Wikipedia:Teahouse

David Biddulph, 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

Highly disappointed to see the article on Autism going through bias.

I recently went through the current version of the Wikipedia article on Autism , and I found that this article is NOT representing the reality or encyclopedic wholeness. The huge, verbose, highly technical article is biased towards medical model of disability, medical genetics, and nearly zero information regarding the anthropology, evolution, neurodiversity, accommodation, accessibility, Augmentative and alternative communications, and all that actually helps wellbeing of Autistic people. The page boldly focuses on controversial methods such as ABA, such as EIBI (Early intensive behavioral interventions), DTT (discrete trial training) etc. without any mention of the concerns or criticisms against them. I entered the talk page, but it has been turned literally into a warzone, where any dissenting viewpoint is being silenced in name of "global and unanimous scientific consensus" which is simply wrong. It is mostly a view held by biomedical and pharmaceutical majority. But outside of that, opposing viewpoints do exist in actual Autistic populations (who have the lived experience), anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc. I added an "unbalanced" tag for reader information (I did not speak for complete erasure of controversial viewpoints, just needed the reader to know that there are other views), however the "unbalanced" tag was soon reverted.

It is not possible for me to daily attend and post arguments and counter-arguments. I have to acknowledge that, if this kind of silencing continues, this time Wikipedia literally failed as an encyclopedia, as well it failed at public health and education welfare perspective.

I feel like this needs editors' attention. Autism is NOT a well-understood condition by majority, Lived experience play the ultimate role on how a person feel about their life situation, and Nothing about us without us is an important ethics rule in disability cultures.

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 05:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Myself and many other autistic editors have attempted to improve the article before and met the same difficulties. I agree that it is painful to read, and your concerns are very valid. I began to write a satirical alliance article to help showcase the issues in the autism article and show how medical language can create negative bias in my sandbox.

Because of the difficulty I faced with the autism article, I have moved to focusing on smaller articles related to autism such as double empathy problem and special interest (autism). -- NotCharizard ^🗨 07:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I really appreciate your work around this, and share your frustration with the central Autism article. It's not really okay that people are being persistently driven away from working on that entry by people stubbornly axe-grinding... Oolong (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

That satirical Allism article in your sandbox is gold. Moogle.png (kupo) 16:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

RIT RAJARSHI, Wikipedia is a volunteer project. If you feel the article is lacking, then you have the ability to improve it by adding material on anthropology, evolution, neurodiversity, accommodation, accessibility and the other things you mentioned. Just be sure to add inline citations as you go to reliable sources that reflect the majority and top minority viewpoints on the subtopics you are writing about, and respond to any disagreements by other editors by working it out on the Talk page to find a consensus that works. Please understand that basing the article on published sources is not negotiable, and while your first-person accounts might be helpful on the Talk page as deep background, they cannot be used in the article, unless your views have been written up and published by an source. If you have some sources on the anthropology of autism, for example, you can just WP:BE BOLD and add content to the article based on them. This might help:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

If you haven't had success using that approach in the past, then just list some sources here that you think could be used to expand the article in ways you would find productive, and maybe someone else will pick up the baton, and carry on. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Notcharizard: @Mathglot: Thank you so much for your views. I am thinking if I should create another article on Autism from other perspectives, as the current page is very strictly monitored, and has already structured in certain way that I feel difficult to change by some small edits. PS. I have TONs of references, although mostly from a social science perspective. I want to write their summaries which can be used by other users to improve the articles. I will be taking lot of time as I am extremely busy in my personal and professional life. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @RIT RAJARSHI

It's not possible to create an already existing articles but like it was suggested , feel free to make changes where you feel there is need for one. If the article is protected that you can't edit ,you can make some of these suggestions on the talk page Tesleemah (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Notcharizard: @Mathglot: @Tesleemah: I have access to edit button on that article but I am afraid somebody will erase my edits or may revert them. The article is already verbose. My time is precious. Is there a way I can state my article reviews that won't be erased by somebody? Can I store writings in sandbox for infinite period? Is the sandbox public access? And it looks even if I add non-conforming views to the main article, they might not allow to express those views. The talk page is warzone and they removed my "unbalanced" tag RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

How about you add the things you want to change in your sandbox and share with an experienced editor who can review if its ok to merge with the main article. Because ,in all this you have to be sure you are adding neutral and verifiable information. Afterward you can reach out to any editor edit warring with you.

I feel this is a little bit complex and you need to weigh if it all worth your time . I will leave this to other editors to give you better advise going forward. Tesleemah (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tesleemah Thank you for your kind insights. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tesleemah Are there experienced editors who want to look after the matter? RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

how do I collaborate with them? RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@RIT RAJARSHI: Just for reference, your comment I have access to edit button on that article but I am afraid somebody will erase my edits or may revert them. could happen on any Wikipedia article regardless of the subject matter. Wikipedia's wants us to be WP:BOLD when improving articles, but it also wants us to understand that others can be just as bold in undoing the edits we make. When that happens, the best thing to do (absent any type of serous policy violation) is to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and try to resolve any disagreements over article content through article talk page discussion. Before being bold, though, you probably want to take a close look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles because medicine related articles tend to be more highly scrutinized than perhaps articles about some others subjects are. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for general reference. If being bold is not your style, you could be WP:CAUTIOUS and seek feedback from the various WikiProjects listed at the top of Talk:Autism and also check the article's talk page archives to see whether your concerns have been raised before by someone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Thank you for the useful resources and concerns. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Similar concerns were raised, and at present such difficult conversation is going on in the article's talk page. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

For the record, there have been a whole stream of editors (mostly autistic ones, I think) who got burned out on editing autism-related articles directly (especially the main one) because of intransigent opposition and reversions from people who are obviously very attached to a particular way of seeing autism. Oolong (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Notcharizard There is actually a research paper that shows us that neurotypicality can also be framed as a disease. Brownlow, C. (2010). Re-presenting autism: The construction of ‘NT syndrome’. Journal of Medical Humanities, 31(3), 243-255. doi: 10.1007/s10912-010-9114-4   https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10912-010-9114-4 RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• The fundamental problem is that autism is a vast subject and the "world view" of autism is undergoing rapid change. Viewpoints from five years ago already look unprofessional and outdated today. In fact there isn't really a "world" view because the state of autism-understanding varies hugely between countries. As a result, written sources about autism range from well-thought, up-to-date, caring and balanced, to utterly outmoded and inappropriate, verging on discriminatory and offensive. Unfortunately Wikipedia is an encyclopedia whose role is to give a balanced overview of all current thinking, even if some of the current thinkers are Utterly Wrong. We are not here to promote best practice or best understanding. We're here to describe the current situation (and the history that led up to it), even if the current situation isn't right, and even if the history is in places despicable. As someone personally affected by autism in loved-ones, I cannot bring myself to edit on the subject at Wikipedia, because it is fundamentally too hurtful to me. I have to trust that the situation will improve, sources will improve, and other, tougher editors will edit the autism articles to reflect the improved situation, as it improves. I'm sure I'm not alone in my feelings. Elemimele (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Elemimele Thanks; I would be happy if the editors accept the vastness or broadness of this topic than to force a reductionist strictly biomedical approach. Because the more subjective or philosophical journal resources will not qualify as "hard science", but still have lot of humanitarian values. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Elemimele You may think the situation in this way. Everyone is using video calls using a smartphone, and you are using a walkie talkie. Now yes you do face communication barrier, but more information on how a video display works, would not help you to translate the images into alt text.

  Similarly, more and more information on brain circuitry or genes does not help dissolve the barrier.

  But learning about lived social experiences do help.

  Another example; think you are a trained classical musician who can detect microtonal differences instantly. Now you have been thrown into a factory where people breaking down metal sheets with hammer and you feel like damn blown. Now everyone points out at you as the problematic one. Or think you are a more sensitive clinical mercury thermometer and other people are thermometers used in a water bath or hot air oven. And you are pointed as the 'defective' one.

  It takes 2 to make a communication. We spend hours to teach neurotypical communication to Autistics. Why not spend that time teaching the neurotypical society about Autistic communication? RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  It's not our job to teach people what to do, it is our job to teach what other people have already said. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Industrial Insect Thank you. I leave the matter. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@RIT RAJARSHI, though I have no connection to autism, edit warring like what's apparently going on in editing this one has long been distressing for me — to see in a group with such an important mission as Wikipedia as well as to be aware that I too may face something similar if I join in editing an article already struck by a few edit skirmishes.

So I have a question for senior editors who might be circling this article:

In an editing situation that seems to have reached an impasse like autism, does Wikipedia ever provide an impartial arbiter, even one unfamiliar with the topic, to step in to help? Not to make a final judgment about what should be done with the article but just to get the two sides to put down their weapons, discuss constructively, and move forward toward consensus on what to say in the article about what they couldn't agree on previously?

There's a process increasingly used in conflict resolution, ranging from corporate organizational teams to rival gangs, that could also help with this war-scarred autism article. It involves ensuring that those on each side really hear — really pay attention to — the other side's thinking and concerns. It goes something similar to what I'm writing below. These are only the main steps, not the mechanics:

— Each side listens to or reads a statement of what the other side wants to put in the article and supporting reasons.

— Each side repeats back its understanding of the other side's statement and the supporting reasons.

— Each side raises questions and concerns for the other side to address about the validity of its statement and supporting reasons.

— Each side answers these questions and concerns for the other side.

— The two sides work toward a statement they can both live with.

— When it's ready, they press the Publish button. Augnablik (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Augnablik, what you describe, falls most generally under the rubric of dispute resolution, of which there are multiple methods. But to answer your top question about whether some arbiter ever steps in to decide things, the simple answer is "No"; and in particular, admins do not do that. (Admins might block editors who cross some behavioral line during a dispute, but they will not decide who is "right".) Your last set of bullet points is very similar to something we do at WP:Third opinion, but that is limited to when there are only two editors. (Or perhaps, two groups evenly divided among exactly two opinions, I'm not entirely sure.) User:Robert McClenon can tell you more about that, but the short answer on that one is, there are already more than two people/opinions, so it is out of bounds here. Finally, there are some formal DR methods for multiple views/editors, of which the WP:Rfc process is the prime one. You can read about that at the link. At the end, there is an uninvolved, unbiased "closer", who however does not give any opinions of their own or attempt to arbitrate on the merits of the case; what the closer does, is to attempt to assess the weight of the arguments given by the various editors who have chimed in, weighing them against their ability to connect their views and conclusions with the stated policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Thus, it is not a vote tally, but an argument assessment. The closer judges the prevailing or predominant argument and renders an evaluation, not an arbitration of case merits. If there is no prevailing argument or it is evenly matched, the closer may render a NO CONSENSUS evaluation. The Rfc generally runs for 30 days. Mathglot (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this! It's a bit frustrating to me that Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms seem as opaque and convoluted as they do, but I understand that they've come out of years of volunteer labour and discussions of objectively difficult questions!

In the worst discussions I've had, what I've mostly wanted is someone who understands enough about the topics involved, but who probably isn't particularly invested, to step in and say something like 'your references do not show what you are claiming they show. You need to stand down.' Oolong (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot, the RFC process you mentionedhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rfc is indeed similar to what I was suggesting. Similar also in who would lead the process: \ not a judge but someone able to help a group move from a seeming impasse to something both sides can live with, or hopefully even celebrate.

My hope for this article is that the outcome of this situation goes down in the annals of Wikipedia as a wonderful example of how an edit war turned into an edit success. Augnablik (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what I am being asked, but the usual process that I use at DRN is similar to what Augnablik recommends. I start by reminding the editors that the purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article, and I ask each editor to state what parts of the article they want to change that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Then sometimes I ask them to comment on the other editor's objectives. A precondition to moderated discussion at DRN is extensive inconclusive discussion at the article talk page. I see that there has been extensive inconclusive discussion at Talk:Autism, and there has also been edit-warring. At DRN, the editors are asked to agree to a set of rules which include a rule not to edit the article in question while moderated discussion is in progress. Does that answer the questions that may have been being asked? It appears that Autism may be ready for moderated discussion, but only if most of the involved editors agree to participate. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I wish whoever might step in to help the two sides work things out would try this time adding in the components of having to listen carefully to each other’s statements and rationales, stating them back so it’s clear they were heard correctly, further questioning each other, etc.

Why? Because I’m impressed by what I keep reading in the top news media about how this strategy has worked in conflict resolution even with rival gangs. I think it has something to do with humanizing “those idiots” and other objectifications. Augnablik (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It's an interesting thought! I've certainly seen the strategy of restating your understanding of someone's position being useful in a general sense; people like to feel heard! And it can be a great opportunity to correct misunderstandings.

Speaking for myself, a huge part of my frustration in that particular series of exchanges had certainly been the feeling that I have been totally misunderstood when I thought I was stating my position quite clearly. When I'm feeling more charitable, I can just about believe that that might have been the root cause of what I experienced as gross misrepresentations... Oolong (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, @Oolong. If people on two sides feel heard — even if not in agreement with - there’s hope for at least some degree of positive outcome that both can live with.

