Wikipedia:Teahouse

CiaPan, 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

'Original research' and how to overcome it?

A while back I submitted some pages on a piece of software I wrote over 10 years ago, following my PhD, called Enguage. This has been available as free, open source, software and has been an Android app since 2013. It demonstrates how speech is Turing Complete: we can say that speech is information bearing medium - which is an appeal to common sense - but this software demonstrates how this is the case. I have written many academic papers on this over the years; it won the British Computer Society's Machine Intelligence competition in 2016; and, I just want to share this knowledge. However these pages were rejected because it is 'original research'.

I don't disagree that 'original research' should not be included in Wikipedia - I could just make something up and submit a page, which would pollute Wikipedia. And this is particularly important in a post-truth world: we need objectivity! As a scientist, my work is repeatable and supported by demonstrable software. My (academic) papers have been subjected to a peer review process, so these should be a 'reliable source'? Certainly, my software exists and is there for everyone to repeat my findings. However, my reviewers (in doing their job diligently!) just pointed this out that the pages are not acceptable.

However, there are plenty of other pages on other software, such as Alexa and ChatGPT, which have pages describing them (the new kids on the block, IMHO!), surely is should be possible to produce some pages on my work - just not written by me?

Is this how this restriction be overcome?

Is it simply that as the original author I can't write anything about it? So Isaac Newton simply couldn't write a page about Gravity? We'd be floating about, waiting for someone else to write their interpretation of his work, before things settle down? Surely, it can't be that pages can only be written about non-obscure things, I'll agree that my software is not as well known as ChatGPT or Alexa!

Is there anyone who can help? I just want to share my knowledge :) MartinWheatman (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Martinwheatman: We publish articles on topics that have been covered in depth in reliable sources that are independent of those topics. Alexa and ChatGPT meet that criterion for inclusion. If your software has been written about in depth in reliable sources that are independent of you, then your software could possibly have an article also. Your academic papers are not independent of you, regardless of peer review. If you feel the software meets the notability criteria for inclusion, then go to WP:AFC and follow the instructions to submit a draft for review. Because you have a conflict of interest concerning your own software, you should not attempt to publish an article in article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

(Update) @Martinwheatman: I just noticed that you already have a draft that was deleted due to inactivity: Draft:Enguage. If you want me to restore it for you to work on it further, drop me a note and I'm happy to do so. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Martinwheatman Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You might want to review the conflict of interest policy. It isn't forbidden for someone to contribute about a topic with which they have a conflict of interest, but they must do so in accordance with that policy. It would be better if independent editors wrote about your work, but you aren't prohibited from doing so indirectly.

If you just want to tell the world about the existence of your software, that's what a personal website, social media, or other wiki type website with less stringent requirements are all for. Wikipedia is primarily interested in what others have to say about your software and what makes it notable as defined by Wikipedia. Your own academic papers can't support an article about your software, even if peer reviewed. If others independent of you write about your software in an academic paper, that might be okay. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Martinwheatman. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable, published sources that are entirely independent of the topic say about the topic. A topic which has received such coverage is considered notable as defined by Wikipedia and therefore eligible for a Wikipedia article. Clearly, this excludes anything that a software developer has written about their own software. Any such article needs to be based on what has been published in completely independent sources. This is a matter of policy. Cullen328 (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist @Cullen328 @331dot Thanks for the quick replies, everyone. The inactivity was simply due to the reaction I got then, and that I'm getting now, that /I'm/ not welcome at Wikipedia. I could edit these pages all I like, it would still be me writing. If I need to be popular on social media, or on my own website, first, well it would be my own hand (again!). Self aggrandisement is the last thing in the world I want. Don't worry, I get it!

No, what I'm really asking, above, is if someone else wrote these pages - might this be the key to overcoming the self-interest/first-hand account? Could they explain what it does, why it is significant by referring to the original papers. Or do pages need to be third-hand: someone writing a page about what someone has said about my work. Otherwise, all I can write a page which lists the fact that Enguage won the 2016 BCS MI Competition, but not the reason why. As I said above, I'm not disagreeing with any of the policies - it is just how to work with them.

If there might be a way forward, it would be great to have the pages restored, but I'm getting the feeling I'll just get 'original research' thrown at me again, rather than help in editing pages. For example, could it be left as a stub with requests for help - is that a way forward?

As for conflict of interest, my software is free and open source, this should separate me somewhat from 'interest'; however, and more importantly, I'm completely open about the fact that I'm the author of this software (i.e disclosure).

Sorry, if this sounds a little negative on my part, I'm just trying to find a way forward.

Just as an aside, as a natural language engine, Enguage also reads Wikipedia pages to serve as an information processing system as an option for people with difficulties with screens and keyboards (it caches them to throttle access to your servers!) I suppose I could also put in reference to the cease-and-desist letter I'll be getting from your lawyers? ;-) MartinWheatman (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of interest does not necessarily mean profiting from something. It just means that you have a connection to the topic(as the creator) and presumably you have an interest in telling the world about it(and it could be for a selfless reason, and not personal gain).

We welcome everyone who is willing to participate here. It just needs to be done the right way. 331dot (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm willing to participate, but I think the 'right way' is that I don't share my ideas here, at best I share what others think of them :-/ MartinWheatman (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That is exactly right. Think of it like a police procedural. It's not what you know, it's what you can cite. MrOllie (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the sources cited by your draft aren't independent of the article's subject (because they were written by you). That is the main problem. The conflict of interest caused by you writing the Wikipedia article is a concern, but it isn't the main concern - we would need sources that cover your software in depth that were written and published without any involvement or association with you. You mention Alexa above - there are many books and articles written about Alexa that are completely independent of Amazon - that is why we have an article on Alexa, but not one on your software. MrOllie (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why I asked my original question. If I wrote a book on my software, it wouldn't be independent of me. MartinWheatman (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Martinwheatman I'd suggest you read WP:N to understand Wikipedia's definition of notability, and WP:RS to understand what kind of sources an article needs. As your article stands right now, there are 16 references, but 12 of them were written by you, so are not independent sources. Of the remaining 4, as far as I can see, none of them even mention Enguage or your name, so obviously they don't count as "significant" coverage. Your next step should be to locate several reliable sources that are independent and contain significant, in-depth coverage of Enguage. And remember that everything in the article should come from those sources, not from your own personal knowledge or memory. CodeTalker (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't have access to my article so I can't comment, but yes you're right, I did quote my papers - they can be edited out, rather than writing an empty stub and hoping someone puts something in. The lack of third party sources is my stumbling block. But I do read Wikipedia pages every day which have issues with them - I don't want to have issues with mine. I can't make someone else write about my work (or can I?) but I'm guessing nobody is going to do that. It is the failure of popularity in life which is being judged, not my work which is repeatable and demonstrable which I feel should be the important point. MartinWheatman (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Martinwheatman, you are absolutely welcome to contribute to Wikipedia as long as you comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is no workaround regarding the three core content policies, and No original research is one of those three policies. Creating a stub that violates policy is not an option. Every article must comply with core content policies, or it is subject to deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Martinwheatman: First, you are welcome here. Just because you chose to write about a topic that may not qualify for inclusion doesn't mean you aren't welcome.

The problem is that you don't understand Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and we are trying to explain this to you. You also don't seem to understand conflict of interest, which has nothing to do with financial gain. On Wikipedia, "conflict of interest" means you have an association with a topic. Everyone has a conflict of interest about themselves and their work.

It doesn't matter if someone else writes the article. The only difference is that someone else wouldn't have the same conflict of interest you do. However, in the end, the author of an article is irrelevant. Bottom line, if there is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic, then the topic cannot have an article on Wikipedia. That is the basic underlying policy that allows any article on Wikipedia to exist. See WP:Golden Rule to understand what kind of sources are required.

You went about writing this article WP:BACKWARD, starting with what you know instead of what independent sources say about the topic. That's a common mistake made by many new editors trying to write their first article. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Everyone is now commenting about my previous draft, but I don't seem to have access to it and, anyway, I'm not defending it! The offer to restore the draft is clearly not a way forward as the original issues with the page still stand. And yes as a newbie, I will make mistakes, I certainly made them! I'll say again, I'm not disagreeing with the policies (especially the conflict of interest, which I didn't say it was all about financial gain - it's about any perceived gain and the obfuscation of it!) And, from abandoning my draft, I do already know that I can't simply create my own page - but this wasn't my original question, above. And, I already have a personal webpages in my source code repo on bitbucket and github.

My original question was about how much help, and to what degree of independence, do I need to a page being written? Much of this is answered in the COI page, thanks. I think @331dot mentioned "independent editors", but unless someone spontaneously writes an page on Enguage there'll always be a perceived COI. I don't think a Enguage will ever exist on Wikipedia pages (it'll still read them for people!) The evidence for this is in the software, not someone's opinion of it. Sometimes I do wonder if I'm down a "rabbit hole", but one of my own making, when people ignore my work? But when people do look at it, they seem to be impressed with it.

Sorry, I'm not now looking for 'a way forward' :) So, even if one of you guys downloaded and ran my software and thought it was cool, or whatever, that wouldn't be 'notable'. I do realise you're trying to help by pointing me at the policies and guidelines, and I thank you for your time and effort(!), but I'm not the one writing this page, right?

I think I'll leave it there (again!) And, thanks! MartinWheatman (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Typically articles are written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic, who take note of coverage in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it, summarizing those sources that describe what makes the topic notable. So yes, most articles are written spontaneously. As I said above, you are not absolutely forbidden from writing an article(the preferred term, not the broader "page") about something for which you have a COI, but your main problem is that there is little to no independent coverage of your software to summarize. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

For anyone reading this discussion, I have restored the draft in question: Draft:Enguage. Martinwheatman may continue improving it. For the draft to be accepted as an article on Wikipedia, it needs multiple citations to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this @Anachronist I'll have another go, but I really don't think there are that many references to Enguage. I've created a body of work in, and following, my PhD which can understand speech, in a pragmatic sense, so this is a prototypical Robbie-the-Robot, or C3P0 (choose you own SciFi era!) But after a decade of publishing papers, and public demonstrations, and attending conferences, I still can't get the funding nor the publicity which would inspire third-party references, despite all the positive feedback from the technical community. And then, the world takes up on ChatGPT and everyone's fears is that it represents the end of humanity, etc., etc. Perhaps if Enguage didn't work, but rather threatened humanity, I might get external reference? Perhaps, I need to be a better publicist? Thanks for the work you do, your welcome, and putting up with my unsightly frustrations the other night. :-) MartinWheatman (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the 'way forward' I'm seeking might be to create a profile of myself, which would contain references to the work I have done -- which is of public record -- whereas the content of the work remains original research? No, not a gripping read I'm sure(!) but it might be more aligned with the policies? MartinWheatman (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Martinwheatman, in writing an article on yourself (which I assume is what you meant by profile), you're going to run into the same problem - sources. Have you received significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources? This is going to exclude interviews and anything published by you or folks affiliated with you. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Cannot upload image onto the edit page of my article, please can you help

Tree of Life

Hi I have an image which I have tried ( unsuccessfully ) to upload onto both the talk page of my article and the actual article itself ( in desperation) but although it says it has uploaded it will not allow me to see the image, either on the talk page or on the article itself. The file is not corrupted and so I don't know why this seems impossible to do. The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Reed_(sculptor) what am I doing wrong?

