Wikipedia:Teahouse

Tenryuu, 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

"this is my template. there are many like it but this one is mine"

is there any real problem with using custom templates for things like welcomes (for example, one more geared for music-centered accounts, or one that clarifies whether or not wikipedia is censored), userbox handling, or bludgeoning people with marine fauna?

this obviously means only things that go on user and talk pages, and i wouldn't risk using custom warnings cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 14:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cog-san: That is no problem at all!

For instance, I created {{subst:link current revision}} to easily get the permalink to a given page. I find it super-useful: compared to going through the page history, clicking the revision, copy-pasting the URL, I can just preview the source. As far as I can tell, there is no other template or user script doing a similar job, and nobody else ever uses mine (but maybe this shameless plug will fix that?). So that’s pretty strong evidence that my taste is uncommon.

The only things to watch would be performance-hogging templates. As long as you don’t use any of the magic words / parser functions marked "[expensive]" and colored in orange in the MW doc you should be fine. (If you don’t know what magic words are, you’re probably not using them.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

nice

i guess that template would help with a decent warning one if i were to try it, even though it'd involve warning before reverting an edit

and fortunately, the templates i had planned out _{(in word so it doesn't show up in my sandbox history)} aren't really more complex than text, unfunny pictures whose copyright i'm looking into, and a small handful of links

and uh

are templates made in mediawiki or in a link my intellectually deprived nutrient disposal orifice somehow missed in here? cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 17:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I have read that last sentence three times, and I still don't know what you're trying to say.

But there is nothing to stop you creating user subpages as templates (provided they do not contravene WP:UPNO, of course) and transcluding them in your user page or elsewhere. Any page can be transcluded by using the double curly brackets: if there is no namespace given, it assumes "Template:", but you could just as well transclude User:Cog-san/mytemplates/1 or whatever, by {{User:Cog-san/mytemplates/1}} ColinFine (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

_{it means "dumb ass"}

so that's where it was

thanks

fortunately, nothing i want to make would break those rules, and the possibly maybe copyrighted image wasn't copyrighted at all cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 11:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Tigraan: a link to the current revision of a page is a good tool. There is already a "Permanent link" item in the page toolbox, and it also works for any older revision of a page too. When looking at a page of interest, right-click gives the browser-popup for coping it to the clipboard. DMacks (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cogsan:, If you have a welcome template you created, please consider adding it to the list at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#User-hosted. You may also want to look at the other welcome templates on that page. Mathglot (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Rejected Page

Hello, I've previously developed several Wikipedia pages that have been successfully accepted. My most recent page, dedicated to Mike Boateng, who I believe to be the most prominent subject among all my created pages, was unfortunately rejected. I find this perplexing because he is extremely well-known in the UK, verified on Instagram, boasts a follower count of over 300,000, and has been extensively covered by highly reputable UK publications. Given this evidence of his notability, I'm unsure why the feedback I received doesn't align. What additional steps can I take to ensure this page is approved? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mike_Boateng Justtheeditor1 (talk) 10:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Justtheeditor1: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. @Turnagra:, the person who declined the page, is in a better position to explain the reason behind their decline, I've pinged them here for that reason. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Justtheeditor1 The problem is likely to be summed up by your heart.co.uk cite which includes the heading "How does Mike describe himself?". Wikipedia articles need to be based on third-party sources which meet these criteria. Typically reality-TV stars and "celebs" are self-promoting: they only become notable here when discussed by sources that have not been fed information. Technically, your draft was not rejected but only declined, which means it could be improved to meet the notability test. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I have thoroughly considered your comments and have undertaken revisions to address the concerns raised. In an effort to improve the reliability and demonstrate the notability of the subject, Mike Boateng, I have supplemented the page with additional citations from credible sources. I kindly request the page is reconsidered for approval. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I am reaching out again to seek your response concerning the inquiry that was previously made. I have patiently waited for over four months, only to receive a notification of the page was declined due to the inclusion of a single article. This article could have been effortlessly removed, which I have now done. Moreover, I have enriched the content with the addition of new credible articles. Considering these modifications, could you kindly approve the page now? Justtheeditor1 (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Justtheeditor1: Your article is put in the backlog (not a queue) for reviewers to review. Kindly be patient, as usually it's a lot easier to decline articles than to approve them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Kia ora @Justtheeditor1 - I can definitely appreciate how frustrating that would have been, and I'm sorry to have done it. Mike is right about that source, but I was also a bit unsure about many of the other sources being from tabloids with questionable reliability. I also noted that nearly every source you've got uses the words "Love Island's Mike Boateng", which makes me question whether Boateng is notable in his own right or whether he's only getting these articles by virtue of Love Island being notable. It would be useful to have some other sources with slightly better reliability that help to demonstrate that Boateng is notable in his own right, not just through being a contestant on a notable TV show. Turnagra (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I understand your concerns and I'd like to clarify a few points on the notion of notability.