Without feeling heard, resentment, anger, and outright warfare is the obvious outcome. And with wars between wordsmiths, take cover in trenches! Augnablik (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Userpage question

I know I've already asked about my userpage before but I've done a lot of work on it since then. Does my userpage go a bit overboard, especially with the inline links? I joined the welcoming committee and I am expecting at least a few new users to come to my userpage from my signature on my welcome messages so I tried to leave a lot of inline links for them to click on and get a feel for the scope of the encyclopedia. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 15:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@User:ApteryxRainWing Compared to User:EEng (takes awhile to load, and I don't recommend it as a role model), or myself, for that matter, I find your page quite respectable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I feel I do the most good by being a warning lesson parents can point out to their children. EEng 15:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

if i learned one thing from you, it's that puns are the scourge of all things good cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

No, no, they've got a point. The reason we exist on this world is to get as many rules added to the book as possible. No one ever told me I couldn't add an inline link containing some sarcastic joke for every single word on my userpage, but I'm sure they wouldn't like it if I did so why don't we make it official? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 16:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

oh my that isn't a userpage that's a whole-ass userbook. I guess mine is better than I thought ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 15:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

406,519 bytes, that's a lot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

To put it into context, the largest article on Wikipedia has 975,504 bytes. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 15:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow, we have an article that's almost an entire gigabyte? Does it just have a lot of text or are images, GIFs, code spaghetti, and videos taking up some of that space? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 16:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@User:ApteryxRainWing That's not a Gigabyte, only just below a Megabyte. The whole encycopedia can be downloaded at about 24 GB. See WP:SIZEWP. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

oh yeah sorry I forgot the ratios. I'm surprised Wikipedia is only 24 gigs, I thought 6 million articles would be closer to a terabyte ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 16:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

As of February 2013, the XML file containing current pages only, no user or talk pages, was 42,987,293,445 bytes uncompressed (43 GB). The XML file with current pages, including user and talk pages, was 93,754,003,797 bytes uncompressed (94 GB). The full history dumps, all 174 files of them, took 10,005,676,791,734 bytes (10 TB).

As of August 2023, Wikimedia Commons, which includes the images, videos and other media used across all the language-specific Wikipedias contained 96,519,778 files, totalling 470,991,810,222,099 bytes (428.36 TB). CommissarDoggo^Talk? 16:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Text is very small, especially ASCII characters in UTF-8 (the majority of characters used on the English Wikipedia), which are one byte each. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 19:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, per [1] that article has 2 words. And 1,541 unique references. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks great, especially the storm chaser part. :) E_F⁵ 15:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

what can I say, I just have zero sense of self preservation and I want to see the silly wind cones up close :D ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 15:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I liked your userpage. Quite interesting username too. Girlwithgoldenheart (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! The "apteryx" in my name is the scientific name of my favorite bird, the kiwi, and "RainWing" is a reference to my favorite tribe from the book series Wings of Fire Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 17:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

How to edit at Periyar ?

I have registered and opened my account but I cannot correct the article on Periyar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcot Shankar (talk • contribs) 04:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

If for some reason you can't edit the article Periyar, Arcot Shankar, you can still suggest an edit to it at the foot of Talk:Periyar. (Be sure to make the suggestion as precise as possible.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. How much time will it then take to get incorporated into the article ? BTW, there is a viewbox with view source code, what am I supposed to do with that ? I know HTML code and markups but this is something else. Arcot Shankar (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

What you're asked to edit, Arcot Shankar, is "MediaWiki". It's not Markdown, but it could be called a markdown language. Anyway, it's a markup language, which means that it's very easy (though tables remain somewhat fiddly). In regular body text, a line break does nothing; two consecutive line breaks start a new paragraph. Regular ("ASCII") apostrophes are used for italics and bold; <blockquote> starts an indented block and </blockquote> ends it. You sign by hitting tilde four times in a row. Help files, which are easy to find, tell you more, but there's not much more to tell. -- Hoary (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible to use HTML codes alongside MediaWiki markup for better formatting and readability ? What are the usable HTML codes ? Is there any FAQ for the MediaWiki markup language ? Arcot Shankar (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, I don't think HTML applies much here. My only suggestion is to familiarize yourself with the source (known as wikitext) and start editing. You can read about it at Help:Wikitext, which is very helpful in explaining the fundamentals of it. Be sure to familiarize yourself with citation styles and templates (or Help:Referencing for beginners), and Wikipedia's policies. Good luck, Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 07:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Arcot Shankar, start with the "introduction". Since you're accustomed to markup languages, skip the "visual editor" and instead edit the source. If the instructions seem too laboured, skip them and go straight to the "cheatsheet". The acceptable (or at least tolerated) use of HTML is explained in "HTML in wikitext": I'm pretty fluent in HTML ("strict", too: 4; less so for 5), but rarely need or want to use HTML here. The time you'd spend working out what you can and can't do here with the HTML you already understand would be far better spent accustomizing yourself to MediaWiki ("wikitext"). It's simple, really. -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary and Sparkle and Fade. Much appreciated. Arcot Shankar (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't go away, Arcot Shankar! Please revisit "Add a link", above. As you're pretty new here, "AfD" may seem daunting. But it isn't. If you decide to nominate the article, do so citing one (or more) of the reasons for deletion. Avoid adding your own commentary (let alone sarcasm, etc). Be concise. If subsequent "keep" comments make fairly clear errors of fact (e.g. claiming that a particular reference states such-and-such whereas in reality it does not), then feel free to argue back, coolly; but if you object to a comment for some other reason, better keep silent. -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have been observing how other editors are going about things, and I am bit more confident now about policies and strategies to contribute usefully. Arcot Shankar (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Earlier this year, using my IP, I suggested a split. What do I do now?

Hello! this march, I found the page on Religious views on masturbation and was shocked to find that the christianity section is literally the length of an entire article while everything else was brief. I made the Topic on the talk page ([2]) suggesting it be split into its own article whilst being trimmed down heavily on the general religious page. nobody has responded to the request yet and Im not sure what to do. Ive been told by a helpful user that its generally bad practice to respond to old talk pages + it seems disengenious to just respond to it pinging people 9 months later, I think itd come off as me trying to boss people into responding to me now that I have an account. AssanEcho (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the question, AssanEcho. Off the top of my head, I would probably recommend going to the article's respective Wikiproject and ask if anyone interested would want to contribute. You can also ask prominent contributors to the article or people who you know are knowledgeable on the topic. TheWikiToby (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful response! That's make sense and I'll do that from now on. Also, another deep thank you to @Rotideypoc41352 from the bottom of my heart for being bold and splitting the article. I didn't expect this to happen when I asked this question so thanks! AssanEcho (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I followed the bold, revert, discuss procedure: I boldly proceeded with the split. If anyone here, at the WikiProjects, or elsewhere have objections, they can revert the split, open a split discussion, wait a week, and ask at Closure requests for someone to determine consensus. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Request a Block

I wrote this when I was fighting vandalism, but even though a moderator has resolved it, I need to know for the next time this happens... how do I request a block on a user? Basically, when the person has vandalized like 5 times and won't stop, how am I supposed to alert a moderator to block them? Should I ping a mod? Should I just wait for a mod to come across the profile? Help! Ali Beary _{(talk2me!) (stalk me?!)} 13:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism may be reported to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

331dot, great, thank you. Funny thing... you were the one who blocked the user I initially wrote this for! Thanks for your help. Ali Beary _{(talk2me!) (stalk me?!)} 13:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ali Beary You're also well within the requirements for WP:TWINKLE, you can warn people and report them if necessary far quicker using it. Well worth picking up if you plan to continue dealing with vandals. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 15:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

CommissarDoggo, I appreciate it, but I do use Twinkle. I was sending several vandalism warnings and they wouldn't stop. However, how do I report a user with Twinkle? I only know how to work the Welc and Warn sections really... what section is the report one in? Ali Beary _{(talk2me!) (stalk me?!)} 15:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ali Beary Oh whoops, hadn't seen this message so sorry for the late reply, you click on ARV in the Twinkle drop down. In that section you can choose which board you want to post the report to, sockpuppets/sockpuppeteers, AIV, edit warring and usernames. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 16:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Ali Beary, Wikipedia has nobody designated a "moderator". Do you perhaps mean "administrator"? There's no policing of the English language (so you're free to call administrators "moderators" or indeed "knights who say 'ni'" if you wish), but calling administrators "moderators" suggests that they have a role that they don't have, and perhaps adds to confusion about them. -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hoary uh... 'moderator' is basically just another term for 'administrator'. Also, I'm on Discord a lot, so they use 'moderator' more there. Sorry I say stuff differently... I guess... but it didn't seem to confuse anyone else to replied to this thread..? Ali Beary _{(talk2me!) (stalk me?!)} 12:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Ali Beary, There is no 'moderator' here. Discord is one thing, and Wikipedia is another. What you are used to calling a 'moderator' is called an 'administrator' here. At Twitch and YouTube, a moderator is a very limited type of thing for live streams mostly. On FB and Reddit, they are assigned to specific groups or conversations, Twitter and Instagram don't have a role like that called a moderator (although Twitter has paid content moderators but that's something else). The role you are used to thinking of as a 'moderator' on Discord is called an 'administrator' here; you might as well get used to it. You can find more terms at the Wikipedia:Glossary. Mathglot (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Please let me talk in my own way, Mathglot. Ali Beary (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft: May-Li Khoe

I’m currently working on this page, Draft:May-Li Khoe, as part of a project for my Digital Technology course at LIUC University, and it will be evaluated. The page needs to be approved by December 28, ideally with a very high B rating. I was wondering if you could offer some advice on how to further improve the article to increase its chances of receiving a high rating. If you have any suggestions on refining it or if you could assist with the approval process, I would be very grateful. Thanks again for your assistance! LIUCRiccardo10 (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what advice to give you (unless another editor does give) since your draft is already pretty good. However, this is what you should keep in mind. Drafts will be reviewed by AFC reviewers in a random order. That means that your draft may not be accepted before December 28. But hopefully, for you, it does. That's all I can say to you. Hope it helps. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ivebeenhacked,

Thank you so much for your helpful advice and for taking the time to review my draft. I appreciate the insight about the review process and will keep in mind that the timing can vary. Hopefully, it will be reviewed sooner rather than later!

Thanks again for your support. It really helps to have this perspective as I move forward.

Best regards LIUCRiccardo10 (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you have further questions to ask, feel free to ask me or the editors at the Teahouse. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @LIUCRiccardo10, and welcome to the Teahouse. The first thing I will say is that making academic depdend on getting an article accepted at Wikipedia is a thoroughly bad idea, because you have no control over how long it will take to be reviewed: drafts are not reviewed in any particular order, but just as the volunteer reviewers choose to get to them. Whoever set this as part of your coursework should take a careful look at WP:EDUP

I am not a reviewer; but looking at your draft, in my opinon, there are far too many sources which are either not reliable (eg linkedin, sprout.place), not independent (eg MIT, all the patents), or barely mention Khoe (sprout-place again, the Rene Ritchie piece). There might be enough reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of Khoe to establish that she meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, but I'm not prepared to wade through looking for them.

An article should be almost entirely a summary of what such sources (see WP:42) say about the subject, and very little else. Sources which do not mention the subject of the article are nearly always a waste of time. Sources which are not independent may be used to verify a limited amount of uncontroversial factual data (such as places and dates). But if you can't find an independent sources that talks about (for example) Sprout, why is it significant enough to get a mention in an article about Khoe? ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@LIUCRiccardo10 I completely agree with this, and would add that the Apple and Microsoft logos are really not necessary - just use a wikilink to the company names. You may think it makes the page look pretty, but it adds nothing of encyclopaedic value; just as a skyline view of Vancouver would not be needed to illustrate the statement that she once lived there. Also: sub-headings should always be written in sentence case, so you could remove the unnecessary capitalisation.

Feel free to show this reply to your tutor and tell them that we regard it as not only unreasonable but also unfair to have student's work assessed by whether or not our volunteer team have regarded their work acceptable, and to some artificial deadline that they have set. A course tutor should be sufficiently skilled in the workings of Wikipedia to be able to assess students work for themselves, based purely upon a Draft article or sandbox page! If they aren't, then they should not be setting you these tasks. It smacks of incompetence. I'm sorry you have all been put in this invidious position by your tutor - but you appear to made a pretty reasonable attempt thus far. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The matter of sentence case for headings is so trivial that I fixed the matter myself. The Apple and Microsoft logos are conspicuously superfluous here; please get rid of them. Aside from those (I suppose) differences of emphasis, I warmly agree with Nick Moyes in his comment above. Nick's "we" (in "we regard it as...") isn't a grand way of referring to himself; instead, it probably covers most people who've been editing Wikipedia for some time and who've given some thought to the matter, and it most definitely includes me. -- Hoary (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Nick Moyes and @Hoary,

Thank you both for your constructive feedback and for taking the time to help me refine my draft. I completely agree with your points about the logos—I'll remove them and rely on wikilinks to the company names instead. And thank you for correcting the sub-headings as well; I’ll make sure to follow sentence case going forward.

I also appreciate the advice regarding my tutor's expectations. It’s reassuring to hear your perspective, and I’ll certainly pass on your comments to them.

Thanks again for your support and for helping me improve the article! LIUCRiccardo10 (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ColinFine,

Thank you for the warm welcome and for your thoughtful advice. I really appreciate your feedback on my draft, especially your points about the reliability of sources and the importance of independent coverage. I'll definitely revisit the sources and make sure I focus on those that provide significant, independent coverage of Khoe.

I also take your advice about the academic use of Wikipedia seriously and will keep in mind the unpredictable nature of the review process moving forward.

Thanks again for taking the time to help me improve my draft!

