== I wanted to edit the article on the Riesz-Thorin theorem, but the code is weird ==
== I wanted to edit the article on the Riesz-Thorin theorem, but the code is weird ==
I am used to working with Latex, but when I decided to edit the article on the Riesz-Thorin theorem - more precisely the part on the statement of the theorem, I found that the code is really weird. Usually math formulas are put inside the math environment <math>...</math>, but here it is different. Can someone say more about this? What kind of "language" has been used there? Is it outdated? Where can I find more information? [[User:01Filippo|01Filippo]] ([[User talk:01Filippo|talk]]) 21:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I am used to working with Latex, but when I decided to edit the article on the Riesz-Thorin theorem - more precisely the part on the statement of the theorem, I found that the code is really weird. Usually math formulas are put inside the math environment math.../math, but here it is different. Can someone say more about this? What kind of "language" has been used there? Is it outdated? Where can I find more information? [[User:01Filippo|01Filippo]] ([[User talk:01Filippo|talk]]) 21:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I am reaching out to learn if you could help in the review process of an article I've edited about human rights in the digital era in the Caribbean. The article is the result of a Wiki edtiathon we did with different regional and international organisations. We look forward to encourage more people to edit our Wiki article. The results and participants of this process would be presented at Mozilla Festival by the beginning of March. For these reasons we would highly value any recommendation or support to fast-forward the article's review.
Thank you in adance for your time and consideration!
WikiLAC, the article's history shows that -- aside from a single contribution by somebody who wasn't logged in, and various minor improvements -- it was created by you alone. But you talk of "we". Is "WikiLAC" a single person, or a group? -- Hoary (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WikiLAC, you need to decide what the draft is meant to be about, and then write about that subject. "Digital Rights in the Caribbean" suggests that it's about IP law as effective in Caribbean countries. "human rights in the digital era in the Caribbean" suggests that it's about human rights in the Caribbean in the last thirty years. "Digital violence" doesn't mean jabbing someone with your fingers; it's not clear what it does mean. In fact the draft seems to be about several miscellaneous topics that concern its various writers. Maproom (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Maproom, thanks for your feedback! I have changed the title to "human rights in the digital era in the Caribbean" to help readers better understand what the article is about. Have also done minor edits to the references about online GBV in the lead to make it clearer. This is the group of organisations behind the project Wikipedia:WikiCaribbean/DigitalRights. Would it help if they do edits to the article as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLAC (talk • contribs)
WikiLAC, you haven't answered my question. Maproom infers plural authorship of a draft that's largely written by a single username. If "WikiLAC" is indeed a number of people, this contravenes a policy of English-language Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Username policy. (Also, when you comment on a talk page [such as this one], please conclude your comment with four consecutive "~"; this will produce your signature and a timestamp.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hoary, sorry that my answer was not clear. The edits to the text have been done by the group of organisations listed in the Wiki page I've shared. Due to practical reasons I have done the edits on the Wiki article. I ask again, would it help if these other organisations do edits to the article as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLAC (talk • contribs)
Hi Tenryuu, thanks for your questions. The project aims at promoting the work of third organisations focussed on digital human rights in the Caribbean - there are no references in the article from the organisations leading the project. Please let me know if this should be indicated in the lead. WikiLAC (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiLAC: That wasn't what I said. What I said was anyone who is affiliated with the organisations mentioned in the article is strongly discouraged from directly editing said article due to inherent conflicts of interest, as you said in your response to Maproom: would it help if these other organisations do edits to the article as well? Individuals from other organisations may edit without such qualms so long as they don't have a conflict of interest. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu: Thanks for clarifying that. It is an important point to address when inviting more people to edit the article. Are there any other recommendations I should follow to get the article reviewed? Mate 02WikiLAC (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
My husband's middle name is inaccurate on Wikipedia.
Can someone ensure at Wikipedia that a person does not continue to post my husband's middle name as Edwin.
My husband, Valmore Curtis James the First African American born to play in The NHL, First Floridian to do so also, his name on Wikipedia should read VALMORE CURTIS JAMES. I've made the correction but need Wikipedia to ensure someone else does not edit it to Edwin. If you want your content to be accurate, can this edit remain as Valmore Curtis James.
A lot of people do search him.
Hello, Ina. Thank you for wanting to help improve Wikipedia. As a rule, we ask people not to edit articles directly about people they know or concerns they are involved in, as they may have a conflict of interest, but rather to make an edit request on the article's talk page. Wikipedia works on reliable published sources, and generally information which is not reported a published source should not appear in an article at all. I have not been able to look at the sources cited for James's early life, as they are not avaiable online, so I cannot tell if they give his middle name correctly, or at all.
I see that the article Val James used the name "Curtis" until last February, when an editor called Sabbatino made a number of changes, including changing the middle name to Edwin: Sabbatino did not explain their edits, so I have pinged them here, in the hope they will come and explain why they made that change.
Note that Wikipedia will not lock an article to anybody's preferred version: in general, anybody may edit a Wikipedia article, but if their edits are not in line with Wikipedia policies, they generally get reverted quite quickly. From Wikipedia's view, the issue here is not what Jame's middle name is, but what reliable sources say it is. --ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone and provided a reliable source for the full name, from The Buffalo News. I'm not sure where the "Edwin" comes from, but it appears that Ina is correct above; his middle name appears to be Curtis. --Jayron3217:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source is dead but appears to be the "official website of the Hockey Hall of Fame" that listed Edwin as middle name. I can not find the corresponding data on their new website and wayback shows it to be just a database entry.Slywriter (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been in error; I can't find any other information on the Edwin name; and we have good sources on the Curtis one. --Jayron3219:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the name to Edwin in the past, because Hockey Hall of Fame and other sources listed it. If you have reliable sources that say otherwise then you are welcome to provide them. — Sabbatino (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, posting here not because I'm a new Wikipedian, but because I have no clue where to post about issues like this - this doesn't seem important enough (or the right fit) for the admin noticeboard or vandalisation noticeboard. If you know where I should be posting this, please do say.
Anyway, there seems to be no consensus on Wikipedia about romanising Kyrgyz Cyrillic. I have seen it suggested that the BGN method should be used since it uses letters familiar to English rather than a load of diacritics, but no official guidance exists.
The reason I bring this up, is that I have noticed (while on recent changes patrol) that Almanbet Janışev (talk·contribs) has made numerous (read: 100s of) edits 'correcting' romanisations to use what looks like 'PAU' romanisation with some modifications (i.e. 'q' instead of 'k'). This doesn't seem particularly productive to me - I can understand adding new romanisations with a different system, but changing existing ones seems disruptive. I don't know how to report this since it's not outright vandalism, but the user doesn't respond to their talk page so I can't just ask them to stop.
Side note: I also found that this user engages in some very odd editing patterns. For example, with multiple articles (e.g. Jusup_Abdrahman_uulu and Draft:Murat_Salihov, the latter being one I had to move from mainspace), the user creates articles in mainspace which are basically drafts, and then apparently proceeds to edit them logged out under 185.29.185.132 (talk·contribs). I can't quite understand why this is; perhaps the user has had trouble with bans in the past. Also, the user's writing style is what I can only describe as being very Slavic (often missing the verb 'to be', missing personal pronouns etc.) - this means the user's contributions don't tend to fit with the style of the rest of English Wikipedia, which tends to, uh, use full sentences.
So, what to do about this? What action can be taken? Does action even need to be taken at all? Do we need official Kyrgyz romanisation guidance (talk about niche, eh)?
I'm also unsure as to where the correct board to ask would be, but you're here now, so it'd be a waste of time to refuse to answer. What you have with Almanbet there is a great opportunity to engage in the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. However, they are not engaging in the discuss part of that. That's a problem. Have you checked to see if it could be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU? Attempt to gain communication in any way you can, and if they continue to be disruptive you can try WP:DRN. This does sound like a very frustrating situation. casualdejekyll20:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice, I hadn't heard of either of these guidelines before. I'll make further efforts to get in contact and if all else fails, I might take this to DRN. Cheers — JThistle38 (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ScientistBuilder: Hello Scientist! There's a chance it may already be up to those standards. Articles aren't marked as "Good Articles" by normal users looking at the quality of an article. In order to have an article be marked as a "Good Article" it has to be nominated and if the nomination doesn't succeed, have the improvements recommended to be made, made to the article. More detail can be found at WP:GAN/I, which describes the process of nominating an article. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654520:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ScientistBuilder: If you are the reviewer it is highly suggested that you do not edit the article yourself that is what the review is for you can tell them the problem and they can fix it. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb21:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally created a new unassessed article with an edit conflict by trying to resolve my good article nomination review of Cyclotron. How do I resolve this new article I didn't mean to create? ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering what are some Wikipedia guide pages on things I can do to improve Wikipedia that don't involve tracking down sources which I am not interested in.
I am more interested in making articles clearer to read and enhancing readability so laypeople can understand the topic for science and math articles.
hi, i am a new wikipedia editor and i am wondering how can i link a youtube video in a talk page discussion as anytime i try to reply to a discussion with a youtube link
it doesnt work and even though it says the reply has been saved it still does not show on my screen. HELP! YZY3000 (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Normally it should be youtube.com and not m.youtube.com. Similar to how it works on Wikipedia, the "m." just indicates it's the mobile browser version of the site― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654521:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@YZY3000: Hello YZY and welcome to the Teahouse! May I ask why you are wanting to link a Youtube video in a talk page discussion? I had initially guessed you got caught by the edit filter however you have no filter logs (generated automatically) so I don't know what the issue is. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654521:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a draft article is taking too much time to get reviewed, can I cancel it's submission and move it to the main namespace?
