Wikipedia:Teahouse

Stormy clouds, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

What to do with this IP?

Hello, I've just been on a RC Patrol and have ID'd an IP that has been constantly vandalizing pages, ignoring warnings and is posting insulting messages on talkpages, is there anywhere i can report this user to the admins or should i wait to see if he will stop or ignore and let someone else take care of matters? you can find the IP in my contribution history, wait he has posted a message to my talkpage calling me a loser.

Sincerely OGWFP (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

You can report at WP:AIV. Perfect4th (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I reported it here. Obvious vandalism can be reported there and it's usually acted on quickly. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, i appreciate it, i will also keep WP:AIV in mind for the future.

Sincerely OGWFP (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skipper, the IP's additions to two articles were certainly not good or useful, but isn't there a chance that the IP thought that they were helping by adding useful (albeit unreferenced) information to the articles? If so, those two edits were not vandalism, right? I'm not talking about the comment to @OGWFP's talk page, which was pretty much the same content, but even more obviously in the wrong place. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Good question, @73.127.147.187: If you squint hard enough, the edit by itself could be considered a good-faith edit, but it could just as easily be considered WP:PATENTNONSENSE, which can be considered vandalism. If they wouldn't have edit warred over that line, and posted insults to Talk Pages, I would not have reported it and would WP:AGF. But the editor who posted here had a legitimate concern, had the higher ground, and felt personally attacked. Add it all up and you have a disruptive user, arguably vandalizing multiple articles and Talk Pages, whether there was malice or not in their original edit. Nevertheless, I'm glad you brought it up, because I always appreciate reminders where I may not have assumed good faith. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skipper I'm really talking about the posts to the two "relationship" articles in ths user's edit history. They looked a bit amateurish to me, but not patent nonsense... I think we can move on now... Thanks. So, you are no longer a skeptic? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll look again. Maybe I was wrong, and if so, hopefully I'll learn from it and be better. I'm glad it was called out for me to look closer, so thanks again. Still a skeptic but I didn't want to be confused with that specific brand of arrogant dogma rude and aggressive type. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skipper, thanks. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Need to add a middle initial to a profile page title

I need to add a middle initial to the title of the profile of a living person I created. I moved it successfully once but now need to change it back and I can't seem to do it with an admin or page mover. Can anyone help?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carey_Dunne Llmeyers (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. A tip, Llmeyers: don't refer to an article as a "profile", a word that has all the wrong connotations. (Often, they do apply to the crappy article in question; I'm happy to say that the article Carey R. Dunne isn't crappy.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Wait, wait wait ... You created a LIVING PERSON??? Uporządnicki (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

My parents did that a few times, took about nine months. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Sorry guys. An article, NOT a profile. Llmeyers (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Set preferences or what for vertical quotes and apostrophes

Hi, I’ve just had a discussion at the Talk page of User:Cullen328’s essay on using smartphones for editing. I use an iPhone while Cullen328 uses Android and has no problem.The issue is: when i select the apostrophe or quote characters in editing, what i call slanted or curved versions of those get inserted. Same if i select for insertion the marks at bottom of my editing window. While Wikipedia needs vertical versions, which are what my editing on laptop delivers. Slanted versions are “ and ‘. So, for example if i type apostrophes to make bolding, what i get is ‘’’bolding?’’’ (which will not show as bolded). (I do know that for bolding i can highlight a phrase then select bolding icon. My point is I can’t type the symbols i and Wikipedia writing want.) I wonder: is there some way my user preferences could be changed so that the vertical versions of quote and apostrophe marks come out? Thanks, Doncram (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC) P.S. MOS:STRAIGHT and wp:APOSTROPHE say the straight versions should be used. Doncram (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This is more of an iPhone question than a Wikipedia question. Does this link answer it? [1] CodeTalker (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Doncram. This might be something worth asking about at WP:VPT, but it might turn out that there's nothing anyone can do on Wikipedia's end. I understand the "problem" you're experiencing, but perhaps it's not a major issue as long as it doesn't significantly affect how the text in question is being displayed in the article. These appear to be minor MOS issues that usually are going to eventually cleaned up by some bot or user who likes to look for such things; you can always go back "fix" things yourself (which is what I do) if you want. Some languages use full-width characters and perhaps there's something similar to that being done by Apple with respect to its iPhones because it seems to use smart quotes. If you Google this, you'll might find some information on this feature and whether it can be disabled (like this). Finally, although an excessive number of "full-width" or "smart" characters can sometimes be a indication of content being copied-and-pasted from external websites into Wikipedia articles, you should be OK as long as you're not doing anything like that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

All fixed now, i think, thanks! Googling "how turn off smart quotes in iphone" gets me to this page which points me to turning off "smart punctuation" under my iPhone settings/keyboard options. Yay, i can bold and "straight-quote" and 'vertical apostrophize(?)'. Not sure what else is covered in "smart punctuation" that I'm losing, except i see there's something about dashes. Yeah, i bet typing two hyphens now (as here -- and here--here) they won't be converted to an em-dash or en-dash, and that's fine by me. Thanks! Doncram (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

+1 for the phrase banish the curlies in that Bear doc! I've followed the advice and toggled the setting on my iPad. I prefer curly quotes in other contexts, but I do more WP editing on this device than other writing, so perhaps that trade-off will be worth it. (I tend to use the B I buttons where they are available because ''' is so hard to type. But the mobile source editor ...) My next decision will be what to do about spelling correction. @Doncram, do you have issues positioning the cursor next to a word that iOS (or maybe Safari) thinks is mis-spelled? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 23:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "bear doc", o i c, the link i gave goes to bear.app something. But, yes, if i have something Safari in IOS thinks is misspelled, like when I tested selecting several accented letters like this: áÁãé, then i could get stuck in edit mode where it is absolutely insisting that I replace that. I could not go on with an edit, the only thing I could do would be to exit the edit, losing anything else i had already typed. User:Pelagic, is there any workaround for that which you can see or imagine? --Doncram (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Not that I can see, but it drives me nuts too, Doncram. Good to know I'm not the only one. If I find the magic combination of settings I'll let you know. I don't want to completely abandon spell check and/or autocomplete, but I imagine they could be involved. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 15:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up to my wiki article got deleted after years of being on wiki. im looking for help to get it back up.

 Arthur Zilberman (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC) hello my article got deleted from wiki after being there for years and years, can someone help me restore it or create new one? please i compensate if needed

@Arthurlmd: Please read Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest. Paying someone to restore your promotional article that was deleted by consensus would likely be inappropriate and might be considered meatpuppetry. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

i know its illegal to offer money , but im only offering compensation for the time, whoever decides to take on this project. we are real company with 10 employees , multiple locations. mentioned on cbs news, cnn, msnbc...etc.. and all these mentions are free, meaning we didn't pay pr agency, they come to us because we are well know established brand in NYC and New Jersey. Arthur Zilberman (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

i dont have time or or knowledge to do it, i can fix your computer, but when it comes to writing or wiki, im lost :( Arthur Zilberman (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

"im only offering compensation for the time"

I don't know what you mean by that.

Also, paid or not, promotional articles are not allowed. Please read the conflict of interest guideline as above. Thefficacy (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

my article was deleted that was there for years, i need help writing new one or restoring old one.

i know its illegal to offer money , but im only offering compensation for the time, whoever decides to take on this project. we are real company with 10 employees , multiple locations. mentioned on cbs news, cnn, msnbc...etc.. and all these mentions are free, meaning we didn't pay pr agency, they come to us because we are well know established brand in NYC and New Jersey. Laptopmd.com Arthur Zilberman (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Arthur Zilberman, nobody has expressed any doubt that LaptopMD is a real company. Perhaps some day a person unconnected with LaptopMD will realize that it is notable according to Wikipedia's (arguably strange) criteria, and will want to write an article about it. Any attempt by you (or anyone else connected to LaptopMD) to accelerate this process will almost certainly fail, and may very well backfire. -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Deleted most recently in Feb 2022 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LaptopMD and several times before that. The company does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for corporate notability. Also, Teahouse hosts are here to advise on editing, not be authors or co-authors. David notMD (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, can i be advised what to edit and how? Arthur Zilberman (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

our article was never deleted before, to the best of my knowledge.. this is the first time on feb 2022 . its ben up for 7..8 years or so of not more Arthur Zilberman (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

thank you for replying, how do i find such a person? or spark interest in someone who wants to write article about us on wiki? Arthur Zilberman (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Arthurlmd My suggestion is that you not attempt to pursue this further. If your company truly meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable company, an independent editor will eventually take note of the appropriate coverage of your company in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it. Trying to force the issue isn't often successful by those in your position. Please also understand that an article about your company is not necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Arthur Zilberman. It is not "illegal" to offer money, just unwise, and probably a waste of your money. In trying to find a way to get an article about your company on Wikipedia when several people have investigated and determined that your company does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, you are making it clear that you entire purpose is promotion - telling the world about your company - and promotion is absolutely forbidden on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Unless you can find several such independent sources, any further time and effort you spend on this will be totally wasted. ColinFine (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much ... how do i find "several independent sources"? who maybe interested to write article about LaptopMD Arthur Zilberman (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

We don't know - if we knew where to find independent sources about your company, they would have been added rather than deleting the article. Usually we can find newspaper articles and such, but they need to be about your company, not just articles that quote someone from your company. No one is going to be interested in writing an article that is just going to be deleted again because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. MrOllie (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Arthurlmd, the "several independent sources" are not going to be the ones interested in writing about LaptopMD. The people who are interested in writing will be looking at the "several independent sources" to collect information about your company. The "several independent sources" will be reliable, authoritative websites (NOT your own or those of people affiliated with our company), articles in magazines, or news stories or such things. The people interested in writing will not BE those "several independent sources"; they will be USING them. As for how to find the "several independent sources," it will not be possible to find them before there actually are any to find. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

thank u , we have plenty newspaper / blogs articles on us. laptopmd.com/press Arthur Zilberman (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Newspaper articles may be OK as long as they are not press releases, but blogs rarely are. Theroadislong (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, they are NOT press releases Arthur Zilberman (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

can u please suggest what to do ? and how to dit it properly??

"Also, Teahouse hosts are here to advise on editing, not be authors or co-authors." Arthur Zilberman (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Those are places you were quoted for articles on other topics, they do not provide substantial detail about your company. MrOllie (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you . there are multiple articles, news clippings.. in conjunction, it gives a good idea who we are and what we do. Arthur Zilberman (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

How to add References

Hi, I'm new to this. I have no idea where to find 'add reference' and what to reference? I have added lots of links and information but what constitutes a reference?

Many thanks,

Augustus. Augustus Diamond (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Augustus Diamond, at Draft:Jonathan Starkey you've written a lot of stuff about Starkey, but (assuming you didn't just make it up) you need to explain where you got it from, by citing references. Look at almost any Wikipedia article, and you will see little superscript numbers in square brackets. Those are references. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners to learn how these work. Maproom (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Augustus Diamond, I'll give a specific example of what Maproom is saying. The sentence "Jonathan Starkey was recognised as an extraordinary pianistic talent and immediately accepted into the Junior School of the RNCM, graduating to the Senior School" -- where did that information come from? What is the published source that confirms this specific assertion (or fact), so that anyone reading the article can verify that fact? You must place the citation that verifies this assertion inline in the article, at the end of the assertion.

The same goes for each major assertion in the article. Statements that do not have references should not be included in the article. (Often, one source can verify several sentences. The link that Maproom provided goes into the reasoning and the mechanics of how to put the references into the article.) Yes, writing a new article is hard. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Article rejected ... because of lack of reliable and verifiable sources: Significant coverage...

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 (see the guidelines on the notability of people). 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.

Not sure if it is possible to have a quick call to see exactly how to overcome this.What other sources count?

Are these reliable sources:

-https://www.aasciences.africa/aesa/programmes/climate-impact-research-capacity-and-leadership-enhancement-circle ?
-https://www.utwente.nl/en/events/2016/12/341376/phd-defence-caroline-bosire 

-Bosire, Caroline K.; Mtimet, Nadhem; Enahoro, Dolapo; Ogutu, Joseph O.; Krol, Maarten S.; de Leeuw, Jan; Ndiwa, Nicholas; Hoekstra, Arjen Y. (March 2022). "Livestock water and land productivity in Kenya and their implications for future resource use". Heliyon. 8 (3): e09006. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09006. PMC 8904406. PMID 35284679. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844022002948?via%3Dihub https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=sK2NHYEAAAAJ&hl=en

I have gone through what are independent sources but it is still not that clear..? Jmukiri (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jmukiri This is about Draft:Caroline Bosire. Independent sources are those that have no direct connection with Bosire, and the sources must devote significant coverage to her. Things published by organizatiins that she is affiliated with are not independent. Her defending her PhD thesis is not independent. Passing mentions are not significant coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 thanks for getting back to me.There is a newspaper article that she is mentioned in, would that be independent. (however there is a paywall) https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/adblock?u=https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/counties/article/2000227810/city-crowds-take-the-choma-culture-to-the-village. I am not sure how to get those sources for people in Africa? What is not a passing mention?by whom? where? This would be my strategy to highlight important contributions by women scientist in Africa. How would you go about it? ... Just confused about all of this? Jmukiri (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Jmukiri, and welcome to the Teahouse. Presumably, this relates to Draft:Caroline Bosire. There are three separate requirements that a source must meet in order for it to contribute to notability. First, it must be reliable: on the face of it, those two are probably reliable. Secondly, it must be independent of the subject: your second and third links are by, or partly by, Bosire, and so are not independent of her, and do not contribute to establishing notability. Thirdly, they must contain significant coverage of the subject: the aasciences link does not appear to mention Bosire, and so cannot contribute to establishing her notability. ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. https://www.aasciences.africa/grantees-profile?id=260 I was supposed to put that link. Yes based on my draft, in simple terms.. my links are not "verifiable" so thus cannot be contributed to? Does this not disqualify many people from the global south where that is harder to achieve? in this case very few women are scientist to start out with? honestly would not know how to add more women on wikipedia whose work is important if these are the limitations. Jmukiri (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Jmukiri, the African Academy of Sciences source is her writing about herself and her own work, so that is not an independent source, and is of no value in establishing notability and therefore eligibility for a Wikipedia biography. How would our readers know that her work is "important" if reliable, independent sources do not write about her work in detail? Verifiability is a core content policy. Cullen328 (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 yes I understand this in principle but I am asking in practice. What are independent sources or verified sources women scientist from Africa? Like where would I get these sources from? I am trying to learn here? how would you go about it? how are independent sources retrieved for marginalized people? is there sources or guidelines to help with these? Jmukiri (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Jmukiri, the principles, especially the core content policies, govern our practice. Should the standards be different for a woman from Kenya than a man from Kansas? She holds a PhD degree and has had at least one article published in an academic journal, so I do not see her as marginalized. I have a bachelor's degree and did construction work most of my career. Am I marginalized? Reliable sources are published in Africa, including newspapers, magazines and academic journals. We currently have 28 Wikipedia biographies for 21st-century Kenyan women scientists, so the hurdles are not impossible to jump over. Cullen328 (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the time that you have taken to review and answer my question. To clarify I have not said that principles or anything should change here. I have not said the metrics or standards should be different. I was simply asking for advice. I am new here. So one of the sources I put was a newspaper article another was from a journal article ? I personally don't know of magazines in Africa that discuss work scientist have done. Do you? I want to find out how I contribute. Constructive not destructive advice.

https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/adblock?u=https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/counties/article/2000227810/city-crowds-take-the-choma-culture-to-the-village

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=sK2NHYEAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

I asked how you would go about this if it were you, given the circumstances. It is factual that women in Africa in sciences are marginalized, it is factual that they get little to no recognition for their work. Based on those barriers, what ways can be used to get their work on this platform? Maybe there are none, or they are not known... There were other women who I had wanted to highlight and used the same strategy but the articles would all be rejected and that would be time and effort wasted for both me and the person reviewing.

