, especially the current year. So, feel free to make a bold edit, but if you are reverted, Talk:2024 is the place to make your thoughtful case. Cullen328 (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

wtf?

since the fuck when is "black people" a "radical" term????? so is "white people" also considered radical? i am very curious to know.. seems pretty fucking retarded..... 68.142.49.124 (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Where did you see it being called radical? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Can we watch the vulgar language here? We try to be friendly and civil on this page. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

If you look at Black people it says "racialized classification", not "radical" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

New page for author

Hello

i am a published author quoted on two Wikipedia pages . I would like to create a page about myself. It looks complicated and I need some help. This is my basic text:

Sarah Bax Horton is a British author of true crime and historical biography. Her first two books, One-armed Jack: Uncovering the Real Jack the Ripper (Michael O’Mara Books, 2023) and Arm of Eve: investigating the Thames Torso Murders were inspired by her great-great grandfather who worked on those original investigations.

Bax Horton proposed new prime suspects in each of her published works, putting forward East End cigar maker Hyam Hyams as Jack the Ripper and Thames waterman James Crick as the Thames Torso Killer. SCC68 (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Read this : Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Write about yourself isn't a thing to do.

Do you want more informations ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

SCC68 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about topics that meet our special Wikipedia definition of notability- like a notable author. Also note that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

and please don't promote your book on the Thames Torso Murders. Theroadislong (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I am an expert on this subject wishing to update an out of date and misleading page. I am also an author of books on this subject. SCC68 (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@SCC68, not an article, but Sarah Bax Horton is now a redirect. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you SCC68 (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

SCC68, you write: I would like to create a page about myself. It looks complicated and I need some help. People in a number of dodgy little companies are likely to read this, think "Maybe she'll pay" and may then solicit your business. (Perhaps individual Wikipedia editors will do the same.) But if you're wise, you'll ignore such offers. Please read and digest what's said in "Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning". -- Hoary (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Messed up title when reverting a non-discussed page move. Not sure how to proceed.

Hi. I don't know whether it's appropriate to ask but I messed up reverting a page move on the Man vs. Bee article. (renamed it to the upcoming sequel show, not the original by mistake), and I cannot fix it as another redirect article already exists. I'm unsure how to fix it and I have royally messed up. Thanks. Cheezknight (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Cheezknight, I've moved the page back to Man vs. Bee for you. Let me know if everything looks good now! If a similar issue happens again, feel free to submit a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. That page is watched by a lot of page movers, who have more extensive permissions relating to moving and renaming articles than most users. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I really appreciate it as I was stumped on what to do. I don't usually move/ merge articles so thanks for fixing it and for pointing me in the right direction if future issues occur. Cheezknight (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Citations

How to present a citation? 2600:1700:60F8:B010:5113:50DB:F873:638B (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

See "Referencing" at WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Im trying to make a page for Jessica Christine Ritchie

Proposed article content

Jessica Christine Ritchie, is an American entrepreneur, artist, and educator Who is of Apache and Blackfoot heritage. She is the founder of DeerWomen, a luxury tea and beauty brand that merges herbal remedies with esoteric traditions. Early Life and Education Jessica Christine was born in California and raised in Spokane, Washington. Her upbringing amidst the natural landscapes of the Pacific Northwest nurtured a deep appreciation for nature, mythology, and esoteric sciences. She pursued her education at prestigious institutions such as the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in Antwerp, Belgium. Along her journey, she was mentored by notable figures, including author Francesca Lia Block and scholar Maja D'Aoust, further shaping her interdisciplinary approach to creativity and learning. Career DeerWomen In 2016, Jessica founded DeerWomen, a luxury tea and beauty brand. The brand reflects her passion for blending herbal remedies and ritualistic recipes with symbolic narratives drawn from folklore. DeerWomen offers a curated collection of products designed to enhance vitality and natural beauty, emphasizing the connection between self-care and authenticity. Relaunched in Antwerp, Belgium, in 2022, the brand’s offerings are now available in select stockists across the USA and Europe. Creative Direction and STEM Education Jessica’s career extends beyond entrepreneurship. She has worked as a Creative Director, organizing international events that catered to high-profile dignitaries, including Belgian royalty. As a STEM educator, Jessica has taught coding and 3D printing using innovative methods involving gaming and robotics, showcasing her dedication to integrating technology with creative expression. Personal Philosophy Jessica’s work is profoundly influenced by her Apache and Blackfoot heritage and a deep connection to nature. She advocates for personal rituals and self-care as essential elements of beauty, encouraging individuals to define beauty on their own terms. According to Jessica, true beauty arises when people engage passionately with activities they love. Legacy and Influence Jessica’s work bridges art, science, and cultural heritage, inspiring others to pursue their unique paths with intention and creativity. Her ability to harmonize traditional wisdom with modern practices makes her a significant figure in the realms of beauty, education, and entrepreneurship. See Also DeerWomen Website Jessica Christine on Missing Witches Podcast

---

This article is a summary of Jessica Christine Ritchie Magdaleno’s professional and personal journey. Qualek (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

This looks largely promotional - which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Furthermore this text does not contain any independent secondary sources. Simply put - this text is inappropriate for Wikipedia as it stands. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Qualek, and welcome to the Teahouse. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. So writing an article starts with finding reliable independent sources (see 42). What you know about the subject is irrelevant, except where it can be verified from a published source. --ColinFine (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

How I can improve my page?

Hi, I write here a few days ago, to ask if you all can help me to get my page approved (name page: Bove Path), and you all help me but also all my colleagues to get our draft page approved (we really appreciate your help).

I found myself here again to ask you what I can improve to possibly increase the score of the page. I already add the sources that were missing, as one of you recommended, any more suggestion? thank you in advance. LIUCChia.05 (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You can add pronunciation in "Italian language" indicated in "IPA". Anatole-berthe (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Bove Path is rated C-class. See Wikipedia:Content assessment to understand the differences between C-class and B-class. Although any editor, including you, can change the rating, I personally perfer to not upgrade ratings on articles I have been editing. David notMD (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Where can we see class of an article ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Top of Talk pages usually has ratings: Stub, Start, C-Class, B-class. For GA and FA there is additional detail as to when approved.

Back to article - in my opinion Biodiversity should be limited to what is near the trail, not the entire park. David notMD (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if the path cross the park itself? it is not a dispersive area you can find and encounter, with a bit of luck, all those species during the trekking itself. LIUCChia.05 (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I have reassessed the article as "B". Cullen328 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for you help ! Now , I know where to find the class of an article. Anatole-berthe (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Diffs

I always forget the best way to show a "diff" in a post. Can someone explain to me how I'd show this edit, in a diff? Did I do it right? Just link the URL? I feel as if some editors do it so seamlessly and easily. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the question, @Iljhgtn. Yes, you linked the diff perfectly. There are also other ways to link diffs which you may or may not find easier. You can see Help:Diff#Linking to a diff for more examples. Here's one form I really like to use:

Typing this---> [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rickrolling&diff=prev&oldid=1263603391]

Would create this--->[2]

I hope this all helps! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I use visual editor except on talk pages where sometimes it is not possible or other pages where it might not be possible for some reason. I really wish they would enable visual editor everywhere too by the way! It is SO much better than source editor! Iljhgtn (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

But thanks, I am glad that my copying and pasting of the "diff" URL is essentially all that you need to do. I did not think it was that simple. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

What about finding a specific diff in the page history? Some people in talk page discussions seem to find tons of perfectly relevant diffs nearly instantly and it routinely blows my mind. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

For articles, the Who Wrote That? browser extension makes it really easy to locate when something was added. Schazjmd (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I use Microsoft Edge as my browser. Is that supported for this tool? Seems like such an interesting tool that it would almost make it worth to switch the browser that I use, though I'd rather not do that if I can avoid it. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

It does. Schazjmd (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn Assuming you're using a PC to edit, clicking "page history" at the top right will show you the list of revisions the page has went through. Each revision has "prev" and "cur" next to them. Clicking prev will show you the difference (diff!) with that revision and the previous one. Cur will show the difference between that revision and the current one. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I edit using a PC. Thanks for this information. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I have never quite figured out how to edit from a phone, plus I am worried that it would be from an IP then and might cause me problems somehow. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Iljhgtn, please read my essay User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing. If you are logged in on your phone, your IP address will not be disclosed and you will not have any unusual problems. I have made about 100,000 phone edits going back many years. Cullen328 (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Are "phone edits" logged any differently in your contribution history than PC-based edits? 100,000 on the phone is an impressive achievement! Iljhgtn (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I was a bit discouraged to try phone editing too after the incident where there was a recent admin that seemed to really assault someone for trying to use phone editing and then it became a real ordeal for them to come back into editing. Though it looks like that admin has lost their adminship, rightfully so, so maybe I will look into it again. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You can force the visual editor in any namespace by adding ?veaction=edit to the end of the URL (for example, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skarmory?veaction=edit would let me access my user talk page in VE). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm really not sure why my article was declined.