Best regards LIUCRiccardo10 (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Notified the Education noticeboard and Women in Red WikiProject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Deleted logos and other stuff that would have contributed to the draft being Declined. Still needs work and references. P.S. There is no such thing as a "high" B rating. David notMD (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The deletions were beneficial. But, David notMD, I don't see how the deleted material "would have contributed to the draft being Declined". To be accepted, a draft doesn't have to be "good"; it must merely seem likely to survive AfD. I'm pretty sure that it would do so now. I could accept it now, but LIUCRiccardo10 still has more than one week, and is keen to get "a very high B rating". From whom -- Wikipedia or the class teacher? If the former: Individual Wikipedia users give "B" ratings, but typically not after careful consideration. And if it's "B", it's plain "B": there's no "high B" or "low B" or even "borderline B". ¶ Here's something that Riccardo could attend to. A reference that's not unusual for this draft: Gray Area. "May-Li Khoe". Gray Area. Retrieved 2024-11-07. If a web page, article, etc that's on/in website or magazine XYZ isn't attributed to any particular author(s), we don't attribute its authorship to XYZ. Instead, we just leave it blank: "May-Li Khoe". Gray Area. Retrieved 2024-11-07. Same if the website, magazine etc attributes it to "Editorial staff": "Editorial staff" is uninformative, so we skip it. If using a Cite template, use "last=" for the surname of a single person, not for anything else. (This edit of mine [search within it for "Schachman"], and this one may help explain.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hoary,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful feedback and the clarification regarding the draft. I appreciate your point that the draft doesn’t need to be perfect, just likely to survive an AfD discussion, and I’ll keep that in mind moving forward.

Your advice on citation formatting is incredibly helpful, especially regarding the handling of sources with no attributed authors. I’ll make sure to leave the author field blank in those cases and properly format the "last=" field for single authors. I’ll also review the reference you suggested and apply the formatting changes accordingly.

I’m continuing to improve the draft, focusing on better references and following your guidance on these details. Thanks again for your support!

Best regards,

@LIUCRiccardo10 LIUCRiccardo10 (talk) 08:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hoary,

Thank you again for all your advice! I’ve made the necessary changes to the citations and followed your suggestions.

If possible, I’d be very grateful if you could review the page and approve it. Also, if you have any further tips on what I can do to ensure the article reaches at least a B rating, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks once more for your help and support. Looking forward to your feedback!

Best regards,

@LIUCRiccardo10 LIUCRiccardo10 (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

LIUCRiccardo10, there's more work to do. Here are three tasks. ¶ First, a sample: Khoe served as Vice President of Design at Khan Academy, a nonprofit educational platform dedicated to accessible education. In this role, she has developed user search methodologies and design systems to improve the usability and functionality of the platform. She implemented team evaluation processes to assess collaboration and inclusivity within the design team. What does "platform" mean? (Fee-charging database and website combination, perhaps?) I have only the vaguest idea of what "developed user search methodologies and design systems to improve the usability and functionality of the platform" might mean. "Inclusivity", referring to the inclusion of what or whom? Go through the draft and try to rephrase for ease of comprehension. (If you're citing a source that uses vague abstractions, then you can repeat the vague abstractions -- but in quotation marks.) ¶ Secondly: The game has been recognized for its accessibile approach to [snip]. Don't fret over the (rare) spelling mistake; rather, "has been recognized" raises the question of who it is who've recognized it. And there's a single reference for this: Khoe's own "Creating the rhythmic pixel art of Playdate music maker Boogie Loops". I infer that either Khoe has recognized it, or others have (according to Khoe). Neither is satisfactory. You're free to cite Khoe for such matters as her birth date, but for anything that could reasonably be described as an achievement (e.g. recognition by others), you should not. If this leaves a number of assertions unreferenced, remove those assertions. ¶ Thirdly, remove the table of patents. If you can find a source independent of Khoe for your introduction to the table, then retain the introduction, with a reference to that independent source. And if you can find commentary that's independent of Khoe and is about one or more of the patents, you can summarize and cite that, of course specifying the patent(s). -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the other users and I have made the necessary changes based on your feedback. Could you please review and let me know if I've addressed everything properly? Specifically, I would appreciate your thoughts on whether the changes to the patent section are acceptable and if the sources (Justia Patents and Google Patents) are appropriate to use. Additionally, could you confirm whether all the images have the correct permissions in place?

Thank you for your help! LIUCRiccardo10 (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

possible meaning: "uncontroversial" vs "barely"? 176.0.133.82 (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Genealogy cruft

Nick Moyes, on the matter of cruft, how about the kind exemplified within the article Philip Nichols (diplomat)? It's ostensibly about somebody who was an ambassador to Czechoslovakia at a very volatile and decisive time in that nation's history. (This is how I encountered his name.) But it says very little about that, instead divulging to the reader such nuggets as who his younger sister's husband's sister was and who his daughter's husband's father and (maternal) grandmother were. -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Does not belong as a subsection to the parrot query. David notMD (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hoary, I agree that the material about Nichols' less immediate relatives is not very useful*, although I'd hesitate to cut all of it, but of course it has no bearing on showing the subject's notability, and ignoring that material I'm not sure that the remainder, actually about Nichols, contains enough to justify an article. He seems to have been just another competent diplomat, doing his job, with no outstanding achievements (or blunders).

(* I had to double check that he was not part of the Middleton family sphere so over-inserted by a certain Australian-based contributor.)

{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary I'm not sure there's any comparison, is there? One article is attempting (albeit a tad verbosely) to use data in an encyclopaedic manner to demonstrate the expansion of a non-native and potentially harmful species around various continents during the 21st century (and within quite a detailed article); whilst the other is about a UK ambassador and knight of the realm - and mentions a load of notable relatives in passsing - all within a fairly perfunctory article that could merit some expanding. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

David notMD, one number formerly known as another, and Nick Moyes: Both articles arguably raise questions about superfluity. I'd informally rate the Monk parakeet article a lot higher than that about Nichols, because it's about an indubitably encyclopedia-worthy subject, because it keeps to that subject instead of wandering off elsewhere (e.g. among the members of the related and attractively-named genus Hapalopsittaca), and because, to me at least, it's far more interesting. Nichols came to my attention as the writer, or anyway the signatory, of a foreword to a handsome book whose other foreword is by no less a figure than Jan Masaryk. My uninformed guess is that hours of research in a first-rate library would demonstrate Nichols' encyclopedia-worthiness; but there are only so many hours in the week and years in my lifespan, so I'm not offering to try. (And if anyone were to send the Nichols article to AfD, I wouldn't object.) Meanwhile, I remain puzzled by en:Wikipedia's appetite for (Social Register–inspired?) genealogical trivia. -- Hoary (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

...and therein lies the problem. People here aren't willing to spend hours in a library confirming that a topic is notable. So, some lazy person simply AfDs it, and it goes in the bin and that person thinks they're doing a really good job. Pathetic. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, I can imagine that there have been clearcut examples of the sequence (i) moderate amount of effort was made to show that the subject of a junk article was notable, but failed to show it; (ii) article was taken to AfD; (iii) nobody was able to show notability; (iv) article was deleted; (v) somebody pored through codices, newsprint, microfilm, microfiche, DVD-ROM or whatever, and found good material; (vi) whether via AfC or directly, a [lowercase] good article on the same subject was made, clearly demonstrating the notability of the subject to the satisfaction of the admin who'd deleted its predecessor and to virtually all reasonably-minded Wikipedians. But if there have indeed been such cases, were they hindered by the deletions? -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary I would say, YES.

Good content on a notable topic would have been deleted for quite some time until someone (if we're very lucky) finally goes to the effort of researching and re-creating it. But maybe some newbie editor (or keen deletionist) feels happy they've got rid of some sh*tty article. Instead I wish they'd put some genuine effort into WP:BEFORE, or finding something better to do. That's not to say that poor article's shouldn't be deleted; it's just that too much laziness and very little effort goes into deletions, and not enough effort goes into article improvement and retention. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

But Nick Moyes, can you come up with an example or three of the sequence: (i) Junk article deleted at AfD because of lack of notability (as gauged by the paucity of worthwhile hits from Google, Google Books, etc); (ii) Some user puts serious time and effort into library research into that article's subject; (iii) Said user releases a new article (whether via AfC or directly); (iv) Aside perhaps from the occasional crank or party-pooper, all acknowledge the notability of the subject and the quality of the article? (The creator of the newer article may have created it in anger at the earlier deletion, or despite depression caused by the earlier deletion, or in complete ignorance of the earlier article and its deletion.) Or, more pertinently, an example of: (i) [As previous]; (ii) Good reason to think that good material is in research libraries, awaiting somebody with ample resources of time and effort to spare; (iii) Good reason to think that there is a user who'd fit the bill, but that this person was so dismayed by the earlier deletion that they decided not to bother? I tend to think that the great number of junk articles encourages the addition of more junk articles; and that today's editors are likely to bristle at the seeming message "You're too late. If only you'd perpetrated this back in 2010 or so, it would have been accepted. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The other stuff is no better than what you're trying to add, you say? True, but none of us can be bothered to investigate. And so yes: Old junk, good; new junk, bad." -- Hoary (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry - too much of a wall of words for this time of night. And, no, I'm not going to jump through hoops just to please you, sorry. I remian of my view that too many people are too quick to delete content and many who do don't always have the skills to do WP:BEFORE or undertake proper research. It does, however, give them a quick fix and a warm feeling, so that's OK, isn't it? G'night. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A wise decision, Sir! -- Hoary (talk) 07:12, 18 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.

== Presidency == is a section.
=== Early leadership (2000–2011) === is a sub-section of the section "Presidency".

I don't think I'll work on the article "Bashar Al-Assad" because it's so voluminous I don't know where to begin but this is a good illustration of my question. Anatole-berthe (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Anatole-berthe, MOS:DUPLINK says that you should Link a term at most once per major section, at first occurrence. So I suppose the answer to your question would be yes. The word Moscow can be linked in every level-two section (==), but only once. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not certain I rightly understood.

Do you think we can link link a term once per section == and not once per sub-section === ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

A footnote on that page says Major sections are generally detailed sections with a level-2 heading, but consensus at an article may determine a lower-level subsection is major..., so generally speaking, a term shold only be linked once every section, unless the section is very large. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your useful advice ! Anatole-berthe (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Anatole-berthe, it is not necessary to wikilink major world cities known to all literate English speakers such as London, Manila, Paris, Delhi, New York, Tokyo, Havana, Cairo, Rome, Baghdad or Moscow, for example. However, my mother's home town of Moscow, Idaho should be wikilinked. Cullen328 (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree it is not necessary but I think an encyclopedia have to be complete as possible. Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Possible Erroneous Conflation

I think I found an issue with the Operation Easy Chair article, which I discuss here. Can anyone give me feedback on my proposed changes? I'm a new editor, and I didn't want to proceed without a second opinion. Xanjaxn (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

And to be clear, my talk section is this one. Xanjaxn (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Xanjaxn. I think that both the development of the espionage device and its placement can be covered in a single article without any policy problems. A reader interested in the first will certainly be interested in the second, and vice versa. Plus, it is a very short article and we normally only split very long articles. Cullen328 (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Signing question

Hello friends, Shen here again. I was curious about something. I've noticed a lot of people have customized signatures (ex: colored text with their username, a neat little phrase instead of "Talk", etc.) and I was curious how I could go about doing that myself.

Thanks! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Shovel Shenanigans. See Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the question, @Shovel Shenanigans. In your preferences, you can go to the tab User profile and create a custom signature there. Maybe I can find a guide out there on examples of how to change its look and show it to you. TheWikiToby (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Shovel Shenanigans @TheWikiToby There is a guide technically, it's at WP:SIGNATURES and WP:SIGTUT. At SIGTUT you can find a bunch of examples of people's signatures close to the bottom of the page, they really helped me to figure out how to put them into practice. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 17:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

👌👌👌👌 Tarlby (t) (c) 17:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! As soon as I get a chance, I'll be taking a look! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Shovel Shenanigans One alternative way to highlight your own signature so you can see it easily on Talk Pages but others just see the default blue text is to use a personal cascading style sheet at Special:MyPage/common.css. If you were to add the code #bodyContent a[title="User:Shovel Shenanigans"] { background-color: #008080; color: #ffffff; font-weight: bold; } there, you and you alone would see your signature in white letters on a bright green background. I do this and I wish more people would as it doesn't distract anyone else reading these pages. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! I think that's what I'll use. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I tried it, but it said there was something wrong with the code :/ Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Shovel Shenanigans Did you copy the code straight from the rendered text? It should have worked. Compare my version at this page but please don't attempt to edit there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I copied the exact code. I think I got it to work now, though. .mw-redirect {color: green;} #bodyContent a[title="User:Shovel Shenanigans"] { background-color: #008080; color: #ffffff; font-weight: bold; } .mw-parser-output .cs1-maint {display: inline;} /* display Citation Style 1 maintenance messages */ .mw-parser (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah no. .mw-redirect {color: green;} #bodyContent a[title="User:Shovel Shenanigans"] { background-color: #008080; color: #ffffff; font-weight: bold; } .mw-parser-output .cs1-maint {display: inline;} /* display Citation Style 1 maintenance messages */ .mw-parser (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I do wonder what's causing the issue, whether there's some issue with how/where it's inputted? CommissarDoggo^Talk? 17:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's not an urgent issue. It's just a slight blow to my vanity haha. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah! I found the source, I think! It says it wasn't linking to my talk page or user page or something. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Links to specific book page from {sfn}

From a full citation I can link to the exact book page I’m referring to if that page has its own URL, like https://archive.org/details/b2803806x/page/58/. But if there are several citations of different pages of the same book, I like to replace all full citations except one with {sfn}. The remaining full citation links only to one page (if any). Is it possible and appropriate to create links to specific book pages from {sfn}?

