Wikipedia:Teahouse

Nick Moyes, 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

Donations

Hello, in Israel we are getting a request to donate. That is a great idea! I donated. However, I keep getting interruptions asking me to donate! It’s a bit unfair and very annoying because I already donated. Wouldn’t it make sense not to keep asking for donations after one has already donated? 93.172.107.43 (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. The Foundation is responsible for the donation process, including donation requests. We have no way of knowing that the person sitting at your computer/holding your device at any given moment has donated. If you create an account, you can turn off the donation requests. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, you might very well have a dynamic IP (like me and very many others). The IP your device had when you made the donation might not be the one (see above) it has now, and the one it has now might be reallocated to someone else's device tomorrow, so even if the IPs of donors were tracked by the Wikimedia Foundation it would not help. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.90.29 (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have your browser set to clear cookies? IIRC, there is meant to be one saved by the donation page which suppresses the banners. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 18:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

My edits reverted despite providing official reports as sources

My edits on Asian Pacific Mathematics Olympiad have been brutally reverted on completely wrong accusation of no reliable sources, even though that i added the reports and regulations from the very organizer itself of the 2002 and 2003 APMO, the Canadian Mathematical Society as the sources. The 2001 APMO was organized by Colombia and I couldn't find any sources for it, but the 2002 APMO report is clear enough what the problem was. I spent lot of time to find these hard-to-find official reports and regulations for sources scattered on the internet. Being a 2000, 2001 and 2002 APMO participant myself I know very well what happened and why my awards were gone in 2001 and 2002. If official reports were not reliable, what is reliable? --Stomatapoll (talk) 09:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Stomatapoll Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is primarily interested in what independent reliable sources say about a topic, not what it says about itself (such as through official reports). 331dot (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

It was a report of a security issue, actual incidents that happened twice, the leakage of problems, that led to cancellation of the two APMOs, in the dawn of the internet age. Outside the very small math olympiad circle there was no mention of the incident, and even within the circle i only heard it from words of mouth of the trainers of math olympiad about the incidents and the measures to be taken in the future by the organizer. The other sources that I found being math societies of other countries reporting on the APMO results of their students which said pretty much the same thing about the cancellation, only much more brief than the official one, and two suspicious posts on sci.math of the USENET in March 2001 which leaked the APMO problems, but I cannot cite them and say that these are the posts that led to 2001 APMO cancellation unless someone could confirm it, but no reports ever said what the incidents were precisely. The APMO was a very loose cooperation between math societies in different countries and information about early APMOs was very sporadic. The current APMO website was built more than a decade later after the incidents and has hardly any information about the APMO before 2010s. I spent mcuh time and effort to paste together all that I can find on the incidents that were only known to the participants and organziers of different countries involved in the APMO in these two years. Stomatapoll (talk) 10:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Stomatapoll We cannot accept documents in private hands(inaccessible to the public) or information that is not published(i.e. word of mouth), both because it must be possible for the public to verify the information. If something is not found in a publicly available reliable source, preferably an independent one, it cannot be on Wikipedia. There may be other places for such information, but not here. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

All the sources I cited are accessible on the internet. They are the official account publicly available on the CMS website. I used only publicly available sources for the account of the incidents I wrote. I did not use or write anything in the article that could only be referenced by "private communication" as on some research papers. I don't understand why it is so hard for you to understand what I am trying to say, that is I am writing solely based on public and in fact official information on the incident. and the APMO has no notabilility outside of the math olympiad circle, so if you insist that i need outside source, you may as well ＤＥＬＥＴＥ the article because this is an impossible and utterly unreasonable requirement for an article of this nature! The APMO itself has no opening or closing ceremony, it is just an exam taken by very few people on an ordinary day, like a school exam but only a much harder one, in fact much smaller than any school exam, that's it. It has never gotten any public attention and never will, no journalist would be interested in it. Have you ever seen a cheating in a school exam get reported independently outside a school? Stomatapoll (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stomatapoll, the article (Asian Pacific Mathematics Olympiad) may very well warrant deletion, since at the moment it seems to contain no reliable, independent, published sources with significant coverage that demonstrate its notability. I've placed some tags on the article to that effect.

Cheating scandals have occasionally been reported on when prominent people or institutions are involved. This does not seem to be the case here. 97.113.27.216 (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The math olympiad is a very small subculture of the small subculture of (proof-based advanced) mathematics. There is not a single sentence one can write on the APMO if this paranoid requirement of independent source is to be met, even though there is nothing controversal in the incident but only facts. It is not that there is a lawsuit or public controversy or anything like that when independent sources may be justified. The SAME can be said for ALL other math olympiads except the IMO. This is not the NBA, not the World Cup, not the Olympic Games. No one cares about the math olympiads outside the math olympiad circle. They are only the intermediate stages for selecting the IMO participants, and even the IMO gets very little public attention anyway. No information you can get about them are not from the official source. DELETE all theses math olympiads articles because they cannot possibly reach the noble golden wiki standard. Stomatapoll (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Use of official reports to support basic facts is fine, Stomatapoll, but the sources you used don't appear to fully support what you added to the article. For instance, you added In the 2001 APMO, some students had leaked problems online before some other countries started the contest. The results thus had to be nullified. In the 2002 APMO, the contest period was shortened to three days, and students were warned not to discuss on the internet until the problems had been published on the official website., sourcing this to this page, which (unless I've missed something) doesn't mention a nullification in 2001. The requirement for independent sources is a different matter; some of these are needed to demonstrate notability, but not everything in the article has to be based on them. There should be reliable sources of some type for everything, however. Cordless Larry (talk)

It is in the 2001 CMS report cited at the end of the paragraph, "The 2001 Asian Pacific Mathematics Olympiad (APMO) was written in March by 39 Canadian students, selected either because they had participated in the Mathematical Olympiads Correspondence Program or because they had placed well in the 2000 Canadian Open Mathematics Challenge. Unfortunately the results of the 2001 APMO were nullified as some of the problems were posted on an internet site before other countries had written the paper." --Stomatapoll (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

In that case, Stomatapoll, you should cite that source where you say that the 2001 results were nullified. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stomatapoll, if they can't possibly meet our standards, deletion is indeed appropriate. See WP:PROD and WP:AfD for possible ways to proceed from here. 97.113.27.216 (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Stomatopoll, and welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds as if you are trying to use Wikipedia for something which it is not fitted for, viz. RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. ColinFine (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The incident is not some hidden affair, it is uncontested, uncontroversial, the information is publicly available. It is just an incident only known to a few of the old math olympiad participants, the accounts of which were in obscure places in old CMS reports and newsletters. The result of it was changes of the regulations and time schedule of the APMO from the one-week period of the pre-internet age to the current one within 24 hours. Somehow in the many years after the creation of the APMO article, no editor seemed to know the incident, so I had to do the research myself to correct the misleading information in the article which suggested that the time schedule had always been the same since the beginning of the APMO. --Stomatapoll (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stomatapoll You say "it is uncontested, uncontroversial, the information is publicly available". But, is it notable? Does anyone outside of this small subculture really have any interest in this? That hasn't been demonstrated, in my opinion. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Due to the international nature of APMO, I have searched through many CMS newsletters, google books for any old day APMO regulations, read through Singapour Mathematics Society reports, Taiwan Math Society articles on APMO, versions of Korean Math Society (organizer for 2005 to 2007 APMO) old APMO website on the internet archive, searched for Australian, Japanese math societies old APMO webpages, and browsed through pages of Spanish search results looking for any trace of Columbia math society reports on the APMO 2001 which was totally unfruitful. And this Mr.weedle without asking me anything, erased all my work. Wikipedia has no respect of its user's contribution. --Stomatapoll (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Your work is all there in the article history and can be restored with sufficient sourcing, Stomatapoll. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Text size too big every time a page loads on Safari on iPad

Someone may have asked this already so my first question is how do I search here for previous topics, but my main question is how to stop the text size reverting to too-big every time a page loads on Safari on iPad. I reset it using cmd-0 but then when I load another page, or refresh the current one, it gets bigger again. It’s only about 1.25x enlarged but it’s enough to push things off the right-hand edge of the screen. It may be that the actual text size is changing or, more likely, the main part of the web page is coming up zoomed. Should I be editing some css? Northernhenge (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Northernhenge. You may have better luck asking about this problem at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). That is monitored by editors with technical expertise. Cullen328 (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Cullen328: Northernhenge (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

It's already well-known. See for example these on-wiki reports:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Desktop version on mobile being too wide occasionally
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 199#Search box and default zoom messed up while using desktop on mobile

and the technical ticket phab:T311795. DMacks (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Page Deleted Due To Copyright Isuue, Please Help.

Hello, I submitted a draft of my upcoming Film Page on wikipedia, but it got deleted due to "copyright content" issue, I need help, as what specifically was flagged under copyright infringement, and how can I make it right.(I own all the copyrights related to my page, just need help in how to prove it to the wikipedia).

Vishal jejurkar (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vishal jejurkar: if you're the copyright holder, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 11:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vishal jejurkar, you should not directly copy material from other websites on Wikipedia, this is a copyright violation. The content should be a verifiable summary of what reliable sources say. Also, your draft Draft:Peepal Tree was not deleted, but declined. Kpddg ^(talk) 12:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

But even if you sort out the copyright, it is unlikely that much of the material from you will be relevant. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.