It is a biography of a living person who created a global food chain and is now writing poetry and songs. His journey to Canada was significant. CLWwrites (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You will need to show how he could pass the criteria at WP:GNG, your draft gives no indication of that so far. Theroadislong (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Presumed - there is coverage in the Toronto Star Business section and in multiple newspapers globally. Many of the smaller papers have not archived all of their papers. Andy has a poem in the Kennedy Accessions Library (accessible online).

Significant coverage - no additional research is needed to extract the content. The history of his coming to Canada and how he grew his business here are clearly laid out.

Reliable - as mentioned above, I used verifiable sources and for a few instances, the smaller papers have not archived all of their earlier articles.

Sources - I have used secondary sources.

Independent of the subject - there are many messages of congratuations and thanks for participating in events. I was having difficulty uploading their private photos.

If you can tell me what is wrong I can fix it. Right now I don't know what is wrong. CLWwrites (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@CLWwrites You appear to have written that article WP:BACKWARDS. Please read that essay and if and when you have found appropriate sources start again. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? I wrote the article in the time sequence it occured... CLWwrites (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I am feeling frustrated right now. CLWwrites (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @CLWwrites, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that that frustration is a common experience for editors who start editing Wikipedia and immediately plunge into the challenging task of creating an article without spending time learning how Wikipedia works first. Would you enter a major competation in a sport you have only just taken up? Would you expect to understand the feedback you got if you did?

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

When Shantavira says you have written your draft backwards, that is a link to a page that explains; but in short: you appear to have written what you know and then looked for sources. Baldly, Wikipedia doesn't care what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the internet knows). Wikipedia only cares about material that is verified by reliable published sources, so writing an article starts by finding such sources. Then, if you have found several sources which each meet the criteria in WP:42, you can start writing a summary of what those sources say (not what you know). ColinFine (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@CLWwrites, its not about time sequence. First, find the multiple reliable independent sources that describe the topic. Each such source must be in-depth, reliably published, and independent of the subject, all three at the same time. Next, write the article using only those sources. That is writing an article in the proper direction. Backward is writing what you know and looking for sources to support it later. That is almost never successful. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you StarryGrandma...at least this helps me know what to do. CLWwrites (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

To expand on this, we are asking you to show that he is already well-known by providing material that people independent of him have written in-depth about him and published in places with editorial oversight. If he is not already well-known then he can still be a significant person, but we don't include him in this encyclopedia. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Race condition on talk page?

It seems like two people welcomed me to Wikipedia at the same time (thank you to User:Clovermoss and User:Masterhatch by the way), which has led to two different revisions [3][4] where the current revision doesn't have the past revision's message and vice versa. What is the proper thing to do here? Should I "merge" the two revisions so both messages are visible? YAQUBROLI 18:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Yaqubroli, and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, you can "merge" the two revisions, make both messages visible, and say so in the edit summary. Please see also Help:Edit conflict#Resolving an edit conflict. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Tangentially, I prefer to link revisions like so: Special:Permalink/cur, replacing cur with the revision ID (the number after &oldid=). Doing something similar with Special:Diff shows what was changed from the previous version. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, that is way less clunky. Thanks! YAQUBROLI 19:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Question

If an editor makes several blatantly RGW arguments for removing sections of content, refuses to read sources contradicting his arguments on the grounds that I have been editing in this area for years and am very confident that no source exists and then states that what he really wants is for this article to redirect to a completely different article but that since he can’t do that he’s instead grinding out this same debate one passage at a time until the article is empty. but also that he doesn’t want to, and would much rather save ourselves some time and just do the redirect,

Does that become a conduct issue? Snokalok (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Snokalok, the ongoing discussion is about a contentious topic. I don't see any conduct issues in the discussion, just very strong opinions on both sides. It does seem as though you've cherry-picked quotes out of context; for example, the full sentence was But I've got very little interest in grinding out this same debate one passage at a time until the article is empty. I recommend that you all continue to work through the issue via discussion. You can see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for other options. Schazjmd (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd The fuller quote was But I've got very little interest in grinding out this same debate one passage at a time until the article is empty. We could save ourselves some time and just do the redirect., operative phrase being “we could save ourselves some time and just do the redirect”, implying that is still the course of

action being pursued and that, one way or another, the result is the same.

Regardless, my assessments have been wrong before, hence why I ask here instead of at ANI Snokalok (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The even fuller quote is The bold move would be to redirect this article to Gender-critical feminism on WP:POVFORK grounds. Since I expect that would be immediately reverted, I am attempting to gain consensus first. It's good if you now agree that the passage in question is inappropriate and can be removed. But I've got very little interest in grinding out this same debate one passage at a time until the article is empty. We could save ourselves some time and just do the redirect. What do you think?

I would not recommending going to ANI with this, @Snokalok. Schazjmd (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Would like some feedback

I have just, well you could say, abusing the recent changes page for things i need to revert. I've done my first few and it's going very quickly reverting all these users. Thoughts? 千乇丨丂ㄒㄚ尺ㄖㄖ丂ㄒ乇尺 (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that and I have no knowledge of any Wikipedia guideline articles discouraging/forbidding those actions. I, myself, have done the same before multiple times and I know a couple of Users doing the same thing as well. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. 千乇丨丂ㄒㄚ尺ㄖㄖ丂ㄒ乇尺 (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @千乇丨丂ㄒㄚ尺ㄖㄖ丂ㄒ乇尺. What you're doing is actually encouraged and quite the noble act. Patrolling recent changes is a very efficient strategy to fighting vandalism. If you wish, you can download some tools like WP:Twinkle or WP:Ultraviolet to make this process even quicker. Those scripts also give you options to warn problematic editors in the hopes of preventing future disruptive editing.

If you continue this process for a month, successfully reverting and warning vandals with those tools, you can request to get Wp:Rollback permissions at WP:RFP/R. Just keep in mind, the goal of reverting vandalism is not a race against other patrollers. Be slow and cautious if need be. Thank you for joining the fight against vandalism! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

WE STAND UNITED AGAINST VANDALISM! 千乇丨丂ㄒㄚ尺ㄖㄖ丂ㄒ乇尺 (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Lol. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I can be a bit chaotic sometimes xD 千乇丨丂ㄒㄚ尺ㄖㄖ丂ㄒ乇尺 (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I put the humorous userbox on my user page 千乇丨丂ㄒㄚ尺ㄖㄖ丂ㄒ乇尺 (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Maintenance template removal?

Hello, I've made an edit and I was wondering if the sources that I added justify removal of the “This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources” template at the top of the article? Also, are my sources good? I read Help:Maintenance template removal. Samolukadjo (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Since you have cited sources, the template has done its job and now it should be removed. (Or it could be replaced by this template). Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 21:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Username question

Hi there! I've bumped into a user whose name includes "42069". I checked through the username policy, and I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing that ought to be reported anyplace? Would it be considered "inappropriate" enough?

The user showed up about a week ago, tried to upload and insert a couple of copyrighted images (deleted and reverted, respectively), and hasn't done anything since, so it's not really an immediate need - this is mostly for my own curiosity if a situation like this pops up in the future. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @NekoKatsun: I don't think strings of numbers are prohibited from being used in usernames, unless perhaps when read aloud they're something really vulgar that pretty much most people would clearly understand and find offensive. Even if this particular string of numbers means what Google says it can mean, I don't think that it meets such a standard. You can, however, ask for administrator input at WP:AN or WP:UAA if you want, but it's probably better to just ignore it. If the account resumes editing and starts creating problems unreleated to its name, then you can seek administrator action because of that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they do indeed mean what Google says they do, and I can recall at least one instance where someone faced a lot of heat for having, ostensibly, the last two digits of their birth year in their username, which just so happened to be 88 (a white supremacist thing). I wanted to err on the side of caution.

Since they're not doing anything I'll ignore, although that username sure won't do them any favors if they start back up with their copyright problems. Thanks for the reply! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

a little late to note, but it mostly depends on whether or not the user is actually disruptive. say a guy named "bigjohn69420" starts editing dusk. if it's copyedits, source additions, and other such stuff, they're just constructive edits and they'll be fine. if it's adding entire yaoi copypastas and other such styles of vandalism, they're gonna be blocked. in both cases, this is regardless of their username

granted, there are also cases where the username is grossly offensive, like "pussyslaya42069mlg", in which case they're either getting "mildly nudged" into renaming or just being blocked consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 13:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

How do I get enough credible sources when interviews go beyond webpages but videos, podcasts, etc?

Hi,

I'm trying to write a biography about an important contemporary muralist. His work has been in two Asian Art Museums in addition to murals all over the world and for corporations. He has many interviews; I included some in the citations but they were not accepted. Would love any guidance. Thank you Rnza45 (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The AFC reviewer has left a comment saying that, "Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines". Some faults noted by me was the way the sections were displayed and most of the citations were unreliable and not properly generated. There's also no hyperlinks and no infobox. Fixing those faults would probably help your chance for the biography to be accepted. Hope this helps. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 22:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Rnza45, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You have made several common beginners' errors: you have created your draft on your user page, which is not the right place for it. You have written your draft BACKWARDS (writing from what you know, and then looking for sources) - Wikipedia doesn't care what you know: it only cares what independent reliable sources say about the subject. And Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. So interviews don't count towards establishing notability.