Thanks in advance. The Cosmic Ocean (Please feel free to modify or undo any of my edits as deemed appropriate.) 18:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@The Cosmic Ocean, this can be done with Sfn. There is information at Template:Sfn#Adding a URL for the page or location. Just use square brackets and add a link where you are using p= or pages= (e.g., {{sfn|Harvey|2010|page=[https://example.com/page/14 14]}}). Reconrabbit 21:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! The Cosmic Ocean (Please feel free to modify or undo any of my edits as deemed appropriate.) 16:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Florida Power & Light Power request

Hi editors, I made a rather large request for the power generation section. It's essentially a reorganization and removing some unsourced sentences and a little bit of new content. I recognize that it is pretty unwieldy. I would appreciate any suggestions that editors here have for improving it! Cheers FPL Daniel (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

FPL Daniel, it's unlikely that any editor will approve a large unwieldy proposal like yours. You don't even make it clear what you want. Are [you] proposing to replace the whole article by the six sections you've written? Or to add them to it? Or to have them replace some unspecified parts of it? Maproom (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Maproom, In their original request they said Replace the content in the current Power generation section with what is in the collapse box below:, so it's evident that they wanted to replace the whole content. What I can say to, @FPL Daniel, is that editing Wikipedia is voluntary and the editors who complete edit requests do it on a voluntary basis and go through hundreds of them every week and month so please be patient while editors come and try to complete your edit request. Thanks, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 20:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Request for Feedback on Draft: Dr. Toula Gordillo

Dear Wikipedia Editors, I hope this message finds you well. I am seeking guidance on improving the draft article I submitted about Dr. Toula Gordillo, a clinical psychologist, author, and researcher. You can view the draft here: [3]. The feedback I received from an editor included the following comment: “No evidence of notability, and very poorly referenced.” I want to ensure that the article meets Wikipedia's notability and content guidelines, and I would appreciate your expert advice on how to address these concerns. Specifically: Notability: What additional evidence or sources should I include to establish Dr. Gordillo's notability? Are there particular types of achievements or recognitions that would better meet Wikipedia’s guidelines? References: I have attempted to use reliable and verifiable sources, but it seems they may not be sufficient. Could you suggest how to strengthen the references or identify any gaps in the current citations? General Improvements: Are there other significant issues in the draft, such as tone, structure, or content, that I should address? I have disclosed my potential conflict of interest (COI) and my intention is to create a balanced and encyclopedic article. I’m committed to improving the draft and learning from the process to ensure it aligns with Wikipedia's standards. Your feedback and guidance would be invaluable in helping me improve this draft. Thank you for your time and expertise. Best regards, Syed Tayyab SyedTayyab560 (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the question, @SyedTayyab560. I am unable to fully answer your question at the moment, but I will direct you to our guideline for the notability of academics, WP:PROF. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, SyedTayyab560. This is about Draft:Toula Gordillo. The thing that I saw immediately is that there are five "failed verification" tags and those must be resolved because Verifiability is a mandatory core content policy. When someone clicks on a link in one of your references, it must take them to a reliable source that explicitly verifies that content. Then I noticed the unreferenced assertion Her father’s storytelling and her mother’s dedication to music education shaped her interest in narrative-based therapies. That also fails verifiability and must be corrected. You have references to two Amazon bookselling pages, which are of no value and can be considered as spamming. Amazon will create a page for any book that they can make money off of. Her claim to notability seems to be creating the trademarked concept "Story Image Therapy". When I check Google Books and Google Scholar, I find no discussion of this topic except by Gordillo herself. Is it somehow connected to Narrative therapy which was also developed in Australia? An acceptable Wikipedia biography of Gordillo would summarize the significant coverage that reliable sources completely independent of Gordillo devote to Gordillo and her work. What she says about herself and her theories has very little place in an article about her. Cullen328 (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear Cullen328,

Thank you for your thorough feedback on the draft for Toula Gordillo. I appreciate the time you’ve taken to highlight the issues and provide clear suggestions for improvement.

I understand the importance of verifiability and will address the "failed verification" tags by reviewing all the references to ensure they explicitly support the claims made in the draft. I’ll also remove the unreferenced assertion about her parents' influence and work to replace unreliable citations, such as the Amazon links, with more credible, independent sources.

Regarding her claim to notability, I see your point about needing significant coverage from reliable sources independent of Dr. Gordillo. I will research further to find academic discussions, media coverage, or other reputable sources that demonstrate her contributions and align with Wikipedia's notability standards.

Additionally, I will revise the draft to focus on summarizing significant coverage of her work as presented in independent sources, minimizing content that relies on her self-published material or theories.

If you have any further suggestions or guidance, I would be grateful for your input. Thank you again for your time and constructive feedback.

Kind regards,

Syed Tayyab SyedTayyab560 (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Johannes Spieß page

Greetings. A few weeks ago I created and edited the page in caption. I'm quite happy with the result. However, I have noticed there is no caption about the subject when typing the page name on the search box. How can I add a caption? Benzekre (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Benzekre. See Template:Short description. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Benzekre. In its current form, Johannes Spieß fails to establish that he is a notable person. You have a database listing without prose and a link to a book that he wrote. What is required are several references to reliable sources completely independent of Spieß that devote significant coverage to Spieß. Cullen328 (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Specific articles take a long time to load edit history

Does anyone else notice how some articles take forever to load their edit histories? Does that mean there have been a lot of edits and/or an edit war? An article affected by this phenomena that really annoys me (as someone who is currently giving it a major overhaul) is the Wings of Fire article. It's not a problem with my device or WiFi, the edit histories take exceptionally long times to load no matter my connection strength or PC power. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 20:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Unless this is a setting that can be changed and you've done so, loading the edit history for any page only initially shows the latest 50 edits, so I don't see how the total number of edits to an article being large would have any impact on the load time for the edit history. My instinct would be that this is an issue at your end, so I wonder how you know that it's not a connection speed issue? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

i know it isnt a connection issue because I have that problem on all three of my devices (personal PC, phone, school chromebook) on all three of my connections (school wifi, home wifi and mobile data). My PC is pretty beefy and I have gigabit internet, but I have the same problem that I have on my school chromebook and shitty 50mbps school wifi ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 21:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the history page of Wings of Fire (novel series) on my phone and on my computer and in both cases it loaded in less than 2 seconds. Perhaps you have some gadget enabled that is making it take longer for you? CodeTalker (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Loaded the history page for that article. Took ~1-2 seconds for me. One anecdotal data point that is probably useless in troubleshooting the problem you're seeing.

By default, loads on the newest 50 edits. So, not expecting that volume of activity would have any bearing. Alegh (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

yeah I give up, maybe it's just weird for me for no reason ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 22:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Even when I ask it to list the most recent 500 edits, about a second. David notMD (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I timed it and for me on all of my devices and connections, it takes on average eight seconds. Could it have something to do with the fact that like 85% of the edits on that page in the last three months were made by me? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 13:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@User:ApteryxRainWing That might be the case if you use some cascading style sheet which is converting your username in the edit history into something fancy. Also, it may be worth seeing whether using different skins makes any difference. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Nutrality

what would happen if something like this happened

https://xkcd.com/545/ 🐢 (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Saarabout. See WP:NOTNEWS. Until the event had been written about substantially in independent reliable places it could not be the subject of an article - and not necessarily even then. ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

???

I am confused with this error in references. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_banana Laffuble (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Laffuble, I removed the extraneous undefined reference tag that caused the error. Cullen328 (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou. Laffuble (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Are maps reliable sources

So I just came across the article Myene, Myanmar, and the only sources it has are from Google and Bing maps respectively. Are both of these reliable sources, and furthermore, are maps in general considered to by reliable sources? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@RedactedHumanoid Maps can, on the one hand, be very reliable sources. However, they can also be used as tools to promote a particular viewpoint. A good example would be some recently pubished maps showing Crimea to be part of Russia, not Ukraine; or the ownership dispute of the summit of Mont Blanc as perceived differently by the French and the Italians.

Google and Bing are prone to errors, although in the example you cite I would ask what grounds you might have for disbelieving the citation supporting this article, per WP:NGEO? Have you tried looking for any others to confirm that this place exists? (Hint: it does). Regards,

apsmcan contain incredibly valuable information, unobtainable elsewhere. Yet, they can also be error prone. I suspect that in the article you cite there would be little dispute Nick Moyes (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't disbelieving the town's existence, seeing that its only sources were maps just prompted me to wonder if maps are reliable sources. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

RedactedHumanoid, sometimes maps can be reliable and sometimes they aren't. In this case, clicking the links provided takes the reader to the Wikipedia articles about the map sites, rather than to actual maps of Myene. WP:NGEO says Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. As anyone familar with maps knows, a dot and a name on a map does not mean that the place is a populated, legally recognized place. So, it would be best to find some Myanmar government document or other reliable source that verifies that Myene is a legally recognized place. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I had to chuckle as, having Googled "Myene", some ten minutes later Booking.com sent me an email listing a whole load of hotels it thought I might like to stay at there! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Were any of them named "Hilbert's"? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

LOL RedactedHumanoid (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Uncooperative conduct by a bunch of IPs

I had requested WP:3O in the Talk:List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru#Third opinion, but after arbritration had formed a consensus, some IP addresses that had refused to participate in 3O discussions launched a long-winded rant filled with WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:PEPPER. Is this enough grounds to seek admin intervention? hundenvonPG (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@HundenvonPenang You have already raised an ANI case, which has been answered at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1173#Persistent disruptive behaviour and unsubstantiated MOS:PUFFERY by 155.69.190.63. You also sent me an email about this. Together with this Teahouse thread, that is a type of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Your options are to go back to ANI or to WP:DROPTHESTICK. I would advise the latter. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit

Are republicans allowed to edit Wafsotgog (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Everyone is allowed to edit Wikipedia, so long as you follow the rules. WP:Five Pillars is a good starting point! Happy editing! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Wafsotgog. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so yes, supporters of the Republican Party can contribute. There is no reason why you shouldn't, so long as you follow our policies and guidelines! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 01:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

General advice: I would gently advise newcomers to gain familiarity with the rules and editing experience before touching contentious topics, which include post-1992 U.S. politics. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Gosh, what about Independents? And Green Party supporters? Augnablik (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Socialists? Communists? Left-handed people? David notMD (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

What about Anarchosyndicalists? Pastafarians? Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not left-handed people! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The reason some (but far from all) Republicans might feel left out is because Wikipedia is based on science and fact, as covered by reputable sources. The MAGA movement and President Trump in many cases wants to push an agenda that is based on what (perhaps charitably) people want to be true, rather than what can scientifically be established as true. This is incompatible with Wikipedia's mission, and trying to add "facts" that have no support from reputable academical circles will be removed, and if you insist on adding them, you will eventually be banned. None of this is directed at Republicans or any other political movement specifically, and you should not take it personally. CapnZapp (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Can't find an article; thought I saw one a few hours ago

I cannot locate any article on the Canadian political crises that seems to have errupted just today, where multiple parties (opposition, plus former allies of the governing party) and several members of the Prime Minister's own political party, are calling for his resignation. This seems odd. And I believe I saw an article just a few hours ago. Articles are often created on much less news article source info than exist on this particular political set of political events in various Parliamentary democracies. I've tried four different Wikipedia searches: 2024 Canadian political crises, Canadian political crises, 2024 Trudeau..., etc. Not finding anything.

If an article existed a few hours ago, and got PRODed/Speedy Deleted, is there even any way for non-Admin editors to tell? Is censorship in Wikipedia transparent? (if it was deleted) Thanks. Non-Canadian Wikipedia reader here. N2e (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@N2eDon't worry. If it's a notable event, then any uncited news story will pretty quickly be recreated, based upon Reliable Sources. But Wikipedia is not here to cover breaking news without good sources to back it up (see WP:NOTNEWS). I guess the answer to your question is actually, 'No', it's very difficult for a user to know what nonsense or non-notable pages have been deleted if they've not gone through AfD. You could try discussing any concerns at Talk:Justin Trudeau if you think key topics are benig overlooked. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, for that thorough answer, to both questions! N2e (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

To add to Nick Moyes reply, if you know the exact page title, it's not hard to see if it was recently deleted, since every "redlink" page (here's one for you: Fjdkfjjfjfjrekkrkf3535shsh :) contains as the sixth and final bullet point "If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was the page I created deleted?" with the requisite links.

Of course, if you *don't* have the exact link/page title, then yes, it's hard to impossible to know, just as Nick says. CapnZapp (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@N2e Just an afterthought to @CapnZapp's reply. If it was a page you very recently viewed which has now disappeared, you might like to check back through your browser history to see if you can find the exact page title that way. Sorry I didn't think to mention this earlier. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. There is one now: 2024 Canadian political crisis, which goes to an article section with ~10 sources that cover all the early events and the reactions of the various parties, politicos, and even foreign leaders. N2e (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

من كاتب عن مماليك العراق

اريد ان اعرف من كتب عن مماليك العراق الباشا انا من سلالة عمرباشا ابن احمد باشا ابن حسن باشا .. حيث ان عمرباشا لم يمت بل هرب لدمشق والكاتب هنا كتب انه قتل فهل لي ان اعرف من الكاتب وشكرا Rasha Omar basha (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Machine translation of the above:I want to know who wrote about the Mamluks of Iraq, Pasha. I am from the lineage of Omar Pasha, son of Ahmed Pasha, son of Hassan Pasha. Omar Pasha did not die, but fled to Damascus, and the writer here wrote that he was killed. Can I know who the writer is? Thank you. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 01:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Rasha Omar basha Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. No single person has contributed to Mamluk dynasty (Iraq). In fact, 126 different editors have helped create it. We do have this tool to show who has contributed most to any given article, though it doesn't not help you understand who has made the most recent edits to it. For that information, you should visit the 'View History' tab (see here). As this is English Wikipedia, please only post questions in English, please. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The only mention of an Omar Pasha is Mamluk dynasty (Iraq)#Omar Pasha (1762–1776), but it does not saythat he was killed, just replaced. Meters (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Rasha Omar basha, I wonder if you are asking about an article on Arabic Wikipedia, perhaps ar:مماليك العراق? We cannot give you any useful information about that here, since this is English Wikipedia. Try asking at ar:ويكيبيديا:بوابة المشاركة ColinFine (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Running out of sources on an article (or something else)

Hi, I'm currently working on the Sacred Reich article (a draft on my userpage specifically) and I seem to be running into an issue where I'm running out of available sources about the subject.