At the moment only one of the three sources in the draft - the LA Times review - is of any value at all, as the other two have no significant coverage of it. You need to cite some more substantial, reliable, independent sources about the film if the draft is going to establish that the film meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

Also, you should make clear on your user page and the draft's talk page that you have a conflict of interest in writing this draft. ColinFine (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vishal jejurkar Yes, please read the info about donating copyrighted materials. Among other things, the license that you need to release the material under will "allow anyone—not just Wikipedia—to share, distribute, transmit, and adapt your work, provided that you are attributed as the author.". And, "Wikipedia does not accept material that claims "this can be used in Wikipedia, but not anywhere else". 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Help with an issue of removed information-loop (Crayon Shin-chan)

Hello Teahouse, I would like to request some assistance. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I edited on other wiki's before. I made an account to revert an edit which was made to List of Crayon Shin-chan episodes, because there are resources there that I use from time to time and those were suddenly removed.

I tried reverting it back, but that wasn't an option because Wikipedia kept blocking this, likely because it was removed, reverted, and removed again. So I went over to the talking page to chat with the user who removed this information. Long story short there are five English dubs, all different (cast, episode/season numbers, etc.), two of them where used as basis for the European dubs, all vastly different then the Japanese original, so the list of original episodes isn't useful.

We basically agreed that the best option was to create separate pages for these dubs. I put 1-2 hours in of my own time to created this via an old revision, because I cannot request a separation of the pages anymore, since the information is removed and I cannot revert it.

And all four of the pages where declined because "This list is not necessary. Notable dub broadcast dates can be added to the List of Crayon Shin-chan episodes". Which I cannot do because I cannot revert the edit.

Does someone want to help me with it? CinnamonYT (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

CinnamonYT, welcome to the Teahouse. You have provided your rationale for wanting to reinstate material removed from a list article as: "there are resources there that I use from time to time and those were suddenly removed." In point of fact, that reasoning is not why we revert removals. The utility of an article is rated as how it serves the body of human knowledge in the context of the encyclopedia being concise and broadly useful, rather than exhaustive and trivia-packed.

Are you aware that virtually every older version of an article exists in Wikipedia and can be found by checking the article's history page to find old revisions? If you need an information resource as you describe, pull up your preferred historical version of the article, and bookmark it. Does this solve your problem?--Quisqualis (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but the information of these dubs are vastly different, you cannot get the same information by the lists that where kept, so it's a valuable addition to the site. I don't understand why it's so difficult to get information which was always there to get reinstated. CinnamonYT (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, CinnamonYT, and welcome to the Teahouse. The reason why "it's so difficult" is that other editors don't agree with you that it is appropriate (I havce no knowledge or interest in the subject, so I have no opinion myself). This is normal for how Wikipedia articles are delevoped: see WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@CinnamonYT "... there are resources there that I use from time to time and those were suddenly removed". As mentioned in different words in these replies, Wikiepdia is not a place to store information that you need to use from time to time. See Not a web host (click here). 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Afar Triangle Democratic Republic

Afar Triangle Democratic Republic is New government of Horn Africa Wollo Media (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Wollo Media: Welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tenryuu It looks like OP was asked, but not required, to change their account name. When do we ask, and when do we ask-and-block? I'm just curious. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Odd that this "Democratic Republic" (as opposed to the Afar Triangle itself) seems to have no internet existence other than on a couple of maps (one very crude) uploaded to Wikipedia. The Afar Region does have course have a Regional government under the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.90.29 (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought this post sounded familiar.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Heinz Tomato Ketchup and Wikilinkswikilinks to cities and countries

I removed several links to cities and countries. I also removed hyperlinks to common words like french fries hamburgers, hot dogs, sugar, mayonnaise, jalapeno, balsamic vinegar, mustard, BBQ sauce, relish, clothing, mugs, cosmetics, cookbook, department store, jigsaw puzzle, and ferment. I also removed winks to commonly known social media sites Twitter and Instagram. The edits were undone with no explanation. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely Certainly Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you asked the editors who reverted your edits for an explanation? You can see who did it in the relevant article Edit History. If you have a Wikipedia policy to support your edits, be prepared to cite it. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Absolutely Certainly your edits on Heinz Tomato Ketchup look fine to me, in that you removed a lot of WP:OVERLINK links. I would ask @Top5a to explain why they reverted your edits, either on the article talk page or on the user's talk page. CodeTalker (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello - in an article based on a food condiment, links to other food condiments and basic ingredients/components therein appeared appropriate; therefore, their blanket removal appeared overzealous. While citation edits and cleanup are indeed helpful (thank you for those), reducing internal links that may be helpful to readers does not appear to be constructive. Top5a (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Should probably add that, after checking the user's talk page, this is not the first time that there have been notices or warnings (even blocks) regarding the user's behavior. Top5a (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hm, checked the citation edits, and the user simply removed a reference to a book source without stating why, then added dead link references to pages without checking archives such as IA, nor simply searching for an adequate source replacement. Reference mangling isn't exactly something that should be encouraged, is it? @331dot @CodeTalker Top5a (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Keyword... Common. Which means a reader would easily find them,if inclined hence no need for the excessive links. Slywriter (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely Certainly, I understand what you are trying to do, but WP:OVERLINK says, try to be conscious of your own demographic biases – what is well known in your age group, line of work, or country may be less known in others. There are many English speaking communities where words like jalapeno are not commonly used, and vinegar in general, especially Balsamic vinegar, is rare in India in particular, except in Portuguese influenced Goa. Cullen328 (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, by your definition there should not be any wikilinks, correct? My rationale is that the user was making edits for the sake of making edits (as you can also see from their reference mangling). They were removing wikilinks to condiments and basic food items/ingredients/components within an article *about* a basic food item/ingredient/component. Top5a (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

To further clarify, @Slywriter, if an article is about advanced particle physics, then we would not expect a wikilink to the word "atom." But, in an article about ketchup, it is reasonable that other basic components such as "high fructose corn syrup" would be wikilinked, in addition to common food items on which the ketchup is used, such as "chips" and "hamburgers." Also recall that someone from a culture in which ketchup is not a familiar food item may also be unaware of, for example, these chips or hamburgers. Furthermore, one should remember that this judgement call was not made by an editor adding information to the article, but rather by an editor removing wikilinks merely for the sake of altering an article. I do not believe such "non-edits" are encouraged, but please correct me if I am mistaken. Top5a (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

"Non-edits" are edits, they are not discouraged. Here they increased readability by reducing sea of blue. While there may be some judgement calls, the article suffers from an excess of wikilinks. Maybe High Fructose needed a link but did sugar a word before it need one? There was more good than bad in their edit, so blanket reversal was not ideal. Slywriter (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The more I look, the stranger it gets. South Korea and South Africa were countries in 1907. It should be uncontroversial to remove these factual errors. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, by your definition more words should be linked because 'someone from a culture may also be unaware' of the terms 'market share', 'exporting', 'slogan', 'touts', 'mainstay', etc. I noticed that since your reversion, someone removed links to many familiar countries. Once I read those edits, I noticed that the original sentence states that: In 1907, Heinz started exporting their product to South Korea. South Korea in 1907? My first inclination was just to remove the list of countries. I relented and just removed the links. I also added the reasons why the links were removed and contrary to your assertion I added information for clarity. I changed 'chips' to 'potato chips', since the link led to potato chips. In the UK chips are a variation of french fries. I wanted our UK followers to understand that there are ketchup flavored crisps (the term used over there for potato chips). Absolutely Certainly (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

> With all due respect, by your definition more words should be linked because 'someone from a culture may also be unaware' of the terms 'market share', 'exporting', 'slogan', 'touts', 'mainstay', etc.

Good attempt at acting snarky, yet, if you had spent that energy attempting to read what I typed, you would have understood how words such as 'market share', 'exporting', 'slogan', 'touts', 'mainstay' are not basic food/condiment-related/relevant, i.e. irrelevant to the majority of the list you complained about here in your post, and which comprised the lion's share of your initial reverted edit. As for the removal of wikilinks to countries, I did not mention any issue with removing those. I am not sure what you are driving at by making useless edits, then furthermore wasting the time of other editors with pointless discussions. Judging by your behavior here and on your Talk page, if you merely wish to argue with other editors, I would like to point out that there other websites which may serve you better than Wikipedia. Top5a (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Do we agree to remove South Korea? 1907? Absolutely Certainly (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, the term South Africa was first used to describe a country 1910. Time to remove that also. Do we agree? Absolutely Certainly (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect is snarky. Since forever. Instead of arguing the merits, you appeal to the ad homonym. Are we here to make a good wiki? With verifiable facts? Absolutely Certainly (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Why do we need to cite sources?

I've always been not sure about why you have to cite a source for everything on a page, I mean, this is an encyclopaedia, why do we have to cite sources, and why do they have to be reliable? MinecraftFan23 (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@MinecraftFan23: See Wikipedia:Verifiability RudolfRed (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay now I know, thanks for the help! MinecraftFan23 (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. This question seems like bait, but I'll take the hook. Wikipedia needs to cite sources or else the project probably would've failed a while ago. With no sources, you don't know what's vandalism or a hoax. If anybody could add potentially unreliable information to Wikipedia, it just wouldn't work.Asparagusus (interaction) 03:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

MinecraftFan23 Yours was actually a two-part question. Sources support verification. Sources that have the potential for not being reliable include blogs, vlogs, interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, newspapers known to publish false information, etc. David notMD (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

See WP:RSP for a list of frequently discussed sources. Oh and add wikis to the list by David notMD. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

That includes that Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references in Wikipedia articles (because anyone can edit Wikipedia articles). David notMD (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources in another language reason not to be trusted?