There's nothing wrong with making mistakes: that's how we all learn. But newcomers who plunge straight into the challenging task of crating a new article often get frustrated and disillusioned. And it's even harder when you have a conflict of interest (thank you for declaring that).

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough reply. Where is the correct place to write a draft?

I don’t know why you think I cited sources backwards; I didn’t start that way. I did go back after I thought I needed more outside sources. I did look up what Wikipedia considers reliable sources, but I need to understand this better. I thought I went back and added, but they still dont seem to meet the criteria. I pulled from LA Times, ABC News, NPR, art websites and a local wiki.

I did not write the article about myself. 2603:8000:7300:CB21:AC86:1F37:7217:3A5D (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The correct place to write a draft is WP:Article Wizard. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I have moved the draft to Draft:Dave Young Kim, Rnza45. Please remove the CoI template from it, and affix the former to your user page.

You tell us that:

Kim's artwork engages with the intangible quality of home and explores themes of nostalgia, war, conflict, and displacement. By incorporating cultural motifs into personal and broader histories of struggle, he examines the universal search for belonging across diverse conditions.

And you add a reference pointing to a page of Kim's website. But this is evaluative: we need a source independent of Kim to tell us that he actually explores such-and-such (and doesn't merely glance at it and hurry away). Also, this sounds curiously like PR-speak. I wondered what Kim actually wrote. Here it is:

His work engages with the intangible quality of home and explores themes of nostalgia, war, conflict, and displacement. By interpolating cultural motifs into personal and larger histories of struggle, Kim explores the unifying search for belonging across disparate conditions.

So it's just a copy 'n' paste job, with minor changes. If a quotation would benefit a draft, then it must be in quotation marks (and square brackets should make clear any changes that have been made to it). -- Hoary (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

COI tag moved to your User page. David notMD (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! 2603:8000:7300:CB21:B9F0:228F:2F05:87F5 (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

"Content not properly deflated" sign

I have gotten this sign several times during editing, idk why or how it came to be. Please help Wentwort12 (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I've never seen such a message, @Wentwort12. Could you describe (step by step) what you did, on what page(s), and how the message displayed? Schazjmd (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

first I edit like I always do, I prefer to edit visually, so I want to put an image and caption into the article, that's it and then I clicked publish and this sign popped up "Content provided is not properly deflated" so I was unable to make such edit.

this page and several others

John Campbell, 5th Duke of Argyll Wentwort12 (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Wentwort12 This sounds like phab:T381673 which was reported somewhat recently. Can you confirm what browser (including version) you were using when you saw the error? AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Safari version 16.5.2, yeah it used to be fine but recently it's not maybe 2 weeks give or take Wentwort12 (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Britannica books Pre 2012

How would a person attain copy's of all Encyclopaedia sets printed since 1768? Jarrod Samuel Burchett (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jarrod Samuel Burchett! The Teahouse is a place to ask about editing Wikipedia specifically. If you have other general knowledge questions, try asking at the Reference Desk, where editors who work in that area can help you. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Jarrod Samuel Burchett. Find a rare books dealer who specializes in encyclopedias. Fly to their nearest airport. Take the rare books dealer out to breakfast, lunch and dinner and buy drinks after dinner. Then, make a generous offer on what they have. Rinse and repeat. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Hopefully the OP has a substantial 5-figure sum available. A set of the 1773 First London Edition is currently advertised on Ebay for £16,436.25, and there have been (at least) 15 printed editions since the 1768–71 original (the abovementioned "London Edition" is not one of them), ignoring the updates added in every reprint of a volume from 1933 and the pirated editions, such as the Thomas Dobson (Philadelphia) of 1790. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jarrod Samuel Burchett On the other hand, the ninth edition in full is freely available at Wikisource. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Tools

I have the rater and auto-ed scripts installed but they don't show up in my more tab. I use Vector Legacy. Does anyone know how to fix this. History6042 (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@History6042 do they appear on the left side of the screen, under "tools"? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

No they do not. History6042 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

User:CanonNi, I checked all the skins but still none of them show up. History6042 (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

If you are using the new skin WP:VECTOR2022, its on the right or in a dropdown at top right. Ca ^{talk to me!} 08:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I switched to 2022 but it still doesn't show up. History6042 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Submission declined because subject already exists.

What to do? My draft (Draft:Cyclopygoidea) has been declined because Cyclopygidae exists, but my draft encompasses more than just that family, how should I proceed? Abdullah raji (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Abdullah raji you can merge the contents of your draft into the existing article. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Abdullah raji, you can also start by writing more than three sentences about the topic, whatever it is. Certainly, a "superfamily" deserves more than three basic sentences. Cullen328 (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

How "good" does a user essay have to be for it to be able to be moved to project space?

I've recently gotten into the habit of writing user essays so that newcomers and medium-level editors alike can learn something new. I've been wondering - how good would the essay have to be before it can be moved into project space? For example, my favourite essay is my one about meditating to COOL down but I have no idea what the criteria for moving a user essay even is. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Someone-123-321. The only requirement for moving an essay from userspace to Wikipedia space is that no one objects. Your essay reflects your own view that may not be and probably isn't shared by most other editors. Your definition of meditation is somewhat inclusive but is deeply biased by claiming that editing Wikipedia cannot possibly be a form of meditation. Sez who? Are you trying to tell me that chanting Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō 100,000 times or chanting Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare 100,000 times is meditation, but my meditation practice of thoughtfully editing Wikipedia 100,000 times is illegitimate? You confidently assert that meditation requires stepping away from editing Wikipedia while you do it while my meditation practice requires stepping into level headed and thoughtful Wikipedia editing. So, should Wikipedia space host essays that many editors believe to be completely incorrect? Perhaps you can write another essay on that dilemma. Or perhaps you can improve a free encyclopedia article, which is, in my opinion, the greatest form of meditation known to humanity. Cullen328 (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for not elaborating. I meant "editing Wikipedia articles which caused you to meditate in the first place" - i.e "don't edit articles you know will make you angrier" User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 09:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Editing

How can I include photos to a page I want Dissainkabi (talk) 07:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I meant to say how can I include photos to a page Dissainkabi (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Help:Pictures is a step-by-step guide to adding one. Just make sure to read the note about copyright as most images on the internet prohibit sharing. See Wikipedia:IUP Ca ^{talk to me!} 08:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Dissainkabi (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

খসড়া পাতা পর্যালোচনা

আমার খসড়া পাতা (https://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A6%96%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%A1%E0%A6%BC%E0%A6%BE:%E0%A6%AE%E0%A7%81%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%B9%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%AC%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AC%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%B2_%E0%A6%B9%E0%A6%95) দ্রুত পর্যালোচনা করার অনুরোধ জানাচ্ছি। এটি পর্যালোচকদের মানদণ্ড পূরণ করে বলে মনে করি। Jahangir Rayhan (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Jahangir Rayhan This is the English Wikipedia - Questions about the Bengali Wikipedia must be raised there - Their Teahouse is at [5] Arjayay (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

thanks Jahangir Rayhan (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Reason for Rejection of Sunnah Muwakkadah Article

Hello, I recently posted an Article on Sunnah Muwakkadah. I used correct citations. And I created the Article by myself and I cited Sunnah.com links. But for some reason it has been rejected pls inquiry the situatio. Thanks Enter your Log (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Enter your Log Did you read the comment at the top of the declined (not "rejected") draft at Draft:Sunnah_Muwakkadah? Wikipedia articles are based on multiple references to reliable sources independent of the topic. As far as I can tell, sunnah.com is just a website that provides access to Islamic texts, without detailed commentary. You need to find independent scholarly work that describes these prayers. Also, please follow Wikipedia's manual of style regarding the formatting of references (see this guidance) and note that we don't use the honorific ﷺ. That's explained at WP:PHUB. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

To add more references

Is it necessary to add more references to make it clearer and properly cited, if possible? DerryGer120 (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@DerryGer120 Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, it’s always helpful to add references to support statements which might be challenged. They do need to be reliable ones, as defined HERE. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

However, over-referencing can be a problem. Quality is more important than quantity. A simple fact can do with one reference, not five or ten. David notMD (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

David notMD, yes indeed. -- Hoary (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I see. What if a content short but reliable. Isn't it better to add more content? DerryGer120 (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

thanks DerryGer120 (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@DerryGer120 Are you asking about the draft article you have (incorrectly) placed on your userpage? If so, please note that Wikipedia articles are almost entirely based on sources meeting our golden rules to help show the topic is wikinotable. Currently you have no such sources and you need to carefully read this guidance, which also explains how to start in the correct place at articles for creation. However, I would strongly advise that you work on existing articles for a while until you understand Wikipedia's requirements in more detail. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