Firstly, it's important to acknowledge that notability isn't only achieved through individual accomplishments or personal talents. In fact, many individuals gain their notability through their affiliation with significant events, businesses, or shows. In this instance, Mike Boateng's participation in Love Island has undoubtedly played a significant role in his public visibility. Yet, it's not simply his participation that has brought him to public attention, it is his personality, character, and actions within that framework that have made him noteworthy.

On that note, the common reference to him as "Love Island's Mike Boateng" in various articles does not negate his individual notability, but rather places him within the context where his notability was first realized. It serves as an identifier, a testament to his participation in an event that is both highly publicized and significant within popular culture.

Secondly, as for the quality of the sources, it's true that not all media outlets carry the same weight in terms of reliability. However, we must consider the audience and the sphere in which Mike operates. Popular media and tabloid press are integral to the entertainment and reality TV industry, therefore their coverage of Mike is both relevant and influential.

Lastly, there seems to be confusion between Mike Boateng and another individual by the same name, causing diluted search results on Google. A Wikipedia page for Mike would significantly aid in rectifying this mix-up, offering a clearer, concise source of information for those interested in learning more about his achievements and contributions.

I hope this clarifies the situation and gives a new perspective on Mike Boateng's notability. His involvement in Love Island has certainly catapulted him into public awareness, but it's his individual persona and subsequent actions that maintain his presence there. He is indeed notable in his own right, and I believe he is deserving of recognition via a Wikipedia page. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Justtheeditor1: Wikipedia's criteria for "notability" may different from how we use the word in casual conversation. If you haven't done so already, please read the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). GoingBatty (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Nothing in the draft suggests he meets Wikipedia criteria for notability: not the football, not being a policeman, not being on two reality shows for one season each and not being nominated (not winning) two minor reality industry awards. The Lead mentions actor but there is no confirmation of that. Instagram popularity does not contribute to notability. David notMD (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, unless you were editing under a different name, there is no evidence in your contributions history that you have succeeded in creating articles in the past. The one other effort, Draft:Remoteli has been declined. David notMD (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Justtheeditor1, your detailed response, "Thank you for your thoughtful response ..." above suggests that you're a veteran. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Under different usernames, I work on developing Wikipedia pages for UK reality TV stars and their related ventures. However, I've noticed a curious pattern within the Wikipedia community. When I put together pages for white celebrities who may be considered less noteworthy, my submissions typically get approved without any issues. But when I submit pages for celebrities of color, they often get rejected by someone within the Wikipedia community.

This has led me to suspect that there may be a degree of unconscious bias at play during the review process. I can cite two instances where I developed pages for white celebrities from the same year as Mike Boateng who, arguably, have fewer achievements, yet I faced no challenges in getting their pages or their business pages approved.

As a white woman raising biracial children, I make a point of dedicating time to building these pages. I believe it's vital that people who may be overlooked as 'notable' due to their association with reality TV are indeed recognized. Moreover, it's crucial to me that individuals from minority backgrounds receive the same level of acknowledgement as those from my own demographic background. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, to provide more context, my comment about "different usernames" doesn't mean I control these accounts. Instead, I assist in creating content within a community of fellow celebrity enthusiasts who then create the pages. This approach ensures that we don't violate the rules against sockpuppetry. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Based on the Wikipedia notability criteria and the details provided, it seems that Mike Boateng does meet the notability requirements:

- Career in football: Mike Boateng's career as a footballer with Sheffield United Academy and Emley A.F.C. shows his initial steps into the public sphere. His association with significant teams and players like Dominic Calvert-Lewin does contribute to his notability.

- Career as a police officer: Boateng's stint as a police officer at Greater Manchester Police might not be notable on its own, but it adds to his personal story and can help provide a comprehensive view of his life before fame.

- Reality TV appearances: Boateng gained significant public attention when he appeared in the sixth series of the popular reality dating show, Love Island. He further expanded his reality TV career with an appearance on Celebrity Ex on the Beach. These reality TV shows are widely recognized and have substantial viewership, making them a critical part of Boateng's notability. His brother's participation in another popular reality show, The Apprentice, could also contribute to the family's overall public profile.

- Awards and Nominations: Being nominated twice for the National Reality TV Award in significant categories ("Best Male Personality of the Year" and "Reality Personality of the Year") also supports his notability. These nominations reflect recognition by the industry and his peers.

- Popularity: Boateng's popularity, while secondary to the above criteria, still contributes to his overall notability. He is a known figure within the public sphere, primarily due to his reality TV appearances.