I am in a big dilemma. Please help me. Yesterday I wrote the following comment on the article [1] I've been working on so far, quote: "Regarding the two wordpress sources. These have been changed with reliable sources. Regarding the commercial source. This was suppressed, not being necessary anyway, since it is clearly shown that the book mentioned by Borbely was published in France, being an additional reason for notability to announce the future appearance of a book. What I can't understand is something else entirely. This time I ask for your help as a user because I am in a dilemma.Entered the URL address along with the name of the person who reviewed, but also the title of the publication and the page where the review is located, thinking that it is enough. I did this because I understood that it does not matter that the reviews are written in another language. I thought it was easy for anyone to put the review on google translate and find out what is written there. The sources I indicated represent the most important Romanian cultural publications. I don't understand why you put the label with: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified", once that the sources posted by me are reliable and especially can be very easily verified. Can you show me one source out of many that would not be reliable? The fact that those who have to give a solution do not want to read the sources on the grounds that they are in another language does not mean that the sources are not reliable. Those who wrote the reviews to which there are URLs are the most important literary critics of Romania, recognized as such by Wikipedia. Their reviews are in the most important Romanian publications. What is written in them shows facts that support Cerin's work. Each review clearly and unequivocally shows the book it refers to and claims special things about it. You just had to download them on any google translate and you would have immediately had the review in English. Let me understand that if I entered the titles of the books that the reviews refer to and two or three words about what they say, wouldn't you have translated the reviews to see what was written in them and would you have made the decisions only after some words? If you had translated them, why don't you translate them now and you would have exactly the same result? How can you say that the sources that lead to the reviews are not reliable once you have not even translated to see what is written in those reviews that the sources lead you to? Sorin Cerin is currently the most appreciated writer by the most important literary critics. The reviews about Cerin are not just passing passages, they stretch over pages of literary criticism, showing that Cerin is one of the most important contemporary writers. I wrote all this because Wikipedia asks us to let the reviews about the writers speak for themselves, thus reinforcing the neutral point of view. Once the literary critics write about Cerin's work more than laudatory, how can I show all this? Isn't it better for the reader to access the respective review and make up his own mind?. The dilemma is all the greater as those who write about Cerin have praised him. Asking me to write what exactly these literary critics write about Cerin would mean praising Cerin, even in the two or three words, a fact that goes against Wikipedia and the neutral point of view. Please also give me your opinions on those written by me" end the quote.

Can someone explain to me how to write the few words from the existing reviews about this author, but especially how to place the books that the reviews are talking about? Should I write next to each review the books it refers to, and if several reviews also refer to the same book, should I repeat the title of the respective book? When I mean how to write the few words about the review, I want to know if they can be laudatory as well as the respective review or not? If no, it does not mean that it does not reflect what is written in the review, and if yes, it means that I am breaking Wikipedia's rules regarding the neutral point of view. Thank you for your help.Bineart (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Bineart, your first paragraph above is dismayingly long, especially if it's about Draft:Sorin_Cerin, which has very much less text. I therefore haven't bothered to read it. On to your second paragraph. I think that the relevant sections of the article Morris Bishop exemplify a decent way of using specific reviews to describe the books that they're reviewing (which isn't to say that those sections can't be improved). Neutrally summarizing laudatory coverage is neutral. Picking among mixed coverage, summarizing what's laudatory and ignoring the rest is not neutral. -- Hoary (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary - Thank you. I took note of what you showed Bineart (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC).

Hello, Bineart. I, too, am having great difficulty understanding much of what you wrote. But I do see you asking whether references to sources not in English are acceptable. The answer is that yes, they are. For some topics, there are plenty of high quality English language sources, and they should be used in such cases. For other topics, the best sources are in other languages, and in these cases, references to non-English sources are perfectly acceptable. I hope that this helps. Cullen328 (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 - It is good news that references in other languages are also valid. Thank you for your message Bineart (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC).

@Bineart: As you have been told above, better keep your posts shorter, it makes them easier to read. However, I have tried to understand what you meant to say, and will reply also:

a) Yes, foreign language sources are allowed, just not preferred (see WP:NOENG). If you believe a Romanian source is WP:RELIABLE, you may use it. However, it is more difficult for most editors to evaluate whether a Romanian source is reliable – this is why Bonadea advised you to convert the bare urls to use Wikipedia:Citation templates (you have done this for some, but not all). This wasn't declined because the sources were in Romanian, but because the reviewer couldn't find out from the article what the sources say. It is your job as author of the article to present the information in a way that a reviewer can easily see what Sorin Cerin did, which leads to:

b) Do write out the "Critical reception" section as prose (see MOS:PROSE)! Write out what the reviews say; if they are indeed mostly praising, that info is not forbidden on Wikipedia. This would also help in understanding whether the subject really is WP:NOTABLE. He seems to have published a lot, but other people also publish many works which are never recognized – a reader should not need to click every single link and use google translate to find out about Sorin Cerin, that is not the idea if an encyclopedia article. (If you can find some review that is more critical of his work, that would also be great; but such "balance" (the WP:NPOV) is another issue, and you can solve it later.)

c) Not a question you had, but another point I want to add: Do you know what "Paco Publishing House" is? I couldn't find information on this publisher, and that might lead others to suspect WP:SELFPUBLISH. But it might be that the information is in Romanian, and I couldn't find it.

I hope that helps, but please ask again if you don't understand something. --LordPeterII (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII Thank you very much for the message that was really helpful. I will also look for reviews that are critical, not just laudatory. That's why I will delay resending even a few months, because I want things to be perfect. Bonadea is perfectly right when he states that certain descriptions are necessary. Until tomorrow, I will present them to you in small measure here as well. I'm glad that Bonadea is a doctor of philosophy like me. I teach philosophy at the university and I am a scrupulous person, which is why I ask that everything be perfect about this philosopher. The URLs that I posted in draft at Sorin Cerin refer to the most important cultural publications of Romania. The reviewers are the most important literary critics of Romania such as Cistelecan (considered by ro.wikipedia the most important contemporary poetry critic of Romania) Sorohan, Tupan, Borbely, etc., etc., personalities who wrote reviews on many pages about Cerin , as I said in prestigious magazines whose URLs I posted in the draft. The fact that they are prestigious publications also comes from the fact that most of them are also on en.wikipedia, being founded more than a century ago. Here I am referring to the magazines Convorbiri literare or Familia, etc. Regarding the fact that the Paco publishing house could be self-publishing. First of all, this publishing house has not existed for several years, the owner being deceased. Secondly, I read on Wikipedia notabiliy books that if there are important critics who write serious reviews, it doesn't matter what kind of publishing house published the book. Thirdly, Cerin also published in other publishing houses, for example in France, a prestigious publishing house, etc. Fourthly, critics such as Borbely or Cistelecan do not review only one book but refer to the entire work of philosophical poems by Cerin. Other critics like Tupan or Sorohan review several books. Please give me a few days to present the first finished draft, for which I am asking you very much to give your opinion if you think it is acceptable. Afterwards, I will look for critical reviews about Cewrin, not just laudatory ones. I want everything to be balanced. That's why it can take several months. Once again, thank you very much for your help. Bineart (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Paco publishing house was never self-publishing.But even, admitting that it would have been a self-publishing house. If the Paco publishing house had been self-publishing, there would still be no reason not to recognize the large number of critics who wrote about Cerin's books published at Paco. In this case, criterion 1 does it no longer apply to Cerin?, regarding the notability of a book comes into play. When I referred to self-published books, I referred to notability books[2], namely: Self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press do not correlate with notability. Exceptions do exist, such as Robert Gunther's Early Science in Oxford and Edgar Allan Poe's Tamerlane, but both of these books would be considered notable by virtue (for instance) of criterion 1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivia ] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.Thank You. Bineart (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I inquired about the Paco publishing house. I found out that Paco Publishing House was a traditional publishing house. The books were published at the expense of the publishing house. The Paco publishing house published authors who today are in en.wikipedia and who at the time of publication at the Paco publishing house were long deceased, such as Leon Tomsa, Gheorghe Pintilie or Stefan Foris, books published after the death of Gheorghe Apostol, from 2010, the author of some of them, and books from the Paco publishing house are also mentioned in other articles. All this proves that Paco Publishing House was a traditional publishing house and by no means self-publishing.[3] I could give you many other facts about the Paco Publishing House, which prove irrefutably that the Paco Publishing House was a traditional publishing house that published authors with the money of the publishing house and not with the money of the authors, many of them were not even alive when the books they had appeared in Paco, having died tens or hundreds of years ago. I don't think there can be another more eloquent example.Paco publishing house was, at one point, the only traditional publishing house in Romania. All the others demanded money for publication in one way or another. The authors were very carefully selected at the Paco Publishing House, where not just anyone could publish anyway. Only top personalities were usually accepted as authors at Paco Publishing House, such as great politicians, Gheorghe Apostol was prime minister of Romania, great writers, etc. Thank You Bineart (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I know I have written a lot here, but if you look carefully, each sentence expresses an idea. I studied very carefully the reasons why Cerin was deleted 16 years ago. I don't know who introduced it to Wikipedia then, because it had no serious recognition from any critic. Now he has a lot. I don't know why I have the impression that someone in the shadows wants to keep Cerin deleted by any means. Maybe I'm wrong, but if so? In time I will find out. I know, it is possible to create a diversion through all kinds of manipulations through which the Paco publishing house can be removed as a self-publishing publishing house. Even so, the publishing houses in France or Bulgaria that published Cerin, whose books were reviewed by important critics, can no longer be included in any diversion by any manipulator because there are concrete data about them. To be sure that I am not mistaken, that Cerin is not going to be the subject of any manipulation or diversion to keep it deleted, I want first of all to establish the status of the Paco publishing house. In the event that the Paco publishing house was declared self-publishing by manipulators or diversionists with the aim of keeping Cerin deleted, I would like to find out if the other articles or sources from the English wikipedia that rely on the books of the Paco publishing house will also be deleted. Anyway, I have decided not to work on the Sorin Cerin article from now on, not to write anything at all on this article, until the situation of the Paco publishing house is established as seriously as possible. I think there will be bona fide users who will help me understand what kind of publishing house Paco really is..Bineart (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata isn't updating a software version

I used Wikidata to add a newer software version, but the Wikipedia article that references Wikidata hasn't updated.

• Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubernetes
• Wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q22661306

The relevant field in Wikidata is the software version identifier. I've added a newer version 1.25, but the Wikipedia article still shows 1.24.4 as the Stable Release.

Question: Why isn't the Wikipedia article updating with the latest data from Wikidata?

EDIT: I solved it on my own. It turns out that I had to set the "rank" field of the new version to "preferred." I also had to set the "rank" of the previous release to "normal." This rank thing appears to be some concept that's unique to Wikidata.

Pcgeek86 (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I want to change article

When I am changing any article someone make change again Shree ram divoties (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Shree ram divoties and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits to Raghupati Raghava Raja Ram were reverted - twice - by Materialscientist because you did not cite any sources, and indeed removed citations that were there. Repeating a reverted edit without discussion is edit warring, and is regarded as disruptive, so you should discuss the matter with Materialscientst (and any other editors who are interestd) on the article's talk page before you do anything else.

But, I would urge you first to read the discussions already on Talk:Raghupati Raghava Raja Ram. ColinFine (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Report

i have been having this constant problem something about error detected but i dont see anything wrong with it although i ve gotten captcha correct FajarAesthetic (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid you have to be more specific with what error message you are encountering when saving (?) edits. "error detected" is too generic to track down the source of the problem, maybe try copying the error message here when you encounter it next (You can edit this section by using the edit link in the section header, or the [Reply] link behind my post if its there) Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia article is not neutral

There is a wikipedia article that is about a politicized issue. There are two opposing sides: for example one side says a certain animal exists as a distinct species - call it the Distincter group and another side asserts that it is the same species as another animal- call it the NoSpecies group. The article is about the Distincter group, but the lead off sentence is written as a negative- e.g. "The Distincter group persists in the mistaken notion that Animal A is a distinct species". The second sentence in the article presenters the Distincters argument as a falsity - "The Distincters believe or assert that what they stand for is that the animal is a distinct species". This is not neutral because it presents up front and with false implications that the Distincters are wrong. The false implications are that yes, there are citations for the NoSpecies position, but those citations simply present the side that the Distincters are wrong- not actual facts about why they are wrong. Sorry for the long question but I want to ask how to make an edit to such an article. I read that there are edit wars in Wikipedia and this is discourage. This particular topic would be subject to an edit war from the NoSpecies group. I think it is important to present neutral information but the very topic between the sides is presented as a fait accompli in the first sentence, as if the Distincters are proven wrong. The whole article is then slanted against them. How would Wikipedia editors ask us to bring this up? I don't want to provide a link because I would like a neutral answer by the way. I fear, and I use that word with purpose, that presenting the actual page would prejudice the answer. Ruth Berge 16:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rberge0108 (talk • contribs)

Hi Rberge0108. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance and Wikipedia:Fringe theories may be relevant. It's hard to say more without knowing the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Rberge0108, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are unlikely to get a "neutral answer" that is much use to you: questions that are general and do not identify the particular case are usually a waste of everybody's time. By not telling us which article, you are in effect saying "My view of how this article should be is the right one". It might be that if we looked at it, we would all agree with you; but since you haven't told us, we don't know.

A note on edit warring: it takes two to edit-war. The first thing to do is to engage with discussion with them, according to BRD. If you are unable to reach a consensus with them, then dispute resolution tells you how to proceed. If they persist in editing against consensus, or are otherwise disruptive, then an issue can be raised (about behaviour, not content) at WP:ANI. --ColinFine (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Purely for interest: within Biology and other fields, the terms informally used for those who generally favour recognising fewer distinct species or other categories and those who favour recognising more are ""Lumpers" and "Splitters". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.90.29 (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Ruth, I recommend checking the article's history and discussion pages. That will give you a picture of prior activity and argument, and you will be able to see if the seemingly non-neutral version is recent or long-standing. Even if relatively inactive, you can post your concerns to the talk page for the record. I would also love to look at the page myself, could you share with us which one it is? [oops, forgot sig, reping Ruth.] ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 20:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Issue with sources for footnotes

I recently submitted a Wikipedia article about an entertainment lawyer I have worked with which included several supporting footnotes that refer to sources like Google, IMDB, and Wikipedia to provide evidence of various film projects and events that she has been involved with and the entry was rejected because these sources are not considered reliable, independent sources. In most cases, these materials are the only existing evidence that she has received credits in films she's worked with and of events at which she has spoken. Each footnote is meant to support a statement of fact in the article and if I remove all of them, these facts will be unsupported, which I imagine is another reason for rejecting an entry. Do you have any suggestions of how to resolve this issue? I have included a copy of the article, with notes, for your reference.

Buster10 (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

No need to post a copy of the draft here. Just provide a link: Draft:Laverne_Berry RudolfRed (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Buster10: Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia operates on its own definition of notability. You'd have to show how Berry satisfies it with reliable sources, one of the criteria is that it isn't user-generated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Buster10, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the answer is that if you cannot find substantial, independent, reliable sources about your colleage, then she does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article about her is possible. Please see WP:AMOUNT.

Incidentally, if you have worked with Berry, you ought to consider whether you have a conflict of interest in working on an article about her. That doesn't forbid you from doing so, but you need to be aware of Wikiepedia's position on COI. ColinFine (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Laverne Berry (edit conflict) I have removed the draft copy from here, it is not nessesary to duplicate it. IMDB, Facebook, Google Sites and Wikipedia (including other-language versions) are not considered a reliable source here. Note that normally no source is nessesary to prove that Laverne Berry produced a particular film, unless she was credited under an anonymous pseudonym. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

All of the refs are URLs rather than complete format; some of the refs are an in-name-only mention of Berry, meaning that those can establish a fact as verified, but do not constitute published content ABOUT her. David notMD (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Error in wikipedia article on the Trinity

There is no significant tendency among modern scholars to deny that John 1:1 and John 20:28 identify Jesus with God.

This is not true. An increasing number of credible Bible scholars are now saying that John 1:1 is a mistranslation. I would like the article to reflect that so as not to mislead others. Here is a credible source on the matter: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/kermitzarleyblog/2013/07/your-gospel-of-john-says-the-word-was-god-but-that-translation-is-really-quite-odd/

How can I make an edit to reflect this which will not be deleted? Tedw2 (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Tedw2, and welcome to the Teahouse. The only way to get such an edit to stick is by citing a reliable source which says what you are wanting to add. Blogs are almost never regarded as reliable. Furthermore, since it is pretty clear that what you want to add is controversial, you are stongly advised to get consensus by discussing it on the article's talk page before making such an edit. ColinFine (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Tedw2. The author of that blog post is Kermit Zarley, a retired professional golfer with highly idiosyncratic and unorthodox views on religion. He is by no means an academic theologian or a recognized expert in translating Koine Greek. In short, his blog is not a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you failed to see that Kermit Zarley mentioned Phillip B. Harner who is a recognized expert and who wrote in the Journal of Bible Literature of Journal of Bible literature about John 1:1c being mistranslated. That is not a blog and is a credible source . In addition, the New English Bible translates it propery and was endorsed by · Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland

· British and Foreign Bible Society

· Church of England

· Church of Scotland

· Congregational Church in England and Wales

· Council of Churches for Wales

· Irish Council of Churches

· London Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends

· Methodist Church of Great Britain

· National Bible Society of Scotland

· Presbyterian Church of England

I am content to cite the New English Bible translation as a credible source and the Journal of Bible Literate. But then again, maybe you did see it and don't really care what the truth is. Unorthodox does not necessarily mean incorrect if Orthodoxy is wrong. Tedw2 (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Consensus may be unable to achieve since this is a deeply held cherished belief held by many and , unfortunately, is based largely on translator errors. But I think Wikipedia readers have a right to know that the traditional translation may be in error ( based on credible sources) Tedw2 (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

You have to provide a reliable source first. Quoting a biblical translation would be using a primary source to discuss itself. I'm not sure that would stick. You need a secondary reliable source, not blogs. --ARoseWolf 18:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Tedw2, I analyzed the source you offered and established quite clearly that it is not reliable by Wikipedia standards. As for Phillip B. Harner, he earned a PhD in Old Testament studies from Yale, so he is presumably a far better source than Zarley, and the Journal of Biblical Literature is highly respected in its field. So, it is best to cite Harner and leave Zarley out of the discussion. As for your comment that maybe I don't really care what the truth is, that is an unjustified personal attack. I have spent 14 years working to improve this encyclopedia and help less experienced editors like you. Cullen328 (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I will add that whether Cullen cares what the "truth" is or not is irrelevant anyway, though I have been here long enough to trust their judgement when it comes to this encyclopedia. The reason it is irrelevant is because truth and credibility are not a concern of the encyclopedia, verification and reliability are. --ARoseWolf 19:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I did not know truth did not matter. And credibility and reliablity seem like the same thing to me. Tedw2 (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately due to the no original research policy, we can't draw conclusions from the primary material. Are sources used necessarily accurate? No, and clarifying would have to be done at the source, not on here.