DerryGer120 Draft:Gerd Ortlieb has been declined three times. Do not resubmit until you have added in-line references for all facts, and deleted those facts for which you are unable to add references. External links are not references. David notMD (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Creating a Company Page with Limited References

I'm seeking guidance on creating a Wikipedia page for a company. I understand the importance of reliable sources, but currently have limited independent references. The company is Bizsol Technologies, and it operates in the IT sector. I'd like to include basic factual information such as founding date, services offered, and key personnel. Could you please advise on the best approach for creating a page under these circumstances, or if it's advisable at all given the limited sourcing? Thank you for your time and assistance. Bizsol tech (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

If there's limited sourcing available, it's highly unlikely the company isn't notable enough for inclusion here. See WP:NCORP. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I am agree with comment above. You might try to submit it however the content might be short as if there is limited references available. Start with a clear introduction that summarizes the subject. You can cite sources using the built-in citation tools in Wikipedia's editor. You always can try. Thanks DerryGer120 (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

However, Bizsol tech, before you do anything else, (1) please read WP:NOPROMO (5. Advertising . . . followed by the rest of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not), and (2) WP:ORGNAME (followed by the rest of Wikipedia:Username policy), and change your username to one that distinguishes you as an individual (e.g. 'Fred at Bizsol tech'), which only you may use – shared accounts and accounts representing a business or position are not allowed.

Assuming you actually do any drafting or editing on this topic, you also must make Conflict of Interest and paid editor declarations on your User page.

Understand (though I think you already do) that a Wikipedia article should be almost completely based on (summarised) material published by secondary Reliable sources unconnected to the subject – your company's own website, other publications, PR releases, interviews with officials or employees, etc., cannot contribute to the essential WP:Notability criteria, and can only be used for minor uncontroversial facts (e.g. address, number of employees and the like). Read WP:Backwards.

Finally, read WP:OWN, and understand that an article about your company on Wikipedia will not be controlled in any way by your company, may contain material detrimental to your company (if cited to Reliable sources), and may only be edited by you (or colleagues) in very limited ways concerning trivial matters (typos, removal of incorrect uncited statements, updates to numbers, etc.). You may wish to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, which includes a section on companies and organizations.

Hope all this helps, and maybe helps you to avoid you wasting large amounts of time and effort. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Original research and primary sources

What counts as original research? Can I write in an article that something is patented with a link to the patent itself as a source, or is this considered "original research" meaning that that finding a secondary source meaning some random article or book saying that it's patented is preferable over to linking to the actual patent? 27.84.15.217 (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The patent is a source for the issue of the patent (see WP:PATENT). Original research would be citing the patent for text such as Oswald's patent for ooshwallah was the first patent issued for a Molossian. Schazjmd (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. What about citations for cases of other things existing, e.g. the official website or page for a video game, or book, or music CD: Is the primary source appropriate as a source to prove that the thing exists or for other specs (like a release date, platform, page count, format...) or is that different with it being preferable to have some other person (who might be wrong) talking about the release date/platform/page count/format as a secondary source? 27.84.15.217 (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources are generally okay to cite for basic facts. Schazjmd (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, IP user. My rule of thumb is that if the existence of something (a patent, a painting, a movie, a website) can be verified only by a primary source, then it is probably not appropriate to mention it in an article. There are probably exceptions; but if nobody independent has ever written about this thing, why is it significant enough to go in the article? ColinFine (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm from Japan and primarily edit articles on Japanese topics where primary sources are in Japanese and most of the secondary sources used on Wikipedia are in English. This frequently result in problems when the secondary sources are from sites and writers regarded "reliable" on Wikipedia yet are clearly not reliable for niche topics, specifically Japanese topics in this case, being often poorly-written and badly-researched and filled with the most basic errors. Some of these basic errors could be easily rectified with a reference to a primary source like an official website saying "this book was written by this person and released on this date". Looking for reliable secondary sources like news sites after the fact is often out of the question because most Japanese news sites delist old news after some time. I was simply asking if such a primary source could be used over clearly inferior secondary sources, because I was previously told that primary sources are not allowed AT ALL if secondary sources are available.

I will assume that your intent was probably not to gaslight me by suggesting that Japanese topics are insignificant and don't belong on Wikipedia but I would very much appreciate more if people would answer my questions instead of retorting with more questions. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "most Japanese news sites delist old news after some time", true. But if you're in Japan, note that the larger libraries tend to have facilities that let you browse old newspapers, one way or another. -- Hoary (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

May I point out, 27.84.15.217, that at no time in the discussion above did you mention Japan until your last post, so implying that anyone in it might have been (or actually wasn't) 'gaslighting you' and "suggesting that Japanese topics are insignificant and don't belong on Wikipedia" appears disingenuous and provocative.

You last mentioned 'Japanese topics' on this forum (The Teahouse) in May, so no-one responding here in late December is likely to remember either that discussion, or that it was the same IP poster.

All of the responders above answered your somewhat unspecific questions with straightforward answers to the best of their ability; none "retorted with more questions", and if they had it would have been to clarify what you were asking (as is often necessary here).

From your Contributions history, you have more recently been discussing this topic on an article Talk page, but responders here will have had no knowledge of that. Please try to keep straight what your current interlocutors likely do or do not know. This is an aspect of Theory of mind.

Also remember that every month over 100,000 different users edit Wikipedia, so the encountered opinions of one or a few particular ones do not necessarily reflect even a majority view, let alone that of a mythical collective personification of Wikipedia. Regards. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended Confirmed

I believe I have become extended confirmed because I have been on Wikipedia for 1 month but Xtools says I’m only autoconfirmed. I got the answer that a user has to be on Wikipedia for 30 days and have over 500 edits, and I have done that. So, is there a reason why I’m not extended confirmed. If I am, I want to know Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Your account was created on 26 November 2024. This is not 30 days ago. Mellk (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that’s probably the problem Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

A user only needs to be extended confirmed to edit certain articles or in certain contentious topic areas. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, it just feels better to have it because it makes me feel more experienced. Also, there’s a couple articles that have the extended confirmed block that I would like to edit. Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

That's certainly fine, though there is a difference between feeling more experienced and being more experienced. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about that Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Articles that require editors to be extended confirmed are often about contentious topis. Many so-qualified editors have put those articles on their Watchlist, meaning that there is potential for being reverted by opinionated editors. Consider reviewing the Talk page (including archived talk page content) to learn if the change you intend to make has been debated in the past. David notMD (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings from all at the Teahouse!

'Twas The Night Before Wikimas...

Saint Jimbo arrives to help a pair of sleepy editors.

'Twas the night before Wikimas, when all through the Teahouse
Not an editor was stirring, not even a mouse.

The references had been inserted by users with care,
In hopes that St. Jimbo soon would be there.

Most editors were nestled all snug by their beds,
While visions of new articles danced in their heads.
When out from a keyboard there arose such a clatter
I sprang to my screen to see what was the matter.
When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,
but a question on sources and how to use them well here.

More rapid than eagles these questioners came,
And the hosts from the Teahouse welcomed each one by name.

Reindeers #1 to #3 (left to right):
em Dasher; Images and Actrial

Reindeers #4 to #6 (left to right):
Patrolled; Users and IPs

"Now, em Dasher! Now, Images!
Now, Actrial! Now, Patrolled!
On, Users! On, IPs!
On, Young and on, Old!
To the top of each article, be it long, short or tall,
Now, type away, type away, type away all!"

As dry words that before an old dictionary fly,
when they meet with a synonym, mount to the sky,
So, onto these articles the edits they flew,
With a sleigh full of facts, and citations, too.

And then in a twinkling, I saw on the page
Our wiki-creator: a man of great age.
As I checked it on Commons and was turning around,
Down my router St. Jimbo came in with a bound.

Over 6 million articles he had flung on his back,
And he looked like most users with the editing knack.
His eyes – how they twinkled! slightly square – but how merry!
Too much editing, folks, had turned his nose red like a cherry!
His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow,
And the beard on his chin was as white as the snow.

St. Jimbo: "Happy Editing to all, and to all users a good night!"
Facial composite of man wanted for questioning in connection with digital break-ins on Christmas Eve.

A wink of his eye and a twist of his head
Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread.
He spoke not a word, but went straight to his editing,
And filled bare URLs; did sourcing and crediting
And confirming notability with a tap on his nose,
And pressing 'Publish changes', back up my modem he rose.

He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,
And away they all flew, leaving me to my epistle.
But I heard him exclaim, 'ere he drove out of sight,
"Happy Editing to all, and to all users a good night!"

with grudging acknowledgement to Clement C. Moore, 1823.)

Nick Moyes (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Bravo! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

This is brilliant @Nick Moyes Knitsey (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Bah humbug >:/

What about us Festivus Celebrators?