While each of these points alone might not warrant a standalone Wikipedia article, collectively they create a picture of a person who has made significant, interesting, and unusual contributions to public life, specifically in reality television, which fulfills the Wikipedia notability criteria. Each of these points is verifiable through reliable and independent sources to maintain the credibility and integrity of the Wikipedia article. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

None of that established notability. David notMD (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Considering the Wikipedia notability guidelines, I'd like to provide the following rationale to underscore Mike Boateng's notability.

1. *Significant Coverage*: Mike Boateng, a well-known Black TV personality in the UK, has received substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources.

2. *Public Influence*: He's been a major participant in widely viewed reality TV shows like Love Island and Celebrity Ex on the Beach. His presence and performances in these shows have undeniably influenced public perception and discourse.

3. *Recognition*: Mike has been nominated twice for the National Reality TV Award, in major categories such as "Best Male Personality of the Year" and "Reality Personality of the Year". This formal recognition within the industry strengthens his claim to notability.

4. *Comparison*: When compared to other personalities who have been deemed notable, such as Jon Clark and Josh Ritchie, Mike's prominence and contributions seem at least as significant, if not more so.

While it's crucial to approach each case independently, I feel it's also important to mention that the consistent pattern of lesser-known personalities being deemed notable may points to my previous point of a potential bias, conscious or unconscious, in assessing the notability of people of colour in the UK. It's vital to ensure equitable treatment in all cases to maintain the integrity and credibility of Wikipedia.

I hope these points provide a solid basis for reconsideration of Mike Boateng's notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Justtheeditor1 (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

NEED FOR SOCKPUPPET INVESTIGATION: From above, "Under different usernames, I work on developing Wikipedia pages for UK reality TV stars and their related ventures."

Finishing the tanslation of an article for an german scitific society

Hello, i want to become more experienced in translating german wikipedia articels into the englisch version. I made this translation and want to bring it into the english wikipedias normal article space. What are the next instructions? And alo which kind of feedback can you give me regarding the current version of the Article?

User:Aberlin2/Deutsche Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft

thanks in advance Aberlin2 (talk) Aberlin2 (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Aberlin2: Welcome to the Teahouse! Most of the references in your draft are self-published, and articles on the English Wikipedia aren't based on what organizations say about themselves. I suggest finding more independent sources that have provided significant coverage of the organization, and incorporating that information in the draft. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The point being made there is that each language Wikipedia has its own rules about allowed references. David notMD (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@David notMD@GoingBatty

Thank you, for your support.

I tried to add more sources, but I have the feeling, that this should be enough for a start. I think my first goal is to bring the article online as a translation and no to research sources on the whole history of the organization. I guess for the general Information like Name and structure of the Organization, their own webpage should probably be the most credible source.

My question: what is the easiest and most direct, acceptable way to publish the article?

For example: should I try to move it to the normal article space in the current status? Should I just remove a lot of sentences which have just one-sided references even if this will remove a lot of possible helpful information and make the article very short, or try to find help from other persons to find more or better sources?

what do you think?

what should be my next step?

Aberlin2 (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Remove the society website references except when used for simple information. For the moment, keep the now-unreferenced information and see if you can add independent references. OK if in German. Submit as a draft for review. While waiting for a reviewer, continue to search for references. Decide is some unreferenced information is essential to the article, or can be removed. Review will take place in days to months (the system is not a queue). If declined, the reviewer will give reasons to be addressed before submitting again. David notMD (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Aberlin2: I have added the submission template to your draft for you. I suggest reviewing the English Wikipedia's notability criteria for organizations (which may differ from the German Wikipedia's criteria) and the information linked in the template I added to your draft. I agree with David notMD's suggestions as well. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem you've run into is the classic problem of translating from German Wikipedia. The German article that you translated, although having "Einzelnachweise", i.e. inline citations, is based primarily on what English Wikipedia would call "General referencing", in the form of a large "Literatur" section. Here, this would be seen as merely "further reading", irrelevant as a source for the material of the article itself, which is why you will be criticised for failure to find references not coming directly from the organisation itself. It might be that some of those Literatur references, if you can track them down, can be converted into inline citations. One already is. Good luck! Elemimele (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

How to include material from a British music magazine into a Wikipedia edit

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse friends, I hope that your day is well.

I am trying to make my second ever edit in Wikipedia, on this particular page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Only_Heaven

I have a question about copyright. There is an article from a British music magazine called Sound on Sound which contains very good material for a music album by a Swiss band called The Young Gods that I would like to include into Wikipedia. However, I am having trouble putting things into my own words so that I do not violate copyright.