Please can you help, Many thanks for your help,

Hannah Hannahlucy100 (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hannahlucy100 - what is / where is the image you are trying to upload? - Arjayay (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello again Hannahlucy. I'm not sure what problem you are having. You have successfully uploaded the image File:Tree of Life sculpture for the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Kings Lynn.jpeg, and added it to Talk:Mark Reed (sculptor).

Two minor points: when an image is freely licensed, it is better to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, so that any Wikimedia project may use it. Normally upload only non-free material directly to Wikipedia. Secondly, you can link to an image without displaying it by an initial colon, so [[:File:Tree of Life sculpture for the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Kings Lynn.jpeg]] displays as File:Tree of Life sculpture for the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Kings Lynn.jpeg. Usually in asking for an image to be added, you would link to it in that way on the talk page rather than displaying the image on the talk page. But neither of these points should affect your request. ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hannahlucy100 has already uploaded three versions to Commons: commons:Special:ListFiles/Hannahlucy100. Please don't upload more versions. See Help:Pictures for how to display images. Here I added this to the top of the section: [[File:Tree of Life sculpture for the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Kings Lynn.jpeg|thumb|''Tree of Life'']]. If you have problems then save your code so we can see what is wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hannahlucy100: What makes you think that the file is OK to upload under a {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} license? Generally, when it comes to photos such as this, there are two things that need to be considered: (1) the copyright of the photographed work and (2) the copyright of the photograph itself. This means that a separate copyright license is typically required for both. So, I'm just curious as to why you think both the work in the photo you uploaded as well as the photo itself are OK to license as "cc-by-sa-4.0". -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It depends on what country the photo was taken in. This is not an issue in America (we have "freedom of panorama") but I don't know the UK law. Also, unless I'm missing something, the file page doesn't describe who took the photo, where, and when, and who uploaded it and when, which is pretty much required. Herostratus (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hannahlucy100 @Herostratus. The UK has freedom-of-panorama rules simlilar to the US. The file on Commons should be tagged with the template {{FoP-UK}} to indicate this because, in general, one otherwise cannot upload an image of modern sculptures which are derivative works and hence copyrighted. I assume that the image was taken personally by Hannahlucy100 using their own camera, which allows them to license it as CC BY SA. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

"Freedom of panorama" (FOP) can be truly rather complicated to sort out which is why I asked the uploader simply to state their reasons for choosing the file's licensing without mentioning that in my question. Once the uploader answered, it would've been easier to give them better and more specific advice than to simply try summarize the complexities of FOP to them from the get go. The latter approach runs the risk of over simplification and possibly making a mistake. (For example, the US doesn't have unrestrictive FOP for all things, and US and UK rules are not so similar when it comes to FOP for works of art.) Basically, it comes down to who took the photo of the "Tree of Life" sculpture and whether the work is installed in a publicly accessible place per c:COM:FOP UK. If the photo was taken by the uploader and the work is installed in a publicly accessible place, the file should be OK (with some minor tweaking) for Commons as explained above by Michael D. Turnbull. If, however, the photo wasn't taken by the uploader, then there are more complicated issues that are going to need to be resolved for Commons to keep the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Making a userbox bigger

How do I make a userbox bigger Chemification (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello there, Chemification! Unfortunately, there's no way to resize userboxes themselves, but there is a way to resize the image and text. By default, the image's size is a 14, and the text is a size 8.

- It's the Master of Hedgehogs! (do you wanna talk?) 21:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok cuz I've been wondering how the big userboxes were made Chemification (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I just remembered a funny incident. So, I was trying to make a userbox signifying that the user is a Baba is You, when I forgot to resize the picture, which lead to the userbox stretching kinda like this.

- It's the Master of Hedgehogs! (do you wanna talk?) 21:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I made 2 userboxes about chemistry and put them both on my user page, and the same thing happened. You can find them both here and here. Chemification (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Chemification, You can actually do it, but it's a bit tedious, If you're willing to try coding a bit, you could invoke template {{Userbox}} directly, and alter parameters like |id-w= to make it bigger. That would quickly make your user page unreadable (and error-prone) if you do the coding there, so I'd recommend creating a subpage like User:Chemification/User chemist, say, copy the content of Template:User Chemistry there, then increase the param value of |id-w= (and any others you wish, like |id-s= for font-size), adding any other params from {{Userbox}} as needed, and when that page is working, then change your user page to use your userbox instead of the standard one by prefixing a slash, like this: {{/User chemist}}. Let me know if you run into problems with it. That would only change that one box, and if you wanted to do all of them, that could add up to a lot of work, although after the first one, it would get faster. (P.S., I changed your section title above; feel free to change it back.) Mathglot (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

How can I automatically inform users of an undo?

I am looking for a tool that will automatically notify users when I undo their edits. I have tried Twinkle, which I think opens a new tab to leave a message on a user's talk page. I'd rather have a tool that directly informs the user automatically, preferably with the edit summary I've given on the undo. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The only tool I am aware of which does something like this is Huggle, which requires rollback perms afaik. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I get a notification in my alerts if someone reverts me...not sure whether that's something I've enabled, though. Valereee (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I get a notification for undo/revert too. It's controlled in Preferences -> Notifications -> Edit revert and you can choose Web/Email/Apps, or disable entirely. DuncanHill (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It's probably good that that's an opt-in. Probably avoids a lot of edit-warring. @Dawkin Verbier, if an editor both hasn't opted-in for alerts and isn't keeping track of that article, maybe you can just assume they weren't wedded to that edit? Valereee (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I see. I understand the rollback perms are only given to editors who notify others when they undo edits? Would that mean I'll have to do it manually until I've "earned" that right? Apologies if I'm mistaken. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dawkin Verbier: No. Rollback is granted by administrators who feel that the ability will not be abused. I just granted you rollback. In many cases it is appropriate to notify someone when you reverted them. In the cases where I use it, it's usually for drive-by unconstructive edits and the person I reverted likely isn't going to return anyway. I use "undo" with an edit summary more often than I use rollback. Also, I don't use automated tools. If I notify someone, I do it manually, and have been doing so for my 17 years here. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I think it's great that you're a manual editor too. I'm having a hard time getting my head around all the various automated tools. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

difficulty

what are the easiest things to write an article about and what are the hardest things to write an article about and also the inbetweeners — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.159.190 (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, 115.188.159.190. Those are all personal opinion, so I can't really tell you what articles are the easiest to write, hardest articles to write, and the in-betweeners are.

- It's the Master of Hedgehogs! (do you wanna talk?) 11:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting question! For me, the easiest things to write about are topics that 100% meet our notability criteria.

The hardest things to write about are those that fail to meet them, as you won't be able to find any reliable sources to show their significance. There are thousands of animals and plants which, as yet, do not have even the briefest article about them. WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES tells us that these are all notable. That said, you'd need to understand a bit about nomenclature, taxonomy and synonymy to do them justice. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello 115.188.159.190. Since writing an acceptable Wikipedia article is hard work I would never try creating one about a subject I don’t have a strong interest in. I notice something that interests me doesn’t have an article, then I search for numerous good references so that every piece of information will have a reliable citation. If I can find enough referenced data, I usually read a few Wikipedia articles on similar subjects to get an idea on what my new article should cover, and then I start writing. For me the hardest thing to write an article on would be anything that I personally find boring and unimportant. If a notable subject is important to you, that would be the easiest thing to write about. Best wishes on future Wikipedia projects. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. Let me start by answering a slightly different, but related question, because it's easier to answer: "What are the easiest tasks to perform at Wikipedia?" This is also subjective, to some extent, but if you go to the Wikipedia:Task Center, you will find a list of lots of different kinds of things that need doing at Wikipedia, which have been rated for difficulty level. I hope that helps, at least a little bit.

Back to your original question: creating a brand new article is a relatively difficult task, and fixing typos is a relatively easy one. As far as subject matter, topics which require a great deal of domain knowledge are difficult to write about; if you don't know what differential geometry is, you're going to find it pretty impossible to write about, no matter how much time you spend with reliable sources. On the other hand, articles about history are much easier to write, because historians (usually!) write in plain language, because they want to be understood, and get their point across. So, you should be able to understand most sources written by historians, and summarize what they say in your own words. Does this help? Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Important articles not yet reviewed

Hi, I recently created two articles on Wikipedia that are not "Patrolled" by anyone. However, both are important and are currently being searched on Google. The articles are about the Bhagwa Love Trap conspiracy theory, which is a topic trending on social media; another is about Sampat Prakash, a renowned Kashmiri Pandit and Trade Unionist who passed away on July 1, 2023. Kindly do the needful. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 02:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

TheChunky Teahouse Hosts are not New Page Patrol reviewers. Only after your articles have been NPP approved or lacking a review, 90 days pass, would the articles be visible to search via Google pr other. Per your Talk page, you are an experienced NPP reviewer, and know all about this. David notMD (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news source or social medial There is no deadline. ColinFine (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

there is a deadline.

these are fun twins. 85.147.66.47 (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Die Zeitsbahn

Just a time-waster; patent nonsense, meaningless in the original German.

Hallo, wo ist die Zeitbahn mit Arbeitswaffen für den Abbau der Smoothie-Tragödie aus Spritzgesicht? Jurgensteinberger (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC) Hallo, dies ist die englische Wikipedia. Bitte schreiben Sie hier nur auf Englisch. Danke schön. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 02:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC) Hier ist die deutsche Wikipedia https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hauptseite AevumNova (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC) That is not even a remotely meaningful sentence. Did you use some kind of auto translator? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC) Obvious gobbledygook and patent nonsense in the original; no reason to keep this here or respond to it. Mathglot (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Table color

How do I change the table color to red in a box? Thanks, Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 05:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC).

@TrademarkedTarantula There is detailed help on tables, with specifics for colors, at Help:Table#Color; scope of parameters. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I wish to add information about Prof Ram Takwale, How can I do it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_G._Takwale Usp.uday (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Usp.uday Your changes to Ram G. Takwale were reverted because what you did was capitalize words that should not be capitalized. You are permitted to add new information, but it must be referenced. Separately, I have concerns that you were also editing the article as User:USP Panchpor and User:Usp pn. This is forbidden. Use only one account. David notMD (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not release this. I will delete one of the account and maintain only one account. Can you help in understanding the method of referencing the new information Usp.uday (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello again, Usp.uday. Accounts cannot be deleted, but you can simply stop using two of the accounts and stick to one of them.