I am currently working on a major edit revising the band's history section and adding sections about their artistry and political views. However, I am unable to find good enough sources to help me write these sections as most of them do not provide significant enough coverage to write from in general. In specifics:

• For the history section, I'm attempting to cover the band's style during their respective eras (as the band's style changed significantly throughout their history) but there doesn't seem to be any sources that cover the subject of their style past brief mentions of their sociopolitical lyrics.

• I'm also trying to find time-relevant reviews of the band's respective releases to cover their reception, however, there doesn't seem to be enough (if any) reviews regarding their releases, likely due to the lack of digitized copies of pre-internet items such as magazines and newspapers.

• General searching on Google and it's sub-engines no longer seems to satisfy the search for sources, as I've either already used them in the article or are unrelated to the topic. Dig deeping on Google Books and News have failed, largely because of a. brief mentions, b. unreliability and questionable publishing, and c. not related to the band.

However, I have an underlying concern that this may be of my own doing and possibly overlooking worthy material unknowingly. There are some references (,) that may cover the aforementioned topics significantly, but I feel struggle to actually put together in the article. I'm unsure whether or not I am running out of material or if I'm just struggling to convert the material into encyclopedic content.

Thank you for reading my message, and advice is highly appreciated. Thanks, Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 04:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 04:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Sparkle & Fade, the answer is very clear - if you cannot find reliable sources verifying the content that you want to add, then that content simply does not belong on Wikipedia at this time. The broader point is that identifying reliable sources about the topic always comes first. Then, summarize the sources. Do not even ponder adding content that is not verified by reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I believe you may be mistaken on the problem I am having. I am very much familiar with WP:RS, especially when working with WP:BLPs (which applies to this article). However, I believe my problem is primarily regarding significant coverage (which I believe applies to information inside of an article as well) as most sources don't seem to provide enough insight on some topics for me to fully cover in the article, and not a problem with WP:Verifiability.

Apologies, Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 05:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sparkle & Fade, significant coverage is required for references that are relied on to establish notability. But once notability is well-established, then other sources do not need to devote significant coverage to the band. So, brief mentions of their sociopolitical lyrics in reliable sources are OK to use, as long other reliable sources devote significant coverage to the band. Cullen328 (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sparkle & Fade, not an answer to your question -- I think Cullen328 has already provided that -- but if you happen to have access to a well-funded library you might ask if you could access the fourth, online edition of The encyclopedia of popular music (previously The Guinness encyclopedia of popular music). I've only ever seen the second edition (or was it the third?), and it's very big; the fourth is said to be quite a bit bigger again. -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip @Hoary. When possible, I'll try and look around to find said book, as it sounds like a valuable source for the article. On a sidenote, I think I explained my problem rather poorly because of my incorrect understanding of SIGCOV: rather, I just can't find enough sources that actually cover the aforementioned aspects of the band. Thanks for the advice, Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary, I viewed a portion (conveniently with the entry for Sacred Reich) on the Internet Archive and the entry is almost exactly the same as the one I cited in the article (The Guiness Who's Who of Heavy Metal) with the only new information is a single sentence about one of the band members leaving, which is already covered in the article. Sorry. Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 00:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear, Sparkle and Fade; sorry to have wasted your time. -- Hoary (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Determining consensus

When there is just one person on the talk page who disagrees with an edit. How many people have to agree with it, for there to be a consensus? Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Tinynanorobots: there's no hard number or percentage, it's more nuanced than that. You may want to read through WP:CONSENSUS, if you haven't yet done so. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I have read WP:Consensus, it wasn't helpful. The BRD has reached its discussion phase, but pretty much everything has been said. One user says that the edit is against policy and shows no sign of changing opinion, but no one else is appearing to buy his argument. What can I do? Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If there are only two people in the discussion, try WP:3O. More generally, look at WP:DR. ColinFine (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If a DRV ends up being an "Endorse" instead of "Allows Recreation", what happens to the new information that I found?

Hi, to give a bit of context, I recently found a lot of new sources for an article that was nominated to AfD after it was relisted [4]. But despite being relisted for extra discussion, the AfD was first closed as "no consensus", but then a few hours later, was changed to "delete", even though there were no further delete votes after the new sources were posted. From reading the DRV rules, I understand that if the DRV ends up being an "endorse", then the article will no longer exist and I won't be able to recreate the article. But what happens to the new sources I found? Does it mean that these sources no longer count as "new sources", and so I'd have to find more on top of these? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 13:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

User:GregariousMadness - A deletion of an article at AFD normally allows the recreation and submission of a draft, and the endorsement of the deletion normally does not disallow recreation and submission. Some of the participants in the DRV are saying both to Endorse the close of the deletion discussion and to authorize submission of a draft, but they (including myself) are restating the usual procedure, rather than voting to make a special exception. If, as appears certain, the deletion is endorsed, you will be able to submit a draft of a new article for approval, regardless of whether the closer of the DRV mentions that.

There are two questions that authors who wish to recreate a title that was deleted often conflate, causing confusion:

• • May a draft with the deleted title be submitted for review?
  • May a copy of the deleted article be restored to user or draft space?

The answer to the first is almost always yes. The exception is if the title has been salted, create-protected, usually due to repeated recreation. It should usually not be necessary to ask the second question. It is often better to start over in creating a good article rather than using an article that failed to show notability as the starting point. It is almost always better to start over if the previous article was deleted as promotional, but the article in question was deleted for lack of notability. Anyway, in your case, you will do better to start from scratch than to use the deleted article to begin, because the deleted article was corrupted by sockpuppet edits and other misconduct. So I advise you to start from your knowledge and your better sources after the DRV is finished.

It won't matter whether the closer of the DRV says that you may submit a draft for review. You will be authorized to submit a draft for review. A statement to that effect restates the standard process.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Advice on whether draft article meets notability guidelines

Hello, I recently got back into Wikipedia editing. I have edited before, but never created an article. I wanted to create one about Alice Morrison (a TV presenter and adventure traveller) because I think she is an important role model. When I submitted my draft for review, it got rejected because the sources didn't meet notability requirements. I added some more sources and received a similar rejection (with some slightly more specific feedback). I've now made a version which I think has every available source I can find on the internet. Please could somebody give me some more detailed explanation on whether this article would now count as notable? Thank you. Harry Kuril (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Harry Kuril. We don't really do pre-reviews here: that's what "submit for review" is for. But just looking at your list of sources, I can see that most of your citations aren't helpful. You shouldn't be citing her "publisher's homepage" or "BBC programme index" at all, and interviews with Morrison are not independent, and so can be used only to support limited uncontroversial factual information. Which of your sources meet the triple requirements in WP:42? ColinFine (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The AfC rejections say that your sources do not directly talk about the article's subject, only mentioning it in passing. Having a lot of sources means nothing if they aren't ones talking about the article's subject specifically. If you have already gathered everything you can find and it still failed AfC, then it's time to give up and move on to a new topic. The Task Center has plenty of things to do. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 13:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I see the subject of the article has written several books. Can you find any book reviews published by, say. newspapers or reputable magazines? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Alice Morrison (journalist) was Declined, which is not as severe as Rejected; the former means that in the eyes of the reviewers there is some potential for success. David notMD (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

A few little things - references go after punctuation; some of your text is not your own working, but rather copied from the S&S website. Please paraphrase. David notMD (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Help on contributing to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

Hello,

A number of categories I have made have been submitted for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

I do not know how to respond to those in the appropriate context ie: Keep , etc.

I only am able to reply to comments, but not respond in a way that contributes to the consensus of the discussion. Can someone please point me to the the right way to participate here? My comments are ignored because they do not follow the right notation, its feels like punishment for new editors.

Any assistance would be helpful. Many thanks. Nayyn (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I suggest you read these: notability and arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Please note that the second link is for an essay and not an official policy. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 15:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nayyn another note, if the other person links an essay or policy, it might help to read through the link and consider if the article falls under that category. This can help you in formulating your response. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 15:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

hi, let me clarify here. I'm not asking for help on what I need to respond, I'm asking how to contribute the "reject" response so it appears in the same syntax to be counted in the discussion.

I keep being told my response is not in the right format (when I reply) but I have no idea how to reply in the way that's correct, and the folks over there have no interest in helping. Does that make sense?

It feels like gatekeeping over there. Nayyn (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nayyn, I can understand the frustration. For AfD, there is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Contributing_to_AfD_discussions to give new participants guidance, but I can't find anything similar for CfD. I'm not experienced there so can't help, but I suggest that you read through a bunch of closed discussions to see what the differences are between your comments and others'. Hope that helps. Schazjmd (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems that it's not possible to reply there using the visual editor, that's what I have seemed to have gathered anyway. It's a convenient way to keep people from contributing. Nayyn (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't realize there were pages on which Visual Editor wasn't an option. I seldom use it, so maybe just haven't noticed when it wasn't there. You seem to have figured out source editing for commenting there. The one thing I see missing from your initial comment in each discussion is a bolded statement of your recommendation (oppose, purge, delete, merge, and so forth). Schazjmd (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Question about an article

So I recently joined WikiProject Weather, and I have decided to work on the list of tornadoes in Ohio, which is where I am from. Since the article says it is a list, does that mean it should be comprehensive? I've noticed that it is particularly lacking in information about the recent tornadoes we've experienced such as a micro-outbreak near Lima back in March. Should I include a paragraph or two about these smaller events, or stick to adding the bigger ones that were forgotten such as the June 15, 2023 event (which I already added, by the way)? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 15:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You might want to review MOS:LIST, in particular WP:LISTPURP Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 15:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright thanks. I'll probably stick to fleshing out the list with notable events (the 2010-2019 timeframe in particular is pretty bare) and only add notes of the smaller events when necessary ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 16:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Make sure you add a reliable source to each entry Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 16:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Local news outlets are okay, right? For the section about June 15, I cited the NWS Cleveland office's official breakdown on the event, but I also relied on some Toledo news outlets like WTOL and WTVG for more specific information on events that happened in their viewing areas. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 16:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It depends on the topic, but it's fine here Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Am I allowed to upload art I made to Commons so I can put it on my userpage?

I've been working on my userpage for a bit lately and I was wondering if I can upload art I made that is only intended to be used on my userpage. The art I am talking about in particular is a headshot of Apteryx, who isn't just a pseudonym, but a whole character with her own personality and all of that. Since it is art I made, there would be no problem with copyright, but the image also wouldn't be benefitting anyone but me, and might be seen as a circumvention of the idea where Wikipedia doesn't have profile pictures. I'm not sure if that is even an official policy or simply an issue where Wikipedia is unable to hire moderators to make sure no NSFW stuff gets in, but I was just wondering. I've seen some people put pictures of stuff they made (or a picture of themselves) on their userpages. I don't want my face on Wikipedia (unless I somehow become famous) but I still want a face people can match my personality to, so why not make it the face of a character I made to be a representation of myself. Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 18:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If the image wouldn't benefit anyone other than you, please don't upload it. 126.179.119.206 (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @ApteryxRainWing. It's policy on Commons to not upload images for personal benefit if they are not intended to be educational, but I believe you can simply upload the art directly to Wikipedia instead unless there's some local policy that I'm unaware about. Tarlby^{(t) (c)} 22:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

wait I can do that? How do I upload something directly to Wikipedia without going through Commons first? Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 22:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response! You can upload the image at Special:Upload. The image will be hosted locally to Wikipedia, not Commons. Tarlby^{(t) (c)} 23:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Local uploads are for files that meet the non-free content criteria, @ApteryxRainWing and Tarlby; an image solely used on a userpage probably doesn't. Locally hosted files that are freely licensed are deemed to have been uploaded locally in error and are usually exported to Wikimedia Commons. ApteryxRainWing, the main question you have to ask yourself is if you are willing to, for example, allow someone else to edit your work and then use that edit for commercial purposes without notifying (or paying) you if they attribute the original to you. The full explanation is at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted material#What it means to donate material to Wikipedia.

Given the importance of copyright law, I suggest reading the entire thing and understanding what happens when you release your work under CC BY-SA 4.0 or a compatible license. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@ApteryxRainWing Just checked the Commons policy. While all images must be used for an educational purpose, the image's use on a project like Wikipedia makes the image automatically presumed to be a educational, even if it's only use is for a user page. You are free then to upload to Commons, not locally on Wikipedia. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

So I wrote this article about a person who died 2 days ago

Khaled Nabhan as the title says I wrote an article about a person who recently died. Now I need help to nominate this article so it can appear on the ''recent deaths'' in the main page. Could anyone help me with that? I don't get it at all tbf. Thanks in advance! The Authentic Egyptian Pasha (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Recent Deaths is usually reserved for deaths of notable people. The article you are trying to nominate is a dictionary definition of a stub. If you want, expand the article then try again. Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 18:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh okay. I did not know that actually. Thank you! The Authentic Egyptian Pasha (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sort of, sort of isn't. I wouldn't tag it as a stub as it has enough content that is worth an encyclopedic entry. The notability tag is something else. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 20:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Covid-19 drama

I decided to start a new Noticeboard discussion to draw attention to how when I sampled the references cited for biomedical claims in the article on the Origin of SARS-CoV-2 it happens that out of the first eight I looked at, four of them were primary sources. I stopped there and make a comment on the talk page and nobody said anything except for a lone straw man argument from an editor who has been very active as a member of "the consensus". You might be aware that editors in the contentious COVID-19 lab leak theory have the article locked and they're vetting any requests with a fine-toothed comb. But when it comes to the article about the mainstream scientific hypothesis, the article seems to be chock full of primary sources, as if the article itself was in large part original research. Is this how it normally goes on here? It seems like a lot of editors don't want to touch this, and there are problems with civility in the talk pages on the part of an editor who seems to plays an informal leadership role going way back. I tried to address behavior on the user's talk page and they just called me names and told me to leave their page alone, and an experienced administrator suggested that I just focus on editing non-contentious topics. I have gotten people on my user page warning me about getting banned just for challenging the status quo in good faith, and an IP editor asked me why I am choosing to get involved. I'm not trying to challenge the consensus, just calling out obvious issues, and so far this isn't getting traction with anybody. I'm either getting ignored or people make a straw man argument and then disappear from the conversation. I am going to ping @Liz because it was her idea that I visit this forum but would be interested in any and all feedback. Cheers, Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

In general, contentious topics are... well... contentious! People can get pretty heated (it's why I avoid editing them except for very minor edits and fulfilling edit requests). If you feel yourself getting heated, I suggest taking a break.