A fantastic little parody though. As a fellow writer, I greatly enoyed. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Very good. Now let's hope no one tries to expand it using references from Instagram, celebrities' personal websites, or something editor is sure his great aunt told him 27 years ago. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, very good!👍 Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow. The human brain is beautiful. Royalrumblebee (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Need help with a draft

Hello! I posted about this to to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Finland but it seems a little quiet in there. I need help with my draft on the finnish sketch comedy show Draft:Mankeli, but being as I am not yet fluent in finnish, I need someone who is to help me out. The main thing that needs to be done on the page is finding sources, but since they are all going to be in finnish, I would be fumbling around trying to look for them. I translated the page from finnish wikipedia, and it didn't have any references there either.

3SiameseCats (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @3SiameseCats. I'm sorry, but if "the main thing that needs to be done on the page is finding sources", then you have written the draft BACKWARDS. This is like "I have started building a house: the main thing that needs to be done is to survey the site to see whether it is fit to build on". ColinFine (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Im not sure if you missed it, but I translated the article from the Finnish Wikipedia (using the Special:ContentTranslation tool), before I realized there was no sources there either. So whoever wrote the finnish version wrote it backwards, and now I need to fix that. 3SiameseCats (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

In that case you'd probably be better off to start fresh and first find sources to summarize, rather than looking for sources to support the current version. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Than Singh Doli

Today i nominated Than Singh Doli for deletion because it does not have but 2 editors removed the deletion template. Now i had nominated the article for quick deletion. Previously this article was also deleted from English's Wikipedia when I nominated that but i found that it is available on Simple English Wikipedia also. An editor should delete this page because i am pretty sure it is a case of promoting self on Wikipedia. TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @TheSlumPanda. This is English Wikipedia, which is a separate project from Simple Wikipedia. You need to ask there. Try simple:WP:Simple talk ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Sock puppet | New account

Hello,

I acknowledge that I have made mistakes in the past, including the use of sock puppet accounts Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saishna96 which led to my block. I deeply regret these actions and take full responsibility for violating Wikipedia’s policies.

At present, I do not have any active accounts on Wikipedia. I wish to start afresh and contribute to the community in a constructive and policy-compliant manner. I assure you that I will not create multiple accounts or engage in any activities that go against Wikipedia’s guidelines.

I kindly request an opportunity to demonstrate my commitment to adhering to Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you for considering my appeal. 2409:40F0:3008:5F2A:1C8A:603B:65C1:1089 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Please see appealing blocks. That is the only way to appeal a block. ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Admin Question

Out of sheer curiosity, how does one go about becoming an admin? Not that I want to be one, I most certainly don't, and such responsibility is too much for me. I'm just interested in the inner-workings of Wikipedia. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Shovel Shenanigans all admins are "elected" in Requests for Adminship. A typical one runs for a week or so, and all experienced users can ask the candidate questions, discuss their work, and !vote. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 18:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, neat! Admins being voted in is not something I have seen before. Thanks for the speedy reply :)

Happy chrismahanukwanzakah, and a good Festivus for the Rest of us! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Shovel Shenanigans, there's a request for adminship open now, if you'd like to take a look and see what it entails. After you reach extended confirmed status, you can register your support or opposition for admin requests. Schazjmd (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

That's really interesting! I honestly did not expect such a detailed process. I don't know what I did expect, but it wasn't this. I appreciate your input :) Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Shovel Shenanigans, Like what @CanonNi said, there are also a discussion open about administrator elections, which resulted in 11 admins being promoted back in late October, into becoming an official and alternative process to RfAs. Do note that it's still in a discussion period and isn't an official process. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

How do I edit a comment on an image?

I uploaded an image. I included a summary. That summary became both a comment and a summary. I made a mistake in the summary. I can correct the summary but not the comment. I had to delete the image and upload it again. How do I edit the comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RussellBell (talk • contribs) 22:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

What image are you referring to? You've never uploaded an image to en.wikipedia, and only one image to Commons where there doesn't appear to be any subsequent editing by you and it wasn't previously deleted. It was also upload 1.5 years ago. So, kinda hard to know what you're talking about. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It's for a non-Wikipedia wiki. I thought the rules were the same. https://jfwiki.org/index.php?title=File:JoeRuthTeddyJudyRear_BenFritzeFritzi_Seated.jpeg RussellBell (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

That said, @RussellBell, I'm not clear how you can claim copyright on File:Joseph Langermann Acte De Naissance - an extract from his birth certificate.gif, or say that it's your own work. Either the copyright is held by whichever government deparment issued it, or else it may be in the public domain No way can it be yours. ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I received the letter in response to a query I made - doesn't that make it mine? I deleted the portion that had my name and address. I'll be glad to reclassify it - how would I?RussellBell (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if you get a letter. You didn't produced the letter or the extract in attachment itself. — Anatole-berthe 00:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

If someone sends me a letter I own it.RussellBell (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Therefore , it is not your work as Cullen328 (12/24/2024 23:33 UTC time) and Marchjully (12/24/2024 23:58 UTC time) explained.

Also , in the extract of the birth certificate published in "05/25/2023" on "Wikipedia in English" , it does means nearly 13 years after the production of the document in "06/21/2010". There are an incacurate description.

The description is inacurate for the next reason. It is wrote "This is the extract from Joe's birth certificate. Only family members can get the whole.".

For a birth certificate or another "vital record" detained by French authorities , not all family members can have access to a full birth certificate.

You can correct by "some family members" or anything similar meaning that not all family members can. — Anatole-berthe 00:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

Picky, picky, picky. You neglected to mention people who can get access for legal reasons.RussellBell (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

For vital records less than 75 years old. Only the person concerned and some family members can access the full document. — Anatole-berthe 00:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

This record was produced in 1938.RussellBell (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

These family members are the spouse , person who have a "Civil solidarity pact" with the person , parents or grand-parents or any others ascendants (For example a great-grandparent) and your child or grand-child or any others descendants (For example a great-grandchild).

If a vital record is 75 years old or older. Everybody have legally access to it. — Anatole-berthe 00:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

That isn't what they told me.RussellBell (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

To finalise this message. Marchjuly (12/25/2024 00:14 UTC time) explained this kind of document is generally considered as a primary source. Anatole-berthe (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the possibility of classifying it as a primary source.RussellBell (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

RussellBell, you may own a piece of paper, but that does not make its content your "own work". Only the government official or the agency who created the document can call it their "own work". Cullen328 (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not really anyone's work is it? It's not creative: it's a report from official records, a transcription.RussellBell (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@RussellBell: The information posted above by Cullen328 and ColinFine is information that not only applies to Wikipedia, but image licensing in general; in other words, physical possession of something doesn't mean you're also the intellectual property rights holder of said thing. Some documents containing nothing more than factual information (particularly those created by the US federal government) can be ineligible for copyright protection under US copyright law, but the copyright laws of other countries might treat such documents differently and Wikimedia Commons policy requires that the content it hosts be licensed acceptably in accordance with US copyright law and the copyright law of the country of first publication. Given the address on the letter, you might find c:COM:France helpful in sorting out the latter. The text of the letter and any other imagery contained therein, on the other hand, could be eligible for copyright protection separately from the enclosed document itself. All of this is really a moot point, though, because the website www.jfwiki.org that you're asking about is completely unrelated to English Wikipedia or any other sites run by the Wikimedia Foundation; so, if you've got specific questions related to that site, you're going to need to contact whoever runs that site and resolve things with them. That website most likely has its own rules and you're going to need to comply with them if you want to add content to that site. The Wikipedia Teahouse is set up to deal with questions related to English Wikipedia (and perhaps its sister projects); it's not really intended to be a general information help desk or a help desk for other websites. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It's originally a document that I translated to Wikipedia as an image. It's not originally an image. The person who runs jfwiki.org told me to figure it out myself. I hoped the rules were general.RussellBell (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding File:Joseph Langermann Acte De Naissance - an extract from his birth certificate.gif and separately from its copyright status, you don't really need to upload an image of a document to cite said document as a source for a Wikipedia article like you did in the case of Joe Frank. You can just cite the document itself as long as it meets Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source and is used in proper context; birth certificates, death certificates and other types of official documents are generally treated as WP:PRIMARY sources though and need to be used carefully. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

What evidence have I for my claim? Anyone can request the document I received - should I tell everyone to get their own copy?RussellBell (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@RussellBell: Please try not to insert your new comments into the middle of another user's previous comment, even if replying to a question they ask. It's much better to simply respond to another's comment right after the end of the said comment. Unlike some other sites, the Wikipedia Teahouse doesn't have a "quoted comment" feature per se which allows you to highlight or box out parts of another's comment. So, inserting your comment into another user's comment makes everything run on together and can be confusing; it might also be mistaken as a violation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments.