For referencing, see WP:REFB. ColinFine (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. NmWTfs85lXusaybq reverted your edit, and several by Usp pn and USP Panchpor, with the comment "Vandalism". While that comment does not seem right, and I would caution NmWTfs85lXusaybq to read carefully what Wikipedia means by vandalism, much of what they reverted was unsourced information.

The proper thing for all of you to do now is to discuss the matter on Talk:Ram G. Takwale and attempt to reach consensus. I have pinged all the editors involved here, so you will see this item; but please continue any discussion on the talk page, not here. ColinFine (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I commented their edits by "Vandalism" because they placed external links (may be spamming) in the template link, inappropriately capitalized words and added unsourced material with an obvious sockpuppetry confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Usp pn. I'm not sure if Usp pn or Usp.uday is their sockmaster. Usp pn is inferred to be the sockmaster from their edit history. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Besides that, the potential of their WP:COI with Ram G. Takwale should be concerned because of their sockpuppetry. USP Panchpor and Usp.uday are obvious SPAs for Ram G. Takwale while they use Usp.uday to comment here. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks you so much for your understanding. I am slowly learning the process. Usp.uday (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You wrote "I am slowly learning the process." but if one of your accounts is Usp pn, that has existed since 2008, and was editing Ram G Takwale back in 2012. All three accounts may be indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. If you are left with one, I strongly recommend abandoning any efforst to edit the article in question, and instead turn to other articles that need improvement. David notMD (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Professor Takwale was mentor and so I wish to edit the information. I have worked with him for more than 15 years USP Panchpor (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@USP Panchpor: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you have worked with him for more than 15 years, I would exercise caution about directly editing the article as you have a conflict of interest. I strongly suggest you use an edit request to make suggestions instead. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

What is WorldCat used for again? And where does AllMovie/AllMusic supposedly get its information from?

While searching for possible duplicate profiles for someone on IMDB (I've found 1 for certain, and possibly 2 more), I noticed the duplicate profile had a credit for a British TV series which is massively incomplete:

• It contained just 11 episodes, only 2 of which had release dates (only one of which had a specific release date).
• All the episode numbers for those 11 episodes are also incorrect, as shown by their release dates.
• It doesn't have that many cast or crew members added, and the majority of the ones which have been added aren't linked to any specific episodes.

I've started to add the release dates, add links, and remove the incorrect episode numbers on IMDB...

Then I came here to see if it had a Wikipedia article for some reason. I've forgotten why I came here already, no doubt because I got distracted by the Wikipedia article for the TV series. The Wikipedia article, which was created and largely written 10 years ago, is just as bad, if not worse than the IMDB page. The Wikipedia article claims:

• That it has 65 episodes - Yet only 46 episodes are listed in the source I have.
• That it was broadcast between 1983 and 1986 - Both are 100% false.
• The full name of the production company, is part of the acronym for the production company - Even though they're both the same thing.
• It uses words like Britain and Seasons - When it should be using United Kingdom and Series.

And the only references it uses are:

• WorldCat
• IMDb
• AllMovie

IMDB, as I've already pointed out is a complete mess, which will be getting cleaned up a bit by me.

AllMovie, just like its sister sites, isn't reliable imo. I'm 99% sure that it gets all its information from Wikipedia, as the wording is usually identical, and are usually created after the Wikipedia articles have been created. The link is dead anyway. I can't understand how RhythmOne (the owner of AllMovie/AllMusic/AllGame) has not been completely Blacklisted.

WorldCat, is used for 2 references. 1 with a few details for a VHS of the show. 1 with a few details about a DVD of the show.

Can someone add WorldCat to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and give examples of when and where it should be used? Danstarr69 (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Danstarr. iMDB is not a reliable source because it is user generated, period. You're welcome to improve an entry in iMDB, and that might give you sources for working on a Wikipedia article, but nothing you do to iMDB will make it usable as a source for Wikipedia.

WorldCat is a catalog(ue). I believe it is reliable, but the kind of information that it gives you is rarely of much use for a Wikipedia article - if a work has not been discussed in independent sources, why does it belong in a Wikipedia article at all? - and in any case it cannot contribute to notabililty.

AllMovie I don't know about. I see that in this discussion in 2010 a particular editor said Allmovie is generally regarded as a reliable source because it employs full-time professional researchers, so on that basis it probably should be given the benefit of the doubt as a reliable source, and nobody argued that point. ColinFine (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Danstarr69, WorldCat is a fantastic resource, when used for the right goal. It's useless for establishing either WP:Notability, or for WP:Verifiability of content (except to establish existence, i.e., that something is not WP:HOAX content). I use WorldCat mostly to extract metadata for the various {{citation}} templates, as WorldCat will often have publisher/editor/series and other info that Google Books does not. Anlso, I use WorldCat to get the param value for |oclc= in the citation templates. WorldCat maintains a unique identifier, the OCLC id, which can be used to track any book, journal article, sometimes chapters, and other documents before the advent of ISBN, so is a very useful way to improve the verifiability of a citation by just including the oclc number, especially (but not exclusively) when no ISBN is available. Finally, WorldCat has a worldwide database of libraries, and if you log in with a (free) account and search for a book, it will tell you the ten (or more) closest libraries that have it. Often, it's within walking distance; sometimes, the "closest" one is 10,000 km away, but even that tells me something. So I'd definitely recommend getting a free account; all the sources you need for your article might be around the corner from you, and you never knew it. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

knowing

Shojib is this page suitable for main space? EngrShakamal (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@engrshakamal: be patient, and wait for a reviewer to check your draft. lettherebedarklight晚安 06:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

EngrShakamal, I can make some suggestions that would make the draft look more like an acceptable article.

1. The Discography and Awards sections are each longer than the actual text of the article. So shorten them both (and maybe add more referenced text).
2. Some of the items in the discography are unreferenced. Delete them.
3. The final item in the Awards section has five references. When you use five references for an uncontroversial-looking statement, it gives the impression that something is fishy. So delete the item; or delete four of those references. Maproom (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Maproom: Okay thank you, I will do it. EngrShakamal (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Is a single edit really so "trivial"?

I've been kind of confused in recent weeks about something I've noticed—some people seem to talk about edits as if they're like, really fast and easy to make, in a way that I find kind of hard to wrap my head around. Like, I've seen people tell new editors anxious to make it to 500 or 1000 edits that they'll get there in a month or two without even trying, or that passing those thresholds is hardly a sign of anything, etc. I made my account 4 years ago and I still have less than 300 edits; granted I haven't always been editing at the same rate, but even when I've spent all day on Wikipedia I've never managed to reach a rate that would take me to 500 in a month, and of course I can't spend every day on Wikipedia. I've also noticed that some editors seem to have millions of edits; I assume that has something to do with some sort of bot use because it's hard for me to imagine how someone could reach that by hand, but maybe it is possible somehow. Because of all this I worry a little that my perspective on editing is sort of abnormal, maybe even "against the grain" in some sense—I'm pretty sure it's not literally wrong per se but I worry a bit that I'm going against some kind of unwritten rule or something, or at the very least that I'm some kind of weirdo. :P

It often takes me a few hours of work, sometimes split over a couple days, to make one edit, even one that's pretty small—not every time but frequently. That's true for my talk page posts and my edits to articles. Usually they require a certain amount of research, and also a certain amount of careful thought about phrasing (writing is hard etc.). When I'm working on an article, I try to break my edits up into chunks analagous to Git commits—that is, I try to structure them so that if someone wanted to revert one they wouldn't have to deal with any miscellany. Even determining what might be "miscellany" takes me a certain amount of hard thinking though. Is there something "off-kilter" about this whole style? :P I admit that I'm kind of forlorn about being a long way off from using TWL, but more than anything else I'm just curious where these sorts of "500/1000 edits are nothing much"-type sentiments are coming from, since it would never occur to me to say something like that. 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 07:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my editing style is similar to yours. I don't edit often, but when I do, I'm careful about it and put a lot of thought into which edits to make, not because I'm scared of being bold, but because I want them to be good enough. Basically I go through the BRD cycle a few times by myself in my head to make sure the edit is even worth making, then how to make it properly. I've got a list of articles I've been wanting to edit for a while, but the first stage of that for me is to let the changes percolate mentally for weeks or months. HerrWaus (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to know I'm not the only one! 😁 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 10:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Mesocarp bot makers/users are everywhere. If I knew how to make bots, I'd do the same.

On IMDB I edit at least 5 days a week, although I usually edit on all 7.

On Wikipedia, I edit every now and again, usually things related to whatever I've added/corrected on IMDB.

On IMDB I'm a Top 100 Contributor (normally), and if I did 5,000 edits in a month, I'd consider very very good month of editing.

Yet there's people on there, basically the entire Top 20, who make between 10,000 and 1,000,000 edits a month each, and get praised for it, when they're clearly using bots.

What are they using bots for? I have no idea, but whatever it is, I'd say it's adding mostly incorrect information.

What would I want a bot for? A quicker way to add episodes, by clicking multiple dates on a calendar for example, as they only let you add one episode at a time.

I've dropped out of the Top 100 in June because I spent a lot of time here instead.

I don't bother adding things like introductions/descriptions/plots/summaries/synopsis on IMDB or Wikipedia, as I never know what to say, or how to make it thorough, especially as I haven't seen most of the things I update. I just add simple facts ie "This is a TV series which was presented by Mr X. It was broadcast on Channel X, between the years 1990 and 2000"

What do I spend most of my time doing when updating IMDB and Wikipedia?

• Searching for websites which mention the people/productions I'm looking for.
• Searching for the correct profiles.
• Merging duplicate profiles.
• Adding identifying details like birth/death details, nicknames/aliases, and social media profiles/websites.
• Archiving every page, of every website I add.
• Comparing details on different websites, to make sure I have the most common ones.

If there wasn't a risk of websites/webpages/profiles/videos disappearing in future, and if other people researched properly to make sure all the details are correct before they added them, just like I do, then I could get a lot more editing done.

Just now for example on IMDB, I've found an editor credit from a 2020 American short film, which has been added to the profile of a British cinematographer/cameraman who died in 2012. I've corrected it, and it's been accepted in minutes, as I've noticed that since I became a Top 100 Contributor, the large majority of my edits go through straight away without delay or even proof. Danstarr69 (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Mesocarp and HerrWaus, let me offer my perspective. I have been editing for 14 years and am approaching 100,000 edits, all manual and without any automation. Some of my edits require vastly more thought than others. Heck, a lot of my edits are correcting my own glaringly obvious typographical errors or reverting obvious vandalism. Other times, I need to do a few minutes of research to verify whether or not an edit is vandalism before reverting. Yesterday,I spent about three hours reading about and summarizing and referencing an important legal decision, and adding customized descriptions to six related articles. I often develop new content in sandbox pages, making dozens of behind-the-scenes edits, and then adding the thoroughly checked and referenced content in a single edit. In conclusion, the thought required to make a legitimate edit can range from a fraction of a second to many minutes or even hours. That's just how it works, and every thoughtful, policy compliant edit improves the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328 I skipped the whole intro, and started editing from scratch, so I've never even used my/the sandbox.

