Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 08:41, 13 January 2025

Shortcuts

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, 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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246

Why are the icons so weird

I was looking through Wikipedia and special articles and noticed the icons are in frutiger aero style, why so? I mean, you could just ask wikipedians to volunter to redesign the icons or hire a graphic designer ❦⌬ IsaqueCar ⌬❦ (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why, IsaqueCar. I for one only ask fellow volunteers for help when I'm stuck, or when I'm acutely aware of my ignorance. (Thus I've recently asked for help with numismatics, of which I'm ignorant, and, indirectly, with the Czech language, which I can't read.) Hiring professionals of course costs money. Is the alleged weirdness likely to impair understanding of encyclopedic content? -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @IsaqueCar. Until I searched and found Frutiger (typeface) I hadn't the slightest idea what you were talking about. I still have no idea which icons you mean.

If you are talking about part of the user interface, then be aware that most Wikipedia editors (who are generally the people that hang out at this page) don't have any involvement in this, and it's better to bring this up at WP:VPT. If you're talking about something within an article or series of articles, then the talk page of those articles, or of a relevant WP:WikiProject, is the best place to bring the matter up. ColinFine (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: I looked for Frutiger Aero, which was more enlightening.

@IsaqueCar: Why not so? Design is a subjective thing: as long as the icons are visible and clear in meaning, then there's not really a problem, is there? Bazza 7 (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it just feels weird to have such old looking icons on a modern website ❦⌬ IsaqueCar ⌬❦ (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it is very subjective. I exclusively use Monobook because I like the older look of it. Every design can have wildly differing opinions depending on who you ask. Thx56 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Icons like in those info boxes "this article contains information..."

Some icons of wikiprojects will show you what i mean ❦⌬ IsaqueCar ⌬❦ (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also special articles normaly have lots of notices so it's also a good example ❦⌬ IsaqueCar ⌬❦ (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article points out that Wikipedia, even with its new look, is trying to make subtle interface changes at most. I personally agree with this approach. Additionally, I feel that older-looking websites have more of an air of reliability. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 05:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IsaqueCar I think this should be alerted to wp:gl. They may help redesign. And because of the design, I prefer to use the mobile web even on a desktop. Xiphoid Vigour

¤Duel¤

05:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Translation and references issue

Draft:Christine Meyer

This artist was marked as missing in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Women in rock music and so I decided to translate the Norwegian article. I was, however, not allowed to do so, so I've saved my suggestion at the link mentioned first in this post.

Secondly: The references I've added are not recognised as such. I'd be grateful for any pointers as to why. Thank you! :) Birdesigns (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For References, if using double curly brackets, use "reflist", not "references". I fixed it David notMD (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Birdesigns (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Birdesigns, and welcome to the Teahouse.

When you say you're "not allowed to do so", I'm guessing that you tried to use the content translation tool? This is only available for editors who have at least 500 edits (which you have not, even though your account is nearly ten years old). This is because so many newer editors do not understand English Wikipedia's requirements on sourcing and notability, and that many other Wikipedia's have less stringent requirements.

In the case of your draft, you have three references for one single claim in the article, and no references for anything else. This is not adequate sourcing for an article in English Wikipedia, which should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable places. (As far as I can make out, few if any of the sources in the original no:Christine Meyer meet the criteria of WP:42).

Unless the original is well-sourced to approaching the standard required of new articles in English Wikipedia, I believe that the best approach to translating is to treat it like a new article with perhaps some input from the original, rather than relying on translating the content . ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Colin. The sources I include are mainstream (albeit local/regional) newspapers, and the offical website (management) for the artist. There is not much else to reference than the explanation of who she is and her most known performance. Birdesigns (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Birdesigns. Regional newspapers are often reliable, but the source needs to be independent and have significant coverage of her too. The sources I looked at only had a line or two about her (generally in that one role). And anything from her official website is not independent, and cannot contribute towards establishing notability.

If you cannot find sources to establish that she meets either WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG, then she does not meet English Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm fine with that, but admittedly a bit annoyed since she was on the "red list" and all I did was trying to make her blue. Should there not be a curation of that list before we are encouraged to red-to-blue fix it? Or is deciding that someone isn't notable a part of the fixing process? If so, how does one go about to let others know that the best is to not publish the article? Simply edit the source of the list and delete from there? Birdesigns (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Birdesigns: I can understand you frustraton, but please remember that the top of that page has a panel including the words:

Please note ... that the red links on this list may well not be suitable as the basis for an article. All new articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria with reliable independent sources.

(emphasis in original). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Andy – appreciate the pointer. :) So, do I simply ignore those on the list which I reckon aren't meeting the requirements, and let others decide whether or not to delete them? Is there somewhere I can write a small note on my thoughts on the person's notability? Birdesigns (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A number of other shows are mentioned, but without citations/sources/proofs. Adding sources to them might make the article satisfy notability and hence inclusion. Riteze (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

R-Salt

This was mentioned in connection to the recent New Orleans attack, but there does not seem to be Wikipedia article for it. If someone in the chemistry world wants to write an article about it, please do. Keith Henson (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1,3,5-trinitroso-1,3,5-triazine (R-Salt) is an insensitive energetic that has previously been used as an improvised explosive. Keith Henson (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Hkhenson, and welcome to the Teahouse. While you're certainly allowed to post such a request, I want to tell you that the chances of anybody acting on that request are very low. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and prople work on what they choose. While it's possible that somebody will see your request and act on it, it's not very likely.

There is a recognised place for requesting articles, WP:RA; but in all honesty, the take-up there is very low as well. Something that might work better is to ask at a relevant WikiProject - perhaps WT:WikiProject Chemistry: that will at least be seen by people who have an interest in Wikipedia's coverage of chemistry.