As for your question about evidence for your claim, Wikipedia doesn't require a source cited in an article to be available online as explained in WP:PUBLISHED; it only requires that the source be reliable (as defined by Wikipedia), be previously published and be reasonably available as explained here. As long as others have reasonable access to the source if they want to access it, then it can be cited by Wikipedia. For example, there's no need to upload a scan of the relevant page of a particular book cited as a source just because the book isn't available online; the book can still be cited as long as its a reliable source, it's cited in proper context, and there's a reasonable way for someone to verify the content being cited if they want. If others challenge the reliability of a source or the encyclopedic value of a source, you can use the article's talk page or a noticeboard like WP:RSN to discuss it. Ultimately, though, the WP:ONUS is going to be on you to establish a consensus in favor of using the source, and this would be the case regardless of whether you take and upload an "image" of the source.

Finally, as pointed out above, physical possession of a work doesn't necessarily mean there's been a transfer of intellectual property rights from the original creator of the work to you, even if the original created sent you a copy of the work. The original creator still retains whatever copyright is associated with the source. As to whether a a report from official records, a transcription. could depend on the copyright laws of the country of first publication. Under US copyright law, most standardized form letters which are nothing more than text intended for simple facts aren't eligible for copyright protection and can be treated as c:Template:PD-text; moreover, uploading a scan/photo of such a form is typically not considered creative enough to establish a new copyright for the scan/photo per c:Commons:2D copying. However, even though the image you uploaded to Commons might be OK for Commons under US copyright law, Commons also requires it be OK under French copyright law, which might treat such works differently than US copyright law. Furthermore, Creative Commons licensing is typically intended to be used by original copyright holders of works; so, your use of it in this case implies that you're the copyright holder of both the original work and what you uploaded. If it turns out that the file is OK for Commons, its licensing might only need to be changed to something more appropriate. You can ask about both these things at c:Commons:Village pump/copyright if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

How do I change my method of donation to a different source.

I recently had to change all my credit cards due to being hacked. I need to change my monthly donation to a new card number but cannot find how to do this. Thank you for your help. Buffalogirlofwy (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Buffalogirlofwy. See donate:Cancel or change recurring giving. Maybe you have to set up a new donation with the new card but I don't know. You can ask at the given email address but note it says to not mail your credit card number. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Un-archiving a talk topic

I made a talk topic and somebody immediately archived it saying that it's already been addressed. I believe that my topic is different from what was discussed previously, and I made a comment on the talk page there proposing to un-archive my topic. Nobody responded and it's been a couple of days. Is it safe to go ahead and just un-archive it myself, or is that considered disruptive? Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

You mean Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Mention_House_Subcommittee_in_section_on_Political,_academic_and_media_attention? -- Hoary (talk) 06:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Bad quality images for BLP individuals

If the only image(s) available for a BLP article is of bad quality and/or very outdated (for example a mugshot from decades ago), is using the image preferred or not using any image at all preferred? Zinderboff (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Zinderboff: I wouldn't use a mug shot from decades ago per WP:MUG, particularly as the primary image at the top of the article, but an older image that's freely licensed could be used even if it's not of the best quality. Whether that's preferable to using no image at all might be something worth discussing on the article's talk page, but it's important to remember that a Wikipedia article about a living person is an encyclopedic article about the person as a whole (from birth to present day) and even an older image can still have encyclopedic value; in other words, the article doesn't need to show the person as they look at this particular moment in time. Finally, given you're asking about a BLP, a non-free image is most likely not going to be considered in compliance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; so, if you're trying to find a recent image to use for primary identification purposes, you're going to need to find one that has already been released under a license that's pretty much in accordance with c:Commons:Licensing, or you're going to need to get the copyright holder of the image to given their WP:CONSENT. You can try WP:PERMISSION if you want to ask a copyright holder to release their image under a license that's free enough for Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Revising and submitting a new Help:IPA page

I was referred here by User:Timrent after submitting a draft for a proposed Help:IPA page for the Kannada language. Please let me know how I can improve this draft and where I can submit my revisions for proper review.

Link to draft: Draft:Help:IPA/Kannada Krzapex (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

That's Timtrent, with one more "t", Krzapex. I was surprised that he suggested that you should come here, until I read his comment: "This is not the correct route to seek to create Help: pages. Please ask about this at WP:TEAHOUSE". Somebody could simply move the page. But before that, a couple of suggestions: (i) "English approximation" is less helpful than what I presume it means in this context, viz, "Approximation in General American English or RP British English (unless otherwise noted)"; but the latter of course would be horribly bulky. Perhaps add it as a footnote? (ii) Better I think to invite comments from the denizens of Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language (if you haven't already done so). The page is frequented by some actual phoneticians/phonologists. -- Hoary (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary I genuinely had no idea how to assess this, nor any clue about the correct route. I thought "Where better to direct the creating editor?" and I see it has hit the spot. Thank you for guiding them. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Krzapex You have received the quality of advice I hoped you would receive. Thank you for taking up my suggestion and asking here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Editor considers source invalid

I created an entry for an art historian who is included in a standard source for the field, the Dictionary of Art Historians (https://arthistorians.info/). I included one reference to the DAH entry at the beginning instead of referencing each fact from it. User:BoyTheKingCanDance deleted nearly my entire entry for lack of third-party sources but I have seen the DAH used to reference biographical facts for many other art historians. Edanziger (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Edanziger! (and courtesy ping to@BoyTheKingCanDance) Art history isn't my thing, but I'm assuming you're talking about the article Douglas Lewis (art historian)? There seems to have been a slight misunderstanding here. Because you didn't use inline references, BTKCD probably missed that the "unreferenced" material was, in fact, supported by the source. I'll restore the material for you - but I want to let you you about one thing. You copied the entire article from the Dictionary of Art Historians page. Normally that wouldn't be okay because of copyright laws, but as the website makes all their text available under a Creative Commons commercial license (CC-BY SA 4), it's fine. However, whenever you import freely-licensed text into Wikipedia, you need to attribute it. You can do this by adding a template to the reference(s) - in this case, specifically the {{Creative Commons text attribution notice}} or {{CCBYSA4Source}}. You can read more instructions here: WP:FREECOPY.

In the future, you can avoid this by using inline references, so other people can easily see where you got your information from. I hope that helps! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It would be worth hunting down some alternative sources anyway as you've only got the one source then I don't know how if this subject will meet WP:NBIO. It doesn't help that the WaPo links at the end seem to be broken. -- D'n'B-t -- 07:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Edanziger: Just going to add that even if the content of the Dictionary of Art Historians page is OK from a copyright standpoint, it would still probably be better for you to summarize said content in your own words than to simply copy-and-paste it verbatim into the Wikipedia article. The website hosting the content isn't really subject to any of Wikipedia policies and guidelines or even Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and third-party website content can often be written in a manner that's not suitable for Wikipedia's purposes. By rewriting the content in your own words, you have a chance to make sure it's appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions, everyone! I’ll return to this after the holidays. Edanziger (talk) 08:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Edanziger: Just as a point of information, in the citation, you should be crediting Lee Sorensen as the editor of the Dictionary of Art Historians. Fabrickator (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

You might also want to consider adding entries to Wikidata instead, if you can't find enough non-DoAH sources to justify notability here. DS (talk) 15:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Submission declined

I have worked properly to write this article following your guidelines as a newbie, ensuring the content is neutral, clear, and encyclopedic. However, my submission was declined on 25 December 2024 by Timtrent (talk).

Could you please let me know the reasons for its rejection or, if possible, edit the article yourself?

The draft is available at: User:Itsfaizanfaizi/sandbox Itsfaizanfaizi (talk) 12:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Itsfaizanfaizi The reason for the decline is in the box on the draft, and also on your own talk page. Please confirm that you have read the reason, and then ask about anything that you do not understand.

Writing a new article is the hardest thing one can do. The temptation is to use magazine style prose, not encyclopaedia style prose. You have used magazine style prose.

Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Itsfaizanfaizi, for editing the draft since I replied here. I have not reviewed your work, and I will not re-review the draft when you submit it next. Other eyes are best for each review. Please continue to work on it in a relaxed manner and only resubmit when you are certain you have done your best work. The next reviewer may have other matters to raise with yo, but that is good. This is an iterative process designed to give you the best advice and chance of success. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello There,i need a help

i forgot how to add sources Avogadro87 (talk) 13:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Avogadro87. Have you checked our the tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. qcne (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Avogadro87! If you are using the Visual Editor, use the shortcut Ctrl+Shift+K or click this icon on the toolbar to cite sources. TNM101 (chat) 14:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello guys!! I need help with this page

Heya fella

Actually I have given my best on this page but I can't complete it because of lack of official results

2024 Asian Youth & Junior Weightlifting Championships

I have mailed the Qatari Federation and I am waiting for their response

Meanwhile if you guys wanttt to help me in this!!! Sid Prayag (talk) 15:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Sid Prayag, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you cannot find published results. then they don't belong in any Wikipedia article, period. If the Federation sends you a link to published results, you can use them (but see below). If they send you them in a private email, you can't.