Hi! I have submitted a draft article that I created for review but it's taking too much time. Is there any way to cancel the submission of a draft article and move it myself?
How to move a draft article to Wikipedia's mainspace?
Resmise Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has no deadlines; what is your need for a speedy review? You submitted it only five days ago; as noted on your draft, it could take months.
Unless you have much experience in having articles accepted(I can see that you do not), it is unwise to attempt to move the draft into the main space yourself. Wouldn't you rather find out any problems now, rather than after what you worked on is in the encyclopedia? If you move it yourself, it would be at risk of being moved back to draft or possibly put up for deletion. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Ok, I asked this question because when I was using my old Wikipedia account(which I am not using now), I submitted a draft article and it got reviewed by other editors few hours later.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Resmise (talk • contribs)
Resmise It is possible that a review can be done quickly, but there is no guarantee of that because reviews are conducted in no particular order- reviewers pick drafts out of the category to review as they see fit- it is not a queue. It is still unwise to move a draft yourself unless you are 95-100% confident that the draft would survive a hypothetical Articles for Deletion discussion. If you think that it would, you can simply remove the submission template and use the "move" function(under the "more" tab at the top, if using desktop mode) to move the draft into main space. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resmise, the ja:Wikipedia article says that the pop group's name is pronounced マッドキッド (and not エムエイディーケーアイディー or similar); thus the FULL CAPS are merely for display. Therefore Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks dictates that you shouldn't write "MADKID" and instead should write "Madkid". -- Hoary (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may or may not be reliable, but it is definitely not independent, so it can't be used to establish notability. It, however, can be used to cite facts - as long as they can be verified by any person with access to the source. casualdejekyll13:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying so quickly.
I was wondering about RS for a fact I would be citing, not notability, so per your lead, I guess I will forge ahead.
This was about an update for the 2022 election cycle I would be adding to the existing article.
Dgndenver (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Creating Wiki Article on Hannah Bonecutter - Bio
Hannah Bonecutter is a unique professional that has a large online presence, several accolades, and contributions to society, particularly within the industries of film and social activism. There are at least 3 verifiable third-party sources written about her that can be cited in a Wikipedia article. I am wondering do you think a Wikipedia page can be written about her and be allowed to be published when submitted for review? Do you think a neutral Wikipedia article on Hannah Bonecutter (biography style) would pass as notable?
Here is a link of google search results that pop up when you type her name:
[1]
I look forward to hearing back from the Wiki editors community.
On you to sift through all that her-name-search to identify at least three sources. My own opinion is that for someone in graduate school, with a business on the side and a bit entertainment biz history, WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This draft created by me has not been accepted as it is like an advertisement to the reviewer. I'd like to know whether it really is, considering the fact that the draft has a brief yet sufficient info about the person discussed and also which most of the daft lack, a handful of images, which I may add more if required. Cheers!Michri michri (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse @Michri michri:, I do not think more pictures need to be added to the draft, but you should focus more on the references. It does not really matter if the draft has a "brief yet sufficient info about the person discussed". It matters that the article is backed with independent reliable sources. because the reviewer said it was read like an advertisement, I would suggest reading WP:NPOV. Good luck with the draft and happy editing! ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb14:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted all but one photo of him. Given that he is an author versus a performing artist who might appear if different roles, one is sufficient. More or fewer images have no impact on draft reviews. David notMD (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Michri michri: An important point (that was not conveyed by the editors above): the fact that the article reads like an advertisement can be fixed, but there is a more serious issue. The article needs to show that this person is "notable". For an author, that usually means multiple reviews in newspapers with critical commentary of their work (other kinds of sources would suffice, but reviews are by far the most common way for creative professionals to pass the guideline). If you cannot establish notability (in Wikipedia’s sense of the term), you should not waste time fixing the "advertising tone" issues, because the article will not be kept no matter how hard you work. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)18:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know, I have not looked for sources. Digging up sources is hard, especially if you have to look across different languages. What I do know is that the reviewer left a message asking for sources that show notability - in their appreciation the sources in the article are insufficient, but maybe better ones exist. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)12:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As 331dot stated, Wikipedia:Articles for creation is a guide for article creation, and WP:YFA is useful. I cnnot overstress the need to find reliable source references first, as the groundwork for creating a draft to submit to AfC. What you know about a person does not matter unless it is verified by references. David notMD (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like David notMD was saying, make sure the person passes the genral nobility guideline first before creating an article. Also make sure that if you know or are related to the person you are wanting to create an article on that is considered a conflict of interest (COI). It is highly suggested that if you have a COI with that person you do not create an article on them as it might stray the article from having neutral point of view. if you do end up creating an article I would suggest you read Help:your first article.― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb15:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ScientistBuilder: Hello again Scientist! What you found appears to be a mirror of Wikipedia. Nothing to be concerned about really, as long as they aren't violating the copyright (Described in the page I linked) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654516:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
question on one of those insufficiency banners
Hi all, I guess I am simply a very novice editor in the wikipedia environment, and I should say I am not charged with any type of responsibility for the organization's wikipeida page at all.
However, the South Texas College page has a plea for more references at the top, something about "insufficient"
it seems to be well cited for everything that can be cited for a public state community college.
So, I wonder if the plea (banner) can be removed somehow because it does not seem relevant to the page any longer (or really to me the last ten to 15 plus years)
State Community Colleges are public entities and thus any official citations will always be from the state requirements to publish all public information (which everything we do is public and availalbe to everyone). We are not expected to be named often in other publications although we have been and are recognized by different bodies for various things like: Number of Hispanic Graduates, Raising the Quality of Life through directly impacting incomes in the Rio Grande Valley, NIMS metal working certification, and our basic data like nurse's passing the exam (pass rate), firefigher training passing the exam, police training passing the exam, and many things.
If anyone here would like to take a look, we are an "open book"
I did add another photo today, because we still do not have all our campuses represented in pictures (5 campuses, plus online), and because I am not always happy enough with whatever photo I took to put it up for all to see. (lighting, sky, all sorts of things)
Thank you in advance for anything at all *wikipedia still is needed. Talltexan2 (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! our environment is a place where web references are frequently changing or updating and thus, go out of date right away or even worse at times the "dreaded self reference" snake eating its tail. There should be a few things on these possibly from the Chamber of Commerce or smaller local papers (which have been under stress and may have even folded thus closing down their websites as well) *as I said I am not charged with any duties of the wiki but I have done a bit of minimal editing here and there/ and those seem to be ok, I just did a search for NAMREI which was a familiar moniker to me/ but of course not to the world (our "official" people are in the PR department, but odd to me they never put a picture, those were by me over the last 20 years or so). I think we have updated the name of what was namrei to something a bit different (we started with 1000 students in 1993, and with Covid I think we are about 30,000 instead of 34k now or perhaps we got a few more back for the spring). Rapid Changes make keeping up a challenge especially with tasks that do not belong to anyone in particular (such as wikipedia). THANK YOU AGAIN for your help.
I'm not sure if I'm finishing the missions. When I complete a task, it doesn't lead me to the next step or anything else. I go back to my Talk page to get to the next mission. Thank you for your patience and time! Gingerbreadgal (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gingerbreadgal: Hello Gingerbread! Could you possibly describe in a bit more detail what's happening? I think I might know what the issue is, however I don't know how to fix it (mainly because I don't know where the code that allows WP:TWA to work and I can't fix what might be broken there if I don't know where it is) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654517:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Blaze...thank you for replying so quickly. I know this is a really lame issue, but I wanted to make sure I was getting everything out of the tutorial that I could. The front page of the Wikipedia Adventure lists the missions that you can click on. I click on a mission and follow the tutorial. It then has me perform a certain task i.e. add certain info or edit some content. Once I've completed the task, there's no further guidance or instructions on what to do next...it gives me no indication of whether or not I've finished the mission. Does that make sense? Thanks a lot for your patience and assistance.Gingerbreadgal (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gingerbreadgal: Yep that helps! I know exactly what the issue is and I have no clue what causes it or why it happens. For whatever reason sometimes it doesn't detect that you've done the task. I remedied this by increasing the number in the part of the URL that reads step= or something (been a while since I've done it so I can't remember exactly). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654520:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gingerbreadgal: No problem! I had the same issue as you when I was doing The Wikipedia Adventure. The original creator no longer has time to work on it so I've sort of taken over the project with a goal of getting it to the point where it isn't broken. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654521:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, the content of those comments is rather poor. The NASL final article does not claim that such a final took place (indeed, it says no such event occured), so it is not a hoax. The Mubarak Haruna article is not sourced to an autobiography (as the AfD originator explained).
AfD (articles for deletion) is probably quite arcane for a new user to step in. You really need a good grasp of policy to understand what is going on there. I would suggest you try to do simpler stuff first, for instance improving articles about topics you are familiar with. For instance, try to find sources to replace {{citation needed}} templates you come across. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)18:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Im really bad at this:, voting can look a little different in some situations. For example when an article is nominated for deletion because it’s references are not reliable votes would look something like this.
Delete as per the reason above (which is because the refs are not reliable)
Keep it look like to me the references are reliable
@Kaleeb18: the examples you give are actually quite poor !votes. The first one is WP:PERX, and the second one is at the "contradiction" level of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement (good AfD comments are at least at the level of "counterargument").