Generally, if you want to see an article created, the most effective way is to do the research (find the sources to establish Notability) and do it yourself. Doing that will have the side benefit that if you can't find suitable sources, you'll know that the article cannot be written. ColinFine (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The intersection of WT:CHEM and WP:TH is non-null:) Feel free to add cited info to R-salt, which I just turned blue. DMacks (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Keith Henson (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! It's sometimes said around here that Teahouse-people don't start articles on request, but that isn't always true. Sometimes we feel like doing it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång will remember this question leading me creating this one about Armored mud balls a couple of years ago. It's far less likely that anyone would ever want to create one about a businessman, cryptocurrency fad or 'some here-today-gone-tomorrow' minor celebrity. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes we really want WP to have that article. Earl Bailly was inspired by a question at Commons, but still. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s incredible! I love the name Delectopierre (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm often on the fence for these...promoting involvement by newer editors to create articles on topics of their interest (increased involvement is good, and demonstrated willingness to engage in collaboration) vs doing it myself (especially if it could benefit from specialized literature resources or where some people might not feel comfortable writing publicly about certain topics even if "anonymous"). DMacks (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

promotional template

can white44tree please add promotional template to Deko article on wikipedia? White44Tree (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well i added the promotional template. Ned1a Wanna talk? 00:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does the content appear promotional? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 00:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea... removed it sorry Ned1a Wanna talk? 00:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vacuity (see the article, and its earlier AfD) isn't the same as promotionalism. -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what about Bryce Gheisar page add promotional template? White44Tree (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does anything about the contents of that article appear promotional to you? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes and same with tp link and appvalley White44Tree (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What seems promotional about them? Is there any particularly promotional language or framing? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 02:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

well than can add stub template to deko article? White44Tree (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure go ahead. And Be Bold! But be careful while adding templates. Ned1a Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 02:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These templates generally indicate that something needs to be done with the article that they were placed on. The {{promotional}} template for instance will add the article to the Category:Articles with a promotional tone, a category with over 20,000 articles in it for the benefit of a volunteer who may through trying to remove promotional content. Like a big in-tray that's never going to get completely emptied. Adding to that in-tray willy nilly without being able to justify why you're doing so, seems inconsiderate of that volunteers time. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 09:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the WikiCup

What is the WikiCup, that’s my only question. Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiCup Lectonar (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Yuanmongolempiredynasty, The WikiCup is an annual writing competition on Wikipedia, where participants earn points by contributing to articles across various categories. The goal is to encourage high-quality contributions and promote engagement. Ayohama (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you just edit to get points? Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yuanmongolempiredynasty it's friendly competition, and for some people a fun way to motivate themselves. We're both WP:SERIOUS and WP:FUN. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, then what are the judges for? Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DOB

Just recently I entered into a discussion with another editor regarding a DOB edit for a BLP: Talk:Roisin Conaty. It raised several questions regarding contentious content and RS when it comes to DOB and BLPs. Since leaving my last reply, I have been perusing similar BLP pages on WP and having stopped at 50 found that 48 did not have any cited sources; let alone ones that were backed by RS which would satisfy the editor in question's reasoning. I could list them all here, but toward what end? It is extremely rare to find multiple "widely published" RS that state DMY for BLPs. It has already been backed by RS that this BLP was born in 1979; how "contentious" could it be to include "March 26"? I am at a loss here, considering there are countless articles at WP that allow DOB without "widely published" RS. Maineartists (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Allow" is an interesting word. If you see a detail in an article that doesn't have a proper source, feel free to remove it. DS (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"If you see a detail in an article that doesn't have a proper source, feel free to remove it." That is rather a unrestrained invitation to an open season for removal of practically any sentence found at WP lacking a "proper source" at the end of it. Not only is that incredibly unproductive, but highly nonsensical. I am specifically referring to DOB of a BLP and it being labeled "contentious content" when search engines render the same DOB (MDY) innumerable times over, and certain WP policy apply: "the subject does not object to the details being made public." It's one thing to argue WP policy, but quite another to defend WP:COMMONSENSE. Maineartists (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the discussion you mention but I think that you should be weighing WP:BLPPRIVACY against WP:ABOUTSELF. If, for example, someone says on their own verified social media "It's my birthday today", or their website includes their DOB, I would be happy to use that, despite such media in general being primary and unreliable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Turnbull The BLP herself has confirmed she was born in 1979: [1] "I'm 41" (2020 Interview) and [2] "Conaty was born in Camden 40 years ago" (2019 Interview). How much more of a public statement directly from the BLP can one get? Maineartists (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are perfectly fine sources. I thought that your issue was the exact date, not just the year. Note that there is a template {{Birth based on age as of date}} that can be used to cover a level of uncertainty. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was - in a way. I was arguing the policy: "the subject does not object to the details being made public." One would think if the BLP in question saw the innumerable search engine hits that state MDY that at some point - it would stand to reason - they would make a statement of correction: "This is not my birth date." In keeping with Martha Stewart who pointed out on television certain details on WP that were incorrect; or BLPs who have taken to the Talk Page to correct errors at their articles. If the BLP is open to disclosing being born in 1979, why one earth would they object to March 26? considering it is widely stated over the internet and associated with 1979? It makes absolutely no sense. I understand WP requires RS; but this one is a little over the top. Why would March 26 be contentious but 1979 not? Simply because the BLP didn't add the MD in an interview? As I wrote, there are very little RS articles that state: "Such-and-such was born on DMY" in an interview / profile piece. Copy editors find this to be trivial filler / fluff. Exactly how many celebrity websites (as the original editor suggested as a RS) state: "I was born on DMY"? Just thinking out loud here. Regardless, thanks for the template {{Birth based on age as of date}}. Maineartists (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May not be relevant in this case but DMY dates are more of a privacy issue than just the year as many bank accounts etc. use that as part of their security checks, as do many website logons. Also, don't forget that search engines often take WP, especially Wikidata as gospel, so our figure can get copied all over the place. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now you've just created a "chicken and the egg" scenario when it comes to search engines taking from WP. Considering more people today believe sources that WP have deemed "deprecated" than WP itself. I simply do not buy into the concept that WP manufactured March 26 from which all other search engine hits have copied from across the WWW; since there were sources that claimed the DOB long before the 2011 WP article creation. I understand The Sun is considered a deprecated source, but this article interview: [3] with the BLP which links to this article [4] states March 26, 1979. If someone wants to "steal bank accounts etc", I'm quite sure "The Sun" (1.2 million subscribers) would be a great place to start; not WP. Maineartists (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I said May not be relevant in this case and was tying to make a wider point about why the precise DMY as DOB is something we need to be careful of when contributing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But I'd rather discuss the actual individual case at hand rather than umbrella WP policy. Like the original editor, it is sometimes the case that umbrella WP policies (wider points) get argued more than discussion of the actual individual case at hand. That's all. Thanks again for your help. I still strongly believe this BLP is safe with MDY inclusion. Maineartists (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using LLMs for finding sources