Maybe I am asking the question wrong or something, this is not the way I would like to be communicated to. Jmukiri (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Jmukiri I did a quick Google search, and only see her papers - nothing written about her. The next step, per WP:NSCHOLAR, would be to see if her papers are "highly cited" by others, such as using Google Scholar. I looked her citations up and found this [[2]]. The citation metrics are explained here Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics, but unfortunately it doesn't tell us if 75 (her highest paper citation count) is considered "highly cited" or not. Perhaps another person who is more familiar with NSCHOLAR can help here. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Timtempleton thank you for getting back to me. I have reviewed past entries and I am assuming some of these new guiding rules are new (as previous sources have sources from their place of work as the reference). Something to think about - How does one get recognized for their work in a society that does not recognize their work. A tricky situation, being an editor is way harder than it seems. Jmukiri (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jmukiri: don't feel too bad about it! She is early in her career, having completed her PhD in 2016. Very few academics, in any part of the world, would reach the level of secondary reporting or citation or seniority of position to satisfy notability of academics within such a short time of their PhD. The majority of working academics never will, even though their work may be good. Academic careers are not built on Wikipedia. But her publication record appears to be growing year on year, so it's maybe just WP:TOOSOON and one day she will reach the stage of being notable in Wikipedia terms. Meanwhile, academics are also often better known for what they do than what they are. There are plenty of situations where we have articles about the subject a major academic helped build, but not about the individual themselves. If there are articles about agriculture that would benefit from Bosire's work, particularly when she's written review papers that would be good secondary sources for articles here, you could add information and references to those articles? Elemimele (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

CentralAuth account connection when I was offline?

When I was not logged in to Wikipedia, my global account attached to Telegu Wikipedia. Does this mean that my account was compromised? Thanks. Rusty4321 ^{talk contributions log} 23:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

CentralAuth says "created on login" - i.e., somebody logged in to Telegu WP with that account IIRC. I would be concerned if I was you. casualdejekyll 23:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Rusty4321 It'd likely be a good idea as a precautionary measure to change your password (especially if it's one you may have used on other websites). Your account might not be compromised, but I'd argue it's a good idea in case it is. Are you sure you weren't logged in to Wikipedia? You don't have to log into each language version of Wikipedia in order for accounts to automatically be created on other Wikimedia sites, you just need to accidently click a link to that site and boom, you're registered. I've had that happen to me a few times [3]. A lot of the time the notification wasn't automatic, so maybe that's what happened? Clovermoss (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC); edited to add a sentence

@Casualdejekyll and Clovermoss: Thanks for your suggestions. I was not logged in, it was 10:02 PM where I live. I will change my password later. Rusty4321 ^{talk contributions log} 22:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Linking

There is a Wikipedia article about a topic in another language but the English Wikipedia doesn't show/link to it. How to add a link from the English Wikipedia article (Kafir) to the article of the same name in that other language?-BitOfKarate (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

hi BitOfKarate and welcome to the teahouse! please see Interlanguage links. clicking on the Edit Links icon in the sidebar's languages tab should direct you to Wikidata, where you can input the needed links to the related language article. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 05:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

ping fix: BitaKarate1 💜  melecie  talk - 05:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!-BitOfKarate (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Melecie, I was unable to add the link. This is the article in that other language: https://kn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B2%95%E0%B2%BE%E0%B2%AB%E0%B2%BF%E0%B2%B0%E0%B3%8D - can you add it?-BitOfKarate (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

BitOfKarate, like this? -- Hoary (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yay! Looks like BOK did it. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 23:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Access to "The Times" archives for 1910

Anyone know a way I could get free access to the London Times archives for 1910? (specifically, 9 December 1910) 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ficaia, assuming they are published online somewhere, possibly someone at WP:RX can help in specific cases. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Ficaia, would https://extras.thetimes.co.uk/archive/ meet your needs? (It asks me for a search term in addition to the date.) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 23:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ficaia: The Wikipedia Library gives you free access to The Times archive and so much more. Graham87 14:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I just did a ctrl+f and "The Times Digital Archive" appears under Gale. Now I feel stupid :P 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Automatically watching articles I edit for six months

I have it set up to automatiucally watch all articles I edit indefinitely. I want to switch this to six months because I think it will become overwhelming at some point. Is there an option for this or is it either no watching or watch indefinitely?

Also how do I get scripts active like that new one that was spammed on every wiki project? Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 07:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

hi Immanuelle and welcome to the teahouse! when watching an article, a pop-up should appear to the top right where you can change the watch time between permanent, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. also regarding the script, which one (which message) are you referring to? happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 08:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Immanuelle and Melecie: I think they might be talking about the option in your preferences to automatically watch every page you edit [4]? Clovermoss (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Clovermoss@Melecie that's correct, currently it automatically indefinitely watches all pages I edit Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 19:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

You're right, Immanuelle and Clovermoss. It would be great if that preference setting allowed you to choose a different duration. I filed a feature request at Phab:T307283. If you have a Phabricator login, feel free to chime in on that ticket. Don't hold your breath, Phab:T251691 has been in the backlog for two years. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 00:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

What is Phabricator? Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 00:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Immanuelle Phabricator is Wikimedia's bug tracker – follow those two Phab:... links to see the bug reports. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 04:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: There's this page that kind of explains things a bit more thoroughly about what Phabricator is. It's a good question, honestly, because it's not exactly intuitive. Even I find it kind of confusing! It's unfortunate that there isn't a way to automatically watchlist the pages you edit for a certain period of time. :( It looks like you either have to watch pages permanently like it currently is or to manually watchlist each page by clicking the star symbol on the top right and selecting how long you want to watch it for. At least a feature request is already submitted. Hopefully they'll get to it eventually. Clovermoss (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Immanuelle to your original question – I use the auto-watchlist-expiry user script which may do exactly what you want. User scripts explains how to find and install user scripts like this one and Headbomb's unreliable source detector script. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 13:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Melecie: Here's an example message Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#User script to detect unreliable sources.

@Immanuelle: As for how to install the script, User:Headbomb/unreliable explains how.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

how do i make a wikipedia page

how do i make a wikipedia page 71.166.35.247 (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia. Please start by carefully reading Wikipedia:Your First Article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello there, unfortunately Wikipedia doesn’t create pages, rather we publish notable articles written by volunteer editors. It is humble opinion that you reserve article creation for much later until such a time you get acquainted with the inner workings of the collaborative project, and are familiar with our policies and guidelines. Celestina007 (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

How do I know if an article I want to write about is Notable?

The name of the article I want to write or request wikipedians to write is titled "Future Explorers Youth Society". Tshepiso Mogotsi (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia. Please start by carefully reading Wikipedia:Notability Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

hi Tshepiso Mogotsi! Your first article and Referencing for beginners are also important reads in making an article. Notability guides you in what can and cannot have an article, Referencing for beginners guides you in what can be used as a source in Wikipedia (which is required), and Your first article takes you through actually creating an article. I know it's more reading material, but it's going to help you through article creation. happy writing! 💜  melecie  talk - 13:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• Tshepiso Mogotsi, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, this is a good question, simply put, an article is considered notable if multiple reliable sources, (please do ensure to see WP:RS in your spare time) extensively discusses the subject you intend to write about. Hey are you familiar or in any way acquainted with the organization you intend to write about? Celestina007 (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
• Hi, {{u|Tshepiso ! On a quick search, all I found is a FB page and a single blog post from 2017. Looks like a noble undertaking, but unfortunately not enough coverage to base an international encyclopaedia article on, nor even to support a mention at Maun, Botswana. If you're interested in writing about them, are there local newspapers that would accept a freelance article? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 00:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Tshepiso Mogotsi, sorry, I messed up the ping. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 00:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

how to post article

I don't know how to post my article , properly. Please provide me with assistance. Syarafina Nur Sabrina (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Syarafina Nur Sabrina Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to Draft:World Crossover: Chapter 1, it has unfortunately been rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to post the plot of a story, especially if it is of your creation; it is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. If independent sources with a reputation of fact checking and editorial contro like the news or book reviewers write about your story, that is something that can be in an article, but not just the plot. If you just want to tell people about your story, you should use social media. I might suggest that you read about the Five Pillars of Wikipedia and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia so that you can understand what it is we are looking for. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

hi Syarafina Nur Sabrina! please check out Other outlets. if all you need is a place to store your writings to write and revise, then Google Docs probably would work. otherwise, you can go to Fanfiction.net, Archive of Our Own, or similar sites to publish your story for the public to read (although note that I don't know what it's like there, I've never registered there myself). happy writing! 💜  melecie  talk - 14:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Quick way to archive a web reference?

I know some people like to make sure a web page is saved on archive.org before using it as a reference on Wikipedia, to make sure if the page changes or disappears it can still be seen by people wanting to verify a claim on Wikipedia. Is there a handy plugin or something that makes this as easy as pasting in a URL and the system archiving it and spitting out a reference that I can paste straight into Wikipedia? A bit like how Twinkle makes adding maintenance tags and AFDs really easy? Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ascendingrisingharmonising: Welcome to the Teahouse! Internet Archive actually automatically archives any link used as a reference on Wikipedia, so no additional action is needed. If/when the website goes down or something else happens to the content being referenced, then you or another editor can grab an archived copy from web.archive.org. Bsoyka (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Woah I didn't know that! That is pretty cool, thank you! Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Past tense

Why are so many articles referring to the past tense at the date of publish?, they are factually incorrect as soon as they are posted but still left up? - Wikipedia is becoming a joke. 84.71.195.86 (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, can you please give us a few specific examples? Cullen328 (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Verb_tense. Sometimes present tense is appropriate and sometimes past tense is. RudolfRed (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Greetings IP editor. Of the approximately 126,000 Wikipedia volunteers who edit in a given month most choose to help with projects that are of special interest to them. If you would like to start correcting the articles you feel have the wrong tense used in them it will be a fine way to improve Wikipedia. There are about 6.5 million English Wikipedia articles, and we can always use more volunteers to make useful edits. When I start reading an article on a subject that interests me, and realize the article needs a lot of work, I start researching and rewriting, for I've just found my latest volunteer project. I obtain satisfaction in knowing I'm helping to improve this fine online encyclopedia. Karenthewriter (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, many articles are describing things that happened in the past. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Reverting

Hello, I need help by reverting an older version of "Reese's Peanut Butter Cups". I was trying to remake the "Redirect-distinguish" template because it looked so complicated, and I accidentally made it worse. If there's a way to revert it besides the 3RR, that would be greatly appreciated. Mod creator (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Reverting oneself generally does not count against any sort of revert restriction; this includes 3RR. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Maintenance Messages are hidden

I am currently working on the article Mammootty to make a GA. But when after each edit I will go for a preview. Then a notification is coming like "One or More cite web and cite news templates have maintenance messages and the messages are hidden. Could anyone please help.Paavamjinn (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Paavamjinn! The first step is to change your settings to make the errors messages display. Go to User:Paavamjinn/common.css and edit it to paste this code:

.mw-parser-output span.cs1-maint {display: inline;} /* display Citation Style 1 maintenance messages */
.mw-parser-output span.cs1-hidden-error {display: inline;} /* display hidden Citation Style 1 error messages */

Then go back to the article, and you'll see some of the error messages displaying next to references. Go ahead and click on the help message next to those to learn what you need to do to resolve them. I should note that generally these things aren't significant enough to need resolving at the GA level; they're more applicable at the FA level. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

sdkb Thank you for the information Paavamjinn (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

News publishing vs. update date

On most news articles online, the article is updated multiple times, up to weeks after it was first published. Most of the time, the original date of publication is not shown. For example, this Associated Press article — which was published on August 1, 2021 — is dated "July 8, 2021". When using {{Cite news}} and {{Cite website}}, should the date when the news article was initially published be used in the "source date" parameter, or should the date when the article was most recently updated be used? Cyrobyte (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cyrobyte Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest you use the date when the most recently updated at the time you read the article and decided it was worthy to be used as a reference to support a sentence in the article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

How does the review process on Wikipedia work?