Along with what Kaleeb says, technically AfDs aren't a majority vote, although they usually look like one because the consensus determined happened to be the majority of !votes (the ! is wikispeak for not). Sometimes it will be determined as no consensus because it's not clear what the consensus is (even if there are more votes for one option). See WP:!VOTE for more explanation. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654518:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tigraan: I wasnt really trying to come up with a reason as of why something should be deleted I just came up with something quick. I probably just should have put "put reason here". ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb19:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was simply asking them on their talk page because I didn't see that to be something that would be appropriate to ask in reply to this discussion. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the puzzle thing rather than the color is a problem... Ultimately it is not a matter of whether the logo "objectively" offends autistic people (whatever "objectively" means here, and never mind that "autistic people" covers quite a lot of different cognitive patterns). It is a matter of which logo the WikiProject members want to represent them. Whether project members object because the logo is offensive, or because there’s some blue and they do not like blue, or because there’s a sphere and they prefer cubes, is ultimately irrelevant - what matters is that they strongly dislike it and you do not seem to be able to convince them otherwise. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)19:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that there is a wider cultural conversation about the appropriateness of using puzzle pieces specifically to represent autism. I don't see any reason that using puzzle pieces to represent things totally unrelated to autism, as the Wikipedia logo does, would be a problem. Writ Keeper⚇♔18:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Tigraan: We don't have to convince them about anything, the project can pick whatever logo they want, I just wanted to understand if really that logo is commonly perceived offensive, and I considered its eventual implications worth of a broader attention. — Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 23:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Use of YouTube videos as citations
I've been advised that we are not allowed to use YouTube videos as citations. So I looked up Wikipedia editing instructions and found two statements:
1: (from a Wikipedia editing instruction video, on YouTube), it says that reliable sources include material published "in ALL forms of media."
2: "Links to video content on YouTube or Google Video (or other, similar content aggregators) are allowed, provided the material linked to is not obviously infringing copyright, is relevant to the article, and is a primary source or a reliable and irreplaceable secondary source."
In a large number of cases, YouTube is the only avenue for proving what is stated in an article, particularly where the subject is obscure or historical and involves music and/or performance. Plus, online videos are, under the law, automatically in the Public Domain. So, with the exception of things like video surreptitiously recorded on cell phones, there is no copyright infringement.
Also, a video automatically offers proof that a statement made in a Wikipedia article is accurate and true. Or it may prove that an existing statement in an article is not true. For example, in an article I recently edited, it was claimed that an entertainer appeared on stage at a particular television show. I was able to find the original clip of that performance and it was clear that that entertainer was not there.
When it comes to articles about people in the entertainment world, without the ability to prove or disprove statements, Wikipedia would be less of an encyclopedia and more of a PR tool.
I was also advised that I'm not allowed to use IMDB (Internet Movie Database) as a reference. Again, this is public-domain content and it is often the only proof that a statement is true, e.g. where it is stated that someone appeared in a film, or wrote a song in a soundtrack.
Hi, LJA123, welcome to the Teahouse! There's a lot to unpack here, but first of all, the statement online videos are, under the law, automatically in the Public Domain is categorically not true. From a copyright perspective, videos posted on Youtube and eslewhere on the Internet can be released under any license that one wishes (subject to the terms of use of the video platform, etc.). The community consensus on Youtube as a sources states: Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK. This can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#YouTube. Also note that, per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary, most Youtube videos will fall under the category of "primary sources", which, contrary to the name, are not strong sources for Wikipedia's purposes. Writ Keeper⚇♔18:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note that your second quote, Links to video content on YouTube or Google Video[...] appears to be taken from Wikipedia:External links/YouTube, which is indicated by the banner at the top to be a "failed proposal", so it should not be used as justification for any Wikipedia editing. Writ Keeper⚇♔18:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LJA123: Welcome, and thanks for asking these questions. First of all, you're confusing two different concepts
1) The first concept is copyright. Copyright means "the right to copy a work". If you own a copyright, you get to decide how it is copied and distributed. Under Copyright law of the United States, copyright exists once a work is created; unless the copyright holder expressly gives someone else that right, it cannot be copied.
2) The other concept is reliable sourcing. The text in Wikipedia articles needs to be cited to a reliable source. Use that link to find out more about what makes a source reliable. Most reliable sources are copyrighted, but that doesn't mean we can or can't use them. We use the information from the sources to write our own completely original writing about the subject. That original writing, however, needs to be verifiable by being based on reliable information. IMDB is not reliable; it contains questionable editorial controls; it allows users to freely add information and it has no real good system to vet that information themselves. That's why we can't use them. Many YouTube videos are also not from reliable sources, though some are. For example, if a reliable news organization, like the BBC, publishes something on their official YouTube channel, that carries the reliability of the BBC. If, however, Randy from Boise publishes a YouTube video, then it is only a trustworthy as Randy is. Which is not at all.
OK, so the link you just sent me says, in part: "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability." In the example I mentioned above, I used a clip from a television show that is produced by the BBC. So that's a reliable source, correct? In other words, we can use YouTube videos as long as the source is clearly reliable? But, to use another example, I'm working on articles about two musicians who are legendary in India, but not well-known in the west. For those articles, I was able to find their recordings only on YouTube--those videos are the only method of proving the statements in the article. Those are recordings from the original albums (released by HMV), but uploaded by who-knows-who. So I am not allowed to use those?--LJA123 (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's roughly correct... As long as you get it from the official BBC YouTube channel (that is, uploaded by the BBC directly themselves). We can't use stuff uploaded by other accounts that purport to be the BBC, but are of questionable provenance. --Jayron3218:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LJA123: The only things I'd add to what Jayron32 says is that, first of all "television show that is produced by the BBC" is a very broad category--there are many TV shows that the BBC produces that still aren't reliable for anything. Certainly, anything that's not specifically news or otherwise specifically informative is almost certainly not going to be reliable. Second, for your second example, I can't really speak to specifics without the full context, but "uploaded by who-knows-who" is a pretty strong indicator that those videos are copyright violations, and cannot be used or linked to anywhere on Wikipedia. Writ Keeper⚇♔19:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LJA123: In addition to the above, the basic rule (of verifiability) is not that we use the best source among those available, but that claims that are poorly referenced should be deleted. If only a Youtube video from a random user can be found in support of a claim, we remove that claim. If a whole article is only sourced to shaky sources, we delete the article. If that policy hides huge parts of otherwise unrecorded history, so be it.
In the case of the Indian musicians. There are no videos. But someone uploaded tracks from the original albums (their owner), which were released by HMV in the 50s and 60s. There again, copyright comes into it, but these songs were all massive hits on radio, heard by millions of people every hour or two, for months. Also in the article, the best way to prove one element is to provide a link to the IMDB entry, which I've just been told I'm not allowed to do... The other way to prove that element is to provide several references to newspaper and magazine articles which, taken together, provide proof of the article's element. But I was just told off for stacking references...lol--LJA123 (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can an administrator of Wikimedia Commons help me please?
(Excuse me if this isn't the right place to ask this)
I want to edit some stuff over at Wikimedia Commons, but the file is cascade protected, and only administrators are allowed to edit.
I want to do the following things:
Annotate some stuff on the logo.
Make all annotated text in parentheses Italicized
Change "휘 (Hwi) for Korean-script Wikis " to "휘 (Hwi) for Hangul-script Wikis"
"維 (wéi) for Hanzi-script Wikis" (Below Greek Ω)
"ו (V) for Hebrew-script Wikis" (Below Cyrillic И)
"ウィ (Wi) for Katakana-script Wikis" (Above Latin W)
"Վ (V) for Armenian-script Wikis" (Top-left-most symbol)
"វិ (Wě) for Cambodian-script Wikis" (Below Armenian Վ)
"উ (U) for Bengali-script Wikis" (Left of Ω)
"वि (Vi) for Devanagari-script Wikis" (Left of Hanzi 維)
"ვ (V) for Georgian-script Wikis" (Below Devanagari वि)
"ವಿ (Vi) for Kannada-script Wikis" (Below Hanzi 維)
"ཝི (Wi) for Tibetan-script Wikis" (Below Kannada ವಿ)
I've created a reasonably good, reasonably cited article in my sandbox on a general-interest topic for which I can find no existing article. But I can't find help on how to actually create a new article, i.e., move my article from the sandbox, in Wikipedia (I must be blind). Can someone point me in the right direction? Fothergilla (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I get it, that seemed to work. I didn't realize I would get all the edit history from my sandbox page moved to the new page, but it doesn't really hurt anything. Thanks Levi_OP Fothergilla (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fothergilla: Usually, when writing draft articles in the user space, people will put their draft of the article at a subpage of their sandbox. For example, you would have made your page at User:Fothergilla/sandbox/Turning Mill/Middle Ridge. Because what you wrote your draft at your actual sandbox, we probably should have just made a new page and copied all of the text from your sandbox over, but I didn't think about that at the time. Sorry about that. ― Levi_OPTalk 19:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC) I'll try that next time, thanks @Levi_OP Fothergilla (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
image upload question
Hello, I would like to know if the image from this website https://bugguide.net/node/view/833514 is able to be uploaded to Wikipedia? I am asking this question because it says nothing about what the rights to the image are (as far as I can see). I would also like to know if there are images showing the hong glorious beetle which I can use for the article (obviously going to look for what the right to the possible image would be). The only thing it says is the date which it got copyrighted (2013) and the person which owns(?) the photo.
thanks.Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus[reply]
Copyright notice is a big hint. More importantly, if you click the photographer's name under the photo you will see "All Rights Reserved", so unless there is a WP:FAIRUSE rationale, the photo can not be used. I suspect fair use is unlikely but it is the area I am least familiar with. Copyright Questions Noticeboard may be better suited to help you with this question.Slywriter (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A little more precisely, Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus, the default assumption is that all material is conventionally ("all rights reserved") copyright -- and thus no variety of copyleft, and unusable at Commons -- unless there is an explicit declaration otherwise, or some other specific reason (normally involving age) to conclude otherwise. -- Hoary (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing website links
I want to help fix broken website links in citations. I think this is called "CS1" or "CN1" or something. I was curious how I could find a list of these that might be broken so that I could manually work through some and help improve the encyclopedia. Oopsemoops (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Special:SpecialPages is a list of pages automagically generated by the software that can't be edited (a list which paradoxically should include Special:SpecialPages, but doesn't). Nothing can be added or removed except by the developers, and they're only going to add pages in the Special namespace. Task Center is a more likely candidate. Since the page is only semi-protected, you could in theory edit it yourself. I would probably recommend talking about it on the Wikipedia talk:Task Center page. casualdejekyll21:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How to add Wikiproject tags to a submission in my sandbox?