Ok, I don't understand this, What is the problem in using chatbots for finding sources(reliable). Is there any rules regarding this? My submission got declined partly due to this.----Warriorglance (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that chatbots will never say "I don't know". If they don't have an answer, they'll make something up.

If a chatbot pointed you to a real source, and you used it, then that's not why your submission was declined. DS (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The cites in Draft:Desom, Kerala (which is what I assume we're talking about here) have the URLs appended with utm_source=chatgpt.com, which doesn't necessarily invalidate the source, but suggests that the draft may have been LLM-generated.

That string currently appears in 358 articles. Boo:( DMacks (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Warriorglance: if (?) these are genuinely bona fide sources, then do yourself the favour of at least unappending the utm source parameter from the citations. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Warriorglance DS pretty much covereged it, but, essentially, chatbots and LLMs (Such as ChatGPT) are really good at finding patterns. If you show a new one a collection of red triangles and blue circles, then ask it to guess what colours circles are, it'll tell you that "circles are green". Doesn't that sound silly to you? Circles dont have colors! Well, it's how machine learning works - they don't think, they find patterns. And they're really good at it! If I gave one a thousand scans of human brains, and asked it to look for anything that seemed weird, it could probably tell me if any of the brains had a tumour. But it doesn't know what a tumour is, or how to treat one, or why we even care about tumours in the first place! The same in true in the case you're asking. If you ask a LLM to give you a list of reliable sources, it will give you sources that superficially resemble reliable sources. For example, it might "know" that websites which talk about astronomy using long words are more likely to be reliable than websites which don't talk about astronomy using long words. So it gives you websites which talk about astronomy, regardless as to whether or not those websites are reliables sources or not. Alternatively, it may know that print sources are often very reliable. LLMs can't read print sources, however, so it makes up a fake one because that's what large language models are designed to do - talk to you. You actually probably could have an AI search sources for you, and pull out sources with the most relevant keywords. However, again, that's not what current large language models are designed to do. Could that change someday? Absolutely! But for now, you're going to get much better results by doing the research yourself, say, at a library or by using Google Scholar.

In this particular case, I see you're trying to write an article about a metereor shower. I've had a look around for you: this meteor shower is already mentioned in a mainspace article, at Ursa Major#Meteor showers. There, it is supported by one source- an article published in 2012 in Sky & Telescope. Perhaps before you try writing an article from scratch (which is one of the most difficult tasks possible - I edited Wikipedia for six years as an IP before creating this account and making an article), you expand the section there? You can always split your work into a new article at a later date, if you think it's worthy of a stand along page. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot...👍👍You certainly made editing more easier ----Warriorglance (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may certainly use a chatbot to find a source. But you should not cite that source in a Wikipedia article without checking that the source exists, and that it says what the chatbot claimed it says. Maproom (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warriorglance, at this point, chatbots and other AI/LLM tools are incapable of determining whether or not a given source is reliable for use as a Wikipedia reference. So, a request to a chatbot is just roughly equivalent to a Google search. In either case, you will get a list of possibilities, and it is up to the human editor to separate the wheat from the chaff to identify the highest quality reliable sources that convey information useful to include in an encyclopedia article. The ability to identify truly reliable sources is the most important skill of a Wikipedia editor, and expecting "artificial stupidity" to do that job is a big mistake, at least in 2025. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Warriorglance A better search engine than Google for this at the moment may be Microsoft Bing. They have incorporated the latest LLM technology into their product but avoided the pitfalls of hallucinations by still only showing, and sometimes summarising, results linked to actual web sources. There is no guarantee that these sources are reliable, of course. Note that there is a special version of Google search which has been customised to focus on Wikipedia-reliable sources. You can access it here Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warriorglance, LLMs are basically trained on an accumulation of (stolen) material which can include outdated info and they also tend to make stuff up. If you are still going to use these programs to find sources (even though Google is an option), exercise caution and verify their existence by searching them via a search engine. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 18:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting or creating a list article

I'd like to request or create the article List of animals in memes, with links to existing articles for animals that have been in memes. I'm not sure if I will have enough time and sources to create a full article on my own, and this would be my first. I considered submitting a requested article, but I'm not sure if I need to include sources or proofs of notability. Additionally, I considered submitting to requested lists specifically, but the page is inactive and I assume it's not supposed to be used.