I just finished adding more content to a previously declined article (Draft:Aniebiet Inyang Ntui), And I was just wondering how the review process works, who will review the article, is it the person who declined it or a new reviewer and how I can also become a reviewer.

Cheers ElontheWikiEditor (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@ElontheWikiEditor Welcome to the Teahouse! See Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

ElontheWikiEditor, in most cases, the original reviewer will decline to review a resubmission, and will defer to another reviewer. If the same reviewer declines a draft several times, they may be unfairly accused of bias, and that isn't worth the trouble. So, make your second submission really excellent so that such allegations do not arise. Cullen328 (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

ElontheWikiEditor, I can tell you that a draft that contains non-neutral unreferenced evaluative language like Professor Aniebiet Inyang Ntui has made tremendous contribution to the field of Library and Information Science through her publications has no chance of being accepted. Wikipedia articles must be written from the Neutral point of view, which forbids that type of language. Strip every trace of that type of non-neutral language out of the draft. Cullen328 (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

ElontheWikiEditor Firstly, you should be addressing this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Secondly, since the article was declined, you haven't added any new sourcing to show that the subject is notable. Please read the advice you were given with the first decline. I read every source in the draft, and I can summarize it like this - Ntui was hired as a librarian. While that is a nice thing, it is not enough to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Please see WP:GNG. Also please see WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE and WP:COI, due to the problematic WP:SPA editing history here. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

In answer to your last question, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. Minimally, 90 days and 500 article edits. David notMD (talk) 09:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @David notMD,@Cullen328,@GoingBatty for all the tips and advice, I did some digging and found more things to add to make the Draft: Aniebiet Inyang Ntui notable, I hope it is okay. ElontheWikiEditor (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

How do you reuse a citation using source editing

How do you reuse a citation using source editing? It's so confusing, I use source scripting and can't figure out how to reuse a reference, If i just copy and paste it makes a new citation, it goes up by one and adds a new reference to the reference list? Leahnn Rey (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Leahnn Rey - in the first reference, start the tag and later when you reuse it just use <ref name=FOOBAR /> EvergreenFir (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

This helped, but sometimes i do use visual editing, Let's say i'm using visual editing and i want to make an infobox language,

I want to change the speakers to some number, i add the date and the reference, Once i copy paste the reference, it will just make a new citation, let's say i want to reuse a citation from a paragraph in the page that i made using visual editing, It doesn't work, it makes a new reference, (Sorry if my english is bad, I'm a filipino) Leahnn Rey (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Leahnn Rey: if you want to reuse a citation in visual editor, make sure that your cursor is at the spot where the citation should end up at, Click "Cite" in the toolbar, and then select the "Re-use" tab. This will present you with a list of citations already in the article. Just select the one you want to reuse and VE will take care of the rest for you (including generating a name for the citation if it lacks one so far). Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you don't get the point here, i know that, i use it all the time when i make an article, However, If i make a citation using Visual editing and i want to reuse the citation using source editing (Not switching to source editing) For example: i want to reuse the citation on a template, like an infobox language template, Let's say this reference was made using visual editor: , And i reuse it in an infobox language (imagine it as a literal infobox language):

{{infobox language

| name = languagename

| speakers = 500

| date = 2007 census

| reference =

}}

See how it makes a new citation, I made the infobox using source editing by the way, This is the same because if you make an infobox language using visual editing and add a reference to the date, you are actually editing in source editing. Leahnn Rey (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

References

If i make a citation using Visual editing and i want to reuse the citation using source editing (Not switching to source editing): You've lost me here, Leahnn Rey. Anyway, I quite often reuse references made by other people. I presume that a smallish but non-trivial percentage of these references were made with the visual editor, but I neither know nor care about this. I always use the source editor. I don't know how either the source editor or I might be confused by preexisting references just because these were made with the visual editor. -- Hoary (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, i'll try to figure it out. Leahnn Rey (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Leahnn Rey: I think that your issue is that to re-use someone else's citation (no matter how they entered it) you often have to create a name for it where it was originally used. So in the examples here, if I want to re-use your reference #2, I would (in the source editor) have to change <ref>Some reference</ref> into <ref name=Createdname>Some reference</ref>, and at the point where I wanted to re-use that reference I'd put <ref name=Createdname/> Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Watchlist slowdown?

Has anybody else noticed a distinct slowdown in watchlist loading time, a few annoying seconds slower? I have noticed this for the last few days on two devices and browsers, Firefox (PC) and Safari (ipad). The number of times per day I click on it has meant that I am losing a significant chunk of time staring blankly into space. I'm beginning to drool onto my keyboard. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed it, too, along with a slowdown in saving edits. I don't know whether this is related, but there's been a fairly big, and relatively contemporaneous, explosion of pages at Category:ParserFunction errors and Category:Pages with parser function time errors, seemingly due to "The time allocated for running scripts has expired" errors (mostly on user pages). My guess is that someone messed up a script or template or something. Might be a matter for WP:VPT. Deor (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

And I see that both problems have been brought up at WP:VPT#Time-expired problem at Template:Centralized discussion and WP:VPT#Loading Watchlist very slow, with no solutions offered as yet. Deor (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Forgot to ping, drat it. Deor (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, but I already noticed your posts on my incredibly slow watchlist. I shall watch those other discussions too! - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Can't complete draft

I want to make an article about Gelly Break but there's not enough info I can use. :-( 5LMGVGOTY (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 5LMGVGOTY. I'm afraid that if "there's not enough info I can use", then necessarily the subject will not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, because that depends almost entirely on published reliable sources. If the subject does not meet the criteria for notability, then no article about it is possible. ColinFine (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Biography

I think this is a separate question from the previous one, so I've added a header. --ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Please i need clarification on what to do i am trying to post a biography of someone and this is the message am getting after submitting for review which i didn't understand

(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 (see the guidelines on the notability of people). 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.) Aamarafa15 (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

That message indicates that there is not sufficient reference material in the article to indicate that the subject is notable. Specifically, there need to be multiple sources about the subject which are reliable, independent of the subject, and cover the subject in reasonable depth (not just a mention, quote, blurb, or name-drop). If better reference material about the subject is available, use that within the article. If not, it is likely that the subject is not a suitable one for an article at this time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

COURTESY: Draft:AMINA YUSUF GARBA,MON, mni "MON" is a government award. No idea what "mni" is. David notMD (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Someone is marking my photos for deletion for copyright issues.

These photos have no copyright issues. They are either taken by me, or by my friend Ghada, when we were there. Those 'violations' pointed to on Google maps were also taken by me or her...

the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Hasan_Mosque

If I say they're mine... and someone doesn't believe me.. how do I prove they're mine? Teacher Samara (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Teacher Samara. The photos, and the proposed deletion, are all on Wikimedia Commons, not on Wikipedia, and you'll need to take it up there. I think the problem is that you also loaded the photos to Google, and so they appear on the web. I see that you have replied to the messages on your Commons user talk page c:User talk:Teacher Samara: the box to which you are replying says If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. ColinFine (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm so busy tonight. I panicked when I saw that big red box... Thanks! Teacher Samara (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Teacher Samara, please be aware that you cannot upload photos that your friend Ghada took. Ghada holds those copyrights. You can only upload photos that you took. Cullen328 (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Recommendations for article topics

Hi..I want to ask some topics that I can create pages on and will be good value to the community. I think of topics but most of the times either there is an article on the topic already or the topic will not have good coverage to make one article. Can someone help? Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Laptopinmyhands, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. This is a reply I made to another question here last week, that I think is germane:

I remember when I was a new editor, long ago, and how I desperately wanted to "make my mark" by creating a new article. But I couldn't find a suitable topic, and never did. (In 20 000 edits in 17 years, I've only ever created a handful of articles). Creating new articles is not the only way to contribute to Wikipedia. For an inexperienced editor, it is an extremely difficult way, and likely to involve you in frustration and disappointment. You can add hundreds or thousands of times as much value to Wikipedia by making small improvements to some of our millions of existing articles, many of which are seriously in need of attention. Every single time you can clarify an unclear paragraph, find and cite a reliable source for some unsourced information, or remove some cruft or non-neutral wording from an article, you will be contributing more to Wikipedia than you ever could by creating a draft about a subject which does not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I suggest you have a look at the "Help out" section of the Community portal. ColinFine (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello!

Happy to see you want to write articles, I completely relate to your situation, I was there once! For me, what really helped was WP:Requested Articles. I would really recommend checking it out, and browse the suggestions. Some people have already included references for you! If that doesn’t work out for you, maybe try researching into your local area and find topics which you could write articles about, which is what I did for Wally the Walrus and Piper’s Hole. Another thing that I found is that you don’t always have to know about a topic already in order to write an article about it, when I started John Henry Bell, I had no idea who he was, but I still had a lot of fun researching and writing the article. Any which way, I hope you enjoy Wikipedia and writing articles. HenryTemplo (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Improving existing articles is a mitzvah. David notMD (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I am always seeing the page Sonchus and seeing how many Sonchus species have not been covered. I am always trying to create those articles and I think it would be great if you helped with that. If you don't want to do that like HenryTemplo said is to look at the WP:Requested Articles or I might join a WikiProject. Have fun! 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 22:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

WikiFauna

I just designed a new WikiFauna that I am hoping to submit. How do I submit a draft to that page? The draft is currently in my sandbox. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

There should be a button near the top that says “Submit your draft for review”. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 21:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

hi CollectiveSolidarity and welcome to the teahouse! as this is a wikipedia-related essay, I believe this isn't AfC's area and you can move it directly to Wikipedia:WikiMime. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Only Talk page showing up on Google search

I recently created an article ("Carey R. Dunne") and now, when I search for it on Google using its title, the link that surfaces is the TALK page only. Same thing when I search using Wikipedia's search function. Can someone help me so that the Article, not the Talk page, is prioritized and shows up first? Thank you! Llmeyers (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Llmeyers: Welcome to the Teahouse. New pages aren't indexed by search engines like Google until a new pages patroller reviews it or 90 days have passed, whichever comes first. I didn't have any issues with getting to the article via Wikipedia's search bar. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Got it, thank you! For some reason I thought it had been reviewed by a patroller... Llmeyers (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Llmeyers: Not sure why that is happening to you, but when I search I get this Carey_R._Dunne RudolfRed (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks RudolfRed. It seems like others aren't seeing what I'm seeing. Will circle back... Llmeyers (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

In case anyone else has intel on this problem, please lmk! Llmeyers (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I thought that Talk pages were not indexed by search engines.?.? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I thought so too, but if you Google "Carey R Dunne", ONLY the Talk page shows up. Any help from an admin or patroller? Llmeyers (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't happen for me. Would you mind linking your search results Llmeyers? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, here are the results -- https://www.google.com/search?q=carey+r+dunne+wiki&oq=carey+r+&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l3j69i57j0i512j69i60l3.1165j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Llmeyers (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Llmeyers (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Llmeyers: As others have stated above it will take some time for the article to appear in a google search. As to why the talk page appears when you add "wiki" or "wikipedia" to the search result I'm not sure since talk pages shouldn't appear in search engines (unless it's on a wikipedia mirror). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Blaze Wolf. Kind of a mystery about the talk page. I guess I will wait a while and check back to see if the article, rather than the talk page, shows up. Llmeyers (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

In the article's "Options" section, I set it as "Default indexing" Llmeyers (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Huh? Articles don't have any options section... I'm confused as to what you mean. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Llmeyers, is "Options" from a gadget or add-in? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Not that I know of!! I click the three lines at top right --> categories, page settings, etc. Is that an add in? I didn't think so. Llmeyers (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

All the other pages I've edited have the same settings. I don't think it's a gadget or add-in issue. Why would it be showing up instead of the Article? Llmeyers (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Phabricator insists on e-mail

I tried to report a bug, but Phabricator INSISTED !! on accessing my user's data including e-mail, otherwise it would not allow me to report a bug.

I consider such behavior very user-fiendly - just like almost all the many commercial sites insist on cookies and/or registration including all personal details.

I don't have e-mail.

Why does Phabricator has to check all my user data just to allow me to report a bug!? I want an answer !!

Why does Phabricator has to insist on an e-mail. It already insists on the reporter to be registered (with a user name) and being logged in. Why is this not enough? I want an answer !!

Does Wikipedia has become commercial or what !? Steue (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Steue: I've never used it, but according to [5] the email address is required for verification. You can try asking at [6] to see if there is any alternative. RudolfRed (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look and ask. Steue (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

You can set up a single-purpose email account if you don't want to use your personal email account. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Unclear inputmode and other problems in the input window for a new topic to the Teahouse.

My computer: Windows 8.1 and FireFox (latest version)

After I clicked on [Ask a question] and the window opened:

1. When this window opens then, to me, it is not visible in which input mode (I mean: "Visual Editor!" or "Source") this window is.

I would appreciate if even before/above the title field there were these two buttons [Visual] and [Source], and it would be visible, at first glance, in which input mode the follwing input fields are.

2. Between the "Title" field and what I call the main field (in which there is the Word "Description") there are two kind of buttons ( [Visual] and [Source] ). I write "kind" because, by first sight, they are not recognizable as buttons. Above and below each is a horizontal line, but that's all; they don't look like buttons. Only by moving my mousepointer across them, it became visible, by the type of icon my mouspointer became or remained, that they must be buttons, and that one is currently disabled, probably because of the current input mode. So there is a lot of trying and guessing necessary.

3. The Word "Description"
In what I call the main field (in which there is the Word "Description") there is this word "Description". I tried to delete it, but it was not possible. I also tried to copy it (with [Ctrl]+[C]) to delete it as a whole, but this was not possible either. Only after I had inserted something into this field this word disappeared. For those who are used to this window, this behavior may be comfortable. But for someone who is there first, it is not obvious that this behavior will take place.

4. The name "Add topic" of the button
I was missing a button which "says" [Send]. To me, who is not grown up in English, it was not obvious that [Add topic] ment [Send].