However if I know I'm going to be spending hours/days creating/editing a Wikipedia article, I save my progress privately on Blogger every so often, just in case my browser decides to crash, or in case it gets removed in future by someone who regularly removes referenced information or thinks "there aren't enough references."

I've got 6 private blogs (all of which I want to post one day), all for different subjects, yet none of them are in any order, as they're all full of random stuff, like lists I've created, large comments I post a lot on social media, and Wikipedia articles I've updated. Danstarr69 (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I do know how to write bots but I'm not sure what I would use one for on here. :P I'm sure there are perfectly reasonable things to do with them, I'm just not quite sure what they are. At some point I'll probably look into it more deeply—it seems kind of intimidating just because I imagine you could cause a lot of problems with one in theory. 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 10:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Mesocarp I'd make bots to create entire articles, where you fill in the gaps, if that's possible.

I do a lot of film and TV edits, so I'm make bots to automatically create film articles, TV film articles, TV series articles, actor articles, TV presenter articles etc with everything already added.

For example for an actor article:

• The description & date stuff at the top.
• The infobox.
• The early life and education section.
• The career section.
• The personal life section.
• The filmography table.
• The awards section.
• The references section.
• The external links section, with BFI and IMDB there already.
• The categories.

I know there's templates for things like infoboxes, but are there any templates/bots for entire articles?

One day, I'll probably make some empty articles on the above topics, and save them on my private Blogger, ready to copy and paste, whenever I want to create a new article, rather than going back and forth getting stuff, or reminding myself of stuff I've forgotten. Danstarr69 (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mesocarp as a person with over 30,000 edits in under 2 years I think edits really vary. I don't always make really small edits, but I could easily imagine making almost the same contributions and having a thousand or so edits. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 09:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting! Do you feel like it's just how you break them up? I do feel like it's not uncommon that I spend a few hours on just a few sentences, though, I guess…Even the edit I'm working on in the next tab over has turned out that way. A lot of it is just me poring over the source(s) and trying to figure out what would really make sense to say from them. I can't tell if I just have a tendency to overthink things (highly possible ;^^) or if it's more like other people are engaged in really different activities or something. 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 10:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Mesocarp, it's mostly the "different activities". Creating content – the most important bit – takes the longest. I've certainly spent over a full day putting together a single content edit, in a separate app locally, before previewing, correcting, and publishing it. On the other hand, doing small repetitive edits, like adding a single template or category to a hundred similar pages, can be accomplished in a matter of minutes. Don't be intimidated by or envious of anyone's edit count. It's not a particularly useful metric. Folly Mox (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Folly Mox Thanks, that's interesting to know! I'm starting to understand the kinds of "bot-friendly" things people do here. I guess, to some extent though, maybe it's just not that I'm not very interested in those kinds of repetitive or easily-automated activities on a site like this—it's probably good that other people do them here but I don't know that it's really my wheelhouse. I think a lot of the fun of working on Wikipedia for me is the way I learn new things while I'm doing it, or if I'm working with other editors, feeling like we're keeping up an understanding of each other and can function in harmony. Thanks for your kind words—I'll try not to fret about it. :P 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 01:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

(@Immanuelle sorry forgot to do that part) 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 10:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Mesocarp I've been a Wikipedia editor for 16 years, have made less than 3,000 edits, plus created a couple dozen new articles. This is a volunteer project for me, I'm not in competition with anyone, and I only take on projects that interest me enough to do the work.

Life is full of stressors, so I don't stress over Wikipedia. I don't go out searching for articles to improve; if I read an article for information and notice it needs improving I'll decide whether I consider it important enough to me to find accurate information from good references, and then plunge into the job of rewriting sections of the article. When I make edits I do them to the best of my ability in order to help others who'll be reading the article later on. I get satisfaction out of my Wikipedia work, but I do my volunteer work within my own comfort zone. I hope my thoughts are of help to you. Karenthewriter (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess I often behave the same way—like, I just browse Wikipedia as I please and sometimes happen upon articles that seem to need work. Sometimes I do feel in the mood to work on an article and then I usually press the random button until I find a page like that. Recently I've also been giving third opinions and have realized that I find it rewarding to help people settle their disputes and make peace. All of these things seem to take a lot of care to me though and aren't things I would want to rush. Thanks for sharing your perspective. I don't think I'm worried about it as a competition or anything (it would be nice to use TWL but aside from that I don't see how edit count really matters); it's more just that I'm curious where other people are coming from. 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 00:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Really, it depends on what you're doing. Miniscule, repetitive tasks can take a matter of a handful of seconds, with or without semi-automated tools. I often review requested moves and redirects and categories for creation, and with those, even if making just the equivalent of one edit, it can multiply by a factor of three or more (moving articles moves the talk page and leaves redirects behind, which is a minimum of 4 edits; if swapping articles that both have page history, that number can be higher, all from really one quick reading of a discussion and scanning to make sure it makes sense, and then a couple button clicks; using the helper script to create redirects at AFC/R creates both the redirect, its talk page, and updates the main page, which is a minimum of 3 edits, and then add 2 more for each additional redirect you accept). Meanwhile, I'll spend half an hour or more on a talk page message or a content edit sometimes, or even fixing a template (or miserably failing to do so...). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Skarmory Oh, that's interesting, I have yet to really do anything in those areas although I've looked at them periodically. It does help me understand why someone who spends a lot of time on those kinds of tasks might not feel like an individual edit was a very big thing. Eventually I would like to help out with the AfC backlog once I reach 500 article edits (someday :P), although I think I would be more likely to focus on draft articles than categories+redirects—I think maybe I just tend to gravitate to the slow and thorny side of things. 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 02:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

An article about a living person was not notable 15 years ago but may be notable now

I discovered an article I was wanting to make was actually deleted 15 years ago for not being notable. Here is the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toromi

She was primarily known as a voice actress then and didn't have many notable roles.

Since then she has gone on to in my eyes have a much more notable career as a religious leader at Ryōhō-ji temple, a very famous Japanese temple. Japanese wikipedia has an article on her https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%81%A8%E3%82%8D%E7%BE%8E

What should I do in response to this? Requests for undeletion for it as a draft article? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 09:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Immanuelle: I would recommend simply creating a new draft, basing it on the better sources which I assume are now available. Maproom (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I would echo Maproom's reply. If the original article was deleted then either the content was hopelessly promotional, or the sources didn't exist. In the latter case the article must have been written BACKWARD. Either way, the text of the original article is going to be of little value. ColinFine (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Immanuelle, Japanese-language Wikipedia has an article about her if you call a collection of lists an article. This is a stereotypically crappy ja:WP "article". But we are told that her shoe size is 22.5. Without a reference, of course. -- Hoary (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Citing an offline source, inserting a digital version of a newspaper.

Hi! Could you tell me how to include offline sources in a Wikipedia article draft? I have digital newspaper articles, can I include them as images in the article or in the bibliography section? Thank you! Franca47 (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Franca47 Do not upload copies of the articles unless they are very old - 75 to 100 years depending on the country of origin. Doing so would most probably violate the newspaper's copyright. You can use {{cite news}} to provide the necessary reference details; newspaper title, article title, date, author, page number, etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Franca47. I'm afraid it would not be OK to insert any image of a newspaper article into Wikipedia pages, as the content would be copyright. The only exceptions might be a) if it was an image of a very old newspaper which had gone out of its copyright period (often around 70 years - I'd have to check) or b) if you were using an image of a newspaper front page to illustrate an article about that particular newspaper. Then it would need to be inserted directly into the Wikipedia article, and not placed on Wikimedia Commons, as it would need a WP:FAIRUSE rationale to justify inclusion of a copyrighted content into a Wikipedia article (and not a draft). I hope this has answered your question? Please be more specific if you need further advice. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Franca47, and welcome to the Teahouse. The bit that neither Dodger nor Nick has explicitly said is that sources do not need to be online. As long as they are available somewhere (eg in large libraries) and the citation gives enough information for a reader to find them, that is enough. In most cases, a URL is a convenience for the reader not a critical part of the citation. ColinFine (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Specifically, if you have a link to the digital article, add it in the url= section of the template (or in the box under URL in the visual template editor, depending on what you're using). An article I primarily wrote that was promoted to GA recently, Hurricane Heather, has a fair amount of these links if you want a reference point. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think they would have asked the question if they had a link to the digital article. ColinFine (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Question about the copyright status of the MediaWiki logo

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright on Wikimedia Commons

• 
  Logo
• 
  Horizontal logo
• 
  Large icon
• 
  Icon
• 
  Small icon

• 
  Logo (white)
• 
  Horizontal logo (white)
• 
  Large icon (white
• 
  Icon (white)

• 
  Logo (black)
• 
  Horizontal logo (black)
• 
  Large icon (black)
• 
  Icon (black)

Hello, fellow Wikipedians.

I have a question regarding the current MediaWiki logo: Does it meet the threshold of originality in the US?

The files mentioned above are labeled with the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, but I believe that they are consist mainly of geometric shapes and text, and thus do not meet the threshold of originality.

Considering this, I believe that they may be in the public domain (specifically {{PD-textlogo}}). I seek input from all of you to reach a consensus on this matter.

Thanks in advance, QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 11:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry if this is the wrong venue, feel free to move this discussion if you feel that this is not the correct place for this discussion. --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 11:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

QuickQuokka, you have a question about the applicability of copyright to certain images. Why don't you move it to commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright? -- Hoary (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

lost my article in the depths of Wiki

Hello - I think I have lost my first article. It was created in my Sandbox (SangitaAdatia) and as I could not rename it (Move) it I submitted to the COMMON as is, Now I do not know where it is or how to find it :-(

SangitaAdatia (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, SangitaAdatia and welcome to the Teahouse. See the message on your talk page, User talk:SangitaAdatia. It's been speedily deleted. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

As a complete aside, now I'm finding myself humming the tune to this! Nick Moyes (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Didn't you get the news? Disco is dead! ~Anachronist (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm hearing Pink Floyd's "Comfortably Numb". Sometimes we could do with a page-top banner advising that "You have new messages." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Pantheon Macroeconomics Afd or not

Considering recommending Pantheon Macroeconomics for AfD, altough mentioned in some well know publications, is still fails WP:CORP + WP:CORPDEPTH, the article reads like PR. Any other opinions would be welcomed. Regards Devokewater 16:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I would try to fix it up and tag it up. It looks like it has enough citations independent citations though if it is not deeply mentioned in them then I would nominate it. Remember, that if you incorrectly tagged it for deletion, worse that would happen is that the consensus would be to keep. ✶Mitch199811✶ 18:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The majority of the decent citations don't look like they are used well if they are anything.