Would it be more appropriate to request an article, or start a draft myself and ask for help reviewing or completing it? Nick McCurdy (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick McCurdy, what you would want to look at is the list notability guidelines. Has "animals in memes", as a group, been discussed substantially by reliable sources? (It's possible it has been; I really don't know.) If so, a list of them might be notable, but if not, such an article would be a nonstarter. So, as always, first thing to do is look for sourcing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick McCurdy, to clarify, a reliable source noting "this meme included a chimpanzee" and another reliable source commenting "that meme over there included an elephant" is not enough. What you would need are references to several reliable sources saying something like, "Memes frequently use animals, like this chimp meme and that elephant meme and that porpoise meme and that parrot meme and this octopus meme and that salmon spawing while being eaten by bears meme. Here's the reasons why . . . " That is the type of coverage that transforms an indiscriminate list into an encyclopedic list. It is all about the quality and depth of coverage of the reliable sources that you cite. Cullen328 (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page citations

The article for Tony Sewell has the maintenance message about needing additional citations. Some parts said "citation needed", and I added reliable sources to those parts, and now I'm wondering: should I remove the message, or are there still more citations needed in order to remove it? Thank you! Wikieditor662 (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Wikieditor662! If you think you've solved the problem that the maintenance tag was calling attention to, then please feel free to be bold and remove the tag! The worst thing that will happen is somebody adds the tag back. If you're ever unsure, however, you can always ask for the opinion of the person who placed the tag - which in this case was @Cordless Larry:. At that point, either they'll agree that the article doesn't need a tag, or they can point to other, maybe more subtle issues, that they feel need addressing. Either way, the article is improved and everybody is happy. Thank you for doing your part to add information to Wikipedia! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts, Wikieditor662. However, I feel it would be premature to remove the template because there's still material in the article that isn't supported by references, even if it's not indicated by in-text "citation needed" tags (the template at the top of the page is an alternative to those). The "Teaching" and "Educational improvement" sections are where the remaining sourcing issues appear to be. Cordless Larry (talk) Cordless Larry (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless LarryHow do I know in general then, when it should be removed?

@GreenLipstickLesbian Well if I sent a message to them I doubt they'd reply, especially if the sign was put up a while ago.

Thank you both for your help either way.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When should it be removed? When all of the material in the article is supported by reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut to indicate "Citation Needed"?

Hi all,

New to Wikipedia here. I find it useful to interrogate whether sources are cited or not, and I like visual editing more than source editing. But is there a way to indicate that a citation is needed on the visual end? I read about how to add it in source editing, but it can be a pain to go switch the type, find the same sentence in a whole different layout, then copy over the template. Any suggestions? Oraclesto (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! The visual editor lets you insert templates such as ^{[citation needed]} by clicking Insert > Template and searching for the desired template. Perception312 (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Oraclesto. I believe there should be a puzzle piece icon on the top bar. Clicking it would allow you to insert any template in the visual editor. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, @Tarlby and @Perception312! That is super helpful. I just gave it a go on the daily page, and it worked! Oraclesto (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Oraclesto. So you have to copy the citation needed template and you have to click insert > Template and remove the "{". Ned1a Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 19:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nedia020415: There is no need to remove any stray curly braces if you're inserting a template that way. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read a lot but I still don't understand how images work here?

For example, what if there's only one image of something OR if the person who made like a song cover art cannot be contacted or is unknown? CrimsonScarletBurgundyy (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. It might help us to better answer you if you describe exactly what it is you are trying to do. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically: copyright is complicated. For historic images and cover art, we use small, reduced-resolution versions, and a fair-use rationale. DS (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CrimsonScarletBurgundyy, there is no need to contact the creator of cover art when a low resolution version is being used as non-free content. It is necessary to fully comply with WP:NFCI, and cover art is covered by #1 of that policy language. Cullen328 (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @CrimsonScarletBurgundyy. You can still upload the image in Wikipedia:File upload wizard and click the button with text that says "Upload a nonfree image". You can contact the song cover art creator, or you can use the Wikipedia:File upload wizard. And, if you want to upload an image but to use it in the different wiki, And is public domain and without copyright. Please use UploadWizard Ned1a Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 03:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

x page

what happen to x page on wikipedia? White44Tree (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It redirects to Twitter, if you're wondering why it's named Twitter instead of it's current name, X, see Talk:Twitter/FAQ. Thx56 (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Formatting

I was editing the Huapalcalco page to try and fix something where the picture would "bump" the table of contents. I fixed this, but now I'm wondering, is it permissible for a picture to be above the infobox, and if not, where do I put it? User: Thx56 | Talk to me! 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that I've put it below the infobox, but that puts it into the background section User: Thx56 | Talk to me! 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I close my own RfC?

I opened a RfC at Talk: Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 in large part to divert attention from another discussion which I felt was no longer productive. Would I be considered WP:INVOLVED? I haven't given much of an opinion on my RfC, and I've added a few neutral comments. For what it's worth, if I were to close it, I'd close it as accident leading to a crash. guninvalid (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally this is a bad idea and can provoke further arguments. ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS apply. And expected standards of behaviour includes avoiding COI such as this. SO if you close it, you may be sanctioned. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the discussion needs a formal closure, it would be best to request it at the noticeboard for that purpose so that an uninvolved editor can do the close. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are we reading the same RfC? I see the majority of editors saying we should use crash. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overreliance?