Any tips on how to add Wikiproject tags to a submission in my sandbox? When I try to add the correct tags, it says the draft page title (User:Darlenechu/sandbox) doesn't exist. Darlenechu (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone for the support especially Shantavira for bringing back the article and also sharing links about the whole process given me a clear understand of things I did not know.
However I would want to find out how then or what is the best way to contest for this article in other for us to keep it. This is because on the AFD page has been closed and we cannot contest further more. So ones again your help on how to go about contesting it in the right way. Thanks Jwale2 (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than contest the decision, just copy text into a new draft. But before you even think about that, you will need to come up with in-depth significant coverage in at least three independent reliable sources. If those sources don't exist, you will be wasting your time. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more information.--Shantavira|feed me19:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains an audio recording of the subject's name. Does anyone know how this was done? I'd like to replicate it on a couple other articles.
Will appreciate any help i can get.
The image appears to have been formatted incorrectly when added to the main infobox, and this has now been fixed by GoingBatty. I believe these days most infoboxes are set up to automatically display images either a default standard size for the particular infobox per WP:IUP#Infobox and lead images and this is often found on the infobox template's documentation page. Some older or less widely used infoboxes may still format their images the old way, but most of the time all that is needed is to simply to add the file syntax to relevant infobox parameter and then let the software automatically size it. Trying force a particular size on an image is not always a good idea because it can sometimes create accessiblity issues per MOS:ACCIM and WP:THUMBSIZE if it's not done properly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: and @Marchjuly: Thank you all for working on this. It looks good... At least on my computer, even after I cleared the cache, I still have the same issue of the image not showing up when I hover over it with my mouse, Huntingtower School. I noticed that the pixels on it are 136 x 200 and I'm thinking that's pretty small? In thinking about possibilities, is there a way for me to test enlarging the pixels, just a little, and see what the page preview link looks like from another Wikipedia page before making it live? Or would I just make it live and then revert, if it didn't work? Thanks! Archivingperson (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Huntingtower School Sheild.png was uploaded under a non-free license, which means it's subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy (i.e. things such as WP:NFCC#3b and WP:IMAGERES). File:Claremont-logo-CMYK-VECTOR-lion+torch-point.png, on the other hand, was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons license and a claim of "own work" (both of which are questionable in my opinion); so, it's not subject to the restrictions Wikipedia place on non-free content use. So, even though they are both images used in school article infoboxes, trying to compare them is like comparing an apple to an orange. You can try asking about this at WT:NFCC, but it seems unlikely (no offense intended) that an increase in size would be considered OK, at least in principle, to make it easier to see by a single user trying to hover over the link and see the image. When I hover over the article's name, I see it without any problem and notice no real difference with what I see when I hover over Claremont Fan Court School. In many cases, non-free images are uploaded at a size deemed to be too large and they end up subsequently being reduced by WP:BOTS or human editors to bring them more inline with relevant policy. That doesn't appear to be what happened in this case, but the uploader probably chose the file's size based upon what they downloaded from the source they used for the image. If the size is increased too much, the file might just end up be reduced to back where it was before by a bot. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, can someone please help me get my article accepted? I have tried to maintain a very formal tone and added all the sources I can get. any tips? Fmik36 (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fmik36, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, a space where editors ask questions to enable them edit better, please keep this in mind, having said what article might that be? Celestina007 (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fmik36, the reason for declining Draft:Khaldoun Al Tabari is a lack of evidence that there's substantial coverage of the man to demonstrate notability. As I look quickly through the list of references, I notice only one source whose title suggests that it looks at him in some depth: this one at thenationalnews.com. However, when I click on this, I see that it's a mere interview, so it's unsatisfactory. If you can't find any sources that are better, it's unlikely that anyone else will -- except that all your sources are in English, and the biographee is Jordanian and has worked in Arabic-speaking areas. Have you looked for sources in Arabic? -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I need help in knowing what the requirements are for moving an article into the mainspace
This is my first time contributing to Wikipedia and its amazing that this community exists, I am a marketing manager for a healthcare logistics company in Nigeria that was a crucial force in 2020, during the pandemic, however, this force went unnoticed due to some reasons. I believe in honesty and I am putting it out here that I have created a page for the CEO of the company(in the required non-promotional way of course) and I seek advice on how to bring the page up to Wikipedia standards.
As the experts in here, are there any pointers? I would genuinely appreciate your input and also would like to keep contributing to Wikipedia's forum moving forward.[[3]] Udenna Matthew (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New users cannot directly create articles; typically they use Articles for Creation, which provides information to submit a draft- but that's okay. I have added this information to your draft. However, if you were to submit it now, it would be declined quickly, as it does not summarize what independent reliable sources say about Dr. Abiola. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please read Your First Article. Typically, we encourage new users to first edit existing articles, to learn more about Wikipedia, as well as advising them to use the new user tutorial. Successfully creating a new article is probably the hardest task to perform on Wikipedia, and diving right in can lead to disappointment and frustration, when you do not get some experience first. 331dot (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Udenna Matthew, if the major factor in the notability of your biographee is that he's the CEO of a company (Carter Biggs), then I'd expect an article to be produced about the company before an article about him. You say that the company "was a crucial force in 2020, during the pandemic". This sounds promising. However, you add that "this force went unnoticed". This means that no mention can be made in Wikipedia of its crucialness. It seems from what you say that any attempt at an article on your company's CEO is doomed -- not necessarily forever, but until notability (as understood by Wikipedia) can be demonstrated. -- Hoary (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Using IMDB & Turner Classic Movies database et al as sources
Can you please confirm whether or not I can use Internet Movie Database and Turner Classic Movies database as sources? As well as the British Film Institute database, the National Film Board of Canada database and the Broadway League database? I've been told not to. However, without these databases, it is impossible to complete the filmographies of performers and, in many cases, the discographies of musicians and bands. It is impossible to confirm what they (and their publicists) have written on Wikipedia. And without complete filmographies and/or discographies, biographies are incomplete and/or incorrect.
Thanks LJA123 (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LJA123 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I know that IMDB is not considered a reliable source as it is user-editable. I don't know about the other sources you mention. However, while I could be mistaken- I think that a filmography need only be cited to the productions themselves(as the participation of the person can be confirmed by the film credits), meaning that no specific citation is needed to source a mere appearance in a film. If the person is not credited, it might be a little harder, especially if it is a crew member and not someone who appeared on screen. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. If I need to, I'll use sources that aren't user-editable. 'Cept IMDB is often the only source of a film's credits....--LJA123 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LJA123 The film itself is the source of the film credits. Just as with a plot summary for a film or book- no citation is needed as it can be confirmed by watching the film/reading the book. 331dot (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see.... But when it comes to soundtracks and production credits, you need to see the physical list. Although I suppose that people could find the movie (if it's still available) and look for non-performing credits. But that kind of defeats the purpose of Wikipedia as a reference tool.--LJA123 (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LJA123, not really, WP is not a reference, it's a portal to references. I don't think TCMDb has much information, but if there is you can cite it; its mostly put in Externals links sections though. BFI, NFBC, and Broadway League are welcome, since they are official associations and can be trusted. GeraldWL01:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks.
One more question: I've been over the YouTube thing already today (I can use obviously trustworthy sources). But can I use music tracks uploaded to YouTube from the albums which the YouTube users own? Not videos--just the songs. If a film, in itself, is a source, then surely a recorded song must also be a source? Regardless of how it came to be online?
Thanks!--LJA123 (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LJA123, hmm, tricky. If you are editing a musician article and you wanna link the album playlist to cite the album, sure. If they have a description detailing it, you can also cite a video (official from the musician/band, not those uploaded by amateur channels) to cite the personnel. However if there is a link of the same type on Apple Music or Spotify I suggest using them as they're more accepted. In Ben&Ben discography, I cited the music videos to YouTube, but that's because the videos are officially from the band. GeraldWL08:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh we can use Apple and Spotify...I thought they'd be less accepted. I've been avoiding them because musician pages sometimes use them as encouragements to purchase. In the case of a lot of old music, or music that's more obscure, people load entire albums onto YouTube, and that's the only record of that music. So it's good to upload it, so people can find it and it's not lost. Also good to know that I can use official band videos. That's great, thanks very much.--LJA123 (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LJA123, you're welcome. Keep in mind that many people can upload stuff to YouTube, but in most cases they're random people who just upload whatever they have; unless it is official from the band or record, or unless they're an official archiving effort channel, don't use the videos. There's 80% chance a vinyl exist, you can cite the vinyl (remember, not every source needs a link). Happy editing! GeraldWL02:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright vio
Lately I've been doing analysis on articles and I have stumbled across things that made me curious.