It could be useful for the blog post to mention the Journal of Biblical Literature, but in that case just skip the middleman and cite Harner directly. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

'But then again, maybe"

I said maybe not really an attack on you. If you are neutral and objective that is wonderful, but I noted you did not mention Harner in your first post. Zarley has also written a book on the matter. I don't think you have to have a PHD to be a expert on a subject. Thank you for you input, no offense intended. Tedw2 (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Tedw2, why the heck would I mention Harner when I was evaluating Zarley's reliability? A blog post by an unqualified person does not suddenly become reliable if it mentions Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. Cullen328 (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I think Zarley has been doing what he is doing for decades. I don't know what standard you use to determine reliability. The people who wrote the original text we are talking about had no PHD's. Tedw2 (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Kermet Zarley: In the period between his careers on the PGA Tour and the Champions Tour, he wrote three [books on religion and world affairs. He received an honorary doctorate degree in 2001 from North Park University in Chicago, which has a lecture series named for him. Tedw2 (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

And thank you for your feedback. Tedw2 (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Tedw2, I neither said nor implied that a PhD is required but it should be obvious to anybody that a peer-reviewed academic journal article written by a guy with a Yale PhD is a far more reliable source than a blog post written by a retired professional golfer. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the content guideline. Cullen328 (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, Tedw2, I would point out that reliability depends on context. A blog post by Zarley about how golf clubs changed their shape in the 1970s would probably be reliable, as a self-published source from a subject-matter expert. A blog post by the same person about a theology question involving translation across languages he does not know, less so. Conversely, if Harner had somehow published a discussion of golf clubs in a Journal of Biblical Literature article, it would be a rather dubious source for that topic.

The fact that Zarley published books on "religion and world affairs" is not relevant. Many people publish many books containing many crazy things; any decently famous person can publish the most random gibberish and it will sell decently based on the author’s popularity (and therefore some publisher will still accept it). Books addressed to the general public are usually not reliable sources to overturn scholarly literature.

Now, it may well be that your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If that is so, cite them (and stop citing random people’s blogs). If you find it hard to read scholarly literature, well, that’s the game. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

All the feedback is appreciated. I have made the correction citing Harner which is enough for men. Wikipedia users will now know that the most frequently cited verse proving Jesus is God is a mistranslation, and so they should. It should not be in just some obscure scholarly journal. Tedw2 (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Zarley probably considers himself more of an expert on Trinitarian doctrine than an expert on Golf clubs. Tedw2 (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Help in writing article

Hi All, good day to you. I have joined wikipedia just today. I will appreciate if someone can help me in writing article and self biography on wikipedia.

Thanks a lot Asghar Kamal Butt Libra239 (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Libra239. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. You are advised in the strongest possible terms not to try to write an autobiography. The vast majority of the time, such efforts fail, and the effort turns out to be a frustrating waste of time for the writer and for those who have to review and delete the content. Cullen328 (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I see that User:Libra239 has already been deleted. That was a curriculum vitae or résumé and was entirely inappropriate for this encyclopedia. Your user page is to tell your fellow editors about your contributions and goals as a Wikipedia editor, not to promote your career. Cullen328 (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Libra239, and welcome to the Teahouse. Telling the world about something - especially about yourself or your own activities - is fundamentally not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is only interested in subjects that the world has already been told about. See WP:NOTPROMO. ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Requests to edit semi-protected page

I posted on the talk page for the Capital Punishment article twice, not realizing that I needed to use the "request edit to protected page" format the first time I posted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Capital_punishment#Remove_number_of_people_killed_by_Henry_VIII I would like to make the edit myself, but I'm still learning how to use Wikipedia. Will my edit request go through? Is there a way to delete the duplicate request?

Second question: is the "request edit to semi-protected page" option good if I can find some actual sources to discuss capital punishment in medieval Europe, since the page is sorely lacking in proper scholarly discussion of the topic? Chucklehammer (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Chucklehammer, and welcome to the Teahouse. Although I've just deleted your first attempt at an edit request for you, you could just as easily have done it yourself. You could have done that in one of two ways. Having made an edit you regret making, one can go to the 'View History' tab and look for the row at the top which will show your recent edit and simply click 'undo'. OR, you could have gone to the thread you started, click 'Edit source' which is next to it and then deleted (blanked) the content of just that one post. Leaving an 'Edit Summary' which explains why you're deleting it is always helpful.

Yes, use the 'edit request' process if you wish. But in just a couple more edits you will be 'auto-confirmed' (account over 4 days old and has made 10 edits at least). You can then edit semi-protected articles directly. You may then BEBOLD and edit the page directly if you wish. Does that make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your help! I didn't realize how quickly it would take me to reach 10 edits. Chucklehammer (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Chiclehammer, and welcome to the Teahouse.It seems to me that a change like that, that involves questioning the reliability of a source, was best discussed on the talk page first anyway, whether you can technically edit the article directly or not. Making an edit request will put it on a list that may get more notice; but the problem is that the people who look at that list are general editors who choose to process edit requests, rather than people with particular knowledge or interest in this topic, so making it into an edit request may not achieve anything. (My guess is that the people who look at requests will be inclined to look at it, and say, Erk, I don't know anything about that, and leave it for somebody else. I may be wrong though).

What might be more effective than making it an edit request in this context is to bring it to the attention of an appropriate WikiProject: maybe WP:WikiProject History or WP:WikiProject England. Alternatively, you might ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. ColinFine (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I ended up getting auto-confirmed (a quicker process than I thought it would be) and making the edit myself. I also have started joining a bunch of WikiProjects based on your suggestion, so thank you for that! Chucklehammer (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Atmospheric pressure, Gravity and Sea level

Does a Sand timer's Hourglass time spend differ with altitude or sea level. (Sorry for bad English) 115.186.169.15 (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Not with pressure. Since the 18th Century sandglass timers have been sealed, so atmospheric pressure is irrelevant. Meters (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, hourglass timers are affected by height. Gravity decreases with height so the timer will slow down with height. At the limit, with no gravity, the timer does not run at all. Meters (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Gravity of Earth#Altitude says: "All other things being equal, an increase in altitude from sea level to 9,000 metres (30,000 ft) causes a weight decrease of about 0.29%." I don't know how much this affects a typical hourglass or how accurate it is to begin with. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you add porn?

explicit 41.113.230.137 (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you should tell us what it is you want to add, what the sources are for the material, and which article you want to add it to! --Bduke (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has encyclopedia articles about notable porn actors and porn films. That does not mean that the content of those articles is explicitly pornographic. In recent years, most editors interested in content about pornography have gotten much stricter about what is notable and encyclopedic in this topic area, and many porn related articles have been deleted. This is part of a general trend of not accepting poorly referenced articles created by enthusiastic fans, and it also includes articles about obscure footballers, cricket players and "villages" with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Why is their pornography on the pages?

Why are editors allowed to upload pornography to Wikipedia, Wikipedia is supposed to be a site for everyone to use, Wikipedia isn’t pornhub. MinecraftFan23 (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Which specific pages are you talking about, MinecraftFan23? Wikipedia is not censored but content should serve an encyclopedic purpose and should not be gratuitous. You are correct that Wikipedia is not Pornhub but I very much doubt that you will find Pornhub-style content on Wikipedia. Be specific. Cullen328 (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

See Help:Options to hide an image and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Strange activity by user VickyBenz

I was going to report this at WP:ANI, but figured Teahouse might be a better place first (if I figured wrong and such cases belong to WP:ANI or elsewhere, please let me know).

I spotted by chance a user whose whole activity (I checked ca. 20 edits) is either changing correct grammar and punctuation to incorrect, or making unnecessary wikilinks (often self-referencing an article). My request to stop damaging WP seemed to have effect – there was no response, but this daily activity has stopped so far: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/VickyBenz

There are a couple of points I'd like to raise in this regard.

1. While many of his/her edits were reverted by now, many are still there – not because they are all good, but rather because noone noticed or doesn't care. I think all remaining edits must be reverted (I haven't seen a single good one, recent and first edits included).

2. Doesn't software which WP runs on include a utility which would analyze edits and report suspicious activity to draw attention to them, so a human admin can notice it immediately and cut it short, preventing massive damage as it happened with this user? Cases like spoiling grammar or bad wikilinking (at least self-referencing) are fairly easy to catch, after all, and a good tracker can cover much more than such trivial cases. 188.66.34.125 (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place for new editors to ask questions about editing.

Asparagusus (interaction) 13:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, so did I seek help in a wrong place? Reverting all edits by a user is easy for an admin, I believe, but not something I can do. To the best of my knowledge, there are no good edits by VickyBenz *at all*; those which remain unreverted must be result of oversight or lack of article maintainers (anyone, feel free to review the edits on your own).

So, can anyone here handle this and revert the rest of edits, or should this issue be reported elsewhere (where?)? I thought reporting it at WP:ANI first, but I'm not sure it belongs there after reading the rule section. Help please. 188.66.34.125 (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that VickyBenz’s contributions seem to be incorrect. However, I see no evidence that they are vandalism (self-linking is a likely newbie mistake, the rest are probably non-native-English-speaker mistakes). As such, you definitely need to talk with the user first before reporting to ANI or any other place about user conduct (WP:AIV for clear vandalism).

ANI would be the place to ask for a mass reversal of all edits from one user. However, I doubt those would be approved in such a case because (1) it’s not really large-scale (I see ~100ish edits and three pages for which it’s still the current version, not really "massive damage" by the standards of what "massive" can be); (2) it’s not a hundred times the same edit with a clear pattern; and (3) the account has not been blocked for vandalism/disruption. Manual review seems both feasible and desirable.

Detecting self-linking could be done by bot, even though to my knowledge it is not done yet. There is a question of what to do about it (revert the whole edit? remove the self-link but leave the rest? notify the editor? etc.). In particular, cases like page moves would need to be accounted for. At any rate, you can definitely ask at WP:BOTREQ. Grammar mistakes are much harder to catch, and highly context-sensitive (for instance, you don’t want to fix grammar from quotes).