Doing a deeper dive into the citations, WSJ and Forbes do not link to the article, only authors that I guess work for PE. I cannot access NYT or The Telegraph without a subscription. Business Insider only uses one graph from Pantheon Economics. CBS looks like it could maybe be used, but it never says why PE is important, only quoting the chief economist. Bloomberg is much the same story as CBS. So out of ten citations, I only would consider two as being anything of substance which would not pass notability requirements. ✶Mitch199811✶ 18:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

✶Mitch199811 thanks for this, erring on the side of AfD. Regards --Devokewater 19:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Archiving references?

Hi there! I'm working on cleaning up references on this article and creating inline citations. What is the best approach if a reference is no longer available or leads to a 404 error, like this one? Gracias! Haylsyeahh (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Haylsyeahh, this is a complex area, and I note you have not been editing here for long, so forgive me for starting with the basics - I would start by reading all of Wikipedia:Link rot especially the sections on Automatic archiving (note the "Fix dead links" option under "External Tools" which many people do not know about) and Keeping dead links - too many editors think they are helping by deleting dead-links rather than tagging them - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

New Tittle for my self please - John

Hallo

My Name is John A, M, i am musician, and online ecommerce person. I just want to create an article for myself. My first attempt to write article wasn't successful some time back before pandemic.

I try to contact few writing company but the prices put me off. I wonder if there is any assistance around TEAHOUSE.

I will real appreciate if i can get some one to give me some advice on where to start.

As you might have seen my profile name is Njiwa Jogoo, but in real, those are just my AKA's.

Thank you all for the best work you do. Wikipedia have been like my second home online for a loong time.

best regards

John Njiwa Jogoo (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you read the autobiography policy as well as this page? 331dot (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

And regarding "few writing company" I suggest you read this. Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You need reliable secondary sources about yourself and you have to be wp:notable.

If you're not notable, there is nothing you can do to get a wikipedia article. 85.147.66.47 (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Article Creation for a Political Candidate

I am attempting to create an article about Pervez Agwan, a renewable energy expert who is running for Congress in Texas' 7th Congressional District. This is my first time creating an article and I am not a coder. How can I go about creating this article? Gyongyospata5 (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Gyongyospata5. Unelected political candidates are rarely considered notable on that basis alone, and instead are usually mentioned in an article about the race. Please read the Notability guideline for politicians. An exception is when the person is very well known for other things, as when a celebrity runs for office. Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Accessibility of maps/coordinates in Infobox

Hello,

On this page, Glover-Archbold Park, I noticed the map with a red dot signifying coordinates on a map is quite hard to see. The background has a lot of lines, etc., that make it hard to identify where on the map the red dot is at a glance. Are there more accessible ways to portray this within infobox? Namely, a red dot on a green line seems like a colorblindness nightmare. Cheers, --Engineerchange (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Is this game notable enough?

I want to write an article about a video game (it's in my sandbox) but i'm not sure if the game is notable enough, what makes a video game notable enough for WP? OGWFP (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, OGWFP, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to "What makes X notable" is almost always the same, irrespective of what kind of thing X is: that there are multiple reliable sources, unconnected with the subject, which devote significant coverage to it (see the Golden rule). The specific pages about notability for different kinds of subjects nearly all say "if your X meets one of these conditions, then it is probably notable, but you will still need to find the sources".

Since you cite no sources at all in your draft, I cannot tell whether or not it is notable. But this suggests that you have written the draft BACKWARD, which is like building a house without surveying the ground to check that it is stable enough to build on. ColinFine (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Notability? Your question is probably answered there. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

how do I add a link to my personal page?

i named the town I live in and I'm wondering how I put it in my personal page

here is the link that mentions my name. I just want to put the link u see here on my page...im new to this stuff. thanks

Heron Bay, New Brunswick Cliffdimerandy (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Through userboxes on your userpage, like what's shown on the right. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

{{User in region|image=Flag of New Brunswick.svg|region=Heron Bay, New Brunswick}} →

This user lives in Heron Bay, New Brunswick.

Requesting a COI edit request

Hi all,

I wondering how I request a COI edit request. I was recently brought to attention that the page John Doheny has serveral issues. I also noticed after reviewing edit logs that a large portion were edited by Doheny himself and by people associated with him. Unfortunately I have several connections with Doheny and would like for someone else to edit this page.

Thank you! Izlhyl 20:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Izlhyl, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for being transparent about your COI. The recommended procedure is to use the Edit Request Wizard to put an edit request on the talk page Talk:John Doheny. ColinFine (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

2021 Tampa Bay Rays season fix

Hello. Go to 2021 Tampa Bay Rays season, short scroll down to Rays team leaders on right, pitching stats;

• ERA and WHIP leader:Ryan Yarbrough (5.11) and (1.226) respectively in same box
• Wins:Shane McLanahan and Josh Fleming (10) in same box.
• Strikeouts:Shane McLanahan (141) by itself.

Than you for your time. Appreciate your help and have a good day.Theairportman33531 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Are these suggestions for corrections, Theairportman33531? If so, you can probably make them yourself, directly in "2021 Tampa Bay Rays season"; but if you'd prefer not to, then make the suggestion on the article's talk page ("Talk:2021 Tampa Bay Rays season"). -- Hoary (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Am having problems fixing. Why I asked for help. Can you just even out the columns to just two in the pitching section of above request? Could fill in the rest. Need help here. Thanks.Theairportman33531 (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. Forget it. Sorry to bother you. I fixed the problem. Have a good evening.Theairportman33531 (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Question about how far can editing go to want to decide

When it comes to editing Wikipedia, is there ever really a way to even go far as to want to decide to use do more like? Basically I’m wondering if there is ever a question of whether to do as far as deciding to use even to want to go more even. McBoogaloo (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a curious word salad, McBoogaloo. Perhaps some other website would be better suited to your idiosyncratic style of writing. -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a really, really old copypasta from over a decade ago. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@McBoogaloo: Welcome to the Teahouse. You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Graphic novel lists - Show/Hide

Can show/hide be used with a Graphic novel list template? eg this code <role="presentation" class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"> Ozflashman (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Linking to a foreign language Wikisource page

Is there a way to link to a foreign language Wikisource page using Template:Wikisource-inline? I want to include this page as an external link here. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Fikaia, and welcome to the Teahouse. It seems to me from reading the documentation, that you ought to be able to use links=[[:el:s:Φαρμακεύτριαι]], but I haven't tried it. ColinFine (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

{{Wikisourcelang-inline}}. Folly Mox (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Question about CSS

Resolved

 – QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 07:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I recently changed my global.css to include the following:

.extiw{
	color: #ff0080;
}

.extiw:visited{
	color: #ff69b4;
}

with extiw being the class for interwiki links.

However, I still see interwiki links as blue instead of the hot pink that I expected them to be. I cleared my browser cache, but it still isn't showing up correctly. Custom CSS for Redirects does seem to be working however.

Thanks in advance, --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 07:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Got it! Needed to add !important --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 07:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Article

My article has been declined as the article heading was common to other article but th3e content is going to be different from the already present one but I want to add few external links to it with reference. Guide me to write a new and prefect article. Tejal98 (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

No, Tejal98, it wasn't declined because "the article heading was common to other article". It was deleted, for multiple reasons. One of these was copyright violation. -- Hoary (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Tejal98, Hoary is correct and Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Do not violate copyright again. In addition, we already have an article about Saguna Baug, as you know since you have edited it. The Articles for Creation process is for new topics and content should never be submitted there when an article already exists. Cullen328 (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

why my article got rejected

why my article got rejected Anjana anna (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

You submitted a blank sandbox User:Anjana anna/sandbox there is no content so nothing to review and accept. Theroadislong (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible that you had created content about India, but forgot to click on Publish - which acts as Save - before submitting a blank Sandbox? David notMD (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrive a page that had been deleted

Hi, I'm Aayushma Sharma, and I would like to request the undeletion of the Draft:Wibool Piyawattanametha deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page so that I can make edits to it. It was deleted by user Liz before. Thank you. Aayushma Sharma (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Aayushma Sharma Hello and welcome. Please make your request at WP:REFUND. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Aayushma Sharma, 331dot said pretty much what I had been about to say until five minutes ago, when I realized that there was already an article, Wibool Piyawattanametha, about the same person. (You should know about this, as you created it.) You might work to improve the existing article. Or if you still want access to the draft in order to help you improve the article, be sure to make this clear when you ask for the "refund". -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

hey, i am the owner of the page you have mentioned. i recently completed the draft the wanted to submit for review. however, while i was trying to submit it pops up this screen with the message "

A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.

• 18:29, 7 August 2022 Liz talk contribs deleted page Draft:Wibool Piyawattanametha (G13: Abandoned draft or AfC submission – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND/G13) Tag: Twinkle (thank)"

Aayushma Sharma (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

and when i tried to publish it, idk what happened but the link redirects onto the talk page instead. i want to redirect to article. please provide me some suggestions. Aayushma Sharma (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Just for your information, pages do not have owners, even the writer. Pages belong to the community as a whole. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to say I created that page instead. Sorry for the misplacement of words. 161.246.149.110 (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Aayushma Sharma, if you work for KMITL, you're going to need to make the mandatory paid editing disclosure. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Cruft

I wanted to nominate Jordan Maron to GA. However, I'm unsure how to tell if there is too much cruft on the page. A previous article about a YouTuber I nominated was quickfailed. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 09:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Display, Reader or Download?

When you want to add a reference for a document from somewhere like CORE, which link for the document would you use?

• The Display version - Which is just a summary of what's in the article.
• The Reader version - Which can be read online, without the need to download.
• The Download version - Which can also be read online, without the need to download.

Danstarr69 (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm struggling to differentiate between the second two versions you've presented, but in general for cases like this, where a publishing service has an info page from which you can access the full text of the publication, we tend to link to the info page. This is where a DOI will usually point, allows the site to change how it stores and presents publications without causing link rot, and is usually in front of any paywall, rather than behind. Linking to webpages instead of (e.g.) PDFs also increases accessibility. Hope that helps. Folly Mox (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Folly Mox Sometimes PDF links (and links for other files) automatically download when I click on them. However the download link on CORE doesn't automatically download.

I'm not entirely sure what your answer is, but as I've finished what I was doing, here's some specific examples:

• Here's the Display version, with the summary https://core.ac.uk/display/4898275
• Here's the Reader version, with no options to download https://core.ac.uk/reader/4898275
• Here's the Download version, with an option to download/print https://core.ac.uk/download/4898275.pdf

Danstarr69 (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok thank you for demonstrating the difference between versions. It's probably best to point your url to the Display version. That's what we typically do if there's a summary page, and you can see the DOI is visible on that page. I apologise if my answer was unclear. Is there a specific bit I can try to explain better? Sometimes I don't express myself well. Folly Mox (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Folly Mox I suspected you meant the display page, but I wanted to make sure.