So I've basically almost finished writing an article on this historical 19th-century Haitian party (User:TheBrowniess/sandbox/Liberal Party (Haiti)). Does the citation distribution seem too concentrated, or is it acceptable? It's a pretty niche topic admittedly. 🍫 TheBrowniess (talk) (contribs) 🍫 02:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @TheBrowniess. Based solely on the concentration of citations, it looks fine to me. In fact, some sentences are lacking citations. You can also remove the citations in the lead if you wish (WP:LEADCITE). Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 03:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it. (hopefully) 🍫 TheBrowniess (talk) (contribs) 🍫 06:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBrowniess Looks like a very interesting article (now in mainspace). I don't know if you usually do so for your new articles but you should think of doing a main page DYK. Maybe I'm being picky but I found it odd that the very last sentence in the article has no citation. Does the immediately previous citation cover that also? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding DYK, I’ve never nominated one of my articles because I don’t think they contain anything interesting or fun facts. However, while researching the Liberal Party article, I did recall that it, along with the National Party, were the first political parties formed in Haiti. Unfortunately, none of the major sources corroborate that, so I’m not sure where exactly I got that information from. A potential DYK hook I did come up with though is: Did you know... that Haiti’s Liberal Party was founded in 1870 by two leaders who believed the "most competent" elite should govern the nation?

Anyhow, I trimmed the article down a little and fixed the no citation issue in the process.

Note: While writing the article, I was somewhat thrown off when all the sources covered the tug of war between the Liberal Party and the National Party during the 1870s through the 1890s, yet made next to no mention of either party in the 20th century. This seemed to contradict the "List of Heads of State of Haiti" wikipedia article which suggests that the last National president was Tancrède Auguste in 1913, while the last Liberal president was Élie Lescot in 1946 - well into the 20th century. So, i'm not exactly sure where the article got their party affiliations from. 🍫 TheBrowniess (talk) (contribs) 🍫 16:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Force browser Ctrl+F

Perhaps a silly question, but while editing recently (VisEditor), I kept trying to use Firefox Ctrl+F, only for Wikipedia to force its own page search function on me; it was rather annoying. Is there any way to disable this feature or the keyboard shortcut that calls it? Thanks in advance! JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 05:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JuxtaposedJacob, just let the Mediawiki software do its own thing, without trying to force that software to imitate Firefox or anything else. It powers the #7 website in the world with tens of billions of monthly pageviews. It may seem antiquated to code monkeys who are addicted to the very newest thing, but it works just fine for what it is intended to do, and does so every day. Firefox itself is over 20 years old. Cullen328 (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JuxtaposedJacob: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you click outside of the VisualEditor editing area (such as the sidebars), you should be able to use the browser's native find feature. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are so beautiful and amazing. Thank you @Tenryuu. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 15:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft TTS.

File:Minecraft.ogg 에스파윈터 (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@에스파윈터 do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @에스파윈터. That sound file was attached to the article Minecraft in January 2012, when it was recorded, and was removed at some time later, presumably because the article had been changed so much that it no longer reflected the article. Recorded versions of articles are made by volunteeers who choose to spend their time that way - there is nothing automatic about creating, updating, or removing them. If you want to get involved in this, see WP:SPOKEN. ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,@에스파윈터. This audio file is not a editing wikipedia question, And your username is in a different language which is not meeting wikipedia's username policy Ned1a Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 02:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removing from template.

Hello! Cleopatra IV was incorrectly labelled as Pharaoh for many years, I had edited few weeks ago that she was only queen consort. However, there is this template that includes all Pharaohs and she is listed there here - I tried to remove her, but it is autogenerated and when I am trying there is too much 'mess' there to find one name. Can someone please be kind and remove her? Also, she should be removed from another autogenerated template that includes hellenistic monarchs, as she wasn't one. Sobek2000 (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sobek2000: Which template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Pharaohs" and "Hellenistic rulers". I do nor know what rose to say. I removed both from her page, but she is still listed on template. Go to any other Pharaoh's page and then on template below the page were all pharaohs are - she is still there. Sobek2000 (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what else Sobek2000 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Sobek2000. Your account appears to be autoconfirmed, so you should be able to edit Template:Pharaohs. What happens when you try? ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, when you provided link I was able to go and edit this. Thank you and sorry for your trouble. Sobek2000 (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could also have got to it from an article that uses the template (eg Ptolemy VIII Physcon). At the (top) left of the template are the letters "V·T·E". Pick the "E" to edit the template. ColinFine (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for advices for future. Sobek2000 (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whites and blues and purples

Occassionally I am looking at the blue color of a fresh link, and the purple-ish color of an already clicked link, and when they appear one on top of another in a list, it is hard to visually tell the two apart. Is there some setting on my computer or within Wikipedia that I can adjust to heighten this contrast somehow? I do not use dark mode, but maybe I could try that. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn: Welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds like you may need to tweak the CSS of whichever skin you're using for Wikipedia. There's more info at Help:Link color, especially the section Help:Link color § Styling all links just for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make the purple "Link to a Wikipedia page that exists and that you have visited" a slightly different shade of purple and that would be enough probably to make it stand apart from the blue unvisited links. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what the page I linked is for. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think making visited links orange might help too. I just entered this to see if that works if you want to check my work please. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The code looks fine to me. I can't see what it looks like on your end, but it should work. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still showing as the standard purple. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you may have to enter the actual hexadecimal code for it to work. Bypass the cache once you've done that just to be safe. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I bypass the cache again? And what is the "hexidecimal code"? Do you mean the numbers? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the instructions to bypass the cache and it is still not showing visited links as orange. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the six digits. And you're definitely using the Vector 2022 skin? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I tell? All I did was go to the link you provided and enter this markup on the skins page: .mw-body-content a:link:visited { color:#00F000; } /* visited links */ Iljhgtn (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I tried it and seem to be running into the same issue. Sorry I couldn't be of any more help, but maybe the regulars over at WP:VPT know what the issue is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying. I hope someone else can help. Let me check out wp:vpt. I am not familiar with that part of the website. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn: Try it both with and without link:

.mw-body-content a:link:visited { color: orange; } /* visited links */
.mw-body-content a:visited { color: orange; } /* visited links */

PrimeHunter (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, @PrimeHunter. Using a:visited works for me. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

is this type of edit supposed to happen

Just a couple of quick questions. I used the link button to create a link to a page, but my text was lower case so it created a link that looked like this [[Page|page]]. An editor came in and edited the text to this: [[[page]]. Here's the diff.