What needs to be done to an article that is suspected to violate over 92% of a reference' rights? Neoinsession (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neoinsession, WP:COPYVIO includes the instructions and template to place on the page if the article has copyvio issues. I know in my pre-WP:TWINKLE days manually templating could be tedious, so if you find the process too cumbersome, just drop the page name here and I or someone else will take a look and complete the necessary steps.Slywriter (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I do recommend reading the link above about Copyvio. If the page is 100% copyvio with no clean version to revert back to, G12 the page with Twinkle. Also, if you don't want to deal with it, and you suspect a copyvio, list it at WP:CP, and someone will clean it for you. Best, Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions)02:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What counts as a reputable source when writing about a fiction film?
Hi - sorry if this information is already somewhere. I'm really overwhelmed by how much information there is about editing Wikipedia pages and could use some guidance.
There's a film that I spent all last semester researching for a big essay project (I'm a university student) and the film's Wikipedia page is still just a stub so I feel like I'm a good candidate to expand it. However, I'm really unclear on what counts as a reliable source for a film. Pretty much all the information I have on the film comes from film reviews and interviews with the director - I just haven't found anything else written about it (it came out in 2020).
Here is what my instinct is:
1. If an opinion on/attitude towards the film is expressed across several reviews, I could potentially use those articles as sources for stating that the film is perceived a certain way. But information expressed as fact in reviews can't be used unless I can verify it with another source I know to be trustworthy. This is a problem since pretty much all the available information about the film that isn't coming directly from the film's director is contained in reviews. And if they are usable, I have a bunch of other questions about that!
2. The director makes a lot of claims but I should verify them elsewhere before using them. I don't know that it's even possible to verify a lot of what he says, but he makes certain assertions about the film that I would definitely want to include if I could confirm them (for example, that the film is the first of its kind in a certain category). If he is making a claim about himself, for instance about his inspiration for the film, could I use that on its own or is anything like that too opinion-y to go on a Wikipedia page? Is anything the director says usable on its own or does it all need to be verified unless I'm presenting it solely as his opinion?
Are my thoughts correct or am I way off base? Where do you get reliable information about a film that was made too recently to have any film journal articles written about it?
I didn't initially say what the film is because it felt a little embarrassing, but it's Ainu Mosir. I speak Japanese so I could look for Japanese-language sources, but it would be a bit of a pain.
Hi MenoEnds. Your item #1 sounds kind of sounds like WP:SYNTHESIS which is something editors shouldn't be doing. Item 2 sounds like a case of self-publication by the director in that it would need to be treated as a WP:PRIMARY source and used with caution. If you wanted to quote the director regarding what inspired them to make the film, then that might be OK as long as it's properly attributed and treated as a MOS:QUOTE. Any other claims which might be about other persons or things, even like something that seems as benign a "this is the first film of its type", would need WP:SECONDARY sourcing instead. Finally, non-English sources are acceptable as long as they meet the Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the feedback! I get what you mean about Synthesis, Marchjuly, so I definitely won't do that. The resources GoingBatty linked have been helpful in finding sources I can use for some of the information I want to add. As Mike Turnbull suggested, I'll start by adding citations for the awards section. Thank you all! MenoEnds (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting for redirects to be deleted
I created a draft and want to move it so that it's an article, but the title currently redirects to another article. How do I make a request that it's not redirected so that I can use the title for my draft? The title has to be a specific format, so I can't just pick another one. Are there any good usernames left? (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While in the visual editor, click the three lines at the top right (next to publish changes button). Then click Page Settings. In Page Settings there is an option to make the page a redirect, so uncheck the box to make it not a redirect. Poopykibble (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, Vertigo2222. It's an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. For example, you. I know nothing about "Project Rachel" except that Project Rachel redirects to Priests for Life, and that something is wrong about this, because it's not mentioned in that article. Once you have determined that "Project Rachel" is "notable", as that word is understood (perhaps strangely) here, you are welcome to click on Draft:Project Rachel, to edit this (of course providing a reliable reference for anything that it says), and to submit it as an article candidate. However, I don't recommend that you do this until you've amassed some experience in editing existing articles in Wikipedia. Furthermore, my guess is that it has something to do with abortion, and more specifically the politics of abortion in the US; I recommend that you avoid any editing in this area (other perhaps the correction of discrete, unambiguous mistakes, again of course providing reliable references), until you've successfully made a few dozen edits in other areas. -- Hoary (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From quick search, I found "Project Rachel is the Catholic Church's confidential ministry to those who have been involved in an abortion. ... Project Rachel is a diocesan-based network of specially trained priests, religious, counselors, and laypersons who provide a team response of care for those suffering in the aftermath of an abortion." In my opinion that should NOT redirect to Priests for Life, and instead would qualify for its own article. Per Hoary's comment, creating a new article is very hard for new editors. Look at WP:YFA, but I also advise gaining experience first. David notMD (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Need help getting a page published
Hi @teahouse. I have recently drafted a page and it has been declined because;
- (1) "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia" and
- (2) "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies. "
Very unlikely that an article about a pharmaceutical company that only has one drug, and that in clinical trials, not yet approved for use for any indication, qualifies for notable by Wikipedia's criteria. David notMD (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The drug itself, Pridopidine, is the subject of an article which you have been editing. What is your connection to the company? If you are paid (see WP:PAID). declaration of your status is required, and you are prohibited from directly editing Pridopidine. My concerns about that article are that many of the references, including the 13 you added, do not meet the standards required per WP:MEDRS. However, I am not sure MEDRS applies, as otherwise how else to write an a drug in development? David notMD (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Need help after changing my username
I have changed my username yesterday and now facing disrupting other's !vote as claimed by @Djm-leighpark:. I have updated my signature, wherever I am involved in voting. If anything left, please help me to resolve the issue. NeverTry4Me - TT Page08:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes as vandalism and how should I deal with it?
So I've been editing for about a month now and have come across a bit of vandalism. But I usually see this in varying degrees. Sometimes I don't even know if the poor edits I see are even considered vandalism. So I shall list a few edits, as well as what I would classify them and how I think one should approach dealing with such edits. I'd like to know what you guys think and whether my judgements are accurate or how they could be improved.
2. Edit: [person in article] is a horrible person and has raped three women but has not been charged for any of them
* Classification: Good Faith edit
* Response: Not sure. If that's completely false it should be removed. But if there have been some allegations made covered by multiple reliable sources then it might be worth mentioning. Either way, I'm not going to research, I just know that the sentence above probably should not be written like that in the article. Ideas I have are {{Dubious}}, {{Citation needed}} (though that still doesn't take care of the tone used in the edit). Maybe {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}?.
3. Edit: This cock sucker deserves to die in the lowest depths of hell!
* Additional notes: First time seeing this? then response is as mentioned above. Second/third time: {{subst:uw-vandalism3}}, Fourth or more: {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} + report to WP:AIV
4. Edit: Computers can be used to play video games and things like xbox and also like talking to friends
* Classification: Good Faith edit
* Response: revert + {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}? But then again it's not exactly vandalism, so I'm unsure.
5. Edit: [subject] has done [something] → [subject] has not done [something].
* Classification: Vandalism...? Let us assume that the sentence they changed it to is a false statement.
2nd edit: not vandalism unless deliberately accusing the person despite knowing otherwise. If its unsourced, revert as a BLP violation. Warn using {{uw-biog1}}.
3rd edit, escalate by two warning levels instead of one.
4th edit: good faith edit, revert as such, leave a handwritten welcome
5th edit: depends on context, but probably not vandalism.
6th edit: revert as vandalism, warn using 1 level above previous. Note that placing a warning and reporting at the same time is useless. If you warn, only report for new edits after the user could reasonably seen the warning.
7th edit: classic test edit. Warn using {{uw-test1}}.
My two öre: Edit 2 is just as bad as edit 3, and in some ways it is worse. Both of them may or may not be good-faith edits, both of them call somebody an awful person, but edit 2 accuses a person of a particularly vile crime, while edit 3 is just random profanity. Both should be reverted and a level 2 warning will be appropriate in both cases; in addition, edit 2 should be revdeleted. If well-sourced and neutrally phrased allegations of rape are added to an article, that may be a different thing. As for edit 5, {{subst:uw-error1}} or {{subst:uw-error2}} are useful for that situation. --bonadeacontributionstalk14:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the responses! I shall check out twinkle (definitely seen it tagged a lot in edits). And I'll be sure to look into and familiarize myself with the templates that have been mentioned. Satricious (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Satricious: - I'd go as far to say that edit 2 is, especially if it's on a BLP, justification for an immediate {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}}. Putting an allegation as serious as that that on a person's page is very dangerous.
How should I report a person using more than one username?