But, in any case, "official results" are hardly to the point , as they will be primary sources, and so of minor importance for a Wikipedia article. Far more significant, in my view, is the total lack of independent sources for the article, without which it does not establish that the championship meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and the article shouldn't exist. (The same goes for the three articles on previous competitions). We haven't even got an article on "Asian Youth & Junior Weightlifting Championships".

Assuming the results are published, then the bulk of this long article could be replaced by a link to the official results. What a Wikiepdia article about the championship should be telling us is a summary of what independent commentators have published about the championship (which will no doubt include a selection of the results). ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybeee yess but who knows in future someone make the page for it... Wiki is a source of information too and there are reliable sources for the results but i wanted an official one hence i mailed them Sid Prayag (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Every article should demonstrate that its subject meets the criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

My good articles are not reviewed; my worse articles are quickly AfDed, instead of AfCed

I am a Nigerian Wikipedia editor. I have been editing for few months now. I have contributed up to thirty articles to Wikipedia within these few months, but with time, I noticed a pattern. There is the tendency for more experienced editors to ignore good articles and leave then unreviewed, but very quick at nominating an article that is still being created for deletion, rather than sending them back as drafts to be worked on for a while. I have thought about this for a long time. These articles I created are facing this unreviewed wave: Charles Nwodo Jr., Victoria Nwogu, Nick Ezeh etc. It appears to me too that Nigerian sources are being prejudiced against as not reliable even when they are. I want this to be discussed extensively in the Tea House. Can specific editors be assigned to watch new editors form Africa, especially Nigeria, who are prolific and encourage them by reviewing their good articles? I have a feeling I am speaking for many new editors who are facing similar challenges. I ask in good faith and I am ready to learn. Please, no one should be offended by my query. Royalrumblebee (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Royalrumblebee, you might be interested in participating in this current discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Nigerian_newspapers. Schazjmd (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this reply. Royalrumblebee (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It is a wow for me that my article, Martina Ononiwu ignited that discussion. Royalrumblebee (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Royalrumblebee. What you are describing is quality control at its finest. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martina Ononiwu shows how you wrote an article with serious problems that was effectively a hoax. So, the solution is for you to refrain from writing problematic articles. Once you place a new article in the main space of the encyclopedia, it is immediately subject to review including nomination for deletion by new page patrollers. We are not going to create a new process for editors from Nigeria when the Articles for Creation review process is already available to all editors, and perhaps you should use that instead. Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria is a place where you can interact with other Nigerian editors. Cullen328 (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this very informative reply. Royalrumblebee (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Royalrumblebee I am lookkng at your original question, namely There is the tendency for more experienced editors to ignore good articles and leave then unreviewed, but very quick at nominating an article that is still being created for deletion, rather than sending them back as drafts to be worked on for a while. I have thought about this for a long time. These articles I created are facing this unreviewed wave: Charles Nwodo Jr., Victoria Nwogu, Nick Ezeh etc. It appears to me too that Nigerian sources are being prejudiced against as not reliable even when they are. I want this to be discussed extensively in the Tea House. Can specific editors be assigned to watch new editors form Africa, especially Nigeria, who are prolific and encourage them by reviewing their good articles?. Despite the lack of a second question mark I see it as a question, in two parts.

• Can specific editors be assigned to watch new editors form Africa, especially Nigeria, who are prolific and encourage them by reviewing their good articles? This is unlikely.There are some excellent editors from your part of the world, and making contact with them would be a good alliance, recognising always that they have good faith disagreements with you.

Regrettably there are also a number of poor editors who edit with malpractice. These folk would be good fo avoid.

• there is the tendency for more experienced editors to ignore good articles and leave then unreviewed, but very quick at nominating an article that is still being created for deletion, rather than sending them back as drafts to be worked on for a while.. As a reviewer I look at an article to determine whether I believe I am competent to review it. When I feel I have the competence I proceed to a review, otherwise I set it aside for another reviewer.

There are a few circumstances when I will nominate for speedy deletion, including:

• Copyright violation
• Blatant advertising
• Something that is not actually an article.

There are circumstances when I will reject (not decline) an article, including

• The list for speedy deletion, above
• Tendentious resubmission (repeated resubmission with no 'interest' in improvement
• Obvious areas where there is no current hope of ever establishing notability (with verification). An example might be an article on an ordinary person like me.

Otherwise I will review and accept with pleasure or decline with rationale. There is a process WP:MFD to which drafts may be submitted for discussion with a view to deletion. but that almost always leads to retention.

When I see a draft which has 'escaped' to mainspace, but is deserving of improvement, I make a judgement over whether I feel it is likely to be improved in mainspace. If I feel it is likely I flag it with the observed deficiencies, wish it well, and move on.

If I feel it is not likely, I have two options:

• Return the article to Draft space, which I may do unilaterally if this is the first time it is draftified. If not WP:DRAFTOBJECT tells me I must either leave it alone, or I must reach consensus for draftification. WP:AFD is the tool I use for reaching that consensus, nominating for Draftificatin.
• Send it immediately for a deletion process. AFD is the kindest because it allows discussion and policy based argument against or for deletion.

There is a great deal to read, above. Other editors may hold different views, and that is as it should be, except in matters of policy, which has been made by consensus. The question I have for you is "Has this helped your understanding?" 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow @Timtrent, you have given me and, I believe, many other editors, some lessons coming from long-term experiences. Thank you for this. Royalrumblebee (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

What type of edit I do for every article

useing of Wikipedia Hurcusy (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hurcusy: Please see WP:POLEMIC and consider if it applies to your user page. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hurcusy: You started your account two days ago, and most (all?) of your edits have either been subtle vandalism, such as changing Auguste Rodin's name to August and Alexander Calder's to Calendar, or awkward English, and all of your edits have been reverted. Consider this a warning that if you persist in your actions your account will be indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

yeah infact this is not first time when last time I am on here I just make 3 edits and I am globally blocked.infact till now I don't know what is edit but I know some magic methods whith my own reading skin like s central login welcome message wikkimidea commons.what I do for account please helpe out from this loop Hurcusy (talk) 04:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Well this here is an encyclopedia, not a play ground. So if you would like to edit, you should be helping to improve articles. You probably have some skill that would be useful, or some knowlege that would be expressed in words. Do you want to contribute to the sum of human knowledge? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Is any chance to contribute like sum of human knowledge ? Hurcusy (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Tools

Now none of my tools show up. How do I fix this. History6042🐉 (Contact me) 17:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you be more clear about what you mean? DS (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I fixed it, thanks though. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate articles!

Hello & Merry Xmas, if that's your thing. There are two Colorado pages and two Wyoming pages! I don't know if other states have the same issue or how to merge them. One of each has "U.S. state" as the description and the other says "state of the United States of America". Can someone look into this? Thanks! Seananony (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Seananony. The software does not permit two different articles to have identical titles. Are you possibly looking at some articles in the Simple English Wikipedia, which is a separate project? Cullen328 (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I use the app. It seems to to be acting up. I may need to reinstall it. I don't know how I ended up there, but I have all four pages open in the app right now. For the WY ones, the most recent edit on the page that appears to be the legit one was yesterday, whereas the other was last updated 4/18/24. For Colorado, the apparently legit one was edited 12/23/24. I just edited the other, not realizing there were two, and before that the most recent edit was 10/10/24, which was a reversion of vandalism. I don't know how to direct you to what I'm seeing. If I close the pages I may not be able to find them again, Even though they're apparently out there. Seananony (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Seananony, you haven't edited the wikipedia Colorado article recently, but you did edit the "Simple" Colorado. I don't know how the app works, but I think Cullen is right that you might be confusing the two projects. Schazjmd (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Seananony: It's definitely about https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado versus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado. The url part before .wikipedia.org is a language code where en means English, fr means French and so on. The Simple English Wikipedia is a special case which has simple as language code to distinguish it from the normal English Wikipedia. It's common that the same subject has an article at both but they are edited separately. An article at the Simple English Wikipedia will usually be shorter and use simpler English. The simple English Wikipedia generally gets much less attention from both readers and editors. I don't know the Android app. In the iOS app it's surprisingly hard to discover which language you are at. The best method I found is to click the bottom right icon with three dots in a circle and select share. This shows the url including the language code. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow! You're right. I'd never heard of the Simple WP before! Thanks for solving this. I thought I was losing my mind for a minute.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming?wprov=sfla1.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado?wprov=sfla1 Seananony (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

PS: I think I found my way there from a link on Duck Duck Go, and then opened the link in the app. I just wanted to know how far it is from Colorado's southern border to the northern one! Seananony (talk) 19:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Image rotation

Airplane Crash

I have come across a map with this SVG file super-imposed, detailing the location of a plane crash. Is it possible to rotate this image, because it currently shows the aircraft travelling south-east, which is incorrect. In an ideal world, there should be eight different versions of this SVG, allowing all eight major compass points to be selected.