Is this type of "correction" supposed to happen, or is it best just to leave it alone? And should I be taking care to avoid including text like [[Page|page]]? Boynamedsue (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally avoid unnecessary piping. You can lowercase the first letter of a wikilink and it will resolve fine, so it's just cleaner to wikilink the lowercased word than to wikilink the uppercased word and then pipe the lowercase. Schazjmd (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, and if people find unnecessary piping, should they change it?Boynamedsue (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue: It is quite common practice. In this specific case, an automated tool (WPCleaner) was used, and other tools such as AWB will also do the same clean-up by default.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks. Why do people do it if it is a cosmetic change? Does creating a new edit not use more server space than leaving it alone?Boynamedsue (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that changing [[Page|page]] to [[[page]] is unnecessary because, as you point out, it's a cosmetic change, but editors do it and as far as I can tell it's generally accepted. I've probably even done it myself at times (although hopefully in conjunction with non-cosmetic edits). Schazjmd (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't see any problem if you are making an edit anyway, but it seems a strange thing to do as a standalone edit. The user that made the edit does a lot of them, like hundreds, which is why I asked.--Boynamedsue (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue: If you used a link button then I suspect you wrote the capital letter manually or clicked on a capitalized title. If the link text and target article only differ by capitalization of the first letter then you shouldn't have to do anything for the target. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was what happened, it was basically because I wasn't sure what the exact title of the relevant page I was linking to was, and I selected the main page when it appeared.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I should PROD this article or not

This article saw primary activity in 2014, and has since had very rare edits mainly by removed users. There also appears to be a primary conflict of interest with this article, as it is primarily described with a positive tone. Chettimedu HyperNover (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prod (proposed deletion) should be used for articles that fail to meet notability guidelines. An article about a populated place is presumed notable (see WP:GEOLAND). The article needs sources and rewriting, but a prod isn't appropriate. Schazjmd (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

should I add some boxes to the top of it to state this? as i myself do not know much about this topic and it is not my field, rather i found it from the "random article" wikipedia button HyperNover (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already tagged for needing sources. Schazjmd (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to add that "being written in a positive tone" is something that most likely wouldn't be considered a reason worthly of deletion per WP:BEFORE. Articles often start out OK but get skewed in a particular direction over time by people. One possiblility here could be to look at older versions of the article before the questionable editing began and restore the article back to a more sutiable version. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to add search bar summary?

How do I add the little summary that appears in the search bar under an article's title? For example, when you type the letter W into the search bar, the article for the letter W has a little summary under it that says "23rd letter of the Latin alphabet". How do I add something like this to an article? Thanks! Ptarmica (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a short description- you would want to see pages like WP:SHORTDESC and WP:SDH for tips. Sarsenet (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons attribution with multiple authors

As is a requirement for most creative commons licenses, you must attribute the author of the work. In the legal code of CC BY-SA 4.0, it says:

"If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:

retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material:
1. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated);"

Many Creative Commons works have been built on pre-existing Creative Commons works. Let us take File:War in Sudan (2023).svg as an example. This file was uploaded by ElijahPepe originally and was subsequently edited by multiple different people. The file page itself says the image itself was "Adapted from Sudanese Internal Conflict.svg" and "...digitally altered from its original version. The original can be viewed here: Sudan adm location map.svg". Both of the images that War in Sudan (2023).svg were based on also have Creative Commons licenses and require their authors to be attributed.

There is a large chain of a different authors as the work was not by one person. Who would I be attributing? I could not find any answer to this question online. The Creative Commons FAQ is not particularly clear either. It says:

"Additionally, when you are using a work that is an adaptation of one or more pre-existing works, you may need to give credit to the creator(s) of the pre-existing work(s), in addition to giving credit to the creator of the adaptation."

It just says you "may" need to give credit to creators of pre-existing work which is not helpful. It is difficult to attribute everyone in cases like this as there is a large number of different authors. This is not just a problem for images. What about using the content of an entire Wikipedia article? Br Miller (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Br Miller Your final question is answered at WP:REUSE. Basically, it is fine to acknowledge the Wikipedia article by name / URL. You don't have to acknowledge the individual authors, which would be in the article's history but, of course, would be difficult to disentangle. For images, I think that the principle is the same. You would acknowledge by linking to the Commons filename you actually used, with its author. The file might be a derivative work but that's handled by the attributions that will be on the file page. You could take up complicated cases at the specialist Help Desk at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of an academic's CV/university-hosted website as a source

Hello.

I am wondering if the usage of a CV, as hosted on a university website, is an appropriate source for details on a biography of a living academic. Upon a quick perusal of various academics with Wikipedia pages, for example Michael Aizenman and Abel Klein, you find that details of their career are either stated without reference (in the case of Aizenman, e.g., it is stated that he worked with Elliott H. Lieb, although there is no reference that attests to this fact), or are detailed on the university-hosted website of the person in question, which is a webpage that is typically populated by the academic in question (as is the case for Klein). So there is some ambiguity to me about the reputable sources rules.