Welcome to the Teahouse, MGetudiant. having more than one account is not prohibited provided they are not used for nefarious purposes. See WP:SOCKLEGIT. The rest of that page also describes the misuse of multiple accounts, which (with evidence) can be reported at WP:SPI. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apokrif, Someone may have a more technical answer but if you create the link newpageiwanttocreate or Draft:newpageiwanttocreate in your sandbox, click said link and you will get option to create a new page.15:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Apokrif, you should create a link in a sandbox. This will generate a red link: by clicking on it, you will reach the editor and create the new page. However, redlinks on the app don't necessarily work (at least, they don't work for me). To see them, you should scroll down to the very bottom of the page and click "view article in browser"; from there, you can easily use the procedure I described. Llaaww (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited categories
A month ago, I added the "Uncited Categories" template to a handful of films (well, three films and some cartoons), and there's been no action on their talk pages since then. What are the steps I take to remove this category from these films, and how do I document it? There's the templates at the top of the articles, the categories at the bottom, and the films are listed on the Category: page. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go forth and be WP:BOLD, though would suggest take it slow at first so if there is an objection, it gets raised before its hundreds of edits (i have no idea how many it actually is, if its a small number then disregard).Slywriter (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pete Best Beatles: One set of steps could be to go to the article, click the Edit source tab, delete the categories and the {{Uncited categories}} template, add an edit summary explaining you're deleting the categories because they're uncited, and then click "Publish changes".
Another set of steps could be to go to the article, click the Edit source tab, delete the {{Uncited categories}} template, comment out the uncited categories with <!--...--> and a note stating that you're commenting them out because they're uncited, add an edit summary explaining you're deleting the categories because they're uncited, and then click "Publish changes". Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I guess I just wanted to know if I had to leave a message on the article's talk page too. The articles were missing from the Categories page when I went there after taking care of the articles on their pages, and I didn't see it mentioned on the View history page... -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 06:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
InputBox
How do I create an InputBox where when an information is typed in it by a participants it would send them to a view page which has question for the participants to fill based on the project they want to run or engage on and also when the project is published where can I find most of the project list after participant are done. Thanks Jwale2 (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
how do improve an article on a person who has been on life sentence for 44 years? (no longer want help)
hi, i´m writing a article that was requested on a 80s serial killer who killed 3 people and was sentenced to life in the 80s, the issue is finding articales that dont just mention him in passing, and finding refrences about him in general, as he is a serial killer who isnt mentioned much now a days, being on life sentance since before the internet and all
@Im really bad at this: Remember that the sources you use for references don't have to be online - you can use books or magazines or newspapers from the 1980s from reliable sources that provide significant coverage. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what do i even do
im not versed enough to use afd and dont have enough knowledge to write an article about anything, i cant even find articales i want to improve, what do i even do at this point, beside quit editing entirely Im really bad at this (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have written my first Wikipedia article, a short biography. I want to submit it to be edited and published, but I don't know how, and cannot make sense of any instructions I've found on your pages. Please advise. My wikipedia username is Ajo47 Thank you. Ajo47 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before you submit, however, you need to ensure that the material is properly referenced. There seem to be a number of sections with no references at all. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the documentation on writing biographies and I am wondering if biographies are only posted for popular people. This is after I posted a biography of someone which was declined. I'm fairly inexperienced please help. Thank you for your patience with me. TekkWeb (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TekkWeb: Hello Tekk! You are partially correct. Articles on living people (covered in WP:BLP) are only created if someone is deemed to be notable, which usually also means they are popular. However, the difference is in order to be notable, you need to have reliable, secondary sources cover info on you. There are lots of people who are popular who don't have articles on Wikipedia because they aren't notable (such as many Youtubers for example, a Youtuber may have millions of subs, but if they aren't deemed to be notable then an article shouldn't be written about them). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TekkWeb: To clarify what Blaze Wolf said: in order to have a biography on Wikipedia, the person has to be notable, but not necessarily famous in conventional sense or known by general public. For example, Serial killer article lists many notable and infamous (famous for bad things) people. Also, people can be notable within their field but otherwise not famous and not known by the general public. For example, just a few paragraphs above there is discussion about Daniel Musher: this person is probably not known by most people, but still qualifies for Wikipedia article since he made some notable contributions to medical research.
@Tacicuri: ¡Hola Tacicuri, bienvenido a Wikipedia! Si bien todos los esfuerzos para mejorar la Wikipedia son bien recibidos, desdichadamente su nivel de inglés no parece idóneo para hacer contribuciones de utilidad, o las contribuciones no estan escritas en inglés. ¿Sabía que existe una Wikipedia en español? Quizás prefiera contribuir ahí. Gracias, ― Levi_OPTalk20:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like at least reading the message before templating them would have been the appropriate response, especially since David already gave them an answer. casualdejekyll21:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well if the user is asking a question in Spanish they probably aren't going to be able to read David's response. I did realize afterward, though, that they already have contributed to the Spanish wikipedia and this template doesn't fit very well. ― Levi_OPTalk22:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Information about descent i articles
Hi! I'm not sure how you do about descent.
Bibian Mentel was born, lived and died in Netherlands. Someone added "of Indonesian-Dutch descent". Should the statement be kept and need a cite? Or should it be deleted? // Zquid (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Zquid (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this definitely needs a citation - as a statement about a living person that is likely to be challenged, it even needs one in the lead. I'd delete - since it's a biography of a living person, a citation needed tag doesn't seem to be the right course of action here. casualdejekyll21:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do I cite the source when the subject of the article IS the source?
Hello, I'm trying to update a notable person's wikipedia page for him. David W. Orr. David has provided me with written updates and corrections of his accomplishments. What is the appropriate way to cite the changes if the source of the new information is the subject of the article?
To amplify Jeske's answer, Keep Colorado Wild, it is a core principle of Wikipedia that all information in an article be verifiable from published sources. Information which has not been published anywhere should not appear in an article, and information which has been published only in a non-independent source may be used only in limited way. --ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I say do it. KCW has in effect proclaimed a COI ("DAVID W. ORR, ASKED ME TO UPDATE HIS WIKIPEDIA PAGE."). I also wonder if prior to registering an account, CDW was editing as IP 97.118.230.116. I tagged the article as refs needed, because that was true before either the IP of KCW started editing. Lastly, I think thiere is a copyright violation. David notMD (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restored. No obvious need to re-add your tag. Sourcing not great but much briefer article and WP:NACADEMIC met, I checked google scholar and there's an AfD from 2008. I'll take a look later and make a rev-del request if history needs a wipe for copyvio.Slywriter (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Colorado Wild, alot just happened and it's probably incredibly frustrating. Wikipedia wants the article improved. We want the world to know more about notable academics who have been cited thousands of times in their field and why they have been cited so many times. The best thing you can do for the subject is help find reliable sources that discuss his contributions and life story. WP:ABOUTSELF covers what can be included about the subject in their own published words. Additionally, presumably in those thousands of times their work has been cited, notable theories or contributions by the subject have been discussed. There are projects that can help guide, just requires research and a willingness to edit within the rules of wikipedia.Slywriter (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The content you added is not lost. Click on View history, and then on "Prev" (left side) for any of your entries. The content can be copied to your Sandbox to be revised there (and referenced) before being brought back to the article. You could even click on Slywriter's massive deletion and capture all of your content. An important note: some of what was deleted was verbatim from references, and therefore a copyright infringement. Information can be used, but it has to be significantly paraphrased. David notMD (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddiedeclint: Hello, and welcome to the teahouse. You can edit the page if you want to change the mayor; if it is semi-protected or extended-confirmed protected, you may enter an edit request if you would like. Many editors change the mayors of cities and principals of schools and all kinds of stuff without a source, if you would like to include one, please do so, just add the source. If you don't know any sources, you may want to Google it up. Severestorm2822:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am very confused about notability guidelines, and have several questions about them. I know my article needs major revisions in several areas; I am not asking about the current content of the article, but rather how I might demonstrate notability of my subject.
1. Are the guidelines for notability different for academics than for individuals in the general biography category?
The Wikipedia page addressing notability for academics states "This guideline [academic notability] is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline.[1]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics). It seems this statement asserts that there is a different set of guidelines that may be applied to academics to determine their notability. Is this correct?
2. I am not sure how to navigate criterion #1. It states that "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work..." My subject's works are cited by others, but how do I know if they are cited frequently enough? According to Google Scholar, one book is cited 78x, another 45x, another 33x, yet another 22x, and still another 11x. Is this considered frequent in the niche realm of evangelical/confessional preaching? How might I determine this?
3. This brings up another question: The specific guidelines for criterion #1 note "(f) For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed." Is evangelical homiletics/preaching too narrow to adequately judge using these guidelines?
I think the subject of my article qualifies as notable under at lease one or two of the criteria. The page notes "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable."
4. According to the guidelines, criterion #5 is met if "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." Under the specific criteria for this category are three elements:
"(a) For documenting that a person has held such an appointment (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution is a major one), publications of the appointing institution are considered a reliable source.
(b) Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments.
(c) Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Named chairs at other institutions are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability."
My professor holds a named (endowed chair), and is a fully tenured, senior faculty member. He is also the director of a graduate program at Baylor University. Baylor University recently was named an R1 institution in recognition for its research activity. Do these facts satisfy the requirements of criterion #5 for the notability of academics?
5. The specific criterion c states that "(c) The publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person is usually enough to satisfy Criterion 1, except in the case of publication in vanity, fringe, or non-selective journals or presses."