Steue (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Steue: If you have suggestions to make about the Discussion and Reply tools, please go to Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Steue: For the "new discussion" feature, post your feedback and questions at [7] RudolfRed (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Changed name and now messages are going to my redirect talk page

I changed my name and got a message on my old talk page here [[8]] is there a way to keep this from happening so I can continue getting my messages for activities before the name change? Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 02:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

hi Immanuelle and welcome to the teahouse! I've moved the discussion to your current talk page. it may be because the script Locomotive207 is using didn't detect that your username had changed and sent it to the old username's talk page. I believe it shouldn't happen anymore in the future unless you have multiple drafts under review. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 02:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I do have multiple drafts under review so this will be a problem Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 02:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Melecie I edited all my pending drafts such as this one Draft:Himetataraisuzu-hime to inclue my new username in the template. Do you think that will be enough? Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 20:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Update I just got that draft in particular approved at Himetataraisuzu-hime and it went through, so it looks like it's working Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 19:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Policy for fictional characters?

Hi, what is the policy used for fictional characters? Like in films, comics or web series? Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

If you're asking about notability standards, the same for anything else. They must have significant in depth coverage outside of the fictional universe the character is in. Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) specifically addresses this. PRAXIDICAE💕 02:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Laptopinmyhands, some guidance at WP:FICTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Twinkle

What is twinkle? 2001:44B8:41C6:F700:700A:D79B:BA6C:5E70 (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:TWINKLE —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi 2001:44B8:41C6:F700:700A:D79B:BA6C:5E70. Twinkle is an anti-vandalism tool. More on that here. Basically, it can be used to revert edits, warn/welcome users, nominate pages for deletion, and a few more things. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 03:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, only autoconfirmed users can use it, so because IPs don't have the autoconfirmed group, they can't use it. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 03:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Wikipedia

First off, my apologies if this is the wrong forum in which to bring up this question. If not, please point me to the right place to do so. I am just looking for some advice here. Two days ago, I made a few edits to some closely related pages on Wikipedia. However, they were very quickly reverted by a user who has made most of the past edits to each of those pages. They did not offer much in the way of an explanation as to why, only stating in the edit summary that they were reverting the page to its "last good version" (which seems to be the defense that they use to roll back pretty much all changes made to these articles). As such, I reinstated my changes, making sure to spell out even more carefully the reasoning behind my edits, and clearly state why I believed they were both relevant and necessary once again. Within minutes, the same user reversed those changes once again. At this point, I headed to the article's talk page, where I found that the only topic of discussion in the past centered around this very issue. A different editor faced the same situation, brought up the problem in the section I visited, and the user mentioned above responded with a short but negative message. I responded in this section, asking for people to share their opinions. Soon thereafter, another person offered their view and suggested a compromise solution which incorporated elements of my change as well as the original page, which was what the earlier user had been insisting on all along. They promptly went on to implement this compromise, which after some thought I agreed to as well. However, the editor I have been mentioning quickly reverted this edit as well. I also protested the undoing of some edits I had made at one of these pages which were irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and which nobody had ever vocally taken issue with. However, seemingly out of spite, the same member once again rolled back my other changes, this time with no explanation at all. It was at this point that this person left me a message on my talk page, accusing me of "edit warring" and threatening an immediate ban from editing. I sent back a notice to that user's talk page right away, explaining once more why I made the changes, and demanding their attention. When I did not receive a response for over 24 hours despite their speed in previously undoing my edits, I reinstated only the edits over which there was no controversy, keeping the rest of the page as they had left it, hoping for a swift resolution through dialogue on that article's talk page. Within minutes, those changes were undone as well, with the threat coming in the edit summary this time, but still with no reasoning given as to why it was done. I have refrained from completely reversing those reversions so far, as they are a far more experienced user than I am. However, I feel as though I have no other choice, and if they have an objection to the edits made by myself and others, they should be made to explain themselves and then discuss the issue later on through the talk page, rather than simply stonewalling the issue. Am I wrong to feel that my edits should be kept in place instead, at least until someone is able to raise a point as to what detriment they have caused, however flawed the logic in their reasoning? This is especially true because it is also the case that, insofar as a consensus exists, it is almost completely in favor of the changes that I have attempted to implement along with numerous other people, given that this person is the only one who did not support doing so. A Red Cherry (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

A Red Cherry, is this about Template:16TeamBracket-NHL Divisional? I see no relevant discussion on the talk page there. If not, what is it about? Maproom (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion appears to be taking place at User talk:Deadman137. David notMD (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Why I can't create article on Izin Hash.

Hello, let me whether I can create Draft:Izin Hash page or not? Sarath Shibu (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

hi Sarath Shibu and welcome to the teahouse! there is a guideline determining whether an actor can have a Wikipedia article, perhaps take a look? it states that one may be included if they:

• [have] had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or
• [have] made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

if they meet this criteria, then they may have an article as long as you back this information up with a reliable source. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 08:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, take the time to read WP:BLP and WP:YFA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sarath Shibu With sources like [9][10][11] you probably can. However, you have to do it right or the article will not be accepted. It is essential that you learn how to add references correctly, see WP:TUTORIAL. If you don't, you are wasting your time.

And apart from WP:BLP, also take the time to read WP:MINORS. Don't rush it, take your time to get it right. Also very important, don't WP:COPYPASTE from sources, use your own words. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

You have created Draft:Izin Hash. Given that it contains very little content and no references, in its current state it has no potential to be accepted as an article if you submit it for review. His career to date is that he is a child model in advertisements for products. Personally, I doubt that meets Wikipedia's definition of notable. David notMD (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

 Note: OP has been blocked for sockpuppetry. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Question about strange sources in an approved article

Good evening. Please tell me why the sources in this article were approved by Wikipedia? In this rather voluminous article, there are only 2 sources, each of which is not reliable (or am I mistaken?). Explain, please.

Article: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_Robo_Blast_2 0Renovate0 (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

0Renovate0 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is difficult for us to speak to something on the Spanish Wikipedia, as each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. You should ask your question on that version of Wikipedia to get the best answer. There should be a Help Desk area(though I do not know what it is called in Spanish). I can say that Wikipedia does not "approve" or "disapprove" sources(except in rare cases like the Daily Mail which has been banned as a source), but editors arrive at a consensus as to whether or not a source is appropriate to use. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your link is to the Spanish Wikipedia, so for details you will have to ask there (each Wikipedia language version is a separate project with different standards for sourcing). I would call that article WP:FANCRUFT. On English Wikipedia we have Sonic Robo Blast 2 as a re-direct to a list of unofficial Sonic media, with only a small comment. Incidentally, there is no "approval" mechanism in general for sourcing as anyone can be WP:BOLD and add content to Wikipedia articles. However, we do maintain a list of reliable sources and editors do often remove material that is not reliably sourced, as part of our WP:BRD process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

New editor w/ photo to add

Hi. I have never tried to edit an article. I wanted to add a mug shot to an article on an entry about a serial killer recently convicted. It was previously in the system. However a bot deleted it claiming copyright issues. However it was a mug shot. So I’m not sure whether it belonged in the commons or not (The reason the bot reportedly deleted the mug shot was that it was supposed to come from local, a difference I don’t understand). However it is not covered by a copyright because it is a mug shot.

In any event I don’t have enough edits to be able to put the picture back into the system nor do I know how. Can someone help me? VoxFugit (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello VoxFugit and welcome to Wikipedia. There have been previous debates about the use of mugshots and we have a policy on that stated at WP:MUGSHOT. I don't know which article you are referring to, as your account has no other edit except this one at the Teahouse. Assuming the person has indeed been convicted, a mugshot may be a valid addition but you would have to show that it was not covered by copyright (or had an appropriate license for use on Wikipedia) in the jurisdiction where it was taken. What makes you think that this is the case? (In the USA, mugshots taken by government officials are public domain but that may not be the case elsewhere) Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that is only federal mugshots, states may be different. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I am reasonably certain that states cannot legally copyright mugshots; mugshots are posted in public places to alert the public of the likenesses of convicts and suspects. Mugshots are taken usually when a suspect is taken into custody or when incarcerated. I'm sure that other users are able to clarify this. 69.112.128.218 (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You are incorrect, IP editor. It depends on the laws of each of the 50 states. Things posted in public places are quite often copyrighted. Some states copyright mug shots and other states release them into the public domain. It varies. Cullen328 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Which states are those, specifically, that issue copyrights on public records? Mugshots taken by police, and by jail and prison officials would naturally be of public record - normally public record is exempt from any copyright protection. True? 69.112.128.218 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. Please see Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States. Cullen328 (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look that one up too. Just adding to the above (trying to answer my own question), I did find information online with a list of states and their respective policies on 'mugshots'. Not even one refer to any copyrights. Almost all of them refer to either "public record" or "freedom of information" (or something related) and the rest (a minority) are either blank or non-committal on this. A few of the states have policies on restricting the release of photos, but again, none list these photos as either private or copyrighted. You did say that some states copyright these photos. If you can specifically show a state that copyrights these photos, that would be very helpful. Here is the link: https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/11-mugshots/ 69.112.128.218 (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Mugshots are not always considered public records. It depends on the state. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Note also that some states have special rules to control online use of mug shots. Those rules mostly target scammy 'background check' sites, but may apply to us in some circumstances. MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I saw that. Good point. I would say that Wikipedia would, instead of trying to bill a person in order to remove a photo, just remove a photo without any issues. This refers to sites that charge people a fee to take mug shot photos off their webpages. 69.112.128.218 (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• One general thing to note about U.S. copyright law. The biggest change to U.S. copyright law came in the Copyright Act of 1976, which was a MAJOR overhaul of prior laws, but the biggest change was that it turned the application of copyright from an active process to a passive one. Prior to 1976, copyright had to be claimed by the use of a copyright notice placed on the work in question. After 1976, the use of the notice became optional, and copyright is now presumed to exist as soon as the work exists in a tangible form. Which is to say, by the text of the law itself, copyright exists on "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device". Under current law, works only enter the public domain under two conditions 1) the copyright protection expires or 2) the holder of the copyright expressly states that they release the work to the public domain. The only reason why U.S. Federal Government work is in the public domain is that the U.S. Federal Government has expressly done just that; they have passed laws that state that work created by the Federal Government is in the public domain. They don't have to do so; they could repeal that permission at any time, and any future works would be covered by copyright. The individual subnational governments, whether they be states, counties, municipalities, HOAs, whatever, are not governed by that situation; they get to decide for themselves how to handle the copyrights they own. And here's the deal, even if they have made no statement on the matter, the default assumption is that the work is under copyright. This applies to mugshots as to any work created by such governments or their agencies. You can't go by a lack of copyright statement on the matter, because a copyright statement is no longer necessary to claim copyright. Instead, you need to find express permission to use the work, either in the form of a public domain statement, OR in the form of a copyleft license which is compatible with Wikipedia's own license. --Jayron32 15:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Quite informative! I would like to know, then, if the above link to the 'rfcp' (reporter's committee for freedom of the press) website - is of value - in terms of Wikipedia's pervue. What would you say? They specifically have a verbose list, by state, most of which have legal references, of laws that describe public usage of mugshots; for example: Alabama - A mug shot in a police computer database is a public record. Op. Att'y Gen. Ala. No. 2004-108, 2004 Ala. AG LEXIS 35 (Apr. 1, 2004). Although there are a minority of states listed that are either ambiguous, or "silent" or the like on this topic, most of our states have similar listings (stating that mug shots are publicly available without restrictions & are public record). The rest have notes saying that the photos can be restricted for various reasons. Of those on this site, that advises reporters on whether a mug shot can be published, saying that the photos are public record, and including legal references and rationales, wouldn't that eliminate the stipulation on copyright being the default condition (in those particular cases)? Here is the link again (same as above). Every state has some kind of notation: https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/11-mugshots/ 69.112.128.218 (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

This is worth reading. Just because something is a "public record" does not guarantee that it is free of copyright. Cullen328 (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - does it not specifically refer to the State of California? Also the page that was linked to refers to an audio record of a voicemail left by a telephone call. That is quite useful, although, remain focused on mug shots, and what states besides California may (or may not) copyright those photos. As to whether the State of California copyrights their mug shots, there is a CPRA ('California Privacy Rights Act' which refers to privacy of a citizen, but not copyright of a photograph taken by public servants: California - Access appears to be discretionary. See Cal. Ops. Att’y Gen. 03-205 (2003)(sheriff has discretion to furnish copies of mug shots to public or media but once released a copy must be made available to all who make request). In California, law enforcement agencies routinely make mug shots available to the press. Indeed, in People v. McCloud, 146 Cal. App. 3d 180, 182, 194 Cal. Rptr. 75 (1983), the only published California case regarding mug shots, the court recognized that mug shots are routinely made available to the press and public and that this practice provides a variety of benefits to the public and the law enforcement system, as evident from the arrests at issue which “were brought about through the publication in a daily newspaper, of their mug shots taken after some earlier arrest.” The McCloud case does not discuss access to mug shots pursuant to the CPRA. It holds instead that mug shots are not part of the criminal summary history (“rap sheet”), which is a confidential record under Penal Code Section 13300. That might indicate that in California, there may be some doubt as to the privacy of the concerned individual, which is very important of course. 69.112.128.218 (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

This is getting rather long and involved for the Teahouse. The folks at WP:MCQ might be able to explain more clearly the legal intersections between privacy concerns, public records, and copyright. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Here goes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Mug_Shots_-_Which_States_Copyright_Them_%28if_any%29 Thank you for that. 69.112.128.218 (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Not enough reliable sources for my article. What I can do?