A sidenote - your comment on Origin of SARS-CoV-2 might be better served by an edit request - just try to be specific (i.e. talk mainly about what you want to be changed rather than the content of the article) Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 04:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Where do i copy "{subst:submit}}"

I want to submit my article to be revised but i dont see the button, i found this code in the help page but when i paste it at the start of my article´s code it doesnt do anything pls help (i deleted a little of the code so it doesnt show the yellow box) Labauta PR (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi! You're missing the extra "{" at the front of the code, which would look like {{subst:submit}}. E_F⁵ 20:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I think he purposefully didn't add the extra "{" otherwise it would turn into a template. (Although we can use the nowiki thing). Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

ohhh ok thankss Labauta PR (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Labauta PR. If you copy and paste that code into the draft, I'm 99% sure it will not work since it'll convert to <nowiki>, especially if you're in VisualEditor. Can you please tell me your draft's title? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Labauta PR. As the person above me has asked, can you provide us the link to the draft so we can see? Tarlby^{(t) (c)} 20:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Labauta PR: This is a help page for the English Wikipedia. If it's about a page at the Spanish Wikipedia then things are done differently at different languages and you should ask for help there. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Please use the AfC Submission Wizard instead. Thank you. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Only use that link if it's an English article for the English Wikipedia. Special:CentralAuth/Labauta PR makes me think it's about the Spanish Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It probably is about the Spanish Wikipedia since, unlike Commons, Wikidata, and Spanish Wikipedia, he has no edits anywhere other than 2 edits here in the Teahouse. He could also have an alt account. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 21:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Single quotation marks conflict with wikitext

Hello, I was editing and realized that single quotation marks ' ' and the italic/bold wikitext sometimes interfere with each other. For example when trying to quote 'some text' but also italicize some text, the three quotes appear as some text in bold instead because of the triple quotes. Is there a way around this? I know some systems use a backslash \ to disable formatting but that doesn't seem to work here. Curuwen (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Curuwen, welcome to the Teahouse. Single quoation marks should rarely be used. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Double or single. <nowiki /> can be inserted between things which should not be interpreted together 'like this'. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I had thought single quotes would be used in articles with British English but I guess not. Curuwen (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

In this concrete case simply using a space is sufficient. 'A slanted space is a space too.' 176.0.131.52 (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Curuwen: To answer your technical question, even though you may be no longer interested: You can use the template {{'}} to insert a single quote in a way that doesn't interfere with other markup. For instance, ''{{'}}text{{'}}'' renders as 'text'. Deor (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. There are at least three ways then, wikitext, template, and just adding a space. Curuwen (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Note that the template also inserts a very thin space before the ', to prevent the last letter from colliding with the quotation mark. Compare 'TEXT' and 'TEXT'. --rchard2scout (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete, or take other actions?

I have two questions and they both relate to the exact same sentence;

1) If, in an article, a single sentence is a direct quote from a research paper that has CC BY permissions, should it be removed entirely, or should another type of action be taken?

2) If, in an article, a single sentence contains non-neutral words, should it be removed entirely, or should another type of action be taken?

For reference;

- The sentence is "The evolution of the “flood and drain systems” adopted in backyard aquaponics comes back to the pioneering work of Mark McMurtry"

- The source is; Rharrhour, Haytam; Wariaghli, Fatima; Goddek, Simon; Sadik, Mohamed; Moujtahid, Aziz El; Nhhala, Hassan; Yahyaoui, Ahmed (2022). "Towards sustainable food productions in Morocco: Aquaponics". E3S Web of Conferences. 337: 03004. Bibcode:2022E3SWC.33703004R. doi:10.1051/e3sconf/202233703004. ISSN 2267-1242

- I have not deleted anything, the sentence quoted was removed, twice, by other editors. Wiki142B (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

for background reference;

1) The sentence was removed by another editor for copyright violation.

2) I started a talk discussion to explain that it comes from a CCBY source.

3) The editor said it was bad practice and it should have been paraphrased.

4) I undid the deletion.

5) Another editor removed it because it was not nuetral.

6) I started a talk discussion and suggested the sentence be changed to ""The development of 'flood and drain systems' in modern aquaponics can be traced to the research of Dr. Mark McMurtry at North Carolina State University."

7) The editor still says this is "more about puffing McMurtry than informing the reader".

8) I suggested to change it to "The development of 'flood and drain systems' in modern aquaponics can be traced to the research at North Carolina State University."

9) The editor said "The content of the sentence is promotional. There is no neutral way to word it because the promotion is the only thing there"

I am still confused how it is promotional when it is a factual part of the history, foundation and development of that specific system type, it is not opinion it is supported by a scientific paper.

Why are other people involved in the history, foundation and development of of he types of systems allowed? Wiki142B (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Wiki142B I think that the context is important. Wikipedia writing allows direct quotes and a single sentence from a cited source is fine, whether or not the source has a creative commons license. So, in a biography of Mark McMurtry, to say he was "pioneering" would not be neutral but it would be fine to say 'According to X, the evolution of the “flood and drain systems” adopted in backyard aquaponics comes back to the pioneering work of Mark McMurtry'. Even there, you could paraphrase the quote: the point being that you are using it to establish that in someone's opinion he was a "pioneer". In the context of a broad topic like aquaponics I doubt that it is necessary to mention the "pioneering" bit at all. Every innovation could be said to be pioneering, right back to the Chinese. So I would stick to the basic facts and (in the example you give) focus on describing what a flood and drain system is, with citations to McMurtry's publication(s) and the secondary source. There is no need to namecheck each contributor in the body text. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia writing allows direct quotes and a single sentence from a cited source is fine, whether or not the source has a creative commons license

That is good to know, but also confusing/frustrating as I was previously informed by Diannaa that; "For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. "

Although, the above may be referring to more than just a direct quote/single sentence. Wiki142B (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It's okay to copy prose from a webpage or juornal article that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. Attribution for this particular item would be done by including the template {{Creative Commons text attribution notice|cc=by4|from this source=yes}} as part of your citation. Like this. Diannaa (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Wiki142B See, for example, the template {{blockquote}} and the articles which link there. Some good articles contain multiple quotations from sources that are copyright. Albert Einstein is a case in point. Provided that the quote is attributed to its author, is not modified, and is not excessive in length that's fine. What is not allowed is to copy/paste large chunks of other people's work and pass them off as if your own writing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit History

Someone edited my article and I want to know who so I can thank them, the main question is, how do you find the articles edit history? Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Yuanmongolempiredynasty, welcome to the Teahouse. Click "View history" near the top of the page. See more at Help:Page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A note - "An article I created" is a better way to think about what you did versus "my article", as the latter implies ownership. At The Horde: How the Mongols Changed the World, View history, clicking on any of the dates in the list shows what the article looked like on that date. Green numbers mean content added, red numbers content removed. David notMD (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Moving an article

So, I saw an article that did not have any references or citations, and it was very short and not very descriptive. I want to move it from main space so it can be improved by whoever wrote it, but I don’t know how. If any of you want to check it out, here’s the link: El homaydat Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, never mind, it’s proposed that it will be deleted on Christmas. But, I still want to learn how to move a article from main space if it doesn’t have reliable sources Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, if you wanna draftify a page regarding your description, then I suggest using WP:MTD. However, if I were you, I'd either suggest proposing/nominating the article for deletion or even try to improve the article. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It is up for deletion, and I have messaged the creator, but I decided, “oh, maybe I could learn something from this,” so that’s why I came here. Thank You! Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you meant you want to move draftify it as your description suggestion such article is not ready for main space. To move article, simply click on the three buttons after the edit button, then click on 'Move page ', you'd see different options like 'Draft, Article, talk etc' then you'd move to appropriate headings. For main space movement I.e from Draft or Sandbox to main space, You should click on 'Article' modify the title if neccesary or leave it as if is. Then publish.... Tesleemah (talk) 08:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

But notice, @Yuanmongolempiredynasty, that not all inadequate articles should be draftified. See WP:DRAFTIFY. ColinFine (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The technical problem here is that you will leave a redirect, unless you have certain privileges. So you have to nominate the redirect for deletion. On the whole it's probably better to use Wikipedia:Requested moves. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC).

Daniel Penny

New York - There is speculation to whether Daniel Penny is from Islip, New York and if ever he ever served in the United States Marine Corps. Penny was at the recent Army-Navy football game in Philadelphia, won by the midshipman, with President-elect Donald Trump and several of his cabinet selections. None of the selections have faced a vote in the United States Senate. Jef3dv500 (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jef3dv500. Unless you have a question about editing Wikipedia, I suggest that you discuss this matter at Talk: Daniel Penny instead. Cullen328 (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

General use of Islamic honorifics

Hi there, I saw an article where a reference to Mohammed was followed by the Arabic ligature for PBUH (ﷺ), was wondering if that should be removed as the honorific is generally only included by Muslims. As Wikipedia is not a religious text, I was wondering if it would make sense for me to remove it. Couldn't find a exact guideline on this. Thanks. Lavenderlesbian (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Lavenderlesbian! You are correct that honorifics for Muhammad should usually be removed. This is specified in the Manual of Style at MOS:MUHAMMAD, and more general guidelines for honorifics are at MOS:HONORIFIC. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

(However, if the honorific is part of a quotation, it makes sense to keep it there.) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Lavenderlesbian (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

small business violin store

i know this small business in palatine IL (boring subarb) that is not super obscure that could probably have a wiki page but idk to make one for them. a page would really help the business financially Wich would be pretty cool. can somebody make one for it. its called the String project. 73.50.75.106 (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

if u look it up its the white building with grey details 73.50.75.106 (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Please see WP:42 for why this business would probably not have an article anytime soon. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 06:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Template for warning hostile users?

Theres someone on my page, and i want to warn them if they continue (just in case) ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 06:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If the attacks are offensive and disruptive, then you may report the User here are WP:ANI. Another way to best deal with the User it to simply ignore the guy. Hope this helps. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 06:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

oh ok. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 06:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Your initial response to warn is correct, as it is better to try deëscalation before going to ANI. If searching Template:uw doesn't get what you want (and you don't want to install Twinkle or can't figure it out), you can just...write a brief message. This works better when talking to more experienced users, too. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

With a few exceptions, you are not required to keep content on your own Talk page. Delete stuff and move on. (It will still be viewable via View history if you think you need to see it again.) David notMD (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions for Monte Zovetto page

Good morning, everyone, My team and I recently finished our Monte Zovetto wiki page (a mountain in northern Italy) for a school project. It was approved, and we received a grade C.

We already made some improvements (also thanks to other editors), but do you have any suggestions on how we can improve it to achieve a grade B? Thank you!

LIUCsmarties (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC) LIUCsmarties (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I saw there are the pronunciation in "British English" indicated in "IPA".

Maybe someone can add it in "Italian" ? It is not a great improvement but it is a good one.