There are quite a few bots, tools etc. that try to do general "bad edit" detection. There is mw:ORES which attempts to score an expected quality of edits; it does nothing by itself but reviewers can look at only the "most likely to be bad" edit queue etc. There is also User:ClueBot NG, which does revert vandalism on sight, but is set to be rather conservative (according to the page, it tries to keep the false positive rate under 0.1%, which means it catches about 40% of vandalism). It would be fairly difficult for such tools to identify that wikilinking to the current page is bad (when wikilinking to another page is most often good). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Most of Vicky's edits are tagged as Newcomer Tasks. I'm not sure if the Growth Team has an avenue to report cases like this where the tool leads to undesirable outcomes. @User:Trizek (WMF)? Encouraging newcomers to get involved is not bad, but if they are using a high-volume workflow, how do we gently advise someone that grammar is not their strong suit, and suggest other activities? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 21:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see that 188. has posted to Vicki's talk page and received a reply. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 21:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I hope User:VickyBenz will read this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked because this user overlinks too much. Migfab008 (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I looked at some of their edits, and it seems that articles tagged for "unencyclopedic tone" or "reads like an advertisement" are included in the 'easy' proofread-for-spelling-and-grammar task. The checkbox is labelled "Copyedit (fix spelling, grammar, and tone)" Add links is the other easy task. So if a user doesn't attend to the task instructions, they might add links to an article that needs grammar fixes. And if they don't read the cleanup tag at the top of the article, they might "fix" grammar for an article that needs parts rewritten for tone. To be honest though, cleanup tags often need to taken with a grain of salt anyway. You can see the Suggested Edit feature by visiting Special:Homepage. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 20:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you everyone who took time to address the issue (although, to be honest, I hoped that someone would simply cleanup remaining damage). There's some hope now that the user will do it him/herself, I only fear that it can result in even more mess...

It occurred to me that the best option for such users would be getting a supervisor/mentor; not one merely answering questions, but one "watching" edits of a mentee so as to revert bad ones immediately and provide some guidance, and by doing so prevent massive content damage and teach newbies wanted and effective editing of Wikipedia in a shorter time span than in mentorless mode.

Can anyone here give VickyBenz pointers as to where and how to ask for a mentor, as I've personally never been involved in it and can't really advise on this topic?

Also left a note for Growth Team – I agree with Pelagic they'd better be aware of such cases and it's obvious we need more effective measures to prevent something like this from happening: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Growth_Team_features#Some_newcomers_need_a_lot_more_attention

And a question: I'm thinking of submitting formal proposals at Village Pump for introduction of edit analyzer and supervision for problematic newcomers; any pointers to what I should read first prior to posting there? 188.66.34.204 (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Notability

Dear Host,

I want to ask how I can understand if my subject a person "Paras Jahanzaib" previously known as Paras Khursheed hosting a program "NewsBeat" in a leading national TV "SAMAA TV" from 2004 is notable or not?

Asim.ali15 (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Asim.ali15 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. A person is notable if they receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about them. Please see the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Primary sources like official biographies and interviews with her do not establish notability. What types of sources do you have? 331dot (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

https://www.samaa.tv/news/2536998

https://www.samaaenglish.tv/videos/newsbeat/

https://www.insaf.pk/news/prime-minister-imran-khans-interview-paras-jahanzaib-samaa-tv

https://thepakistantoday.com/sheikh-rasheed-gets-furious-with-anchor-paras-jahanzaib/

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/article/we-will-teach-you-a-lesson-pakistani-anchor-threatens-narendra-modi-in-hilarious-video Asim.ali15 (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Asim.ali15 These things document things Paras Jahanzaib was involved with, but are not independent, signficant coverage of her. That may be tough to find, as journalists do not often write about other journalists. In my search of her name I didn't see any good sources, so I would say that she does not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Error in infobox

Can somebody fix infobox of this article Meera Jasmine. 2409:4073:408:6381:0:0:76F:10A5 (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done - the previous editor had added nowiki mark up to the instructions in the infobox, which broke the formatting - Arjayay (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Languages

If I created an account for the English Wikipedia, like the one I'm using now, can I use it all across the entire Wikipedia system, meaning to edit articles in other languages? Hgh1985 (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hgh1985 - In a word, yes - User accounts are now global by default see m:Help:Unified login - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Hgh1985, but although the log-in is universal, not much else is. This means that if you log in to the English Wikipedia you won't see notifications sent to you in the French, for example, and if you create a user-page in the English Wikipedia it won't be visible to those who are reading the French Wikipedia; you'll have to write a new user-page, if you want one, for each Wikipedia that you edit. Your talk-pages are of course individual to each Wikipedia too. Elemimele (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The notifications and thanks do appear to be unified for me (all the languages' wikis, commons, etc.). I assume that's because in my user preferences "Notifications" pane, I have "Cross-wiki notifications: Show notifications from other wikis" checked. You can create a central userpage on meta, which will display on all other wikis that do not have a one created locally on that specific wiki. See WP:Global user pages for details. DMacks (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft for approval: Travelpayouts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Travelpayouts

Hi everyone! I just want to hear your advice. I have my draft about Travelpayouts which was declined for 2 times because of

1. It is reading more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia;

2. This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significantcoverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies).

I built the article on the principle of similar articles on this topic and of course took all the information from independent sources.

What can I do to get my article accepted? Maybe you can show mw where does it look like an advertisement? Perhaps I should look for more information about the company, although I have seen articles that are less comprehensive.

Thank you for instance! Zagogulko (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Zagogulko I ran the citation bot to turn the bare URL references into something more like proper citations. It became clear that you should have used named references as many citations currently listed separately are to the same source. See WP:NAMED. Most of these look like information based on press releases, so are not WP:INDEPENDENT of Travelpayouts. The central point for showing the notability of a company is that it should have been discussed in reliable independent sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Further to the feedback on the draft page, I would add there is a lot of irrelevant name-dropping of big travel companies, and a lot of talk about its business model, without actually explaining anywhere what the business actually does at a practical level. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Zagogulko, if you see similar articles that have bad sources or no sources, please tell us which they are so we can nominate them for deletion, but that is not an argument for adding your own to mainspace.

Examples of places where the draft look[s] like an advertisement:

1. content creator is a vague (but vaguely positive) term
2. The company works closely with... unlike my company, which works loosely, or maybe slacks off loosely, with its customers?
3. Travelpayouts is the largest affiliate marketing network focused on (X) - and I am the best expert in the world at the exact job that I am doing. You would need independent sources (so, not the CEO of Travel Payouts on a Forbes blog) to establish that this is a relevant description.
4. The company uses (...) a pay per action reward system. When I go buy groceries, I don’t "use a pay per item reward system". "Pay per action" might be justified in some contexts (not here: you should clarify from the outset whether it’s per click, per booking, etc.); "reward system" is probably never justified in a Wikipedia article. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

When will my draft article be made?

I have written an article which is currently draft, but if I want to submit it for approval, then how to do it, it is not showing the option of submit. Universe sky07 (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Universe sky07: you have already submitted it, do be patient. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 12:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

It was declined within 15 minutes (courtesy link: Draft:Devendra Yadav). That's pretty quick turn-around. Please see the links posted to your talkpage for an explanation of why, which includes links to the key wikipedia content policies and guidelines for more information. DMacks (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

My Article Should Not Have Been Deleted

I fail to see why my article was flagged as advertising when all I was doing was documenting a business and current and past projects. If Tesla and other big business can do it, why can't I? Squidwaffle (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Tesla and other big businesses don't do it. Someone unconnected with those big businesses writes about the big businesses--citing reliable sources that are themselves unconnected with those big businesses. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Walking back my earlier comment. I was assuming a situation a little different from what it in fact was. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Squidwaffle, and welcome to the Teahouse. Not being an admin, I can't see the deleted article. But what this usually means is that you have made the (natural) error of writing the article either from your own knowledge, or from Walley's point of view. One of the things that makes editing with a COI so hard is that it is hard to see when we're doing this.

But Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.. Having found the independent sources, you then need to forget anything you know about the company and write solely from what those sources say. You may then be able to add some uncontroversial factual data (like dates and places) from non-independent sources; but no more than that. ColinFine (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Squidwaffle. Your article was deleted before I could read it so I can only give general suggestions. Have you read Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners? Those links may help you understand how to write a good encyclopedia article. Best wishes on future Wikipedia projects. Karenthewriter (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Squidwaffle. I am an administrator and so I could read your deleted article about Walley's Heating & Air. Your draft had only a single reference and amazingly, that reference did not even mention Walley's Heating & Air. Tesla, Inc., on the other hand, has 593 references so the difference is stark. Your draft consisted of unverified business information and appears to be largely original research based on your personal experience. This type of content is clearly contrary to policy. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Wikipedia is not a business directory of every company. It is an encyclopedia with articles about notable companies, as Wikipedia defines that term. Cullen328 (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

How to provide context from a citation link

Hello, I would appreciate some help on this. When I am putting a citation, I think it will be good if there is a way the line or context from the citation link can be inserted too. So that will allow other users to directly know what is mentioned in the citation instead of having to put efforts in finding that text in the citation link. Can anyone help me with this? Thank you. ANLgrad (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@ANLgrad Most citation templates allow for quotes. See for example Template:Cite journal#Quote. There is no need to add long quotes to most citations but I agree that occasionally they can be useful. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull very very helpful. Thanks so much. ANLgrad (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

For very specific facts, an exact quote can be nice, but sometimes you want to cite an individual page or a range of pages in which case {{rp}} is quite nice, for using the same citation multiple times, but with different pages each time. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft article notification? And group project/task.

HI, I did ask for a number of draft articles about women in electronic literature to be restored. How will I know when these are restored? Will I be notified directly when these are restored?

I am trying to get a group of interested volunteers, so this would be a group project.  I have asked Women Writers if they would help sponsor us as a task. Would I get notified of a response there as well? 

Thanks. I am not trying to be impatient--I totally get that every volunteer is overwhelmed. I just want to figure out how I would be notified so that people know I am/we are working on this?

thank you! LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, LoveElectronicLiterature. I would expect that the admins would notify you on your user talk page.