Good evening. I wrote an article about a video game and when I checked the list of articles I didn't find any verified sources about this game. But the existence of the videogame is obvious and confirmed in many social networks, as well as in quite convincing and conscientious resources like GameJolt. What can I do in this situation? My article: Draft:Sonic Omens 0Renovate0 (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

0Renovate0 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If there are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this game, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Mere existence is insufficient for an article. There isn't much you can do about that; no amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the answer is "Don't write the article." This sucks. We all know the feeling when your work goes to waste, and it sucks. casualdejekyll 13:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@0Renovate0: Game Jolt appears to be billed as a social community platform, which suggests that a lot of its content is user-generated, which lowers the reliability of the source. TV Tropes also suffers from the same issue, so that will see very little use as a reliable source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Game Jolt is a site anyone can upload games to, and its use here constitutes a primary source. casualdejekyll 21:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@0Renovate0: I will start by pointing out that this is not in my wheelhouse, so these suggestions may by totally unhelpful. I am wondering whether you have checked for sources that refer to this game only by "Sonic 2020" before switching the name to "Sonic Omens", e.g. https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/24/sonic-hedgehog-vr-sonic-2020-prepare-sage-fan-game-expo-12895521/ ?

The other possibility would be to post your article at one of the numerous other wikis. I know that still sucks, but perhaps it sucks less. Fabrickator (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Yeah, I saw this article, but I'm not sure if the site is reliable. As for publishing on other wikis - I'll think. 0Renovate0 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you suggest other wiki sites that might be suitable for Wikipedia? 0Renovate0 (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@0Renovate0: You might find the information in Wikipedia:Alternative outlets helpful. Some of it may be a bit outdated, but it should give you a general idea as to what might work for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@0Renovate0: Let's clarify here; wikis are virtually never suitable as citations to Wikipedia, as most of them are user-generated. There are other wikis out there that have different policies than Wikipedia, which may allow your content to be posted. Usually FANDOM wikis cover many of these niche subjects. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

How can I stop a vandal?

At Abraham Lincoln editor fictious librarian repeatedly reverts my edits (and I revert his). His are inaccurate, and at Talk:Abraham Lincoln I have explained why. There is no possible good-faith argument for his edits, which is why I am justified in calling him a vandal. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Maurice Magnus Please do not edit war, even if you are correct. That you disagree with an edit does not make it vandalism. If you have attempted talk page discussion, there are avenues of dispute resolution available. You may also report edit warring to WP:ANEW. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Maurice Magnus and Fictiouslibrarian, you are both engaging in an edit war, and you both need to stop doing so and discuss the matter (as you have started doing). The purpose of discussion is to achieve consensus, and that in turn requires a willingess to listen to others' arguments: if you go into the discussion with an attitude of "I'm right and you're wrong", it will not be productive. If you really cannot reach agreement, then please follow the steps in dispute resolution.

And in answer to your last question, Maurice, no. In editing Wikipedia vandalism means editing in a way which is intended to damage Wikipedia. That does not appear to be the case here: you have a content dispute. ColinFine (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Biographical info

I am considering setting up a biographical page supporting a non profit scholarship. How and how much? 50.82.182.222 (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Wikipedia does not have "pages", it has articles. Wikipedia does not charge for its use- but it is not a means of promotion or a place to just tell about the existence of a topic. It is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Writing a new article is the hardest task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it's good to first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles, so you get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. If you create an account, you may also use the new user tutorial. If you still want to attempt to create a new article, you should first gather at least three independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about the topic- and not based on materials put out by the topic such as press releases, announcements, or interviews- and then visit Articles for Creation to start the process. If you are associated with this topic, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. As stated in ther above post we here at Wikipedia are nonprofit. We do not ask for any money for the use of this site. I encourage you to follow the above links to the articles they will help you. Happy editing. Mschulz75 (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Why do these not exist?

Categories for "Mononymous musicians" (or "Musicians who use mononyms") and "Soccer controversies". --2A01:36D:1201:34D:7D00:1DA5:F1DE:F9D7 (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse! I don't know about the first category, but you might be looking for Category:Association football controversies? Perfect4th (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello 2A01 . . . F9D7! A category for Mononymous musicians probably doesn't exist simply because no-one's thought of making it before (or they have, but decided it was too much work). Every editor "working" on Wikipedia is an unpaid volunteer who does whatever they choose to do – none of us get tasks assigned to us.

If you think such a category is a good idea, be Bold, and go ahead and create it: once it exists, others might agree it's a good idea and contribute to applying it. The worse that can happen (and I don't think it would) is that someone disagrees with having it so much that they Revert it, in which case you can Discuss it with them and maybe change their mind: this is the standard procedure of WP:BRD by which a great deal gets done (and sometimes undone) here. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.88.97 (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

An alternative approach to the BOLD one suggested by 90.208 is to open a discussion at WT:CATP. ColinFine (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

We have a very long List of one-word stage names. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Question related to book cover artwork.

I posted this question to the Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind talk page and was referred here to see if an experienced editor could weigh in. I have looked over WP:NONFICTION and did not see anything about books with multiple language editions.

Would it be within Wikipedia guidelines for books to update the cover art image of the book found at the top of the page? The current image is for the Hebrew first edition. The cover art for the English edition already exists on Wikimedia Commons but it is not the artwork from the official English first edition from Harper Collins. The artwork from Harper Collins is the image most readers of this page will likely be familiar with and be able to read, and the one used by the author on his personal website. If the current artwork is preferred, would it be appropriate to add the cover art for the English edition elsewhere in the page? LightBulb22 (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, LightBulb22. If the copy in Commons is truly freely licensed, then no, a non-free image may not be added, according to WP:NFCC, and the existing non-free image should be removed and replaced by the free image. But I don't believe that File:Sapiens-uma-breve-historia-da-humanidade-livro-yuval-harari-320001-MLB20265211115 032015-O.jpg is validly licensed, and I have nominated it for deletion. If it is deleted, then I can see no argument against replacing a non-free image by a more appropriate non-free image in the article. ColinFine (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Are u allowed to put gifs

are u allowed to put gifs? Demonlord189 (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Demonlord189: Hello Demonlord! THe answer is it depends. Depending on the context, a GIF may or may not be allowed. An example of when a GIF would be allowed would be to showcase gameplay in an article relating to a video game where a picture wouldn't do very good at providing enough context (for example, the GIF used on the article Baba Is You). However, a GIF such as a meme GIF isn't allowed. So it would depend on what you want to add a GIF to. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

ok thxs Demonlord189 (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Demonlord189: No problem! If you have any more questions feel free to ask them here at the Teahouse! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

ok will do Demonlord189 (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Help

How do i make a wiki page about my epic youtube channel Grongo King (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Grongo King: Welcome to the Teahouse. For the most part, you don't. Only subjects that pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines stay on the encyclopedia, and most YouTube channels don't meet the criteria. You would also have a conflict of interest, and you would be strongly recommended to disclose your COI. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Stop. You have created a non-article in your Sandbox (no content, no references) submitted it twice - wasting the time of Reviewers - and now Rejected. Articles (not 'pages') need to be about notable topics, meaning having reliable source references published be people other than you. David notMD (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Would an editor starting off with TWA be considered NOTHERE?

Hello, fellow Teahouse hosts, a question from… a (semi-active) Teahouse host himself.

As we all know, The Wikipedia Adventure might, at first glance, be considered a nice little tutorial to starting off Wikipedia.

However, if we look at NOTHERE's criteria #12, Editing only in user space, an administrator who is a little forgetful and does not assume good faith may be really quick to block a Wikipedia Adventurer as NOTHERE, citing that they "only edited in their user space".

I assume it's me being paranoid again, but could somebody answer this? Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 01:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Any reasonable administrator would see that WP:NOTTHERE doesn't really apply in a situation where somebody is actively trying to learn how Wikipedia works through a common process. If they're taking such little care in their use of the blocking power, I imagine there would be a community response. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 01:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I honestly doubt that is ever likely to happen, as TWA generates, at least when I tried it out, its own edit summaries, so any administrator coming across the page is likely to know that it's from the tutorial. Also note that the points (they're never called criteria) may indicate a user is not here to build an encyclopedia, emphasis mine. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

3PPYB6, can you point to a single example of an administrator blocking, warning or even making a mildly negative remark about a new user participating in The Wikipedia Adventure? I am an administrator and in my experience, WP:NOTHERE blocks are only given when there have been at least two serious violations of at least two important policies without any productive edits, and that the encyclopedia would be endangered if the offending editor was allowed to continue. Please list the user names of editors that you believe were inappropriately blocked under NOTHERE. Cullen328 (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 – Again, probably me being paranoid. Throughout my c. 8 months here, I've seen only one—specifically this one—although their actions evidently indicated a vandalism-only account. Oh well. Time for me to replenish my good faith, too… — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 11:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I want to nominate Led Zeppelin as a daily article

I've waited for 17 years for maybe it to pop up on the daily but to no avail. Then I see Lorde and I feel some kind of injustice for one of the greatest rock bands of all time. I thought for something in their 50 year anniversary or the 40th year of Bonzo's death. If it's good enough for Lorde it should be good enough for Led Zeppelin.

Thanks C Cdope666 (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Cdope666. Wikipedia has two top levels of assessed articles, which are Good articles which are very good, and Featured articles, which are the best. Only Featured articles are eligible for "Today's featured article" on the main page. Lorde is a Featured article and therefore eligible. Led Zeppelin is a Good article and therefore ineligible at this time. You could work to upgrade the rating of the article if you want, but that involves a rigorous peer review process that could take weeks or months. You would need to be thoroughly conversant with the reliable source literature about Led Zeppelin, which currently has 235 references. If you are willing to do the work, go for it, but be aware that it will be a lot of work, and you will have to convince every active editor who watches that page that your edits are beneficial. But if you succeed, it will likely be "Today's featured article" at some time in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin made GA in 2011, and then was a FA candidate in 2012 and 2013, but was not promoted. David notMD (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That's fascinating. . I wonder why it wasn't promoted:(. . :) THX Cdope666 (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

THX for chatting. . It all seems subjective considering it's up to Wiki's editors (first line in FA). . :) Cdope666 (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You can read the most recent FA review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Led Zeppelin/archive4, Cdope666. Of course there's always some element of editor judgment involved, but articles are assessed against a list of criteria. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The article has undergone more than 2,500 edits since the last FA review! That does not necessarily mean better, but it is much longer and with more references. David notMD (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Larry!!:) Cdope666 (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Cdope666, and welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds as if you think that being the subject of a Featured Article is somehow an honour or a tribute to the subject. It is not. Wikipedia articles are not in any way for the benefit (or the detriment) of their subjects. "Having an article" (a phrase I usually avoid, for just this reason) means only two things: enough has been published about the subject to meet the criteria for notability, and one or more Wikipedia editors have been interested enough to create the article. It says nothing about whether the subject is worthy or laudable - indeed, we have articles on many subjects that are neither. The same applies a fortiori to a Featured Article. ColinFine (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Colin and thanks for your reply and greetings. I've loved Wiki for almost 17 years and I always see articles that are obviously picked by the young generation that runs Wiki. To me having that Bronze star and being on the front page is special. Stupid I know. Many of things have been published. . most from 4 to 5 decades ago. Led Zeppelin is one of the highest selling bands and held attendance records for years. I really like one of the editors to do this. :):):) Cdope666 (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Getting my wikipedia article page to be seen when searching on Google

Hello there! I recently created a new wikipedia article page and it is approved. However, when I google it, the wikipedia page is still unable to be seen or found. How do I go about that? Able to help? Thank you! Lee Miao Si (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Miao Si: Welcome to the Teahouse, and congrats on getting an article into mainspace. New pages aren't indexed by search engines until a new pages reviewer approves it or ninety days have passed, whichever comes first. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Sorry can I check what does it mean by new pages reviewer approves it? Lee Miao Si (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Lee Miao Si. Tenryuu is referring to Wikipedia:New pages patrol or “NPP”. NPP are a group of users who go around checking on newly created articles to see whether they meet or at least have a credible chance of meeting any of Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. I believe NPP is a very basic assessment for which the goal is to find newly created which clearly are not ready for article status and figure out what to do with them as quickly as possible. You probably just need to be patient since it may take a bit of time for a NPP reviewer to assess the article you created. — Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

In addition, Google caches its search results, meaning that even when Google starts indexing it, any changes will not be immediately reflected. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 05:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Please need help on submission approval

Hello there, i recently created a new Wikipedia article page, it was reviewed and i have adjusted the article as indicated by reviews, Please help with approval, thank you

Akin.t (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Akinmade Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You will need to resubmit the draft for review. I see that you declared a conflict of interest, but your text on your user page suggests that you are a paid editor- if so, the Terms of Use require you make a formal declaration, please read WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Lede mentions "Ibadanpride" but that is not explained or referenced in text. David notMD (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Status: Draft:Kazeem Ayobami Bolarinwa has been submitted and Declined four times, the most recent Decline on 3 May 2022. Teahouse hosts advise, but are not all also serving as reviewers. David notMD (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the article, the problem is it doesn't show his notability at all. To be considered notable in Wikipedia terms, someone independent needs to write about him. If he's a social media influencer, then some reliable sources, independent of him (for example newspaper journalists acting on their own motivation, without input from him, his agents or publicists) need to write in depth about him, and how he is influencing media. Similarly, as a politician, it is not enough for him to publish his views, or for him to take part in interviews with the press, or be on committees that make statements and issue reports. Someone independent of him has to write, without provocation, "this politician Bolarinwa has done the following things...", and again it should be more than passing references in articles that are basically about other things or other people. If you cannot find such sources, then you can polish the existing text as much as you want, it will still get turned down. This isn't dreadful; lots of great people don't feature in Wikipedia articles. Elemimele (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

need a bracket template

need a bracket template that looks like the one below but has double legged semifinals. is there one? please tell me.

	Eliminators				Semi-finals				Final
					Semi-final 1
					Patna Pirates	38
	Eliminator 1
					UP Yoddha	27
	UP Yoddha	42
	Puneri Paltan	31
									Patna Pirates	36
									Dabang Delhi	37
					Semi-final 2
					Dabang Delhi	40
	Eliminator 2
					Bengaluru Bulls	35
	Gujarat Giants	29
	Bengaluru Bulls	49

Chinakpradhan (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thandie Newton Booted off Set of New Movie - Notable or Not?