My professor has a Festschrift written in his honor by a non-vanity press (Wipf and Stock). Does satisfying this criterion meet the notability requirements for an academic?
My professor wants me to continue to try and get the article about him approved; the more specific responses are, the better I will be able to communicate to him why the article may or may not be approved.
It seems this statement asserts that there is a different set of guidelines that may be applied to academics to determine their notability. Is this correct? Yes. (NB "may", not "must".)
Is this considered frequent in the niche realm of evangelical/confessional preaching? How might I determine this? I really don't know, as the very notion of "professor of preaching" is incomprehensible to me. However, in the academic fields with which I'm familiar, I've never seen numbers cited. Rather, one summarizes what has been written about these works within other academic works. (Blurbs, even by experts, don't count.)
My professor holds a named (endowed chair), and is a fully tenured, senior faculty member. He is also the director of a graduate program at Baylor University. Baylor University recently was named an R1 institution in recognition for its research activity. Do these facts satisfy the requirements of criterion #5 for the notability of academics? I would think so (though the notion of research in preaching baffles me).
My professor has a Festschrift written in his honor by a non-vanity press (Wipf and Stock). Does satisfying this criterion meet the notability requirements for an academic? Indeed, Wipf and Stock doesn't seem to be a vanity press.
My professor wants me to continue to try and get the article about him approved Then it's clear that you have a conflict of interest. You are free to create a draft, but if it is accepted as an article you should no longer edit it (other than to revert obvious vandalism and the like). What it says will be out of your control, the biographee's control, or the control of any of his students, employees, etc.
1. The notability guidelines are indeed different for academics than for general biographies, and both are different from the general notability guidelines. The former are called subject-specific notability guidelines, and technically, if the article meets any of these notability guidelines (including GNG), it is considered notable for Wikipedia.
2. This question would be better asked at WikiProject Academics. I would suggest providing examples in the article of where the subjects work has been cited in other academic works.
4. I do not see any reason why they would not meet criterion #5, assuming there is a reliable source that states they're the chair. I am also not certain if Baylor University meets the standard of "those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity", but I assume it would.
5. Yes, I'm almost certain this meets Criterion #1.
Now, even if your article meets notability guidelines, that does not necessarily guarantee approval of the draft, and there could be other changes that may be required for the article to be sustained in Wikipedia mainspace. ––FormalDudetalk00:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dgregory4: I would have thought that the Festschrift could be a good source of material to establish notablility of the academic. I assume that at least some of it will be material ABOUT him written by respected colleagues. When I was looking for sources for an article on Coral Bell the existence of a similar document, in this case available online, made the draft very straightforward to compose. Her Festschrift included a complete list of her publications, from which I coud select just a few important ones for the Wikipedia article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How to see Good Article nomination Feedback if any
I am wondering how to see what the reasons for a good article nomination reviewer's decision are.
I nominated ITER for good article status and I never got a notice that I needed to improve it. How can I figure out what led to ITER being demoted to Level C article? ScientistBuilder (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I leave a note on an unregistered user's talk page that links to their IP address, will the person be able to see and respond the message?
@ScientistBuilder: You've received an answer to your first question in this post already. To answer your other 2 questions, yes and I don't know. I usually don't see unregistered users responding to talk page messages that often because they probably don't know what a talk page is. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654502:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis, yep I know. Hence why I said "usually". I've seen an IP respond to a message before (in a constructive way). For example, KingAviationKid was an IP who I reverted an edit they made and they responded to it (i think on my talk page) saying that they're not a new user and are wanting to contribute constructively, however they didn't like how the editor looked. So I suggested to use one of the beta features and they made an account and here they are now as an actual user. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654502:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ScientistBuilder, Well, say you have the sentence "The film was released on 13 March, 1970." How many sources do you need to back it up? Say there's a NYT source saying 1970 and a book source saying 13 March. Then use those two sources. Any other sources are not needed; if there's an extraneous source then that's overkill. GeraldWL02:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to be notified when a comment I make here or on a Talk page gets a reply.
I searched "WP:Notifications" and would like to learn how to automatically recieve a notification when someone replies and not only when my talk page is edited. ScientistBuilder (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ScientistBuilderThe best way to find out why an article's quality status has been changed is to ask the person who changed it or ask on the talk page. The GA review process often has a substantial backlog. There may be a long wait until you get a response. To avoid adding to the backlog, it is a good idea to open a discussion on the talk page of the article about nominating before you actually make a nomination. Talk page discussions take time. Wait a few days for a response and consensus. Constant314 (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To return to your original question, you have now twice made modest changes to an existing article over the course of a day or two and then nominated the article for a GA review. Both times an editor (not the same editor) decided, perhaps arbitrarily, that a GA review would be a waste of the reviewer's time, and reverted your nomination. My own experience with nominating a B-class or C-class article for a GA review (16 succesfully so far) is that the preparation process takes weeks and scores of edits, including, in some instances, dicarding dozens of references, adding dozens of references, and revising more than half the text. As for downgrading from B-class to C-class (or the reverse), anyone can do that, even a non-registered editor. David notMD (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to create an article on the first person mentioned in this article (1). How much info exactly would I be able to source from here without getting flagged for copyvio? Ficaia (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ficaia, hey there. Generally you would be able to avoid CV by using your own words to describe the quotes, or use minimal quotes. So let's say, quote "The expedition was the brainchild of Major Chaplin Court Treatt known as C.T." You can paraphrase this to "Major Chaplin Court Treatt, commonly referred to as C.T., was the magnum opus of the expedition." GeraldWL03:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ColinFine, sorry for that misunderstanding. I do tend to think my edits are far from perfect, that's why I've been putting the standard of PR and GOCE before a GAN/FAC. I must admit I'm ESL, so yes, please do rewrite if that means more readability :) GeraldWL15:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ficaia, no copyright detected for that specific sentence, but there's still a ton of copyright issues with other sources. See this; concern the networthlist and celebnetworthpost, the other ones are just minor. GeraldWL04:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How to make a redirect in source mode?
I created a template on the Simple English Wikipedia but I want to make it redirect to another template. Templates are only editable in source mode, and I don't know how to make a page a redirect in source mode. Can somebody please tell me how? Poopykibble (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted a page with almost 16 references but it got rejected. Can somebody please guide me what type of references should i use?
This is a Pakistan based NGO and I have added 3-4 leading News paper references. I have added CrunchBase. Please help me getting this page reviewed successfully.
Hi! Your draft was rejected because of two reasons. Your article looks like an advertisement and also the references do not give significant coverage about your title. MyNewBall88 (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, My IP address was blocked in Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. So, I made new account from my friend's computer. Then I logged in my device whose IP address was blocked. If I not do anything wrong, so will my account not be blocked again? MyNewBall88 (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, MyNewBall88: Whether you can edit from there depends what kind of block is on the IP. You can apply for an WP:IPBE if necessary. (Assuming you're not the sock and have picked up an address that was blocked because of what someone else did.) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 09:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MyNewBall88 has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. Jéské Couriano and Kpddg, if an editor reveals that they've previously been blocked for sockpuppetry, then you shouldn't advise them that they can edit using their new account as long as they're constructive. The advice should be that the only way they'll be able to edit again is if they successfully appeal their block using their original account. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The people responding above were all clearly assuming the OP was an innocent editor caught up in an IP block of someone else. No one above is advising anyone to evade a block. -Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The descriptions above are correct, and it is also worth noting that a vote like this is considered to be of very little value. When the time comes to close the AfD, the closing Admin looks at the reasoning offered - this response contributes nothing new to the reasoning. Having people effectively say just "me too" doesn't help - see "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions".--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Squid Game Metacritic
I was reading the article Squid Game and it was said that the show was critically acclaimed. The source from this came from an article from Salon saying that the show received acclaim, and that source was used instead of the Metacritic one, which claims that it has "positive reviews." I did some research on it and there was a talk page discussion saying that reliable sources that say "this show is acclaimed" (if they exist) are used primarily before aggregator sites such as Metacritic.
Is this true? Is there any policy/guideline/essay that says that we use sources that describe a critical reception first before general consensus sites such as metacritic? I'm having a dispute over a similar thing at another article, and would like to back my stuff up with actual guidelines/policies. Thank you! shanghai.talk to me07:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RogueShanghai, MOS:TV doesn't have a specific guideline on what a reception section should start with. But there's no problem with citing consensus to other (reliable) sources. Aggregators (especially MC which aggregates less reviews) is not always what determines what all critics think. In this case I'm right: MC only aggregates a disappointing amount of 13 reviews, and thus their score does not reflect the wider view. So yes, it's already in good shape. However I would suggest changing the MC sentence to "However on Metacritic, the series has a weighted average score of 69 out of 100 based on 13 critics, merely indicating "generally favorable reviews". GeraldWL07:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: Actually, the similar dispute in regards to Metacritic vs other sources actually has to do with music, not TV shows. But you're right. Is the MC sentence necessary? (i.e, nothing that this show has this score on MC) and also, does citing consensus to other sources that mean something is acclaimed, also allow the lead of that thing to say it was acclaimed? For example, lead section of squid game like "this show was critically acclaimed" I hope you get what I mean :b shanghai.talk to me07:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RogueShanghai, yeah it's not really just music, and MC is a pretty polarizing site as sometimes it'll be right sometimes it'll be wrong. I wouldn't remove it as it is kinda expected for there to be an MC sentence. And yes, it is acceptable for the lead part. :) GeraldWL07:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP doubt
I just had a glance at the WP:BLP page, and I wanted to know whether we need to source even very minor edits?