Why not add the pronunciation with IPA transcription in "Venetian language" ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Please see our response to your fellow student and to how poorly your instructor has designed the assignment and how that's putting you and your classmates in an unfair position and lots of unneeded stress. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

LIUCsmarties, you say "It was approved, and we received a grade C." I "accepted" the draft, promoting it to article status. I didn't give it a "C", and nobody else did either. I don't see anyone calling it "Start", "C", or "B". Do you mean that your teacher approved it and gave it a C, for university rather than Wikipedia purposes? If so, we people here who aren't affiliated with LIUC don't know either how grading is supposed to work in LIUC or what particular criteria your teacher uses in order to grade. -- Hoary (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary Actually you did. However, @LIUCsmarties probably doesn't realise that these assessments are somewhat arbitrary and only good articles and featured articles go through a formal process here. I suggest that LIUCsmarties and colleagues relax after doing a good job of creating the article and focus now on the rest of their schoolwork. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, Mike Turnbull, so I did. Duh. (I plead senility!) Anyone (other than the author or their classmates) who thinks it merits a B is welcome to give it a B. And I have to say that though I'm usually unimpressed by class-assigned article creation, this set does impress me (in a good way). -- Hoary (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary I recently reviewed the Assessments for many articles at WikiProject Mountains of the Alps. I would say this is a pretty complete article, easily meriting a B-class (which I have just given it). With some further careful work on sourcing and on WP:MOS formatting, it could well be put forward for a GA Assessment, though seeking more detailed feedback at WP:PEER REVIEW could be worthwhile. However, these further steps would need the commitment to see this through beyond the unfair deadline set by their tutor (Limelightangel), as discussed in recent threads from their other students. I think @LIUCsmarties and colleagues should be extremely proud of their work. It's impressive. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

LIUCsmarties Consider deleting the Legends section, as not clear it is specific to Zovetto (and perhaps adding it to Roana instead). David notMD (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Necropolis of Amorosi

I'm currently working on the page Necropolis of Amorosi for a university project work, but the page has been approved as Start-Class. Knowing that there could be done significant improvements inside it, and maybe even lift up the class level, I wanted a detailed feedback and suggestions regarding the page. LIUCAurora (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

LIUCAurora, I fear that there's a misunderstanding about quality classes in Wikipedia. Class "A" is little used; let's not worry about it. Classing an article as a "Good Article" ("GA") requires some deliberation. Classing it as a "Featured Article" requires a lot of deliberation. "Stub", "Start", "C" and "B" are often applied with little deliberation. Recently when I, as a draft reviewer, have "accepted" drafts, I haven't bothered to class them, because if I were to do so conscientiously I'd have to read and digest the criteria and judge the draft against these, and I can't be bothered. One user might class a draft "Start" and another might class the same draft "B". Try to create a good article [lowercase], but please don't worry about these classes. (You might be interested in the comments within the thread "Draft: May-Li Khoe" above. And on another issue, or non-issue: I've added a a comment on "style".) -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Content assessment. For this article, I changed Start to C-class. For articles I significantly improve I prefer not to upgrade the rating myself. David notMD (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hybrid Bridges

Hi, Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge has a hybrid design, so it is not just a suspension bridge or a cable-stayed bridge. However, it is on the List of longest suspension bridge spans, but not on the List of longest cable-stayed bridge spans. Would it be a better idea to create a new list for hybrid bridges? I know there are not many hybrid bridges, and unfortunately I haven't come across many resources on the subject. I kindly ask for your feedback. Ail Subway (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ail Subway If you don't get any good ideas here, I suggest posting at WT:BRIDGE, which has over 100 page watchers. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Ail Subway (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Template skill needed

Hello Teahouse people,

At Template talk:Infobox train#Request for an extra parameter, I proposed the addition of a new, straightforward parameter to the Train infobox template. I don't have the skills needed to implement the change, so I asked for help (on 24 October). However, nobody has responded. Is it possible to establish contact through the Teahouse with someone who has the skills? Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 10:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@SCHolar44 why not try it for yourself in {{infobox train/sandbox}}, check it works and doesn't break anything against some testcases, and establish how the template documentation would need updating. Then if it's all working properly ask for someone to copy the code over to the live template. If you're prepared to do the legwork, then I'll do the last part for you. Nthep (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

View deleted article records

Would like to ask for help, if I want to see a record of an article being retained that was previously deleted, where can I see it? This article was previously recommended for deletion but was retained and I'm interested in the reason it was recommended for deletion so I'd like to view it. Thanks! Lsimplehappy (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lsimplehappy Welcome to the Teahouse. If you go to the main Articles for Deletion page (shortcut: WP:AFD) you'll see a navigation menu, allowing you to look through past deletion discussions, or search for a keyword in an article title.

Maybe this page will give you what you seek: Wikipedia:Archived articles for deletion discussions.

I remember an article I created when I first started here about a botanist called William Hunt Painter being put up for a deletion discussion, but which was quickly retained. Just by typing 'Painter' into the search box I found the article immediately and the discussion that took place about it's retention or deletion.

Looking back through past deletion discussions - whether successful or otherwise, is an extremely good way of learning how the process does (or doesn't work), and how editors work together to decide on an article's fate. Hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! It's very helpful ~ I'd also like to ask where the records Wiki：Proposed deletion located if I want to see them?Is this visible?Extremely grateful Lsimplehappy (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Lsimplehappy. I don't believe there is any such place to view proposed deletion discussions, because there is no such discussion! A proposed deletion is added to an article, and (nearly) anybody may contest it by removing the proposal. ColinFine (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

ok！thank you for your answer～ Lsimplehappy (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

"Deprecated" vs "last updated"

I'm updating the RubyCocoa article, and I've come across a terminology problem. The language was last updated in 2015, and modern macOS no longer supports the bridge, replacing it with RubyMotion. However, there are no official sources declaring it deprecated. Should I add "deprecated" in the beginning and change the article to past tense, or should I keep the tense the same and add "last updated in 2015"? Would calling it deprecated be original research? JarJarInks (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if it is technically deprecated, Wikipedia follows the premise of "verifiability, not truth". If it hasn't been published by a reliable source yet, we can't put it as deprecated or it would be original research. So, you should likely keep the tense as the same and add "last updated in 2015" unless you're able to find another source confirming it's deprecated. Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 14:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@JarJarInks Whoops, forgot to ping. Apologies. Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 14:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! JarJarInks (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Creating a Deleted Page

I want to create a Page named Khaie but when i goto the WP:Article for Creation Process the Page was deleted previously. I want to ask that can i create this Page because i like this television series and i want to create the article on Wikipedia. Please Guide me. Bye To Hichki (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bye To Hichki: Hi there! If you were involved in the previous version and are trying to violate a block or ban, then please stop. If not, then I suggest you first gather your multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the television series. If you can find such sources, then follow the instructions at Help:Your first article to create a draft based on those sources and submit it for the AfC process. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

How do I mark a page for speedy deletion, please?

The page "https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manorial_Title_Register_Limited" is an advert pure and simple. They are selling bogus titles. The Director claims to be the "Earl of Dunbar" (which has been extinct for 100s of years). The only reference is to their own advertising page. The other reference link is broken. Thank You Kiltpin (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The Simple English Wikipedia is a separate project; I'm not entirely sure that they have the same processes we do. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You can use a tool such as twinkle but please make sure you read the guidelines of the deletion on the simple english wikipedia. I have placed the speedy deletion for you on the article Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Kiltpin (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Page now deleted! Nick Moyes (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Am I trying too hard on something?

I'm currently working on making a chronological list of every notable tornado/tornado outbreak to hit the state of Oklahoma, and I plan to make a section about every storm and outbreak seen in Category:Tornadoes in Oklahoma. There are like 100 entries in the category and it's taking forever, so I am wondering if I should just choose two or three of the biggest/deadliest events from each decade, submit it to AfC, then come back and add the smaller ones later to make the list comprehensive. Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 15:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@ApteryxRainWing Welcome to the Teahouse. As your own draft states, there have been 4,200 tornadoes in that state since 1950. So, yes, I think you could be trying to hard. It would be impracticable to cover so many events in one list. Making it clear by expanding the lead to say that the page lists only the most significant of these events would make a lot of sense. Set out the criteria for inclusion and stick to it. Are there similar articles for other states? If so, how have they approached this matter? If you know how many tornadoes impacted within each decade, that might be a worthwhile fact to highlight, too. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

there is a few lists for states such as Ohio, but that one misses so many major storms and is obviously a WIP. I want my article to be good from the start, so I am adding 3 of the most important events from each decade and I'll let other people fill in the smaller outbreaks after the article goes through AfC Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 20:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

When is it appropriate to add (no relation)?

I was thinking of changing, in the article Web of the City, the line "In 1954, Harlan Ellison – inspired by the juvenile delinquency-themed novels of Hal Ellson" to "In 1954, Harlan Ellison – inspired by the juvenile delinquency-themed novels of Hal Ellson(no relation) – "

I had a moment of confusion/curiosity upon reading that Harlan Ellison's first novel was inspired by someone with the same surname as him, as many readers might. Is there a policy or a manual of style that explains when this (no relation) parenthetical might be used? Buddy Gripple (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

edit: I now see that their surnames aren't exactly the same, but I suppose the question still stands Buddy Gripple (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Buddy Gripple I don't think there's a specific guide anywhere, but I can see the confusion that'd give. For people with the same surname then it'd probably be better to add an explanatory footnote to point out that there's no relation. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 17:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly, Hal Ellson discusses the fact that the two authors were often confused. Cullen328 (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I've done so, and got to practice making a footnote, thank you. Buddy Gripple (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the clarification is particularly appropriate in this instance. Firstly, writers often use partial variations of their usual name as pseudonyms; and secondly, Harlan Ellison also wrote works about juvenile delinquency. The question of their possible identity is bound to arise in many readers' minds (I know it once did in mine). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

SIXFOOT 5 Page Deletion Question

Hi there - I'm wondering if you could give me more information about why 'SIXFOOT 5' Wikipedia page was deleted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CarsonRammelt/sandbox

I'm SIXFOOT 5, I'm a notable figure in the music industry and have worked with a number of artists who have their own Wikipedia pages. My sources included People Magazine and ABC News. CarsonRammelt (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. It says it was deleted as a user request. You can recover it by going to WP:REFUND.

People do not "have Wikipedia pages" here, that they wrote, own, and control. Wikipedia has articles about musicians that meet our criteria. Autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, see the autobiography policy. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources say about the topic, not what it says about itself. Articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

There is also a draft article located at Draft:SIXFOOT 5 (Record Producer). -- D'n'B-t -- 20:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Userboxes and adding images to profile

Hi y’all! I’d like to know how to add userboxes and images? I’m very new but I’d like to learn and understand the editing process better so I can make my profile and edits better! Thank you! :D Razzlematazzle (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Razzlematazzle Welcome! this page might be helpful. Knitsey (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

thank you so much!!! i promise to do my best!! Razzlematazzle (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Userboxes

How do userboxes work? I'm relatively new to wikipedia and i'd like someone the explain how to do it in simple terms or just help me learn at least.

Thanks if you help (Yes i'm talking to you), Tatsnorad (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

the page WP:UBX goes over their usage aquarium substrate^talk 20:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

SANDBOX. As a rookie, I started editing the suggested article and was blocked from publishing it. I have since been directed to create my sand box. Now I need instructions on getting this article into my sandbox. I have reread all the tutorials and have yet to find those instructions. How do I get the article I started editing into my sand box?

SANDBOX. As a rookie, I started editing the suggested article and was blocked from publishing it. I have since been directed to create my sand box. Now I need instructions on getting this article into my sandbox. I have reread all the tutorials and have yet to find those instructions. How do I get the article I started editing into my sand box? UDCIDE (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @UDCIDE, your question seems to be connected to your edit to David H. Huntoon. That edit made no sense, that's why it was reverted. I suggest that you learn more about editing, such as by completing Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure, and practice small edits and corrections before attempting to rewrite an article. Schazjmd (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This link will take you to the sandbox page you created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UDCIDE/sandbox

Article content is text. Click 'Edit' near the top of an article's page. Copy a chunk of the article that you want to experiment with from the left column. This includes all of the special characters that handle formatting and links.

Go to your sandbox page. Click 'Edit'. Paste the text you copied into the left column. The right column should show the results of the new text/edits. Alegh (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You should not copy an article into your Sandbox to work on it. It is appropriate to copy a portion of an article into your Sandbox, edit there, provide references if you are adding new information, and then paste the revised content into the article. David notMD (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I reread all the tutorials and never found your instructions. Thanks, again. UDCIDE (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

Linking to countries wikipedia pages

I am new to Wikipedia editing and trying the easy edits it is suggesting, I am unsure and confused of what needs to be linked and what dosent. I am not sure if the countries of the reciepients needs to be linked.

Any help would be great--thanks.International Dennis Gabor Award HoopymrGreen (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi and welcome, @HoopymrGreen! Take a look at WP:LINK, particularly the sections What generally should be linked and What generally should not be linked. Those should help you. Schazjmd (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Schazjmd, as the countries don't really relate to the topic, I think I will leave them out. HoopymrGreen (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @HoopymrGreen, and welcome to the Teahouse. Well done for starting with some learning opportunities.

The answer (as so often) will depend on the case. But MOS:Linking gives a useful guide. ColinFine (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you,@ColinFine I have looked at the Linking guide. HoopymrGreen (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

SS War Criminal

Hello , My husband Paul Fulde and I are trying to do research into the activities of his Paternal Grandfather , Dr. Paul Fulde . We recently discovered in a book , "Himmlers Kinder" , written by Dr. Thomas Bryant that Dr. Paul Fulde of Schwerin-Lubeck was a favoured consultant to Heinrich Himmler . Furthermore that Dr. Paul Fulde was an Obersturmbahnfuhrer in the SS and was personally appointed by Himmler to head the Nazi breeding program of "Lebensborn" for all of North East Germany. Dr. Paul Fulde's high SS rank gave him jurisdiction over the Concentration Camps, Euthanization hospitals, Death Factories , Polish Slave Labour etc etc. His son , Dr. Heinz-Jurgen Fulde assisted him in some projects though he was a medical student at the time but still had to do his duty in the Wehrmacht. I know that he adored his father Paul and would go to the camps with him to choose laborers for their estates. The older Fulde daughters had married SS Officers who owned estates in the Schwerin-Lubeck region. Dr. Paul Fulde went into hiding immediately after Germany's capitulation and it was alleged that he committed suicide. His son Dr. HJ Fulde was a POW in Britain and was exonerated after 1945 when so many SS were set free and never brought to justice. Dr. Heinz-Jurgen Fulde practised medicine in Doncaster UK and after the Labour Party won the elections , Dr. HJ Fulde went to Nova Scotia Canada in 1967. He established his medical practice and practiced until his death in 1999. It took many years for my husband and I to do serious research. As the Patriarch , Dr. Paul Fulde was such an important adviser on Eugenics and "Racial Hygeine" to Heinrich Himmler we are surprised that so little is written about him and that he isn't featured in any documentaries about that era. We have contacted two prominent Jewish organizations and other researchers and yet there is hardly anything about Dr. Paul Fulde , Dermatologist , SS Obersturmbahnfuhrer , Schwerin Germany. We would greatly appreciated any assistance whatsoever. Sincerely , Christine and Paul Fulde 2001:1970:51A1:A900:352A:9469:F41D:949C (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC) redactions by asilvering (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. All that intricate detail that you deposited above is not what the Teahouse is for. The purpose of the Teahouse is to ask and answer questions about editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not base content on family anecdotes, no matter how dark. Acceptable Wikipedia articles summarize the significant coverage that reliable, independent published sources say about the topic. Wikipededia editors are forbidden by policy from engaging in the type of original research you describe above. Please read Your first article for a more detailed explanation. Cullen328 (talk) 07:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia; and more specifically this particular page is one in which people may ask questions about their use of Wikipedia. Your task is very different, and I don't know where you might ask. -- Hoary (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no desire to look into these claims. I feel like they shouldn't be left here to be archived. We don't know if this is Christine and/or Paul Fulde making these statements...and even if it was, this isn't the place for them. --Onorem (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Christine and Paul, you may want to ask a (much abbreviated) version of this at WP:RD/H, where there are research wizards who may be able to help you, if there's anything about him in published sources. Please avoid describing so much of the family story when you do so. -- asilvering (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Changing my page name