Apparently she was co-starring in a movie, then replaced with another actress, after what the reports say was an argument with the star/producer of the movie. Here are a few references:

http://pagesix.com/2022/04/14/thandie-newton-fired-after-fight-with-channing-tatum-on-magic-mike-movie/

http://eurweb.com/2022/04/14/thandiwe-newton-denies-being-booted-from-magic-mike-3-after-arguing-with-channing-tatum-over-oscar-slap/

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/04/thandiwe-newton-denies-exit-from-magic-mike-3-was-result-of-alleged-channing-tatum-fight

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/film/128379552/reports-thandiwe-newton-left-magic-mike-over-spat-with-channing-tatum-inaccurate

Probably not of note, but here's me checking if it is worthwhile trying to add this to Tandy_Newton or not. Thanks in advance 69.112.128.218 (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. The best place to discuss this is Talk:Thandiwe Newton. Or you could be BOLD and add it, and see if anybody disagrees. ColinFine (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Questions for personal page

How do I make those tables signifying, my hobbies, ethics, and more? Makerman88 (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

There are other ways beside's what I will suggest, but this might be quicker than trying to learn things in an orderly, step-by-step manner; I suggest that if you see something on another user's personal page, you could click on the "edit" button on the top of the screen, go to the editing field, highlight and copy the section that you desire to mimic, and paste it into your page. Then edit and personalize it from that point. ВUT - do NOT edit or modify ANY other user's page. Just close the page without editing it. Only opening the edit screen for the purpose of copying the programming content of the page will not change the other user's page. You could also use a Wikipedia sandbox (WP:SAND) to experiment with the content that you are creating. Hope this is helpful to you. Good luck with it. 69.112.128.218 (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

hi Makerman88 and welcome to the teahouse! there are also loads and loads of userboxes you can use. you can compile them using {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}}, or using tables for larger collections (although that's a bit more complicated, but feel free to copy my userpage's code if you'd like to use that, I keep a table-based userbox collection). for userboxes about hobbies and other interests, please check out Userboxes/Interests. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Many new editors want to put in time customizing their User page (and some, their signature), which is obviously allowed, but working on a User page to the exclusion of working to improve the encyclopedia is frowned upon. In extreme cases editors have been indefintely blocked under WP:NOTHERE. David notMD (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That is interesting and a bit disconcerting. Is this policy (notthere) within the scope of working on a "sandbox" page? 69.112.128.218 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, that depends on what someone is doing in a sandbox. If they are developing encyclopedic content, or testing wikicode, then that is fine. If they are writing hoaxes, adding copyrighted material, attacking or threatening living people or posting massive amounts of gibberish, that is not fine and can result in a block. Cullen328 (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I did look up wp:notthere. Probably, or possibly, the Wikipedia sandbox function was omitted there, due to oversight. 69.112.128.218 (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Idea For Infobox, Unsure how to Proceed

I have what I consider to be a half decent idea for the Infobox template for Schools. I have mentioned it on the infobox template talk page here: Template talk:Infobox school#Adding A Useful UK Gov Link. I am wondering, is there any way I can get edit access to the template so that I can implement it myself?

Thanks in advance for any help - PRY86400 (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

hi PRY86400 and welcome to the teahouse! getting edit access to the template would require you to be a template editor, which would require one to be skilled in wikicode, especially in template creation and scripting to get. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank-you very much for your help! PRY86400 (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Difference between incorporating dates of reprints and different editions of books?

Wikipedia:Citing sources#Dates and reprints of older publications....On this guideline site it states that reprints of older publications should include both the date of the original publication and any modern day reprint. But for a book that is a different edition in a series (meaning the text has been examined and significant alterations to the text have been made including adding/removing of information in light of up to date research), would it be necessary to include the date of the first edition? Thanks in advance. Kamhiri (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

If you're citing the 7th edition, published in 2020, of a statistics textbook, readers will infer that there were at least six earlier editions, will probably have no interest in this, and, if they are interested, can easily look up the earlier ones at WorldCat or similar. If it's a revised and slightly augmented edition of a book that argues for this or that (such as Pinker's The Blank Slate or Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel) readers will of course need to know that it's the such-and-such edition (for the new page numbers, if nothing else), but would benefit from a subtle reminder that this is an update of an earlier book. If it's a corrected text of something regarded as literature (say, a "Library of America" reissue of an essay collection by Didion), then again, the subtle reminder. Are you finding inclusion of the additional year onerous, Kamhiri? (It shouldn't be.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

For this book, https://apnaorg.com/books/english/history-of-sikhs-v2/history-of-sikhs-v2.pdf. The first few pages state the preface to the first edition, the second edition, and the third edition. It started off as a PhD thesis for a prominent university scholar in 1937, the second edition in 1952 being a revised edition with many sections being added, some deleted, and clarifying statements and facts added. In 1978, the third edition having many changes added to it, including addition of information and deletion of other as well correction of mistakes and facts. So I'm wondering if the book is to be used, is it necessary to include the 1937 date as an original publication date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamhiri (talk • contribs) 13:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd say no, Kamhiri. It is necessary to state that this is a 2007 reprint of the 3rd edition of 1978, and to do so in such a way that there's no risk of a misunderstanding that 1978 was when the 1st edition was published. If this were a 1980 reprint, I normally wouldn't bother mentioning that it was a reprint. (There are cases when I would, but I shan't bother going into them here.) But it's unlikely that a 29-years-later "reprint" is a reprint in the straightforward sense, and there could be differences in the content, page numbering or both of the 1978 and the 2007 books. -- Hoary (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for your help Hoary!

• Hoary This is good discussion but question for you. Since majority of the content in 2nd and third edition still forwards from the 1st edition, so shouldn't original publication date be included in that case? Granted that some changes are added, removed and corrected but if we look at the majority, that should still be the same as the 1st edition, also especially if the pages in discussion were not part of the changes in 2nd or 3rd edition. So in this case, isn't it reasonable to add original publication date? What is your opinion on this? MehmoodS (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

No, there doesn't seem to me to be any obligation to say that the book dates back to 1952 (or earlier). Yes, it may be reasonable to say this. Kamhiri, MehmoodS, I notice that you have both been recently editing the article Battle of Lohgarh, and that this article is heavily dependent on this book. If you want/need to agree on how best in this article to refer to the 2007 version, then the best place to discuss the matter is Talk:Battle of Lohgarh. If the matter extends beyond this one article, then Talk:Battle of Lohgarh would still be a good place for discussion: the talk pages of other articles could point there. This place (the "teahouse") is not a good place, as material posted here is rapidly archived and then can't be added to. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Kamhiri, MehmoodS, I have started the discussion on Talk:Battle of Lohgarh. -- Hoary (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

MehmoodS, no need to follow my edits around, and thanks Hoary, I think I will ask an experienced editor/admin later on and report back on the talk page. Kamhiri (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hoary thank you for your suggestion and advise, well noted and helpful. Kamhiri please no need for such mistaken opinion. MehmoodS (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Page about pedophile

How can you create a page about a convicted pedophile without violating "BLP"? --2A01:36D:1201:34D:61BC:45D9:2CEA:8AD5 (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Judiciously. Incidentally, you'll only be able to create an article (whatever the subject) while you're logged in. -- Hoary (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You have to use WP:BLP good sources, nothing else. Don't write anything not clearly supported by your citations. Also, your sources have to meet the demands of WP:BASIC, preferably very clearly so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Judging by your activity on Ingenuity's talk page, you are very keen on the idea. Do not think of writing a draft whose assertions rely on Twitter chitchat. -- Hoary (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You have already had a draft Speedy deleted for insufficient referencing, and were warned. David notMD (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

"Insufficient referencing" may have been the reason specified, David notMD; but having seen the thing, I'd cite "juvenile inanity". It consisted of a single, short, and arguably defamatory sentence, repeated many times. -- Hoary (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I suggest you have a careful read of WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. ColinFine (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Level of information on a given wikipedia page

How can one settle an edit "argument" on the level of information that should be on a wikipedia page? Specifically for a school district. Delphinium1 (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Delphinium1. The answer is "by reaching consensus", not by appeal to authority, or some hypothetical "rule". See dispute resolution for the avaiable resources. ColinFine (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

And the answer also isn't edit-warring. Not a single established user has objected to my cleanup campaign of long-term abuse by Raindrop73; in fact several have thanked me for it. Raindrop73 added grotesquely inappropriate detail about Pennsylvania over a period of many years, especially to hundreds of public school districts in the state, making the articles ridiculously large compared to similar ones in other US states and around the world (see my above link). Wikipedia is not a place for information of hyperlocal and extreme fringe interest. Delphinium1, the only reason I'm not following up on my message on your talk page is your attempt to reach out to the community here. Also, you must declare any conflict of interest you have relating to this topic. Graham87 13:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the education of over a million students in PA a fringe interest. I removed nearly half of Raindrop73's edit information and this still isn't enough? Delphinium1 (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Also see this old help desk thread. Graham87 14:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I also looked at the revisions and the reversions, at the activity on the (Sayre Area School District) page. I found both versions to be fine. Still, in all, I feel that an encyclopedia is full of facts, that these facts are pedantic, and mostly of little interest to the majority of users. If anything, the more verbose version of the page is, in my view, MORE encyclopedic than the shorter version. These little, boring, and uninteresting facts that load an article up with a lot of verbiage are only of value to those who need them, and very occasionally. An encyclopedia is useful in that way, since the person who needs these little items of information is saved many hours of research, since those facts are gathered together in one place, having been put together by the author of the article. Of course, it would seem "unnecessary" to the casual reader. It is inherent in the composition of an encyclopedia that it contains boring facts. If this were an online pamphlet or an online magazine, such pedantic facts wouldn't belong here. Since this is an encyclopedia, I believe that too much summarization is less valuable than more verbosity. Most people, yes, do not need so many facts, but most people do not look up things in an encyclopedia on a regular basis. Additionally, the longer version of the article was very well composed and organized, and looks quite professional, impartial and uncontroversial. I hope this helps. 69.112.128.218 (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Reproducing - in detail - what a primary source (in this case, the Pennsylvania Department of Education) puts out isn't what any encyclopedia, much less Wikipedia, is for, IMHO. It's for collating what reliable secondary sources have decided is important and remarkable about the subject, and the words of these secondary sources are lost in that sea of primary material. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed much of this material with my most recent edit. Delphinium1 (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

No one, till now, mentioned plagiarism. That definitely makes a difference. Plagiarised content would be wrong to include on any page. If the page was composed of plagiarised material from the department of education, then it should be revised. 69.112.128.218 (talk)

I wasn't implying that anything had been plagiarized - I have no idea, I haven't checked (and since this is all apparently US government-produced material and probably under a compatible license, it would only need to be attributed anyway). My point was more aimed at WP:TOOMUCH and WP:NOT. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• I would say, try to settle the dispute on the article's talk page and try to reach consensus. If that doesn't help, then try to get 3rd opinion or go to dispute resolution link here. [12]. I believe there is also an option to involve admin if necessary. MehmoodS (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• This is now at ANI. Please take any comments there. FWIW I didn't notice Delphinium1's 14:34 (UTC) comment until now. Graham87 20:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The discussion at WP:ANI isn't about the original question, which was how to decide the level of detail in an article. Level of detail in an article is often a matter of dispute. The applicable policy, which is the second pillar of Wikipedia, is neutral point of view, but that doesn't answer how much information to provide. Similarly, the balance guideline and the due weight guideline expand on neutral point of view, and don't provide a clear statement as to what is too much detail. If there is disagreement, discuss on the article talk page, or ask for a Third Opinion, or for moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. If those are inconclusive, a Request for Comments can be used. There is no single answer, and how much detail to include in an article is often argued about. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Heart line, similar to {{hr}}

Hello,

I would like to make a "line" of "hearts" similar to how you can make a horizontal line and can determine the number of pixels using the template {{hr|10}} for 10 for example. See my talk page for an example, I think it is pretty clear what I am trying to do. Would love it if someone can help me to accomplish this. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 13:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I reformatted you question how I think you intended it to appear.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Th78blue. I think you could use {{loop}}, so that for four hearts, {{loop|4|{{heart}}}} renders as ♥♥♥♥. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I just want to make a line so that it renders in such a way as to be a complete line across the screen, fit to screen for whatever computer or device someone is using. Like the hr one. {. {. hr }. } } ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 17:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

By the way, to make a template appear as plain text but not as the actual template, you can either use {{tl}} or surround it with <nowiki> and </nowiki> ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

How can I create an article?

I want to know how to create a article to show my perspective of world events. THEBULL48 (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@THEBULL48: Hello THEBULL! Unfortunately, even if we told you how to create an article, an article "to show your perspective of world events" wouldn't be accepted as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought which is what you want to do. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

THEBULL48 (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. That is not what articles are for- articles are for summarizing what independent reliable sources say about a topic. If you just want to tell the world your views on world events, please use social media or a blogging website. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Her to hers

Can i give a permission to edit all the her pronoun to hers in possesive context? aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (crying at the top of the lungs) 114.122.73.93 (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't understand why you would want to do that. Can you please give an example of where you think that might be appropriate? Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. You certainly don't have permission to edit all "her" to "hers", because in many contexts (whenever it precedes a noun phrase) that would not be grammatical. If there are particular uses of "her" that should be "hers" (because they are stand-alone noun phrases meaning "belonging to her"), then you can certainly correct them - you don't need permission. ColinFine (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 114.122.73.93. I have looked at your previous edits to Wife, which Wesoree has, quite correctly, reverted (although I think their assessment of your edits as vandalism is probably an overstatement).