But I'll take any answer that turns this one so that it faces either due West, or North-West. Thx

WendlingCrusader (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@WendlingCrusader: The file is called "Airplane Crash". I assume the angle is meant as flying down like a steep crash and not a compass direction. Flying to the left or top-left wouldn't signal that. Other images would have to be uploaded. There is no command to display an image rotated. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter

I am not making that same assumption, as an icon depicting an aircraft in the act of crashing is a rather disturbing thought. When this SVG image is depicted on a map it is very much more showing the route taken by the aircraft, up until the point that disaster occurred. And in this case the flight path would be shown as a trail emanating from the nose of the aircraft, which is clearly wrong.

But that aside, the answer you gave was spot-on; There is no command to display an image rotated. Not what I wanted to hear, but the right answer nevertheless. Thanks.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks like that's what users have decided to use in other articles like the crash map in Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

That image can be rotated in the general sense:

but {{Location_map}} does not support the complex trick for doing it. Instead, separate files would be needed. For the case at hand, I agree it's best to follow whatever practice other articles use regarding the meaning as "crash" rather than "direction". Try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force to see if there is a written style-guide detail about that. DMacks (talk) 09:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Ardi Pulaj Page

Hi, my draft page Ardi Pulaj was deleted due to notabity almost an hour ago..while he is notable enough in Albania.. 81.26.207.141 (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi 81.26.207.141. Firstly the draft was not deleted, just "declined". If a topic is notable in one country, it would be notable everywhere. To show notability, you would need to find writings about the person or their work, that are independent and substantial. If the person writes, then those writings are not independent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you i appreciate your answer. 81.26.207.141 (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Note that on English Wikipedia we use the word notable in a special way: it doesn't mean "important", or "popular", or "famous", or "influential", or "respected" or anything like that. It means, roughly "there has been enough material published about the subject in reliable publications to base an article on", remembering that Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything written, published, or commission by the subject or their associates, or based on their own words. Somebody who is notable in a more ordinary sense is often notable in Wikipedia's sense, but not always, and it is essential to demonstrate this by finding those sources. ColinFine (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of knowledge

If your know how to properly edit Wikipedia, I don’t know anything about the backend of this site don’t use it often because I am very lucky to have access to info at my job.

but for the sake of knowledge for the people please fix this or pass it on to someone who can!!

the emperor of central Africa aka Jean bedel bokassa trial section - citations 58-60ish, abc are cited an article December 26 1986 . Because I’m a cool guy who does cool things, I went and asked reference at my job to get me that issue!! (It can be illegally found online in seconds but I like doing it old school) mostly I found this guy fascinating and wanted to read more. The information cited in this Wikipedia article cannot be found in the referenced Newsweek source. It’s a one page with large photos puff. Contains No more info than a basic AP or Reuters line and certainly not what is cited here

for the sake of good knowledge, clean this if you now how to do it properly 2601:196:8600:C6F0:D106:8A87:3B58:D92A (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

(moved from talk) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a typical inquiry on this page now - thank you to whomever cleaned up my submission (attempt to submit is probably more accurate lol)

I can rest now, even if it never changes - because I did not do nothing! Took me probably 5-10x longer than your wildest estimate of how long it might take a newbie old guy to figure out where/how I could try and get that fake citation addressed.

special thanks to my niece and nephew - they showed me the talk/edit page, explained why it had weird symbols and characters all over it - and got me to the help page that eventually led me to here!! 2601:196:8600:C6F0:D106:8A87:3B58:D92A (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, first thing to do is examine the page's history, see if maybe there was some malicious change, or perhaps a source that got misplaced somewhere along the line. (But it's past midnight and I can't do that now.) Jean Bedel Bokassa, you say? DS (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

You got it. Section at the bottom under trial heading. Citations 58-60 I think are ones citing the December 2&, 1986 Newsweek article.

I intrigued by this character - I used tools I have at my job to get: first a digitized version (essentially someone who had a copy somewhere took a photo of every page.) they came in about 4 hours. zero mention of anything cited on Wikipedia to it

Then the physical copy arrived about 36-48 hours later, I checked it to confirm. Same story. Bogus citation. I was so mad cuz I was excited to read from a detailed source!!

More details about the work tool thingy if you’re curious but it’s not relevant to the wiki. Insane overkill to use it to get a Newsweek but it’s paid for so why not use ithe ( It’s bad*** too)

basically if something had been printed in the last 160ish years, I can use the tool to find where it’s archived, and from there the reference personnel take over and arrange the delivery (short term they acquire digital image, that arrives in 2-4 hours usually but same within a day, and then if possible without risking the document’s safety, wthe physical copy en route within usually 2, but a maximum of 8 business days 2601:196:8600:C6F0:D106:8A87:3B58:D92A (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence, IP user. I have found the source cited on on page 27 of the magazine, at the Internet archive, and I agree that I do not see support for the statements in the article.

That paragraph, with its citation, was added by editor @Carlson288 in this edit, on New Year's Day 2011. Carlson288 is still active, and I have pinged them here. Perhaps they can resolve the issue.

(Note for future reference: each article has an associated Talk Page, and generally the best place to bring up questions about an article is there: in this case Talk:Jean-Bédel Bokassa, as that is more likely to be seen by people with knowledge of the subject of the article than this general help page). ColinFine (talk) 11:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Question about the "List of films considered the worst" tab.

Am I allowed to add "The Emoji Movie" to the "List of films considered the worst", since it has a 6% Critic Score on Rotten Tomatoes?

Sorry for asking. SpaceboyCT (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@SpaceboyCT: A notable critic has to say that it is the worst. List of films considered the worst has the membership criterion at the top. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Citation of Court Decisions

Hello, I have a question about citing court decisions. I understand that Wikipedia prioritizes secondary sources over primary ones and that court decisions are considered primary sources. While I have reviewed the policies on primary sources and NPOV, I am still unsure how to handle the following situation: When secondary sources are limited—such as when none are available, or they only report the outcome without context—how can one provide factual and neutral context without introducing interpretation or synthesis?

Is it entirely unacceptable to quote court decisions, or is it acceptable to quote essential parts of the decision to supplement the reasoning for the outcome? I've seen edits that include quotes from decisions and want to confirm whether this approach complies with Wikipedia's guidelines. Any advice on what to watch out for would also be appreciated.

I appreciate your help. Catworker (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Catworker: you many need to secondary source to say that the person mentioned in the court decision is in fact the one we are interested in, and not someone else with the same name as a notable person. Being a primary source means that it does not add to notability because of existence. If your secondary source only reports the same as the primary, then it is probably not substantial content either, but can be used to confirm facts, in the same way that a primary source could. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thank you for your responses. They helped me understand the relationship between court decisions and notability. Regardless of the notability policy, I have a follow-up question about the nature of court decisions as sources. I understand that court decisions are verifiable, independent, and primary sources. Is this correct? Catworker (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Catworker You have used good logic. I think your general categorisation is correct. Thus they may be used to verify simple facts, but have no bearing on verifying any notability. There will be exceptions to this. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Depending on situation, WP:BLPPRIMARY might apply. While primary sources have a use, they will not help an argument for WP:N. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I've read the WP:BLPPRIMARY policy, but I find it a bit unclear.

The policy says, 'Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source.' Does this mean that if a secondary source only mentions the conclusion of a decision, quoting the essential parts of the decision directly from the primary source to augment the secondary source is acceptable? I also believe this should be limited to straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified according to WP:PRIMARY. Thank you for your kind responses. Catworker (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Subject: Request for Guidance on Improving My Wikipedia Draft for Sivakumar G

Hello, Teahouse members, I recently submitted a draft for an article about Sivakumar G at Draft:Gsivakumar.sap, but it was declined due to concerns about it potentially being considered an autobiography. Could you please provide guidance on how to revise the draft to meet Wikipedia’s notability and neutrality standards? Specifically, I would appreciate advice on the following: How can I improve the neutrality of the article to ensure it complies with Wikipedia’s guidelines for living people? What kind of references or citations are needed to establish notability, and how can I ensure the sources meet Wikipedia’s reliability standards? Is there a better approach to presenting the information, particularly concerning professional milestones, achievements, and the company's work, that avoids being promotional? Any help or suggestions on how to improve the draft would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time! Best regards, Sivakumar G Gsivakumar.sap (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gsivakumar.sap Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Gsivakumar.sap has been Speedy Deleted as being promotional in content and style. That means that only Administrators can view the deleted draft. Without seeing it, I can state that common errors in writing about oneself (see WP:AUTO) are including content that is true but nor confirmed by independent references (see WP:42) and using non-neutral words and phrases. You can start over, but unless a radical change in content and referencing is made, there is a risk of your account being indefintely blocked. David notMD (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

AND... it appears that in November, using a different account, you created Draft:Sivakumar G, which was Speedy deleted. Tsk, tsk, tsk. David notMD (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft Review

Hi, can you please review submited draft page Draft:Ledion_Liço 81.26.207.141 (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This draft has been submitted and it awaiting review, please be patient. This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are currently 1,809 pending submissions waiting for review. -- D'n'B-t -- 14:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok,Thank you. 81.26.207.141 (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)