I made my first page but it says USER : BLANK BLANK SANDBOX....HELP Blackmoonheart (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Blackmoonheart, your page is located at User:Blackmoonheart/sandbox. It is improperly referenced, promotional and not suitable as an encyclopedia article at this time. Please read Your first article to learn what is required. Cullen328 (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Do not submit for review until content is properly referenced. Delete all content for which references cannot verify. David notMD (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Blackmoonheart, the writing of this draft is pretty good, but there are a couple things that need to be addressed before it can be moved out of the sandbox into an actual article. First, make sure there are good sources about this person that can verify what you wrote about him. The links WP:GOLDENRULE and WP:BACKWARD help explain this process. Also make sure there's nothing promotional or celebratory about the writing. The article should be a neutral description of his career that doesn't "talk him up" in any way. Thanks for helping add new information to Wikipedia! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Help to get my wikipedia page approved

Hi, I'm doing a project here on wikipedia with my group, on an Italian Hiking trail and via ferrata, the draft page is called Bove Path. I need help to have this page accepted before 31 of December and if there is something to modify ill do it. LIUCChia.05 (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have any deadlines, and is frankly not concerned with deadlines imposed on editors by others/outside forces. The draft is at Draft:Bove Path. You have submitted it for review and it is pending. We cannot guarantee a timeframe for review or a speedy review. Please be patient.

If this is a school project, your instructors have given you a poor assignment and put you in a difficult position. Instructors should not be requiring the creation/approval of a Wikipedia article for a grade. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@LIUCChia.05 The article has now been accepted at Bove Path. My suggestion would be to expand the lead to include a summary of some of the other main topics of the article. A couple more paragraphs could easily be justified. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

LIUCChia.05, it's clear that a lot of work has gone into this page; and my first impression is that it's good of its kind. But I note: "Before starting the trail, it is essential to consult the relevant authorities for updates on closed shelters or dried-up water sources"; and "This section has limited water sources, so hikers should bring sufficient supplies." It seems that here you're having Wikipedia give advice. Now, it seems to be very important advice, perhaps even life-saving advice; but Wikipedia doesn't give advice. (By contrast, if you were to say for example "In 2021 a group of six walkers had to be evacuated by helicopter; a hospital spokesperson said that dehydration was a danger and advised walkers to carry at least two litres when temperatures are forecast to exceed 27°C", of course with a reliable source, this would be OK, as you wouldn't be implying that the advice came from Wikipedia.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

While it is now an accepted article, many paragraphs do not have references. References can be used more than once. David notMD (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

From the quality of the writing, I have a suspicion that some has been copied verbatim from references. (I hope this is not true.) David notMD (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I did check it with earwig before accepting. Theroadislong (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Lead is too short. It could use a paragraph on the history and another for a lightly detailed description of the trail (length, elevation gained/lost, difficulty, options for hiking just sections rather than all of it, etc. Existing refs can be used in Lead but not required. No content or refs in Lead that are not used elsewhere in article in more detail. David notMD (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

How do I request a move on Wikipedia?

WP:RM gives you a guide on requesting a move, but it isn’t clear enough for me to request. How do I request it? 143.179.74.165 (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Which page do you want moved to which title? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Weird message on my talk page from IP user

an IP (2003:DE:E714:EA46:83D:9568:35AD:7CE8) left a weird string of gibberish on my Talk page. what should I do about it? I'm going to delete it, of course, but should this go to ANI or something? Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 14:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@ApteryxRainWing Seasons Greetings from the Teahouse! I see you've already removed it, but, no, ANI would not be appropriate. This user made just two random edits - for what reason, we've no idea. Test edit? Error? Vandalism? You've reverted it. Great. That's all you need to do. I always check a user's contributions to see if they're doing it to others. tThis one isnt'. Nor is their IPv6 address doing it on the /64 range, which is always worth checking. So, just walk away and ignore it, unless it happens again. It's never worth feeding the trolls.

But, even then, this would be a case of disruption or vandalism, were the pattern to be repeated elsewhere. So, then you warn the user (Twinkle is a very easy tool for automating that process). Having warned them, check if they continue their behaviour. If they do so, warn them again, but with a higher level template and, if they still continue, report them at WP:AIV, not ANI, as that's the place for vandals to be assessed and blocked if they're continuing to be disruptive. I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

thank you Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 14:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Need help in improving page "REPowerEU"

Hi everyone, I am a student in Catholic University of Louvain recently trying to write article on "REPowerEU" need your guidance to improve it, if you could guide me that would be great. Regards Nadeem Afzal989 (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I will make some formatting changes, but I don't know enough about the subject to evaluate what text and sources you've added to REPowerEU in revision 1264112274.

For that matter, none of the Teahouse regulars know how your assignments are graded; in that respect, perhaps your instructor or any teaching assistants are the better people to ask? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Why does Sivapithecini redirect to Ponginae?

As far as i know, Sivapithecini and Ponginae are two completely different tribes. Why is it a redirect??? PersonOnAPlatform (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

PersonOnAPlatform: according to Ponginae, Ponginae is a subfamily, containing the tribes Sivapithecini and Pongini. Maproom (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I feel like we should give Sivapithecini its own article though, because it contains species like Sivapithecus. Maybe i could do that. PersonOnAPlatform (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback on Draft?

Hoping this might be a place where someone might offer a bit of feedback on a draft to see if there are any issues, formatting or content related - or anything else that seems problematic.

If not please advise any alternative. Thanks in advance!

KoKo91361 (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

To get feedback you need to submit Draft:KarynO for review but I can tell you now that IMDb and Discogs are NOT reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this quick note. Will have to eliminate/replace IMDb and Discogs links and citations then. A bit challenging since about 1/2 of our references come from them. Good to know this would be a problem though (in advance!) KoKo91361 (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @KoKo91361, I am not seeing evidence from the sources you've provided that Karyn meets our criteria for inclusion for musicians, unfortunately. If these are the best sources you have, then it doesn't look like Karyn merits an article on Wikipedia at this time. qcne (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

A LOT of unreferenced name-dropping that all has to be deleted. For example: "She became a technical consultant and friend to many - including Christopher Cross, Stewart Copeland, Timothy B. Schmidt, Elton John (band), Jon Anderson, Ray Charles, Billy Corgan, Eric Carmen, Butch Vig, Al Schmitt. Bruce Swedien, Oscar Peterson, Stevie Wonder, and countless others." David notMD (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Copy-Editing

Hi Teahouse, Quick question. Should an aircraft's name be in Italics? I wasn't able to find anything in the Manual of Style, In the article I am working on History of aviation it is inconsistent. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

MOS:ITALIC says to italicize the proper names of aircraft. Schazjmd (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd, Thank you so much! Have a good day. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

DRAFT PAGE UNIVERSITY PROJECT

Hello, i'm actually working on the draft page "Villa Fraccaroli" for a university project, i need the page to be accepted before the 31 of december, i was wondering if you could look at it, and if there's something to improve, i can work on it. Thank you in advance! Micol Liucmicol01 (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Liucmicol01 We cannot guarantee acceptance before a certain date- we have no deadlines on this volunteer project. and your professor has put you in a difficult position by making you do this. Your professor should review the Wikipedia Education Program materials to design lessons that don't depend on review by volunteers. Please show your professor this message. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This has been reported on the Education Noticeboard: Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Teahouse query from Italian university class as a few other class members have posted queries.

@Liucmicol01 please tell your instructor they have set you an unfair task: new drafts are reviewed by volunteers in their own time, and the current wait time is eight weeks or longer. qcne (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Qcue's answer is not true. The system is not a queue. Any draft can be reviewed in days, weeks, or (sadly) months. Each reviewer decides what they want to review next. David notMD (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

For the curious, it has been accepted and is now at Villa Fraccaroli. David notMD (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Obviously good submissions can be accepted fast, and problem ones can be declined fast. But those in between that are difficult to evaluate may be left for someone else to check. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

How do I change the title on a existing wiki-article

Here is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_Protection_Military_Academy

Someone translated this article from Russian, using "protection" as the translation for "защита ". The correct term in English is "defense" not "protection". Condom is a protection, Airforce is a defense. I was able to replace "protection" for "defense" in the body of the article, but I cannot make the change in the Title. Any ideas how to change the title of an existing article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs) 17:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If you want, you can request a move using WP:Twinkle. Any autoconfirmed user can rename a page. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I moved the article to NBC Defense Military Academy as a WP:BOLDMOVE. That said, when you replace[d] "protection" for "defense" in the body of the article, you broke at least one image and one wikilink.

Please double-check your work and fix the errors. Thank you! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories

The article about Robert P.Black who died recently still has the category "Living person" at the bottom of his Wikipedia page. He died recently and that category should be removed from his page. How does one accomplish that? MadamArtz (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @MadamArtz. Looking at the article, it doesn't look like it has been updated yet to account for his death, if he did die. Can you provide a reliable source (per WP:VERIFY) about his death so that we can add this information? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The article has already been updated to indicate his death. My question relates to removing the category "living person". MadamArtz (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

While it does say that Robert P. Black died (my bad), it still isn't sourced and a quick Google search didn't find anything. Can you find a reliable source? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

There is an obituary for this economist here. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@MadamArtz The category has been removed and Black's death is added with a source. To remove categories in the future, you can click "Edit" at the top right of a page (assuming you're using a computer), click on the box of categories at the bottom of the page, and remove the respective category. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

What do I do with this article

I found this article called Kitakagaya Station and it doesn’t provide any citations and the only references are two Japanese websites that I can’t read. I really need help on whether I should draftify it or leave it be. I know absolutely nothing about Osaka or the train station, so for me I have no idea how to expand it. Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hm...marked as unrefrenced since 2011. @Yuanmongolempiredynasty, any chance you'd be willing to do a google search to see if there are references? If there are, you can add them. If there aren't, or if you just don't feel like doing that work, you could redirect to Osaka Metro. An attempt to fix is always best, but a unsourced article that's been tagged for that long, a redirect is a reasonable choice. Valereee (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, @Yuanmongolempiredynasty, be sure to study WP:DRAFTIFY thoroughly before moving any articles to draftspace. An article that is older than 90 days should not be moved to draftspace. Schazjmd (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Preference on editing style

I was wondering if it is prefered if, for consecutive edits/contributions for an article all written in the same edit period, that the edits be merged into a single large edit when publishing or if smaller but multiple edits are prefered. Thought 1915 (talk) on 22:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Thought 1915 It very much depends e.g. whether the topic is controversial and whether there are lots of other editors watching the article. We work according to a standard bold, revert, discuss process and if you add one large edit, another editor may dislike just one part (e.g. because it is not sourced) and decide to revert the whole edit. If, instead, you add short sections then another editor will be unlikely to revert all your work and can focus on just the edit(s) they object to. If you are making a new article as a draft or in your sandbox, then large edits would be fine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Thought 1915 Welcome to the Teahouse. I would suggest making relatively small edits and saving each one with a short, helpful EDIT SUMMARY. At the largest, I would write one paragraph based upon one citation, though usually much smaller. Should you lose power or forget to save your edits, you could lose them. If an article is likely to be edited by other people at the same time, then saving in shorter packets helps you avoid WP:EDIT CONFLICTS. If you describe each 'save' clearly, it also lets you go back through the 'View History' tab to find a particular edit that you had previously made - possibly to revert or review it easily. That also applies when working in your sandbox, where nobody else is going to be editing. Hope this helps and Welcome to Wikipedia! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

There's a bit of variation available. As Mike Turnbull says, ff you're writing an article from scratch, large bulk edits are probably fine, while for controversial topics smaller edits are preferred. However, I'd advise not to go too far in either direction. Many small edits clog the edit history and might obscure significant changes you make in with minor copyediting or the like, which makes it harder for other editors to review and process the changes. For article-writing, I find trying to cram everything into one big edit clogs up my thinking; I prefer to start with a stub and build it up over a few days. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to correct a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_John_Swainson

This name is incorrect it should be William Swainson. He did not have a middle name of John. I have a copy of his death certificate which clearly has his full name as William Swainson, as does his grave stone and the memorial plaque of his first wife Mary Parkes. I have not sighted any books that he illustrated or wrote that had John as a middle name I have sighted newspaper articles and letters as well as places were he is referenced in the committees, Societies, and groups he was in. I have never seen any of his sketches signed William John Swainson or WJ Swainson or William J Swainson. Remember that there are also sketches done by his sons, including William John Swainson (Willie), and his daughters. Even the sources have him as WIlliam Swainson. Can anyone help me as this is the first time I have tried to do this. Thanks SwainsonTimbo (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)