I suspect that you think you were correcting errors: you were not – the text was correct, and it appears that your grasp of formal English is less than perfect. I strongly suggest that you refrain from attempting "corrections" to grammar on the English Wikipedia until you have studied the language in a classroom setting for a few (more?) years. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.88.97 (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Sentences where "her" is correct are far more common than "hers" in English so if you don't know enough English grammar to choose then I suggest to pick "her" when you speak or write, and don't change what others have written. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki-meetups and events

I'd love to meet some other wikipedians, and I've heard about/read about meetups in the past. Especially pre-COVID. Do any such things still go on? Where can I learn more about these, or when another such event might occur and where? I am based in the United States. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 17:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The information on that is at WP:MEET, which does have some planned meetings listed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Th78blue, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, so basically Michael D. Turnbull is correct. I’m speaking for myself now, my honest advice would be for you to avoid such gatherings, (a) you expose your true identity, (b) you shouldn’t be in any gatherings, their are multiple variants of the virus, Infact you shouldn’t be in the same space with more than 5 people, this is just my advice as Celestina. Thank you for stopping by, please feel free to do so more often. Celestina007 (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for your feedback. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 17:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

How to handle unattached references

Hi, there's a bit of a reference mess at Early childhood. A new editor, Makayla rosenfeld1127 has attempted to improve this article, and has added a lot of references. Unfortunately they accidentally messed up the reflist template while doing so, so the original inline citations piled up at the bottom of the article. I've re-added the reflist template, so the inline ones are now correct, but Makayla has added a load of "hard wired" references with numbers, though unfortunately hasn't indicated where these should be cited in the text. As a result, it's now a bit of a mess, because the hard-wired ones pile up as one huge blob of text at the end, with just one being cited, and that as a single number at the bottom of the inline citations. Since Makayla has only had one editing-session so far, there's no guarantee they'll be back to fix this. I don't want to revert the whole lot, because these may be useful references, assembled with some care. I wanted to convert them to properly-entered named references so they could be cited by name from the text, if desired, but that doesn't work very well either. What's the correct way to sort this out? I've put a link to WP:REFBEGIN and some hints on Makayla's talk-page in case they're back, but it'd be nice to sort it out if they don't come back. Many thanks for any advice, Elemimele (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Elemimele, you are a regular so I think we can skip welcoming, if they have messed up the article simply revert it to the last best version, if you say there are some good references they added then copy them and paste them elsewhere in your computer, and when the revert is completed, using the proper cite method reinsert them all properly. Celestina007 (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Celestina007, thanks! ah, okay, I have to convert them into Short Citations and list them separately to the reflist. I'll have a go, after I've fed my kid! I've never done a general reference before, so stupidly, I'd never read WP:GENREF. Learning! Elemimele (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

How do I edit a submission that has already been submitted? Or unpublished Pages?

Title Nedstarkx (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nedstarkx: Hello Ned! If you are referring to the draft you created, I hate to tell you this but, Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your Discord server. There are other places better suited for a task like that, but unfortunately Wikipedia isn't one of them. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: No you don't hate to tell him. ;-) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You're right. I don't. I'm just phrasing it that way so it sounds like I"m trying to be nice instead of just being like "We don't accept promotion. Go elsewhere." ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Kickstarter and other fundraising websites

Is there a guideline, policy, or essay that directly addresses the use of websites like Kickstarter? There are shortcuts for WP:TWITTER, WP:YOUTUBE, WP:IMDb, WP:FACEBOOK, etc. but I'm not seeing any guidelines, policies, or essays that explicitly mention Kickstarter or GoFundMe (i.e. WP:KICKSTARTER or WP:GOFUNDME). I would've expected them to be listed at WP:RSP or at least mentioned at WP:RS, WP:V, or WP:ELP. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of one. Off the top of my head, WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:SPS applies and existing doesn't mean should be included. I've mentioned kickstarter in a couple of articles, but sourced to independent RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

If you wanted to use the link as part of a citation, then perhaps this or (as pointed out above) this would apply. If you wanted to use the link as an external link, then perhaps this would apply. If you have a specific link and a specific use in mind, you can ask about it here or here. — Marchjuly (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, TipsyElephant. Here is my opinion. Those sites are crowdfunding sites, which are a subtype of crowdsourcing sites. The content is user generated and therefore fails the requirements of a reliable source. See WP:UGC for details. I suspect that they are not listed at WP:RSP is because it is rare that anyone would try to cite them. Cullen328 (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Weird table of contents on article way to small for a table ot contents

I ecently wrote this article Interfax-Religion and it displays a very strange table of contents. File:Interfax Religion Error.png how can we fix this? Why is it happening? Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 20:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused - it looks like an entirely normal table of contents to me. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Immanuelle, and welcome to the Teahouse. What are you expecting to see? The TOC contains all the section headings from the article, so I don't know what else you expect to see there. ColinFine (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe they meant the word-wrapping that occurred when they used {{TOC left}}? But removing it has fixed that issue. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

idk what happened to this page, but that's right {{Ping|User:ColinFine}} the template made it wrap weirdly and removinf it fixed it Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 20:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

There were <nowiki> shenanigans. Hopefully they have been unshenaniganed. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: You translated ru:Интерфакс-Религия which uses the same template and displays in the same way. The code was simply copied during the translation. I don't know the practice of the Russian Wikipedia but the article has no reason to use the template in the English Wikipedia so you were right to remove it. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Immanuelle. When I look at the article on an Android smartphone using the fully functional desktop site, the Table of contents looks pretty normal to me. The only exception is that it displays to the left. Is that what you intended? Displaying the Table of contents to the right is by far the most common, at least on English Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

CEDU

Over the last couple of weeks, a lot of information has been removed from the CEDU Wiki page. A lot of the information was sourced. There seems to be no rhyme or reason for what is removed and what is permitted to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.15.157 (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)  ―  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerfjkl (talk • contribs) 20:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Qwerfjkl. Unless they are clearly Vandalism - which I would say they are not - then if you disagree, open a discussion with SkidMountTubularFrame on Talk:CEDU. See WP:BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe Qwerfjkl simply moved the IP's comment from where it had been (mis)posted on the talk page. The double signature is definitely confusing. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Editing an original stub created by another contributor

I am going to edit a stub that was created by someone else. There is an accurate sentence and I have written to the author. I will fine editing the chapters, but how can I correct the initial stub paragraph? Soquelrob (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Soquelrob, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a gadget you can turn on in your preferences, which will give you an "edit" link in the lead section of an article. Alternatively, you can pick "Edit" at the top of the page to edit the whole page. Does that answer your question?

"There is an accurate sentence and I have written to the author" does not seem to make much sense: do you mean "an inaccurate sentence"? In any case, while it may be courteous to contact the original author, especially if it was recent, there is no requirement to do so: an article does not belong to the original editor, or to anybody else. ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

conflicting sources

If there is an archived link that has one piece of information and a PDF link which has a different piece of information, which source should be used in an article? 73.167.238.120 (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse! The reliable sources guideline says "..some sources provide stronger or weaker support for a given statement. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources for each statement." If one source seems far more reliable than another, that source could then be preferrable (though the format alone of the source does not make it so). This essay section, while not outright policy, also suggests possible resolutions for such problems. Does this answer your question? Perfect4th (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much! What if the link is dead and only the archived link works? 73.167.238.120 (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Link rot gives some guidance for dealing with dead links. Cullen328 (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Copying tables from other articles to use as a template

I just wanted to ask if copying and using a table from another wikipedia page as a template is okay? Lightless1 (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Lightless1, and welcome to the Teahouse! I assume you mean you're trying to copy the formatting of a table to use in another article. That is perfectly fine! When you use it in your target page, you may want to use the Preview feature to ensure that nothing else from the original page snuck into your content, though. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the help! Lightless1 (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Lightless1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. When you are copying any text from one area of Wikipedia to another, make sure to attribute the original page. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Help!

Hello, Good morning/night. My name is Leonardinho and im done editing my sandbox, i would like to submit it for review and move pages (Change the title). Leonardinho Báez (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you want to submit your article to Articles for Creation, there is a blue button on the top of your sandbox that you press which says "submit your article for review". Click it, and it will guide you through the process for you. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

hi Leonardinho Báez and welcome to the teahouse! I've added a template to your sandbox that will allow you to easily publish your draft by just pressing the button. however before you do, please take note of the notability guidelines for people: does de Marchena count as notable under one of these guidelines? once you do, please add reliable, independent sources stating such (not youtube, not facebook). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Fortaleza de Santa Teresa. I would love to know if the poem from Buenaventura Ureta is still there inside a cupula please

Buenaventura Ureta was my mom's grandfather and he wrote a poem and for what my mom remembered it was place inside a cupula by the Fortaleza de Santa Teresa. Babe2012 (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

hi Babe2012 and welcome to the teahouse' unfortunately this is not the place for such questions. the best way to answer this would probably to ask your mom if it's still there, or (if you can) head over there yourself. happy reading! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Fortaleza de Santa Teresa, in Uruguay, for the other insatiably curious folks out there. It seems like a place that might have a lot of cupolas to search. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It's SOCCER.

Nobody calls it "association football". 2A01:36D:1201:34D:61BC:45D9:2CEA:8AD5 (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Mostly agree, except of course it's FOOTBALL. However, see "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" near the top of Talk:Association football. If you're not on a laptop, you may have to tap something to see it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Most people call it football, except Americans who have a game I call handegg. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 08:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree it's mostly called football, and we shouldn't default to US terminology for the sport. However, many places on Wikipedia call it "association football" to distinguish it from other sports known as "football" in some countries e.g. American football, Australian rules football, Gaelic football. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

And IP user, please stop trying to remove all of List of association football competitions, and redirecting it to the non-existent page List of soccer competitions. You will get blocked if you continue. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

How can i get a pages quality changed

Hi there i have put some work into the page Breviceps fuscus and believe it is now a C class article on the quality scale as it has a similar layout Adelophryne maranguapensis and some other articles which are C-class do you believe that Breviceps fuscus is of c class quality and if it is how can i get it changed to c class Massimo510 (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Massimo510 Until you get into GA/FA territory, these quality marks are informal and anyone is allowed to change them, but changes should of course follow the linked quality scales. So you can do it yourself, or try asking at the talkpage of one of the wikiprojects mentioned on the article talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Appears you decided to upgrade from Start to C-class. David notMD (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Possible copyright infringement: You uploaded an image of the frog https://greensavers.sapo.pt/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/sapo.jpg from Green Savers on 26 February. How is that not a copyright infringement? At Wikimedia Commons there are four images of Breviceps fuscus, including the one you used, and the other three have been nominated for deletion on 4 May 2022. David notMD (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

And now, this one has been nominated, too. David notMD (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Massimo510 Did you steal screenshot of all the images you uploaded to Wikimedia and claimed were under a CC-BY-SA licence? I have nominated others for deletion. Please don't do that again unless you are clear the image has been properly licenced, or if you took it yourself, of course. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

OLa

parabéns Pmpso (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pmpso: Welcome to the Teahouse. Do you need help with editing Wikipedia? The Tips of Apmh 12:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

why are editors like PKT who have conflict of interest in durham allowed to remove a report i sourced well?

it seems editor PKT has a conflict of interest removing anything negative about durham region, i live out here and there is a homeless crisis like no other BigCdogWS (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@BigCdogWS: Hello BigCdog! While i can't say anything about the editor (PKT pinging so hopefully they can provide us with a bit more of an explanation), I can tell you that while you may live there, your own knowledge of the region cannot be included in the article as it is considered original research which is not permitted in articles. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I reverted some bad editing with inadequate references. Details were left on BigCdogWS's talk page, and of course their edits are in the history of Regional Municipality of Durham. Specifically regarding the reference: BigCdogWS was referring to a committee report, but their reference was merely to "www.durham.ca", and not to the committee's report. This made the text impossible to check into. PKT(alk) 15:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

By the way, if I could verify information from the committee report, I'll be happy to help shape the referencing and language of the text into something acceptable to Wikipedia standards. PKT(alk) 15:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

that is a bold faced obfuscation of truth!...durham region website www.durham.ca is where you can access the advisory committee minutes, you are a hired shill by durham region is my thoughts BigCdogWS (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@BigCdogWS: We need to keep this topic on the content and not on the user aspirations especially without any sort of evidence as per our no personal attacks, PKT has given a valid reason for their removal of your edit. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@BigCdogWS: Please refrain from the personal attacks, and understand that Wikipedia cites the closest webpage for verifiability. The Durham homepage is inadequate for citing purposes, so actually pointing to the minutes would be helpful. Furthermore, your edit was not in a neutral tone, and I would've reverted it on sight as well. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

thanks to you the fake news keeps coming, you are shameful BigCdogWS (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@BigCdogWS: I will thank you to strike that personal attack, as it is becoming increasingly apparent that you may not be a good fit for a collaborative project. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@BigC: If you do not know how to strike a comment we would be willing to assist you with learning how to do so. All you have to do is ask. --ARoseWolf 15:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

i agree as i lost my cool....i am going to become a editor as i see so much fake news on wikipedia pushing "agendas" without proper references....this may work out well, what is good for the goose is good for the gander lol....i will try to relax, i agree i let things get to me at times as a person with disability...furthermore as a person with disability i notice human rights violations on this site i am now addressing BigCdogWS (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Before you get too deep into addressing any human rights violations, you might want to take a quick look at WP:No legal threats. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

you can easily go to wwww.durham.ca and access the advisory committee on homelessness minutes to see what i am saying is correct, our state funded news like cbc has been hiding the crisis in durham that is the worst in canada...if all we write are positive lies our readers will fall victim to the reality that durham region is unsafe due to homelessness fostering hard crime....even oshawa police chief martin was entangled in corruption with criminal chair john henry...i live here, i know what is going on!!...i sourced things correctly, wikipedia should ban PKT from further edits BigCdogWS (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@BigCdogWS: Once again, you did not source correctly; please provide a link directly to the minutes, and absorb WP:NPOV. Otherwise, please discuss on the article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

BigC - It is 100% on you to provide a reference that links to the advisory committee report/minutes on homelessness. David notMD (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

What I would suggest is that BigCdogWS go to the article talk page and begin discussions with @PKT because the only way this is going to be resolved is through good faith collaborative efforts. I would also like to remind @BigCdog that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA is a thing. Lets avoid casting aspersions when discussing. --ARoseWolf 15:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Are these the minutes? In which case they do not support the assertion made  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe that those just describe what happened at the meeting, and that BigC is referring to a specific report on Homelessness. However, I've been looking on the Durham website for the past ten or so minutes and haven't found anything yet. ― Tuna + 15:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

as a person with disability i have serious human rights law concerns with this site and the "agendas" being pushed like attacks on good places like russia without proof other than state funded media theories from government paid shills like cbc...i have a degree in political science from sir wilfred grenfell, i am going to be become a editor too and start challenging references myself....if you can't beat them join them lol BigCdogWS (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@BigCdogWS, you're trying to provide references in good faith, but you haven't quite worked out our standards yet. Are you willing to work with us on your talk page to figure out how to do this right? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.durham.ca/en/doing-business/durham-advisory-committee-on-homelessness.aspx#Mandate is a link to the Committee, with links within that to minutes of recent meetings. A statement about the state of homelessness in Durham can be made as long as it is verified by a link to minutes of a meeting. Unfortunately, the published minutes do not include attachments, which could be such a report. David notMD (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the ultimate result was a block. Reka Szekely does seem to be a journalist who's published on poverty issues in the area, if anyone wants to look further into incorporating something into the article. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

We tried. David notMD (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Just a question about spaces...