I'm also asking this because one of my first edits was tagged as a Blp issue, all I did was change the spelling according to the title. Vial of Power (talk) 09:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vial of Power, hi! I'm assuming you're referring to this? Apologies for that; the tag is automatically made to warn editors of potential vandalism, and it can misdetect sometimes. Happy editing :) GeraldWL09:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I am looking for copyright free photos to add in a draft article. How to find copyright free images? How to know if an image is copyrighted or not? Resmise (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your best starting place is the Wikimedia Commons. Images are uploaded there with the explicit purpose of being used on Wikipedia (though just to be safe you should still check the license underneath an image anyway!) — Czello11:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resmise (edit conflict) Hello. Please note that photos are not necessary in terms of getting a draft approved; the draft approval process is largely concerned with sourcing and notability only. The best way to get a photo is to take one yourself with your own camera. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resmise I would advise you to concentrate on getting your draft approved; you can always find images later. Bands/musical groups are often tough to find appropriate images for as most of them are owned by the band or its publicity firm. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Resmise: Just for further information: If an image is not clearly linked to an obvious statement saying that it is either Public Domain or available under a Creative Commons licence which permits commercial re-use, then always assume the image is not suitable here. For your draft on Draft:Madkid you might want to make sure they meet our notabiltiy criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. By no means all musicians and bands do. See WP:NMUSIC for details. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google images (and perhaps other search engines) has a facility that can help. Do a standard image search and then on the results page click on the "Tools" option. This opens a menu of filters, of which one is "Usage Rights" and can be specified to find those images with Creative Commons licenses from Wikimedia and elsewhere. You still need to check the licensing but the filter can be a big help. Google image search is sometimes better for finding items here on Commons, rather than using Categories etc. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New page
I would like to write a page about Danish company PE-Redskaber. What do they stand for, the heritage atc. The main subject would be Airtracks, because they are founders of it. Would it be a great idea? GretaPr (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GretaPr Hello and welcoem to the Teahouse. We use the term "articles", not "pages" to refer to the encyclopedia. Creating an article being a good idea depends on if the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that is not based on any materials put out by the company(such as interviews, the company website, announcements of routine business actvities). Be advised that successfully creating a new article is the hardest task to perform on Wikipedia, and it is usually recommended that you first spend time editing existing articles, and use the new user tutorial, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. If you feel you are ready, you may draft and submit an article at Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GretaPr, if you do write a draft, please skip what the company "stands for". Instead, what has it delivered? (According to reliable, independent, published sources, of course.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone used my friends name
Someone took down some verified but controversial information, but used my friends name. I want the article republished and the person who used the wrong name- ban them from Wikipedia Theater Nurse (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can't even investigate what you say without more information. As Czello says, if an article was deleted, this will have been by community consensus, and there may be ways of appealing: see WP:DRV. If somebody removed some information from an article, that may or may not be justified: see WP:BRD. If somebody is impersonating a public figure, that is serious, and the account could be blocked pending investigation; but different people can have the same name. You'll need to be more specific. --ColinFine (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added some controversial information (complete with published newspaper references) to an article about a local theater. The theater is in violation of union contracts, and it made national headlines. Someone deleted what I wrote and impersonated my friend, by using her name as the one who took the information down. While there are many people with the same name, there’s only one person by this name in the union in question. It was intentional slander and defamation of character. Theater Nurse (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone involved, please note that the Teahouse (and Wikipedia in general) is a civil place, and you are expected to remain calm. Throwing accusations around may cause more hurt then intended. casualdejekyll14:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theater Nurse: The first addition to the article Casa Mañana referring to the recent "contract issue" was done from an IP address that geolocates to Irving, Texas. I assume that was by you and that you subsequently created an account to re-insert what Elainedavidson reverted in what has been that account's only edit to Wikipedia. It is irrelevant whether that name corresponds to a friend of yours: how could anyone know from just seeing an IP address? No Wikipedia policy has been breached according to our usual bold, revert, discuss processes and the article now contains the material you re-added. You could improve the bare URL references using the {{cite web}} method (see WP:REFB) and if further changes you think are incorrect should occur then you should discuss these on the Talk Page of the article to reach consensus. Meanwhile, no-one is gong to get banned for a single reversion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article Declined
I created an article with authentic sources (newspaper press release).but even then wikipedia declined my article...I want to know that To submit an article on Wikipedia is too much hard.....that's not good..... Muhammadyeakubhasan111 (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, writing your first article is pretty hard. I haven't even written one yet myself, to be plainly honest with you. But the most important things for a Wikipedia article are notability and verifiability. In the case of your draft, however, you never even submitted it. In order to submit a draft, you need to click the blue button at the top of your page that says "Submit the draft for review!". Additionally, the edits made to your draft were because you copied text from other places. Although citing sources is the basics of a Wikipedia article, copying text directly from sources is a copyright violation, which is illegal. So.. don't do that. casualdejekyll13:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just tell me anyone please..... that, to write an article about this (Anudip Foundation) NGO and publish it on Wikipedia is possible??
this NGO has more significant works like that they teach to poor, deprived people about modern technology like (computer and it's different programs) to make them Self-reliant....there are many NEWSPAPER press release are here
@ Thenderking35 if you mean that you are working on a draft for a new Wikipedia article my advice is to read many articles about similar subjects to get a sense of what is typically included in such online articles. Practice making edits to existing articles to gain useful experience. When you are ready to take on the difficult task of writing a new article be sure and read Your first article and References for beginners. Best wishes on your volunteer work at Wikipedia. Karenthewriter (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions don't show that you've edited any pages, or had anything reverted. I would assume you edited under another device? What was your edit? ― Levi_OPTalk15:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at your IP range. This edit was judged unconstructive by Itcouldbepossible at User talk:42.110.170.143. There was no reason to add that to an encyclopedia article. Constructive edits try to build the encyclopedia or improve the work around it. You have vandalised User talk:Itcouldbepossible and been warned for it. Don't vandalise Wikipedia. That includes user pages. Itcouldbepossible is not an administrator so he cannot block users but everybody can give vandalism warnings. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He may not be an admin, but he can still report you to admins and get you blocked if you continue (Referring to the IP range, not you Prime). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654515:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No discussion since the 6th, and it's been more then a week since it was started.. consensus seems to merge. Per WP:MERGECLOSE, anyone can close a merge discussion, even the nominator, which depending on how you count is either you or Tzar. Frankly, I could just close it myself, but I'm not feeling it. casualdejekyll19:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather have someone who can actually evaluate all the points made just so I don't close it as merge because it looks like there's consensus to merge. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking a Wikipedian to update Wiki article on David W. Orr
Hi,
David Orr is seeking a Wikipedian to update the Wiki article called "David W. Orr". The information is out of date. If you can help, please contact me. Thanks. Keep Colorado Wild Keep Colorado Wild (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly, anyone tells me, Is mainstream media's (youtube) link is allowed in Wikipedia. like that CNN video report about an NGO then I entered this on my article reference list Muhammadyeakubhasan111 (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Muhammadyeakubhasan111. What matters for reliability is who published it, not the medium. A great deal of Youtube is is uploaded by random people with no reputation for fact checking (and some of it is copyright violations as well), and none of that is reliable. But an article by CNN on their official YouTube channel is as reliable as an article by CNN published anywhere else: see WP:YOUTUBE. (Remember that for notability, sources must also be independent of the subject, and have significant coverage of the subject). I haven't looked at the sources in Draft:Anudip Foundation, because, since you've formatted them just as titles, I'd have to go into them to see where they came from. It's good that you're formatting sources as more than a URL; but the publisher and date are absolutely crucial information for evaluating sources, as well as the title. --ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:YOUTUBE, many videos on Youtube are copyright violations and can't be cited per WP:COPYLINK. However, if a video is from a reliable source, you can treat it as if it came directly from the reliable source, provided the video was uploaded from the reliable source's own YouTube channel. Or, to rephrase, if the CNN video report is uploaded to CNN's official YouTube channel, then you can cite it. casualdejekyll18:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally the rule is if you have free access to it elsewhere, you should use that instead of applying for a collection in the Wikipedia Library. But if you're talking about one of the collections included in the base card, then yeah, that's totally fine. casualdejekyll20:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of numerous drum and bugle corps articles.
Can someone please tell explain why there were so many attacks and AFD's on several national-level "old-school" drum and bugle corps in October 2021? Several admins made an agreement in October to do AFD on many drum and bugle corps articles - both championship level corps and non-championship level corps. One editor deleted an article with many years of scores (showing finalist placements for years 1959-1973) with only an explanation that it was "cruft" information. (Not mentioning any user names here, but proof can be obtained that this agreement was made in October, on their user talk pages, and several admins went to work do the RFD pages for numerous drum and bugle corps.) Thanks so much - fairly new here. 136.35.223.97 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
136.35.223.97 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to edit the article on the Riesz-Thorin theorem, but the code is weird
I am used to working with Latex, but when I decided to edit the article on the Riesz-Thorin theorem - more precisely the part on the statement of the theorem, I found that the code is really weird. Usually math formulas are put inside the math environment math.../math, but here it is different. Can someone say more about this? What kind of "language" has been used there? Is it outdated? Where can I find more information? 01Filippo (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Draft:Digital Rights in the Caribbean
Courtesy link: Val James This has been addressed. Adding courtesy link for archiving purposes. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Resolved