With things like Google Books, where sometimes all of a book is available to read, and sometimes just some of a book is available to read, I usually use the link where you can read the book/page itself, rather than the description/front cover page...

...As a recent example I came across on Google Books (I can't remember what book), didn't seem have a link to the readable bits of the book on the description/front cover page. Unless there's simple way to get the pages of the book from the description/front cover page which I don't entirely understand, as I usually stumble across these readable Google Books links from the Google Search itself.

However with websites like CORE it seems to have everything, as both the Readable version and the Download version are displayed on the Display version, unlike Google Books, therefore any of the links seem decent. Danstarr69 (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that's very true that any of the three links would be good to put in your citation template. Google books is a very different beast than CORE. Google books is mostly non-open content, although you can often get results on pages that cannot be previewed in full by using the "search within this book" functionality. Links to the overall Google book entry also allow you to cite multiple pages within the book without needing to provide a different URL for each separate page number, which causes a lot of reference bloat and information duplication.

It seems like CORE is mostly open content, so linking to the Display page has a number of benefits: readers can choose whether they want to download the PDF or read the full text in the publisher's reader thingy; the publisher can choose to restructure the URLs for the full text versions without breaking the link; the publisher can choose to paywall the full text and we would still have access to the abstract and publication information; and any citation created from the DOI will point to the Display page.

Not linking directly to the full text does require readers to perform a second navigation task, but it's my opinion that the benefits of linking the Display page outweigh that, and it's also our most common practice here. Folly Mox (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

self propelled shark proof cage.

I have supplied three secondary sources of information and they have not been listed Also the name of the inventor of the shark cage,( number 4166462.) James M Ellis of Port Lincoln south Australia, is not listed. regards Margesson (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Margesson and welcome back to the Teahouse. Were you logged-in when you made the edits? I can only see Teahouse interaction in your list of contributions. Nothing at Shark cage diving or the article's talk page. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

HI esoteric. 

I thought I was logged in.

Will try again.

I have been asked to add a secondary source which I thought I had done. I sent three articles to someone.

Who do I forward them to.

Regards Margeson Margesson (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Previous thread: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1192#who invented the shark cage. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Margesson, if you're saying that somebody here should add the information you supplied in Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1192#who invented the shark cage to the article Shark cage diving, no. It's for you to post an edit request in Talk:Shark cage diving. Please make the request as precise as possible, and complete with references. -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Shark cage diving includes a subsection: "On September 4, 1979, US patent number 4166462 was issued for a self-propelled shark-proof cage;[6][7] being designed to allow abalone divers to collect abalone without becoming vulnerable to attack.[6] Thanks to the propulsion system, abalone divers would exert themselves less and, therefore, be able to collect their prey for longer periods of time.[6] The patent abstract details a self-propelled cage with at least one access opening and a mounting frame that carries both an air motor and a propeller. Buoyant material is attached to the frame so that the cage may be made neutrally buoyant.[6] This patent expired on September 4, 1996.[6]" Both references name James M. Ellis as the inventor. I see no need for his name to also be in the article, as the refs are sufficient. David notMD (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree.

The name of the inventor should be listed with the patent number and description.

Regards 2001:8003:B081:F900:D491:BF4C:AD98:C4C (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

As advised above, you should really make an edit request at the article's talk page. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Margesson, if you feel strongly that the paragraph on self-propelled cages should remain in the article on shark cage diving you have two options: either find a good secondary source, or tiptoe quietly away and hope no one notices the article! The current situation isn't great. The paragraph is sourced to a patent and to a MentalFloss article. The problem with patents is that an enormous number of things get patented, but never make any impression on the world. For this reason, a patent is viewed here as a primary source, merely indicating that someone once had an idea - it doesn't mean that anyone picked up the idea and did anything with it, to the extent that an encyclopaedia would write about it. We are not interested in the millions of ideas that got patented and never used; we need proof that the idea was written-about, at least considered seriously by someone other than its inventor. The MentalFloss article is secondary and independent, but it's of the light-hearted click-bait sort, "here are some things you didn't know about a concept we thought might grab your eye", and it says nothing apart from the fact a patent exists. It's very weak. What you really need is a write-up from a nature, diving, or recreational magazine describing how some organisations actually use self-propelled cages, or something similar. Elemimele (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance

A secondary source article.

The book AB YARNS. 50 years of blowing bubbles( 1969-2019)

History and folklore of the south Australia western zone abalone fishery. Eric Kotz. All the divers use the shark proof cage. I will forward some more facts.

Regards margesson Margesson (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi. Been a long time user. I was wondering ( and I've searched for a bir before coming to the Teahouse) if it's possible to filter out certain pages from the "Random" function. Imagine, for example, I have no interest in Sports. What I'd like to be able to do is to set a filter as to not get any results for "Sports" when I click to generate a Random article. I know this would require all articles to be classified acording to subject, but that probably already takes place. So, I believe you catch my gist. Thanks for any reply, thanks for making Wikipedia great! :) 93.63.145.35 (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. That's not something I'd ever thought about, so I visited WP:RANDOM. Although it can't do what you asked about, it did point me to WP:Enhanced Random Article. There I saw that one can change certain settings to exclude some types of article. Then, a visit to its Talk page showed that someone had asked about that very same question (albeit no reply). I suggest you might liek to add your voice to get that suggestion highlighted. Of course, there might be other scripts that do similar, so the list of scripts could be worth checking out, too. If that doesn't yield anything, you could repeat the question at WP:VPT, lest someone is aware of any alternative solution.

I must admit that the complete randomness is one of the things that puts me off using it; it would be nice to have a random article offered within a somewhat narrower category of topic. regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The option to produce random articles within a certain set of categories you specify is offered by the template {{Random page in category}}. It uses a toolforge call which you may find easier to use directly at this URL where there is additional documentation. I don't think it can be used to give "anything EXCEPT sports". Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

There's also a page in the Special namespace with similar functionality: Special:RandomInCategory. Unfortunately it does make you pick a single category to include, rather than one or more to exclude. Folly Mox (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Would this be worth an RFC?

See this edit request. I've never added the RFC template before, and would rather not get socially annihilated if I invoked it for some bad reason. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 12:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:RFCBEFORE might give some guidance in this matter, and also consider notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism and/or WP:THIRD. Just bear in mind that the article is a contentious topic. ContributeToTheWiki (talk • contribs) 14:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Deauthorized, I think all you need to do is verify a citation, and see whether the current version or suggested version is accurate. You don't need an RfC for that, just an editor who can read Hebrew. It looks like the text is old and public domain, so accessibility shouldn't be an issue. Posting a question to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism is probably all that's needed, unless you have trouble attracting any editor to the task. Folly Mox (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll probably ask there sometime later then. Appreciated. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 22:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Help with citation errors

Hello there! I am currently translating a draft, and I have encountered several errors on 2 citations in particular: Citation 7 and Citation 10.

I know it's because of some invisible characters, but I can't for the life of me find them or remove them. Any help would be much appreciated! --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 12:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka Welcome to the Teahouse. When I view your citation using WP:Source Editor, I see a myriad of red characters used as spaces in the quotes. If you can't see them, I suggest you work through all the quoted text and manually replace them with a normal space character. That should fix it. Although it may not show here, this text contains those red characters which, evidently, the reference creation process doesn't like

(sample: text

Раз­би­ра се, всич­ко то­ва вър­ви пон­яко­га под опа­ков­ка­та, че те ува­жа­ва­т граж­дан­ска­та иде­нтич­нос­) Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I do not see red characters in the source editor (I have syntax highlighting enabled), and I did replace all the spaces, but that did nothing. --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 13:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka OK. Let me do it for you. There's over 100 of them. Might take me a few minutes. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka Right - that was interesting. I gave up doing it manually. So first I tried copying the source code into MS Notepad, but that didn't work. So I repeated by pasting the source code into MS Wordpad. I then copied one of (what I was seeing as) the red characters, and did a Find/Raplce in Wordpad. That did identify them and replace them with plain old hard spaces. I then replaced the text of your draft with the cleaned up text and saved that edit. The warning messages have now gone.

I can't explain why I was seeing them, and you were not if, as you say, you had "Syntax Highlighting" enabled in the editing tool. The purple reference text and red dots turn back to being black text and clear spaces when I turn off syntax highlighting in desktop view in Chrome, and reappear again when I hit the sloping grey pencil icon to turn syntax highlighting on again. To be frank: I never edit in source code with it off. Hope this has helped. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Buffalo AKG Art Museum

The museum has been given a new name (formerly Albright Knox Art Gallery) and i try to add info on the renovation and namechanging into the German wikipedia-article on the museum. But i have difficulties to understand of which buildings the museum consists. In English-articles various places are given, also with asigned names, but i still have difficulties to understand the structure and i would love to have a list of the buildings. And even better would be if someone would visit the museum and take pictures for commons so that we could add pictures into the article. Can anyone help me? Naomi Hennig (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

are you asking people to visit the museum for you?? lettherebedarklight晚安 13:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Naomi Hennig Welcome to the Teahouse. I think these suggestions are best made at the relevant talk page. I assume you'd hope visitors might add to the existing image collection found here? I'm afraid your request is really not suited to the Teahouse, as this is a help forum aimed at assisting people with using the Wikipedia editing tools, not actually to research content matters. But thank you for dropping by. Good luck with your work! Nick Moyes (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, Nick Moyes, i did not know that. Yes, i really would be thankful if someone could add the newly renovated buildings and pictures from inside. I guess, i will just call the museum and ask if they would give us some pictures. I'm sorry, i did write this request on the wrong page, please excuse me! Naomi Hennig (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi again Naomi Hennig. No worries. However, please don't ask the museum to send you the pictures to upload. Instead invite them to upload them themselves (as they are the copyright holders, not you) or, as kif they would be prepared to complete one of outrstandard release forms and email them to the right section shere o twe can upload them on their behalf, and their release form can be checked and approved as part of that process. We take copyright ownership very seriously, so you can't simply upload them on their behalf as it would be you who would be claiming image ownership, and that would not be true. It would also be sensible to specify what image gaps you have identified that they can fill, rather than simply say Give me lots of pictures!