I noticed that while editing in the source editor it appears as if there is always at least two spaces in between any one sentence to the next. Is this real? Or am I imagining things, and I gather these spaces do not render when then published and viewed from the perspective of a reader, right? Is this just part of the coding for the encyclopedia? I sometimes remove these, but I'm beginning to think that they have no effect, and that they are automatically generated. So there is no point. As best I can tell. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Th78blue: I see them occasionally. They don't render when articles are being read, but some editors are used to leaving two spaces in-between sentences as style. I personally remove them as extraneous. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Got it. If that is all that it is, then I also would remove them when I see them as extraneous. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

As someone who learned to type when the dinosaurs were still around, I was taught that terminal punctuation must be followed by two spaces. Therefore, I wouldn't necessarily say it's erroneous, more an outdated convention, and I for one don't see the need to change it, especially as it makes no difference to page rendering. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Neither of us said that they were erroneous; only that they were redundant when it came to being rendered. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

We even have an article on the history of how this happened, Sentence_spacing. Unfortunately the article is exemplary in adopting a neutral point of view, so it's not going to tell you whether double spaces are good or bad. My take on it is that double spaces between sentences are a habit that some people were taught, particularly people with a slightly formal, old-fashioned secretarial training, but it's not very relevant in the modern world. I don't do it myself, but I certainly wouldn't actively remove it either, it's part of typography's rich pageant. Elemimele (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Posting first new page

I could use a little help creating my first Wikipedia page.

I have been writing and editing a page called, Leona's Sister Gerri in Sandbox. I would like to move the page from Sandbox to a regular Wiki page. I understand that this will take a while for the page to be reviewed and hopefully approved.

After I made revisions to the page, I tapped the "publish" button.

Is that all I need to do, or is there another step?

In order to get the page up and running as quickly as possible, I would like to submit the page now although I would still like to make revisions and additions of new material.

Does my making revisions put the process of approval back, or can they happen simultaneously? FilmFiend (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, FilmFiend. You have not yet submitted Draft:Leona's Sister Gerri for review, and I strongly suggest that you wait a while and do more work on it first. You do not have any properly formatted references, but just a list of bare URLs at the end. Read Referencing for beginners and convert those URLs into properly formatted inline citations. Then, go to WP:AFC to learn how to submit the draft for review. Continuing work on a draft after submission should not have an effect on how long the review will take. Cullen328 (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I have moved the content to Draft:Leona's Sister Gerri where you can continue to work on it. In due course , when it is properly sourced, you may submit it for review which, if successful, will publish the article to mainspace.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I have to say, your article reads rather like a (favorable) magazine review--or perhaps even a promotional press release. I have nothing to do with deciding what Drafts pass muster, but from what I've seen, I think you'll need to edit out such phrases and expressions as:

• ... approaches one of the most divisive topics ...
• ... tells the dramatic story of ...
• Reprinted thousands of times ...
• ... this grisly photo ...
• ... pro-choice icon.
• Powerfully addressing issues of ...
• ... video is a moving portrait of ...

There are a bunch more wrapped in quotes; they might be all right if you properly attribute the quote, but right now, there is not a clue where the quote came from.

There are no sources, but lots of "External" links (a link to a Wikipedia article is not external) largely to things that would be meant to promote the film. One could suspect that your goal in this endeavor is not so much to improve Wikipedia as an information reference, but to "get the message out" in a timely way, given recent goings-on in the news. That's something for blogs or magazine articles, not for Wikipedia or for pretty much any other encyclopedia. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll work on the draft. FilmFiend (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@FilmFiend, just a friendly nudge to check out WP:COI, as you will likely need to be very familiar with it if you are going edit articles which you have a Conflict of Interest in (although the best advice, generally, is don't edit with a COI!). HenryTemplo (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

FilmFiend, there's a copyright violation at the end of the opening (lead) section. If you want to quote material written by someone else, you must attribute it. I think the quoted material is from here, but it's behind a paywall so I can't check. Maproom (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I have generally rewritten the article to make it more suitable for Wiki. I have removed the quotation. FilmFiend (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

My Wikipedia Subpages

I have a question about the legitimacy of this deletion. So, I made custom Wikipedia Sandbox Pages (not an article that you can easily access), and the only way to access it was to search User:TatiVogue/. An administrator deleted it saying I was using "misinformation". It was not a real Wikipedia article, it was a user sandbox, AND I stated it was my custom season to improve my English & Wikipedia editing. Please tell me if this was legitimate or not. Also, excuse my English, because it is not my first language. TatiVogue (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be in regards to Bbb23, whom I'll courtesy ping here. OP also seems to have created User talk:Bbb23/sandbox to leave a templated warning. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, TatiVogue. You were creating several hoax articles in your userspace. That is not permitted. Cullen328 (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

TatiVogue, you also forged another editor's signature in their userspace. That is outright disruptive and you need to stop this behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

When?? Also, how is it a hoax. I never passed it off as real, and I even stated it was fake. I was believing/tricking/manipulating anyone into believing it was real. Also, I just copied & pasted something. TatiVogue (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

No, you never stated it was fake. Never. casualdejekyll 16:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Do not engage in any further disruptive behavior. You have been warned. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service for you to create hoax articles. Cullen328 (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The thing is, it was my sandbox. You could've just warned me & told me to specify more clearly that it was not a real article! TatiVogue (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Oy user page, I said custom drag race season. Also, instead of immediately deleting it, you could just told me to better clarify that it was fake. Also, people can use common sense to decipher that it is fake. It's not a draft, not an official wikipedia article, and Tati Vogue appears as a guest judge. Tati Vogue isn't even a real person. TatiVogue (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@TatiVogue: In this diff, where you used Bb223's signature rather than your own. I strongly recommend you slow down, as it seems you might not be here to contribute to an encyclopedia (particularly when one uses Wikipedia like a web host), which may end in your account being blocked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, no tea no shade no pink lemonade but you're a grown adult and can't tell if an article is fake... As I said, no tea no shade but I did specify that it was FAKE & CUSTOM on my user page. I worked a lot to experience myself with WikiText & be more familiar with editing, and for all my work just to be taken away without even a first warning to specify that it was fake more clearly is extremely irritating. This whole situation makes me want to quit Wikipedia, because I worked extremely hard on these articles, and even struggled HARDER than the average Wikipedia user because English isn't my first language, and I had to work extremely hard. TatiVogue (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

If you would like to have more experience with wiki markup, might I suggest you try out the interactive tutorial? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

You created nine sandbox pages that contained hoax articles (included seasons of RuPaul that have not yet occured). Hence the "Blatant hoax" reason for deleting. Does not matter that all this was in Sandbox, as everything at Wikipedia is public. It's why the button at the bottom is Publish rather than Save. David notMD (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you have just left on my talk page, "Hello, can you specify that these articles are NOT REAL." TatiVogue (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

TatiVogue, the answer is no. You are misusing Wikipedia as a free web host and that is contrary to policy. Please read WP:U5 and stop arguing. Cullen328 (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Also read WP:FAKEARTICLE. Cullen328 (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

If you want to create custom articles, may I recommend Fandom? You can start your own Wiki there and not worry about Wikipedia's rules. HenryTemplo (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Although Fandom does have some rules about the content that can be in any Wiki, although they aren't nearly as strict as Wikipedia's ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, @TatiVogue, your work isn't permanently "lost". While it won't be allowed on Wikipedia publicly (for the reasons stated by other uses above) , administrators should have access to your deleted sandbox pages. Some of them are even willing to provide you with a copy, just ask nicely and you might be in luck! HenryTemplo (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. TatiVogue (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Your welcome! I hope you continue to make productive edits to Wikipedia, and help contribute in the ways you can! Enjoy your day! HenryTemplo (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively, there's also Miraheze that offers similar freedoms. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I was once a fandom user in 2019, but I was a lot more immature back then seeing as I had just turned 13. I'm sorry if I came across rude/immature, and I'm sorry that I didn't fully read the rules. I'll keep this in my brain next time I continue to edit Wikipedia. Thank you TatiVogue (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

How do I edit the place of death on the panel on right side of page?

The place of death in the panel on the right of the page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Robert_Mackenzie,_10th_Baronet needs to be changed to London, England. GGraver (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The text of the article - Personal life - states he died in London, but there is no reference for that. Provide a ref for place of death first, and then change place in the Infobox. David notMD (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@David notMD: I would like to note that the reference stating he died in London might be in there, however there's only 1 inline citation in the entire article making it unclear what reference is supporting what claim. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf and GGraver: After taking a look at the article and using the "Find" section of my browser, it's not the inline source that's cited, it's this one [13], which is the third source linked in the sources section. Clovermoss (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC); edited for clarification

@Clovermoss: I figured it wouldn't be the single source that is cited. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I took a look at that article, and it's been lacking inline citations pretty much since it was created (although it was unsourced when it was created the first source was added in 2007 and it just happened to be the source for his death). Might need checking to see if the person is actually notable by modern standards. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Ouch, if asking a simple question resulted in an AfD nomination. David notMD (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not necessarily the user's fault if that happens. They just happened to come across an article with an inaccuracy, which more experienced editors fixed (me after we found out what source supported the claim) as well as other issues. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf and David notMD: The lede mentions that he was a Premier of Queensland. From my understanding of WP:NPOL, he'd likely meet it. Clovermoss (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Many thanks for correcting place of death. The death was reported in The Scotsman - Monday 22 September 1873, p 8 as well as the Pall Mall Gazette - Wednesday 24 September 1873, p 4. He also has an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography although I have also contacted them to correct his place of death from Scotland to London.

Regards GGraver (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

He's in the ODNB, he's surely fine by current notability standards. I haven't gone looking for other WP:SIGCOV but I'd be really surprised to learn it couldn't be found. -- asilvering (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hirtle chart

Hi, we seems to have an article which is not really an article. Should I ask its author first, move it to the project namespace and tag the redirect for deletion, take it to AfD or... ? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 17:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but the page appears to be a redirect to Commons, I would leave it as is. More experienced editors, let me know if I'm wrong! HenryTemplo (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

One of only 12 (that are in the hidden category and excluding the 2 shorthand redirects which I'm fairly sure would go to commons anyways) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Never seen that before. Could be considered helpful, but I wonder "should we do that?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Help me do Clean up

Please i need Help for page clean up Rashida Bello and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:First_Ladies_of_Nigerian_state_governors Dorathy Nnaji (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @Dorathy Nnaji: Are you looking for help on generally improving the article, or are there specific "clean up" edits you need help making? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

How to ask a question in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elections?

How would I raise a question in Wikpedia:WikiProject_Elections? The question- which I mistakenly raised here- can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1150#UK_By-Elections_link_to_last. Thanks 18egr (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@18egr: You can simply ask the same question at the Wikiproject's talk page at WT:WikiProject Elections and Referendums ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much! 18egr (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Three Questions re. Citations

May I ask,

1. What are the most important factors regarding the provenance of sources used as citations?
2. Is it good practice to use multiple cited sources that help to evidence a statement? Such as: He played basketball for major teams in Canada.^[1][2]
3. It seems that articles from established newspapers favourable to Wikipedia are often behind a pay wall, how does this affect the perceived quality of an article's references and the article as a whole?

Thanks,

WikiArticleCheck (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

WikiArticleCheck Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Sources must be reliable sources with a reputation of fact checking and editorial control. This usually excludes things like some blogs. The number of sources needed for a particular statement can vary depending on how controversial it might be; something fairly non-controversial like someone playing for a sports team probably does not need many sources. A paywall is not a barrier to using a source, see WP:PAYWALL. Sources do not need to be free or easy to access, as long as they are available to the public(such as something in a non-online archive in a library). 331dot (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@WikiArticleCheck It's also worth having a look at WP:RSP if you're feeling uncertain about how to evaluate sources, especially newspaper sources, which come up pretty frequently and often have an existing consensus on whether they are "reliable" or not that you can find on that page. -- asilvering (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Frequent Grammer Issues

I have descried that most articles have over 47 grammar issues, I was wondering if someone could proofread the text. 98s (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

You're requesting that 'someone' proofread nearly six and a half million articles? How long would you expect that to take?

All of Wikipedia's articles are in principle ongoing projects, but all of Wikipedia's editors are unpaid volunteers who are free to choose what they do (or don't). Only a small proportion are interested in actively pursuing copyediting, though many will copyedit something needing it if they happen to stumble across it.

If you're interested in helping out, there is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. (I myself have resisted joining it as, being an ex-professional copyeditor, I know that if I did it would consume my every available waking hour to the exclusion of all else.) However, you probably first need to learn how to spell "Grammar" ;-). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.88.97 (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)