My specific question: is a university-hosted website/CV an appropriately reputable source for the very narrow purpose of biographies of academics? If the academic in question has a CV available for download on an official and reputable university's website, is it reputable? Certainly, there is a clear argument as to why this might be considered a primary source (hence non-reputable), but, on the other hand, by merit of this academic being employed by the university (or what have you), it is implicit that this CV has been vetted by official university processes, and is therefore reputable, in some sense.

Context for the question: This question comes from a more broad interest of mine that was sparked by a recent call to arms in the American Mathematical Society (AMS) Notices article Princ-wiki-a Mathematica: Wikipedia Editing and Mathematics by David Eppstein, Joel Brewster Lewis, Russ Woodroofe, and XOR'easter, where the authors state that "Wikipedia should (but doesn’t) have articles on all fellows of major academic societies such as the AMS and SIAM".^[1] My PhD advisor just so happens to be a fellow of the AMS who is Wikipedia page-less, and so I thought it would be interesting to make a page for them, as I know them familiarly enough where it is a straightforward exercise. (This page is currently under review, Draft:Jeffrey Schenker.)

The broader goal is to fill this gap of AMS fellows who are lacking Wikipedia pages, i.e., a collection of mathematicians (my discipline) fulfills the notability requirements of Wikipedia (by merit of their status as fellows of one of the world's major mathematical societies). Hopefully, I could standardize the process somewhat, finding a standard way to find reliable sources for these fellows' careers/education/other misc biographical facts that are relevant. But, I don't want to attempt this and just get rejected in the review process every time. That would be a bummer. So, I want to know what sources are good enough for this specific project I have in mind.

Thanks! 2211nasa (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Princ-wiki-a Mathematica: Wikipedia Editing and Mathematics". ams.org. Retrieved 2025-01-10.

Hi @2211nasa. The notability requirements for a professor to have an article are at Wikipedia:Notability (academics), and a professor or researcher needs to meet only one of those requirements. For an elected fellow of the AMS the required reliably published independent source can be the website or publication of the association. Facts abouat the professor can come from primary sources such as a faculty webpage or CV. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The usability of a cv as a source for basic and noncontroversial factual claims has nothing to do with academic notability, actually. We can use statements of the subject of any biography for such claims. See WP:BLPSELFPUB. Where academic notability comes in is in the notability of the entire article, rather than the sourcing for its individual claims. Under our academic notability SNG, basic and noncontroversial factual claims that pass the SNG (such as being a fellow of a major academic society, #C3) may have non-independent sources, either through BLPSELFPUB or reliably (but not independently and not secondarily) published by the society itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPSELFPUB is a helpful guideline for routine facts in a Wikipedia biography. For myself, when editing an academic biography I happily source their positions and basic career moves to the CV. For something that would be a pass of NPROF or other notability guidelines, I try to find an external source (such as a page of an academic society for a major award or fellowship, university page for a named professorship, etc). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply! I really loved your (and the other responder, David Eppstein's) article in the Notices. 2211nasa (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

adding secondary sources

Hi. In exploring the requirements for notable persons, namely Draft:Randolph Charles Kent, and the nature of secondary sources, would referencing a book review such as the following be considered validating, or too "passing"

Sir David Nabarro KCMG CBE suggests of Dr. Kent's most recent publication that 'Dr. Randolph C. Kent’s Humanitarian Futures: Challenges and Opportunities masterfully blends deep intellectual rigour with practical insights, drawing on his unparalleled experience to illuminate future humanitarian crises and challenge current conventions and paradigms. In our world of perpetual crises, this is a vital, visionary work for leaders, policymakers and practitioners alike.'

https://www.routledge.com/Humanitarian-Futures-Challenges-and-Opportunities/Kent/p/book/9781032747996

Thanks for your thoughts. Nik9t (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in reading through the comments in the above query on Usage of an academics CV from User:2211nasa, I would have surmised that a reference such as "Dr Randolph Kent is a Senior Associate Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute..." on the RUSI site https://www.rusi.org/people/kent

would be a qualifying description (though rejected.) It does seems a subtle matter to be able to qualify someone as notable, no matter how influential they may have been (even ranking within such an institution as the UN, etc.) Nik9t (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would consider the first reference passing, as it is not the main focus of the article itself. I would double check WP:AUTHOR when considering references. Don't give up! Sophisticatedevening (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrappable table header

I'm trying to put a collapsible and sortable table ("Deaths in Hackleburg, Alabama") in the "Formation and track through Hackleburg" section on 2011 Hackleburg–Phil Campbell tornado, but I can't figure out how to make the background of the header caption non-transparent. Any help? :) E_F⁵ 19:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EF5. Why do you want it non-transparent? I just see a white page background like normal text on a page but maybe it overlaps something for you. If so, what is your skin and browser, and do you use dark mode? You would have to set a background color for the text to avoid transparency but we don't do that without good reason. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the table caption background being transparent (white on white) makes the table much less easier to find within the rows of regular text and is overall unappealing. I’m using light mode. Basically, the caption should be the same color as the column-header backgrounds. E_F⁵ 20:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:NOHIDE, article content should not be default-hidden, with the sole exception of parts of tables/lists if the content is not integral to the overall table/list. ("Article content", as distinct from things like navigational aids for ex. navboxes.) And table labels (rhymes all the time) should have scope tags to ID them for accessibility to things like screen reader software.