Note: I'm going to have to ask a fellow host to supply the link to the release form as I am being called away as I write this. I'll check back later and add it if nobody else has. regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Nick Moyes, i take rightholderissues very seriously as well as i used to work as a journalist, when i was still working... i thought, i just then - if they are willing to accept the licence - , send them the email which they have to send to permissions? When i use the upload wizzard, it always asks where the picture is from and who is the rightholder, so the procedure should be okay?! Naomi Hennig (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Naomi Hennig The problem with you saying where the picture is from when using the upload wizard is that this doesn't give you the right to release the copyright: only the owner can do that and your naming them doesn't help unless they also contact the volunteers on Commons who keep track of these things. The way for copyright holders to release material to Commons is via the email templates listed at c:Commons:Email templates. That page has a full description of how to do things, which includes the possibility that you upload files on the copyright holders behalf and have them contact Commons in a separate step. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course it is not me that has the copyright, that is why i send them the email to send to permissions and meanwhile add the "pending" template - and when the permissions-people have received the permission of the museum, they change the info on the page of the picture. We do have a template for the mails we send to rightholders in the German wikipedia and even the text in English as well. But we don't even know yet whether the museum is at all willing to give us the permission - i have to wait until 4 pm my time to be able to talk to someone there. Maybe they don't want to give the permission. I'll keep you updated. I guess, i already uploaded 100 pictures to commons and as said, i'm very concerned about rightholder-issues and of course do follow the protocoll every time!!! Trust me a bit :-) Naomi Hennig (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Visual editor

Hi, why I don't have a visual editor? It suggests only edit source. I can't attach an e-mail here. Actually the interface is very confusing :( Grigory M (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Grigory M You have to set it up in your preferences at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I have preferences like these

https://ibb.co/L5XYQQG Grigory M (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Grigory M That seems to show you have chosen "remember my last editor". You need to choose one of the other options! Note that the VE doesn't work on Talk Pages, it's mainly useful in article space. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

thanks, that helped Grigory M (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources

An article I submitted abut a playwright needs more reliable secondary sources to be accepted. Can you please help me with what does and doesn't qualify? I realize this is a multi-part question, so thanks in advance for your help.

Are the following acceptable sources:

- Reviews in newspapers and online (e.g. N.Y. Times, Albany Union Times, Playbill, Backstage, Library Journal, etc.)

- Publisher websites (e.g. Random House, Dramatists Play Service, etc.) that list the author's works. Some may add reviews, a bio and synopses.

- IMDB

- A college student’s honors project that analyzes one of the author's works

- Online blog interviews, e.g. “I Interview Playwrights” by Adam Szymkowicz who has interviewed 1100 playwrights

Anything else that would be helpful to know?

Thanks again. ArtsAdventurer (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi ArtsAdventurer let's take a look at your list:

- Reviews in newspapers and online (e.g. N.Y. Times, Albany Union Times, Playbill, Backstage, Library Journal, etc.)

• Yes, these are mainstream press sources and are usually acceptable.

- Publisher websites (e.g. Random House, Dramatists Play Service, etc.) that list the author's works. Some may add reviews, a bio and synopses.

• No, publishers have a direct interest in selling the works.

- IMDB

• No, the content of IMDB is user-generated with little or no editorial oversight

- A college student’s honors project that analyzes one of the author's works

• No, unless it gets published in a recognised journal after peer review. Run-of-the-mill student works are not rigorously reviewed or generally published in journals or similar outlets. However, occasionally a Ph.D. thesis does attract the attention of subject experts who might comment on it, such commentary and critique may be useful.

- Online blog interviews, e.g. “I Interview Playwrights” by Adam Szymkowicz who has interviewed 1100 playwrights

• No, interviews are primary sources.

Hope this helps Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Roger! That's very helpful, and I definitely appreciate it. A few last questions, if that's ok...

- Some of the author's older works were produced, published and reviewed several years ago, or pre-internet, so finding online sources is more difficult. The same is true with some awards. How is it best to handle those? If something doesn’t have a specific citation, do I cut it?

- Some works or awards have a very basic listing on a website, e.g., a brief listing by the British Film Institute, a famous artist colony, or an awards website. But the listing includes no discussion of the work. Are those citations worth including?

- An article briefly mentions the author, but it is mostly about the subject of a musical they wrote and gives historical context. Is that helpful to include?

- The university that the author graduated is briefly mentioned in an article but not discussed. Do I still include it?

Thanks again! Happy 4th! ArtsAdventurer (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Reliable references that minimally discuss the subject can be added but will not contribute to notablility. And I would mention the university as long as the source doesn't come from him or the university. ✶Mitch199811✶ 16:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Mitch. ArtsAdventurer (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

ArtsAdventurer, you wrote Some of the author's older works were produced, published and reviewed several years ago, or pre-internet. There is no requirement that article sources be available online. When citing offline sources, the most important factor is to provide complete bibliographic information about the source. Please read Wikipedia:Offline sources for the details. Cullen328 (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

ArtsAdventurer BFI Collections https://collections-search.bfi.org.uk/web is better than the standard BFI website, plus it's where they're adding/moving most of their stuff today.

It includes short summaries most of the time (and occasionally long synopsis') which the standard site doesn't contain.

However it's wording for credits rarely match what's written on screen ie "written by" (on-screen) vs "script" (BFI), plus it's not always correct with the type of credits, for example today on some 60+ year old TV episodes I've noticed that:

• One person was listed as a presenter by the BFI, but was listed as a reporter by the BBC Programme Index.
• One person was listed as a narrator by the BFI, but was listed as a reporter by the BBC Programme Index.

I'm not sure who is correct (as the BBC Programme Index lists people as unknown a lot of the time, plus they contain a lot of spelling/grammar mistakes), but as it's a BBC show, I added them as the BBC Programme Index said. However the second person was definitely a voice credit going off the episode description on both, as he reported/narrated on something happening in a country he wasn't in.

I've now just remembered that the BFI said that a producer was both the director and the producer on an episode. However the BBC said that someone else was the director. Danstarr69 (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Danstarr69 I think you have the wrong thread. ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Mitch199811 I have the right thread, I just tagged the wrong person.

"- Some works or awards have a very basic listing on a website, e.g., a brief listing by the British Film Institute, a famous artist colony, or an awards website. But the listing includes no discussion of the work. Are those citations worth including?" Danstarr69 (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, for the confusion. ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Font size changes

How do I increase the font size to Wikipedia's page, not necessarily items in left and right borders? Squay (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Most browsers allow you to change the display font size. The pattern is often CTRL+ for larger, CTRL- for smaller, and CTRL 0 for default size. I don't believe there is any such facility in Wikipedia itself. ColinFine (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Squay: There is actually a way to change only the font size in articles. You can create your common.css page, and place only the exact text #mw-content-text p { font-size: 1em; } on that page – to alter the font size you can change the 1 to any other value like 1.5, which would make the font 1.5 times larger than normal. Tollens (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I cannot seem to correctly write the classification list.

I cannot write the classification list for Eaukaryotes. Nephellium (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Nephellium, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question is not very clear, but I'm guessing that this is about Draft:Nephelium aculeatum, and that you are referring to the Taxobox. Please see Template:Taxobox for how to use this. (It may be worth viewing, or even copying, the relevant part of the source of an article on a similar organism, and then making changes as necessary).

For how to do references, please see WP:REFB. A generalised reference to a resource, rather than to a specific page or entry, is not usually regarded as very useful.

I always advise new editors to spend some time making improvements to existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before trying the very challenging task of creating a new article. ColinFine (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Nephellium (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Finding who to write about

Hi there, I am interested in Canadian businesspeople and politicians, and I have written a few drafts but am struggling to find people to write about that are notable enough but also do not already have a wiki page. Is there a forum somewhere that has names of people who should have wikis (because of notability) but do not yet? Thanks Qgrunklebert (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Qgrunklebert. Wikipedia:Requested articles is a place to get ideas. However, there is no guarantee that the topics listed there are truly notable. If an editor has done enough research to be sure that a topic is notable, then it is a fairly easy matter to write the article. My sense is that most requests come from inexperienced editors who lack the skills to assess notability or write an acceptable new article. At least it is a source of ideas. Here are subpages related to your areas of interest, Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics and Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biographies/Political figures. Worth noting is that national and provincial legislators have a strong presumption of notability according to the notability guideline for politicians. You should be able to find many 19th century and early 20th century Canadian parliamentarians who lack biographies. Cullen328 (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Also applicable is Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By nationality#Canada. Cullen328 (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Qgrunklebert, the Women in Red project keeps lists of women who might be notable but don't have articles. Here is the list for women from Canada. But like any article, make sure you check for sources before you create it so you can make sure the person is notable. And make sure that the sources you use are independent from the people you write about; their own personal website and promotional material don't count. Alternatively, you could add things to articles that already exist so you don't have to worry about notability. Here is a list of Canadian businesspeople who have really short articles which need more content. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Check out petscan and search other language wikis for Canadians who don't have an english page but do have a lot of links directed to them.

There should be an example of this query for english into dutch. 85.147.66.47 (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and factual detail

I'll phrase this as a hypothetical because it's a bit hard to explain:

After a widely covered public divorce, an artist, who is a multi-talented dancer, puts out a statement on their marriage while break-dancing. The statement is also widely covered with the breakdancing specifically included in many RS headlines and present in the text of all of them?

The question: Is it undue to specify that the genre of dance was breakdancing when describing the artist's statement as it could be argued the reaction would be the same if it were another form of dance? Like, "Artist gave a statement while dancing..." vs. "Artist gave a statement while break-dancing.."?

I've been watching a disagreement on a talk page/edit history record where Undue and Noteworthy are being used by some experienced editors, and I'm a bit confused as to what the issue about including the "break-dancing" is! I'm not really interested in that particular disagreement, but I am perplexed so I thought I'd come here for clarity on the issue, as the sections related to noteworthiness/undue/balance mainly address the status of viewpoints, not reported details! Thanks for everyone's help! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem with hypotheticals is that sometimes the person posing the hypothetical doesn't distill all the elements of the actual example correctly, and inadvertently leaves out details that may be pertinent or even crucial to answering the question. The fact that whatever the actual issue is perplexes you may indicate there's subtleties in the disagreement that you're not seeing. We always need links to the actual discussions or articles so we have all the information before we're able to answer questions to any degree of confidence. Folly Mox (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah! That makes sense! The actual disagreement has been occurring in the edit history of the Colleen Ballinger article, and in a few threads on the talk page. It seems like multiple editors keep trying to include the fact she is playing the ukulele in a widely covered response video, while a few editors have been reverting the change each time it's added. The rationale for the undue/noteworthy remarks seems to be that if it were any other instrument and the reaction would have been the same, therefore it's not encyclopedic to include. My confusion is the same as described in the first post! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Goodlucklemonpig, I suppose I can see both sides of that argument. The BBC source even mentions the ukelele in the title of their article. I believe the argument the people against inclusion of the particular instrument relies on the idea that in the whole scheme of accusation, apology, and reaction to the apology, the ukelele is not significant. If there were an article specifically about the apology song video, the ukelele would definitely be encyclopaedic to include, but since it doesn't seem to play a role in the larger events of the paragraph, it's not necessary to mention. Having said that, it is an interesting detail, and I wouldn't personally remove it from the article if it were in there. I hope that helps explain things a little bit. I don't feel like I've done a much better job than the editors on the talk page. Folly Mox (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Editors citing WP:DUE are probably relying on this part of the guideline: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail... (emphasis added). Folly Mox (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