As for your group: I would expect people to reply to yourpost at WT:WikiProject Women writers. They may or may not ping you when they do so, so it's worth checking there. ColinFine (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Contacted IP-user engaging in war-edits, no response. Post edited by 3rd user. What next?

Hi, an IP-user was engaging in war-editing. He was contacted by me and others [4], but had no response.

• the page he was warring on has been massively edited.
• he hasn't responded in half a month

Can I resume editing? I'm mostly interested in copy-editing, tiny changes to sources, moving content etc. If not, what should I do? AkisAr-26 (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Tagging the article in question, for convenience: Greeks for the Fatherland —Echohawkdown (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@AkisAr-26 Welcome to Teahouse! I tend to agree with your reverts and worth noting the WP:3RR only refers to a 24 hour period, so more than 2 weeks is abundantly past that. That said, giving everyone time to cool off is strategically wise. Happy editing, and in future, if the editor doesn't engage in good faith by either engaging in editing war or reverting without explanation as they have in this case, I'd report them at WP:AIV. Kudos for checking in before editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Kind regards, AkisAr-26 (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Removing Twitter source on "History of American Airlines"

On the History of American Airlines page, the section on the 2020s references a Tweet published by the American Airlines Twitter account about potentially lifting their ban on in-flight smoking.

While it seems to pass the WP:SOCIALMEDIA test, a cursory search on Twitter for "we'll pass it" (for phrases like "we'll pass it along" or "we'll pass it to X") on the AmericanAir Twitter account shows that it's a phrase that is frequently used by the account, so it doesn't seem to meet the notability & significance guidelines for sources, especially since it doesn't come from American Airline's newsroom.

What policy/guideline/rule should I refer to when removing the offending section? Echohawkdown (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The section has already been deleted as baloney − a decision I support. Maproom (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Echohawkdown. I removed that content because it is nonsense. No original research is a core content policy. The no smoking policy on U.S. airlines became total in 2000 and is a result of federal law enforced by federal agencies. The tweet was a polite but utterly non-committal response to a tweet by a troll. Cullen328 (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

See Inflight smoking for further details. Cullen328 (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - I figured it was nonsense as well, which is what prompted the question; I just didn't know which particular guideline/reason I should leave in the edit history for removing it from the article. Echohawkdown (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of page redirection

I'm trying to edit a page that is currently being redirected from an other page with a similar name (with an accent on a letter). I can't quite succeed to remove that redirection. Is there anyone able to help me ?

Page in question: Ōkubi (japanese folklore) Okubi (no accent on the O) Upcoming video game -- This is the page I'm trying to edit. Skeltonjohn (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is a direct link to edit the redirect. If you're planning to expand it into a full article, make sure you know the topic is notable and that you're using reliable sources, and consider first creating a draft and later pushing it to the mainspace. --small jars tc 19:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Skeltonjohn, and welcome to the Teahouse. While it is possible to edit a redirection page into an article, I would not recommend that an inexperienced editor try it. If you are satisfied that the game meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - unlikely for an "upcoming" game, but possible - and you feel ready to enter the challenging and often frustrating fray of creating a Wikipedia article before spending time learning how Wikipedia works, then I advise you to study Your first article and then use the articles for creation process to create a draft. When you get the article in suitable state you can submit it for review, and when a reviewer eventually accepts it as an article, they will sort out the redirect.

On the other hand, if you cannot find the multiple substantial independent reliable sources that are a non-negotiable requirement, you should not spend any more time on such an article at present. In any case, as I implied above, I would strongly advise you not to attempt to create any article until you have a few months' experience improving existing articles, so that you have learnt how Wikipedia works and what its requirements are. ColinFine (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

battle for dream island

why isn't BFDI on Wikipedia, when they won the 2021 cartoon crave awards? Somecoolguy12345 (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Articles are added to Wikipedia on topics which are notable, which means they have recieved significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Please see WP:YFA and WP:GNG for more information. And no, just because something has an Uncyclopedia article doesn't mean it qualifies for Wikipedia. casualdejekyll 19:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Somecoolguy12345. The simple answer is that nobody has volunteered to write such an article. Is this web series truly notable, as Wikipedia defines that term? As for the Cartoon Crave Awards, that is a non-notable group of awards hosted on a Wordpress site that is only two years old. Cullen328 (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

oh okay Somecoolguy12345 (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Somecoolguy12345, now I see that you an submitted a draft article User:Somecoolguy12345/sandbox but it was unreferenced and poorly written and you said that you were lazy at the end. Please read Your first article and step up your game. Cullen328 (talk)

I do not know if this is the same topic as the deleted revisions of Battle for Dream Island, but if it is, a Deletion review will be nessesary. Considering that the last attempt was deleted and salted for an utter lack of reliable sources on the matter, your first step will probbably to find multiple reliable sources to base an article on. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same topic as the deleted and salted article, which mentioned the Cartoon Crave Award. Deor (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

i like salt Somecoolguy12345 (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

hi @Somecoolguy12345 and welcome to the teahouse! as a bfdi fan myself I feel like I have to provide some background here. basically, there has been countless attempts to re/create the article (or some attempts to create one for battle for bfdi, season 4), all of which have been declined for the same reason: no reliable sources. from an older teahouse post, i posted this:

a long while back (maybe 2017 or so, during an attempt by the discord community to create an article), I did a search to help with article creation and if I recall correctly, there was no sources that came close to being reliable. even today it doesn't have reliable sources, the only news article I can find is a Forbes Contributor article on that Fandom Fantasy Food contest where jnj basically pulled their fans to victory, which is not exactly reliable and does not even have significant coverage since it focuses on the contest itself.
I think this is one of, if not the defining example of fame =/= notability. bfdi has a giant fanbase enough to spawn lots of fanfics and shows inspired by it, wins popularity contests, episode 1a has 63m views and the compilation of its first season has 20m, jacknjellify has 1.2m subs, yet it has absolutely no significant coverage in reliable sources and nothing backing its claim to notability unlike other webfics such as Homestar Runner, Don't Hug Me I'm Scared, Hazbin Hotel, and Eddsworld. and I'm not saying this as someone against the creation of a potential BFDI article, as I would've planned to make one once I had enough experience with article creation, but (surprisingly for a 10yo web series) it's still too soon to make one.

I believe that bfdi's status as a show whose large fanbase is primarily from a cult following instead of gaining mainstream attention (where most shows would get sources and lots of it, and which bfdi has not really much of) is why it doesn't (and can't, since it is blacklisted due to the many repeated attempts) have an article yet. I hope this answers your question, and happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Scottish Junior Cup Finals - List of attendances

There is no attendance listed against the 2005 Final Tayport v Lochee United at Tannadice Park Dundee. I was secretary of Tayport FC from 1968 to 2016 and can confirm that the attendance was 6,668. This figure is recorded in Tayport FC's match programme on 4th June 2005 Tayport v Linlithgow Rose. This programme can be accessed in Tayport FC's Programme Archive www.tayportfcarchive.com Thank You - Albert J.Oswald 2A00:23C8:6187:BB01:3DBB:2877:96A2:3003 (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

If this is something that you think merits addition to the article Tayport F.C., then please add it there. Specify the published source. Don't just say "in Tayport FC's Programme Archive www.tayportfcarchive.com"; instead, provide the title and URL of the precise page (or PDF file) within this website. If you'd prefer not to do this, then please suggest the addition by writing at the foot of Talk:Tayport F.C. ("Start a discussion"). -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course, if it's instead for Scottish Junior Cup, then either edit this or make the suggestion at the foot of Talk:Scottish Junior Cup. -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

How to send a link

Hello. Thank you for answering my question. I want to send the cited article below via email, but I do not know how to properly copy and insert the link (mobile view) in a email message.

ttps://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Carolingian_dynasty&oldid=1107241012 Jahquelyn (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

hi @Jahquelyn and welcome to the teahouse! the link seems to already work which is probably all you need for an email link, although you might wanna add a "h" at the start ("https:// ...") to make sure it works. or, are you trying to get another link copied? 💜  melecie  talk - 00:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jahquelyn Welcome to Tea House! You can send the link as is (with the added h in the beginning), however if you want a mobile view of the url (the person recieving your email might be using desktop though), you can always search bottom of view for mobile view or directly prefix m (shorthand for mobile) before the wikipedia.org, for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Carolingian_dynasty&oldid=1107241012 ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jahquelyn: I suggest you just copy-paste the url https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Carolingian_dynasty&oldid=1107241012 into the mail. Whether it becomes a clickable link for the recipient or they have to copy the url to a browser address bar will depend on the used email software or mail service. If you want to increase the chance it's clickable then send a HTML email with a link if your own email software or mail service allows it. Maybe HTML emails is the default for you. It varies how to make a link and you didn't say which software or service you use. Maybe there is a link icon with a chain. Maybe it happens automatically when you copy-paste the url. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

APNG size limit

GIFs can't display over 12.5 million pixels according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Consideration_of_image_download_size

What is the limit for APNG? Is it the same? Tallungs (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tallungs Welcome to Teahouse! This place is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. If you find a good source, you can add it to APNG. You can ask questions about topics at WP:REFDESK, specifically Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing instead. Happy learning and editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. I am asking for a technicality regarding the wikipedia tumbnail system. Not about APNG in general. Tallungs (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tallungs please accept my apologies, and consider WP:trouting me. I didn't find a recent answer, but unclear whether APNG's are widely used on Wikimedia. See for example c:Category:Animated PNG which is rather small. I suspect low browser usage, with various fallbacks make it a non-reliable format for wide browser varieties. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

No worries. It's a very specific question. Apparently the gif size limit has increased to 100 million pixels. While this page indicates that APNG hasn't followed suit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Animated_GIF_files_exceeding_the_100_MP_limit

Too bad, since it'd reduce bandwidth a lot. Tallungs (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Tallungs: It seems you managed to answer your own question. If you have other technical questions in the future, you should probably ask them at WP:VPT. (Nothing wrong with asking at the Teahouse if you did not know that forum existed.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

referencing help

hi I had a draft article declined because of inadequate reliable sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bi-Rite_Home_Appliances How might I fix this up for a better chance of approval? Dtayl20 (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dtayl20: Welcome to the Teahouse! I looked at the first two references from Appliance Retailer, and they appear to be press releases from Bi-Rite. Wikipedia is looking for independent published sources about the company. Also, six references for one sentence is too many references. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

a question

has anybody here heard of Battle For Circle? Somecoolguy12345 (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Somecoolguy12345: Welcome to the Teahouse! I had not heard of this, but found some information with a quick Google search. I do not see any mention of it in the English Wikipedia. Do you have a question about Wikipedia? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Battle For Circle is one of my favorite object shows

it has 20 circles and 14 episodes all named circle (BFDI has 63 episodes so far for comparison) Somecoolguy12345 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Somecoolguy12345, do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? This is a place for folks to ask questions about editing. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

no not really Somecoolguy12345 (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

How does one start a search for sources?