Also, I think it's best to leave the default site color scheme absent a compelling reason to deviate, again for maximizing accessibility (consider visually impaired people) as well as workability with night mode: see Help:Tables § Color in tables and here. For when it's really desirable, you use inline CSS. Demonstrating, with aid of Mediawiki's syntax highlighting:

Wikitext source

{| {{Table|sort|show|class=floatright}}
|+ style="background-color: grey; color: pink;" | Awesomeness{{br}}Levels
|-
! scope="col" | Stuff
! scope="col" | Awesomeness{{br}}Rating
|-
| [[HTML5]]
| {{cell color|46|0|100|align=center|bold=y}}
|-
| [[CSS3]]
| {{cell color|67|0|100|align=center|bold=y}}
|-
| [[Kitty cat]]s
| {{cell color|84|0|100|align=center|bold=y}}
|}

Awesomeness
Levels
Stuff	Awesomeness Rating
HTML5	46
CSS3	67
Kitty cats	84

Also showing some of the handy-dandy table templates like {{table}} and {{cell color}}. Hope that helps, if you have more questions ask away. --Slowking Man (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5: Table captions are displayed outside the table and almost never set a background color. The table at 2011 Hackleburg–Phil Campbell tornado#Formation and track through Hackleburg is collapsed by default with only the caption visible. I guess this is why you want the caption to stand out with a background color. The collapsed table is against MOS:DONTHIDE but many articles ignore that guideline. I'm not sure what to recommend for the caption when the guideline is broken. If a collapsed table has no caption then the header row is displayed with its existing background and the issue is avoided, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables recommends to have a caption. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I think I’ll just IAR there as if they weren’t collapsed, there would be literally no room for any other media, which is something the reader wouldn’t want. I don’t think the tornado fatality lists with this format have ever been made before, so I’m treading in uncharted waters. I think it looks good right now, but I’ll mess around with it more tomorrow. :) E_F⁵ 22:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I move a page to its redirect?

Hi, I'm trying to revert an undiscussed move of a page, but I can't do this as the old page name already exists as a redirect page. What should I do in this situation? Boynamedsue (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You want WP:RM. Thataway, third door on your left.

--Slowking Man (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue: Which page? Please always be specific in questions. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Romanisael_(Swedish_and_Norwegian_Romani)&action=history this one.Boynamedsue (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue: You can revert the most recent move by moving over a redirect with no page history except a redirect to the current title. But there are other recent moves. Which title do you want to restore? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was the original title before the moves: Norwegian and Swedish Travellers. But I've put it on the move requests per what Slowking Man suggested...Boynamedsue (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should you fix grammar in talk page posts by other people?

Wikipedia editors are always encouraged to fix grammatical errors that may be present in articles. After all, the point of editing Wikipedia is to make it better. However, does this also apply to talk pages as well? As in, if you see a grammatical error in something that someone has said in a talk page post, can you fix it? For example, if you see a missing comma, is it a good idea to add one in? Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, @Anonymous Libertarian. No, it doesn't apply to talk pages, and in most cases, you should not edit another person's comment. You can learn more about talk page guidelines and exceptions at WP:TPO. Schazjmd (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information!

I probably should have read the Wikipedia guidelines about talk pages first before posting here, but it is what it is. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New bio page for a scientist

Hi Everyone, I am trying to add a new bio page about a current scientist that is doing exciting work (Professor Greg Neely, University of Sydney), but it has been knocked back by editors. Their feedback was that it "didn't show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I'm a little surprised about this, since his work has been published in prestigious scientific journals and is regularly featured in reputable international media outlets (eg. BBC, CNN, The Guardian, etc). Does anyone have any advice/suggestions on what can be done to improve the draft and satisfy the editors? I'd appreciate your advice. Thanks. Turps222 (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Turps222, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia doesn't have bio pages about people; instead we have encyclopedia articles about people who are already well known. You have written a page emphasizing wonderfulness and need to see if it can be converted into a neutral article. The notability requirements for articles about professors and researchers are given in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Neely only needs to meet one of the requirements, and the type of sourcing is discussed there. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Turps222: I've just answered your query at the AfC help desk. Please don't ask the same in several places, it is not an efficient use of community resources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

my article

I wrote Communism in Brazil, moved from its draft page. However there is this bug on the talk page which says "This non-existent page doesn't require a content assessment", What is that supposed to mean?? And why it appears like that?? ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Welcome to the Teahouse. The article hadn't been rated yet, which is why this error showed up. I have made a temporary fix for the time being. Happy editing, Heart ^(talk) 07:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir, also another thing is how long does it take to rate these articles? ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Scratchinghead: the rating can be done by anyone at any time. It would have been done by the accepting AfC reviewer, had you waited for that. It may be done by the NPP (new page patrol) reviewer, once they get around to it. Otherwise someone from the tagged WikiProjects may come and rate it at some point.

Or perhaps you meant to ask how long does it take for new articles to be reviewed by NPP? It's difficult to say, there is a huge backlog (13K+ unreviewed articles), but there is also a backlog drive currently going on. Could be a matter of days, or could be months. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"It would have been done by the accepting AfC reviewer, had you waited for that. " well, I have an article Burkina Faso-France relations which was reviewed through AfC but hasn't received a rating.

Other than that, thank you Sir, for the information ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EL Archive overkill?

Working on the Sacred Reich article as of now, and I'm currently in the process of further backing up all the external links with web archives. However, I'm getting concerned over if it's becoming overkill, as my most recent edit added approximately 8 thousand bytes to the article. For context, the article has all (or most if I'm wrong) of the external links already archived, but I wanted "extra insurance" per WP:PLRT on Wikipedia:Link rot. Is this too far? Am I making my content endure at the detriment of people's computers? If anyone can provide a response, please let me know. Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 07:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Princ-wiki-a Mathematica: Wikipedia Editing and Mathematics". ams.org. Retrieved 2025-01-10.

[1]