You definitely cleared things up a bit, especially the direct "depth of detail" citation and contextualizing the paragraph vs. a hypothetical article! I'm partial to including the aforementioned ukulele (as a fairly unique instrument in a fairly unique video), but the reasons given make a lot more sense now! Anyways, from the number of reverts I've seen, it seems like a sore subject not worth getting involved in. Thank you for the well-put explanation :) Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Links: Dead in practice but not in effect

So recently, a source I consult quite frequently, Página Siete, shuttered its doors. Given that the paper's website remains online, links to previous publications are all still live. In practice, however, their usability is rendered moot by a subscription block—now inaccessible, for obvious reasons. (Here's an example) The question, then, is whether I should mark the links as dead when citing so as to direct users towards an actually usable archive, or continue marking them as live and tagging them as subscription-only. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

They're live, and the links remain valid. There is nothing wrong with referring to subscription-only sources (though obviously it's lovely if information is available for free, and many editors will favour open-access sources). We are an encyclopaedia summarising information that can be traced back to reliable sources by someone wishing to do so; we do not guarantee that the information is available for free, nor do we have any moral viewpoint on the freedom of other people's information - only on the free availability of Wikipedia itself. So no action is absolutely necessary. Elemimele (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Given that you can no longer sign up for a subscription to gain access to the content, I would certainly add archived snapshots, if any are available (assuming, that is, that the archiver, eg the Wayback Machine, has itself been able to navigate past the paywall). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

... just being pedantic, but if you do add archived links, you should, technically, check that the archived version says what we claim. The original citation applied to the source on the date the original editor inserted it. Most magazine and newspaper articles shouldn't change, but a situation I've met before is where someone's inserted a Wayback Machine link to an archived error page instead of (presumably) the original content. This is worse than leaving the original, unavailable link, because it now means that I've no idea of the date on which the information was once available. Elemimele (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Outing users

Users 1 and 2 edit a page together to add a mention of a certain person to a different page. User 3 takes note of this and discusses that the person should be deleted. User 4 sees the discussion and while doing a search, notices that a Twitter thread talking about pushing to get the information included on the Wikipedia page, and mentions that the author of the sources used on the page is helping them edit. The Twitter poster uses their real name. In a discussion about the content's inclusion, User 4 posts a link to the Twitter thread, which shows that the author of the sources used on the page is also attempting to add content to the page. User 4 does not attribute or connect the poster or the author to any Wikipedia editor. It is not obvious or clear which editor(s) out of many are named in the Twitter thread. However, it is possible to make a plausible not uncertain guess based on shared interests if one were to search more about the Twitter poster. Does User 4's actions violate any policy, such as outing? What should User 4 have done differently in this scenario, if anything? Chamaemelum (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Chamaemelum, if you have any doubts, then it's safer to privately email your concerns to an administrator (here is a list of active administrators). Protecting users' privacy will always take priority even if there are concerns about conflicts of interest or canvassing. Of course, it's not considering WP:OUTING if a user has already (voluntarily) self-identified. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Chamaemelum I read all this expecting you to have a problem with users 1 & 2. Yet it seems you have a problem with user 4 who's trying to show the information might not be true? Make me make that make sense.

It seems to me that user 4 is doing everything right.

I can't remember what the term is, but there's a word for people like users 1 & 2, who are trying game the system, by pretending to be unconnected to the subject...

In a similar way to what a lot of new filmmakers try to do on IMDB, by asking the cast, crew, their friends and their family, to give their new productions a 10/10 rating to game the system.

However what they don't realise is that IMDB removes high ratings which are done in bulk, in a short space of time, especially when they're done by new users, as it's very likely they have a connection.

If the person they're trying to add is also famous and is connection I don't see a problem with people trying to add them, however it doesn't change the fact that users 1 and 2 are not doing it in the correct way.

However if the other person isn't famous, then user 3 and user 4 can remove them, even though that's a Wikipedia policy I disagree with, as when people are in the public eye, people like their family will be in the public eye too, whether they like it or not.

Pretty soon I will be adding the brother of a late TV presenter/journalists article, once I've updated the TV presenter/journalists article a bit. However there should be no problem with me adding the brother, as the late brother was a TV cinematographer/cameraman, so was in the public eye too. Danstarr69 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. I'm specifically wondering how the outing policy works in this weird circumstance where it's relevant to a COI, semi-public, and not explictly connecting a Wikipedia user with a name (but someone could infer if they chose to look). Chamaemelum (talk)

Possible advertising content or self-promotion

I work for the company which I was trying to edit according to their task. I understand that the issue is about self-promotion but it's only because I am the new member and never did it earlier, anyway I am following all the guidelines. I see I can be adopted but they say that if I never did edit in Wiki, then I cannot be adopted. But I'd like to gain trust to my account of course so that my work is not wasted and the content is not removed.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_Today

Could you please help? Ira Roven (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ira Roven,

If your problem is about the article on the Spanish Wikipedia, I think you need to contact the support there as we can't do much from here. But as far as I know, if you're following the guidelines from now on and disclosing your Conflict Of Interest (you shold do this as soon as you can), you should be all good. I would take a second look at WP:NPOV and WP:WHATNOT if you haven't already. If your edits haven't been neutral, they have probably been reverted on both Wikis. Feel free to review your edits and redo them as edit requests according to WP:DISCLOSE while keeping the guidelines in mind, and choosing a rather neutral point of view.

Let me know if you need any more assistance. NotAGenious (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ira Roven: On Spanish Wikipedia, the rules concerning conflict of interest and paid editing are found here: es:Wikipedia:Conflicto de interés. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Dropdown menu bug in other wikis

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Dropdown menu bug in other wikis

Bug in question

I recently came across a bug in every wiki except for Wikipedia. I have no idea how Phabricator works, so can somebody please file a ticket for this? Thanks in advance, QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 10:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka I've never been able to get my head around Phabricator, either. I'd suggest posting at WP:VPT might get the attention of more technical folk. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:  Done --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 10:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

How to view talk page discussion on a redirected page

Just wondering if it is possible to view the talk page of a page that existed in the past but has now been redirected. Obviously when you try to go to a page with a redirect you get sent to the destination page of the redirect, but the discussion from the old page doesn't appear on the talk page of the new destination of the redirect.

When the page gets redirected, does the talk page just get deleted? Or is the discussion saved somewhere?

Thanks! Chagropango (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chagropango When you go to an article via a redirect, there will be a link at the very top which says "(Redirected from [what you searched])". If you click on that, you'll be taken to the page where the redirect exists and you can then view its Talk Page or History tab in the usual way. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that's actually very simple! Thanks for the help. Chagropango (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chagropango Another trick is to go to the target page, e.g. Joe Biden, click on the option "What links here" and then on the page that comes up, check the boxes "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links": leaving only "Hide redirects" unchecked. Then when you click "Go", you'll see all the available redirects for the article. In the case of Biden's article that's a whole lot of redirects! Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding to publishing

Hello! I need to be helped as a new editor. Can a new user confidently publish an article to main space if he or she is sure of it notability? Oringarcejs (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To directy create an article you must be autoconfirmed(account is 4 days old with at least 10 edits). If you are, you are free to create articles, but if are doing your first one it is highly advised that you submit it via WP:AFC. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

... and there is no penalty for submitting an article on a non-notable subject via AFC beyond getting it declined! Find the best independent sources you can; you don't need to include huge numbers. If you can find three good sources writing about the subject independently, and in reasonable depth, then you stand a good chance. Have a go, and listen carefully to the advice you get from whoever reviews it. But be patient, it may take some time to get reviewed. Elemimele (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Question about screenshot of free, open-source software

I want to upload a few screenshots of Mastodon to Wikimedia Commons of a free and open source program known as Mastodon (since there don't seem to be any screenshots of the administrator, moderator, nor advanced web interface). It's a self-hosted instance by me, so I'm wondering what license I should use when uploading and if there would be any troubles doing that, or even if I shouldn't do it in the first place. Thanks! Technogod (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a commons question. Maybe ask at the help desk there (commons:COMMONS:HELPDESK) Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 16:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

New ship propulsion/ Direct Thrust Propulsion .

Patent number 11-584-492-b1 2-21-23 John 'Jack" De Maria Inventor. Ship propulsion for the 21st. century. 2604:2D80:ED04:8400:1D9C:DF83:7675:54E0 (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you have a question about using or editing the English Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello. If you are trying to publicize a newly patented invention, please undersatnd that Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Until there are multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the invention, it will not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible.

Also note that even if/when it reaches that threshold, 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. ColinFine (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines citation link fix

Hello. Go to above article, scroll down to hijackings section (below accidents and incidents). The February 21, 1968 incident, citation #183. Go into edit window. I cant link it to the article.Name of article is: From FAA Peace Officers to Air Marshals. I know I typed in the link exactly as it appears in the URL of the article.Thanks for your time.Theairportman33531 (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. Please disregard request. Fixed problem.Theairportman33531 (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Help me?

I'm so lost... HilarysaurusRex (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. What are you looking for? WPscatter ^t/_c 19:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

A new start HilarysaurusRex (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

If you are looking to start over with a new account see wp:FRESHSTART. If you are concerned about getting reverted, don't worry, learn from your mistakes and keep editing. ✶Mitch199811✶ 20:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Teahouse

I want to know what a teahouses 2601:2C1:8800:8E70:A119:C9C2:8937:2294 (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP editor!

For information about teahouses in general please see its article. The Wikipedia Teahouse is a place where newer editors can ask questions. ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

References

From Slim8029.  I am working on a draft article.  My current focus is on completing the references.  When I go to the article it shows a triangle with an asterisk in it and I am unable to add any more references.  When I click on the triangle, the pop-up says "1 Notice.  Find sources and references google, NYT and other acronyms.  But these are not relevant.

Whoever made the notation was perhaps objecting to a reference to academia.edu.  Is that possible?  How do I fix this so I can move forward?  Thanks.

Draft:Michael Shapiro (Journalist) Slim8029 (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems that you tripped an edit filter because you tried to add a blacklisted link to the article. Can you tell us what sources you tried to add? Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Slim8029. Your ref name=":0" and ref name=":1" are in the wrong place. Inline references belong in the wikicode for the body of the article, right after the content that they verify. They do not belong in the "References" section itself. There is also some unconventional coding in the "References" section. Try Template: Reflist instead, which is the standard way to organize references, and is used in over five million articles. Cullen328 (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll work on Reflist in the next few days. I've got some busy days coming up so may not get to this immediately.

Regards. Slim8029 (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It was probably academia.edu. Is that likely? I assume if I delete the reference the problem will go away? I'm searching for an alternative source for the information.

Thanks. Slim8029 (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

i have finished publishing my wikipedia page in the sandbox, but its still showing draft

I have finished working on the page, but in the sandbox, i am still seeing "draft", when will it published? Amalgoni (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)