I'm about to start a search for non-primary sources to rewrite my article for resubmission. How do you go about searching for sources online and/or offline? Mcb mikeb (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mcb mikeb: try the resources in {{find sources}}. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 06:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mcb mikeb: Welcome to the Teahouse! See also Help:Your first article#Gathering references. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mcb mikeb. I see no evidence whatsoever that Polydina Flynt is a notable person. It is not possible to write an acceptable biography without significant coverage of the person in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Explanatory footnotes

I added an Efn to Sam Smith, but I am unable to click on it when viewing the article. Any advise, anyone? GOLDIEM J (talk) 07:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@GOLDIEM J, since your efn was the first/only one, you also needed this:[5]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Cheers mate👍😀 GOLDIEM J (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Radio Host notability

Hey, What are the notability criteria for a Radio Personality/Host. I only found the notability of American Radio host. What about other countries? Thanks കോട്ടയംകാരൻ (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@കോട്ടയംകാരൻ, WP:BASIC may be as close as you get. Note that your WP:RS doesn't have to be in English, see WP:NOENG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Deleting a Draft

Hi, I wrote a failed draft a few months ago and I am looking for the best way to erase it. I am not the solely contributor to this draft so I am having difficulties to erase it, but it hasnt been edited in over 5 months. Any advice? SDC3021 (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@SDC3021, you could just wait, drafts that are un-edited for about 6 months get delete-nominations by a bot. Or you can try Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Article Wizard

I am trying to use Article Wizard. Why my draft continued to get deleting? Charlottetang2022 (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:KuCoin is heading toward Speedy deletion. Hyperlinks within the body of the article are not allowed, and the draft has no references. You can oppose the SD by clicking on the Talk page of the draft, but without references, it has no potential. Beyond my areas of expertise, but I believe that cryptocurrency articles have special requirements. David notMD (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@David notMD: As far as I know, cryptocurrency articles don’t have "special requirements" (i.e. there is no WP:SNG pertaining to them). They are evaluated under the WP:GNG framework.

That being said, my understanding is that specialized sources about that topic are usually not of sufficient quality for GNG (see for instance Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_273#RfC_-_CoinDesk_as_a_source). As a result, only things that hit the mainstream press (i.e. few of them) are considered notable. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Not so much special requirements as general sanctions. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, when I looked at the draft it had what looked as if they'd been intended as references. It was just that instead of the usual pattern Assertion<ref>Reference</ref> there was the (of course unacceptable) pattern [URL-of-reference Assertion]. I shan't comment on the quality of these would-be references, or on any of the other issues here. -- Hoary (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Accidentally drafted my sandbox, can't put it back

Hi there! In an attempt to draft an article I was working on in my Sandbox, I accidentally drafted my whole sandbox, including the history for the entire ~8 months I've been using it (link). I tried putting it back, but somehow managed to make an entirely new Sandbox in the process and now I can't just move the original Sandbox back to where it should be. I read Wikipedia:Moving a page and Wikipedia:Requested moves, but I'm a little confused on where to put my request. Would someone be able to point me in the right direction? ItsMackie ( Talk ) 14:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi ItsMackie! What you need is something called a WP:HISTSPLIT, something that takes admin assistance. User:PrimeHunter appears to have undone the page-move, not sure if he's going to do the split also. DMacks (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi ItsMackie, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm an administrator and have moved Draft:The Mortuary Assistant back to User:ItsMackie/sandbox. If you are the only contributor to the content then you can create a new draft page with content copied from your sandbox without attributing the source. A history split is possible if you really want the page history of the draft to show your individual edits but it's not necessary. Many users create drafts in named subpages like User:ItsMackie/The Mortuary Assistant. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

All I wanted was for everything to be moved back to where it was! I thought I'd discovered some lovely shortcut to just pasting everything over, obviously that wasn't the result. Thank you so much for taking your time out of your day to do that. And @DMacks, thank you for pointing me toward WP:HISTSPLIT. ItsMackie ( Talk ) 15:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Correction and clarification

Hello! I would like to know if it is correct to use that Template: Family name hatnote especially the All others (A, not B) for the article of a personality with foreign blood (e.g. Sam Milby)? Then my co-editor constantly criticized me for having two accounts and if I did have an account, I rarely logged in because I was too busy with tasks that had nothing to do with the encyclopedia. Now how can I prove that what they are accusing me of is wrong so there are times when I am on hiatus due to being too busy as well as the depression I experienced that started 4 years ago which was made worse by the current pandemic. RenRen070193 (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi RenRen070193, you seem to have got into a bit of a confusion here. (1) So far as I can see, most of your edits aren't using the family name hatnote template, but are using the plain hatnote template which isn't intended for names. The hatnote template, which doesn't mention family names, is used at the top of an article where there is another article with a similar article-name, where the reader might have found themselves at the wrong article. As a result, you are being constantly reverted by other editors. On a few occasions you have taken a valid specific name template such as the Philippine name template at Conrado Estrella III and replaced it with a hatnote (not the family name one) template, which is also unhelpful. I'd suggest you stop doing these edits until you've sorted out how the templates work. It's a good idea to assume that existing articles with name templates are probably mostly correct, rather than assume they're all wrong! (2) You're also clearly in a pickle at the moment with an accusation of editing while logged off, or under another name. Editing while logged off isn't actually necessarily wrong, but doing it in a way that might mislead people (for example writing something when you're logged on, and then supporting your viewpoint when logged off, so you sound like two people agreeing instead of one person) is wrong and will get you in trouble. Overall, to get out of both problems I would suggest (1) telling the world that you will stop editing foreign names and working with name format templates; there are lots of other useful things to do in Wikipedia; and (2) decide on one account and promise to stick to it (or alternatively, decide to edit only as an IP editor and never use an account at all). Generally the community here dislikes disruption, but can be forgiving and look forwards, rather than vengeful and looking backwards, if you can give assurances that you will not create problems. If you do want to carry on editing foreign name templates, I'd suggest strongly that you look at good articles as examples, listen to other editors when they give advice, and experiment in your sand box, and in the current situation it would help your case if you can undertake to do this. I am, though, very sorry that you're finding editing Wikipedia stressful, and I hope you find your niche. Hope this helps! Elemimele (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hello, RenRen070193. First of all, please search for help outside Wikipedia if you have depression or similar health problems. You do not have to keep editing Wikipedia (or even give a status update to other editors). Second, I notice from your post here, and a few other contributions, that your English is not easy to understand. I suspect this can lead to misunderstandings with other editors. Consider editing the Wikipedia version corresponding to your native language (I assume that is not English - maybe Tagalog?). (Also, having more than two native languages is already a rarity, yet your userpage states that you are a native speaker of no less than six languages, belonging to four very different linguistic groups; you might want to correct that.)

I will assume that your question is about names for people with multiple plausible nationality / origin backgrounds. I would say the answer depends on the culture to which the name is attached. In general, a hatnote is only needed if the name order would cause surprise to someone reading the article with an assumption of the English/Western name order.

In the case of Sam Milby, it seems to me that his name is clearly American, and therefore there is no need for a family name hatnote. I would be more concerned about mentions of him being "Filipino-American", which usually implies someone lives in the US after either they or their family emigrated from the Philippines. There, it is rather the reverse - he is American-born and emigrated to the Philippines. (The article says he "return[ed] to the Philippines in 2005" but that is a dubious way of saying it if he never lived there before.)

In the case of Ryzza Mae Dizon, you would need to present evidence that this person is most commonly referred to as "de Guzman" in English media. If so, the article should probably be moved, and all references to "Dizon" changed throughout the text, and then add the family hatnote. However, if English sources refer to her as "Dizon", no matter how incorrect that might be in Tagalog, that is what should be kept in the article. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Any sidebar template for Annual 12 months

While working on several "Romania in year xxxx" articles I see some with many events per month. Today, just for fun, I made a simple sidebar template here. There is the existing template {{BD ToC|deaths}} for births & deaths, but none that I can find for Events. Does anyone here at Teahouse know of such a 12-months template? Thought to ask here first before going to WP:VPT. JoeNMLC (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Creating an article

Hey, I've been sent here by User:Chris troutman in order to get a Wikipedia editor to create an article for a biography of a living person, to be more specific a tattoo artist. I am not quite experienced with how Wikipedia works but as said I've been guided a little bit by Chris Troutman. I was wondering if you're accepting this kind of service. I'm looking forward hearing from you. PinkWriter99 (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)