I mean, there is a set of facts taken from the article that I would like to convey, but there are only so many ways to say it. I can try to "artificially" change the sentence structure, while still resembling the original in terms of the facts that it is conveying. I don't know how much change is deemed enough, or if it can be done at all.

I am a bit scared, because I read that I can't put copyrighted material even into my sandbox!

Any help on how to proceed with my second (attempted) edit will be appreciated.

Thank you, and have a nice day. Huggykoala68 (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Artificially changing does work. Maybe omit some things or change order. Otherwise, you can cite the article or put some of the content in quotes -- although putting something in quotes doesn't automatically make it ok, as copyright can sometimes apply to that, too. But, as you said, this process can be said, as there are only so many ways you can clearly state facts that have already been worded in the clearest and simplest way in a sources article. If you need any help, you can tell me on my talk page. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Huggykoala68. Try taking a look at WP:PLAGIARISM because that's what you're going to need to try and avoid. There are some suggestions given on that particular page on how to do so, but you might also want to try searching online for more. It can be difficult to summarize what a reliable source is saying in a manner that's OK for Wikipedia because there's no one correct way to do so, but that's what you're going to need to figure out how to do. For reference, it's OK to directly quote a reliable source in a Wikipedia article as explained in MOS:QUOTATION, but it's best not to use quotes to extent that you're essentially doing nothing but copying-and-pasting large blocks of content from the source into the article. If you make a good-faith mistake or two in the process, someone will probably let you know and ask you to be more careful; mistakes, however, are expected, particularly from newer editors and you will be able to treat them as a learning experience. As long as you don't keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again (especially after being warned), you should be OK. Finally, since you're asking about a Wikipedia article about an album, you can also try asking for feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums or try asking about it on the talk page for the article itself to see if others can help figure out a good way to incorporate the content you want to add from that source. You could also try looking for similar articles that are considered to be WP:GA or WP:FA articles for examples of how others have tackled this type of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Huggykoala68: You could also start a discussion on the article's talk page Talk:Only Heaven detailing what facts you want to convey (and a link to the magazine article if possible). Hopefully other editors interested in this band would be interested in helping you. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Conflicting Numbers

I asked this question last week, but got no answer...

..as you don't get an answer here unless, you specify which subject you're talking about...

...even when it's irrelevant to the question, as people always want to interfere in whatever you're doing.

So here is the "irrelevant to the question" subject article Designation Scheme, after around 6 days of me slowly adding a table, searching for articles of every organisation and collection, searching to see where exactly some of them are stored, and double checking them all, in a room which is like a sauna in Summer.

Arts Council England say on their Designated Collections page, which is also embedded onto their Designation Scheme page, that...

"There are currently 154 Designated collections held in organisations across the whole of England."

That statement is false.

It was obviously false as shown by the 16th of April 2018 date also on their Designated Collections page, above an...

XLSX file dated May 2023 which contains a list of the Current Designated Collections.

Here's the updated XLSX file Designated Collections List May 2023 which automatically downloads.

They've updated the Designated Collections XLSX file on their website, but they haven't updated their Designated Collections page in over 5 years.

In the 5 years since they last updated the Designated Collections web page, the Designated Collections have increased by 9, from 154 Designated Collections to 163 Designated Collections.

11 hours ago I finally got a reply to my email 5 days ago (which is rare for big organisations, as big organisations like this normally ignore my emails), which said...

"Hello Daniel, Thank you for getting in touch about the Designated Collections pages on the Arts Council’s website. We confirm there are currently 163 Designated collections, and we have asked our Digital Team to update the text on the Designated Collections web pages to reflect this. Best wishes, Jenny White. Officer, Accreditation & Designation. Arts Council England"

Their total number for their designated collections are 5 years out of date. The news stories reporting on the total number of "designation schemes/designated collections/designated status,", over the last 5 years, have therefore also been incorrect.

So, basically my question was...

Can I use the actual number, even when the organisations themselves get the numbers wrong?

Or (if they didn't have the XLSX file) would I have had to wait until they've got their digital team to update their website, or wait for some other source to write the correct number? Danstarr69 (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

If sources disagree or conflict with reality, it is best not to mention the factoid at all and wait until the sources sort themselves out. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Danstarr69 The policy WP:V is pretty clear. The source you supply has to directly support what you say in the article. So in this case (before they update their webpage, if they do) you would have to cite the .xlsx file as your source. You could do that but for this particular piece of information you could just "say more than 150 collections"(cited to webpage), or leave it out. Note that there is also an {{As of}} template that may be helpful. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

How do I report what appears to be a bug?

I just received the same message 14 times. This appears to be a bug. Is there an IT group that I can discuss this with. It is a serious issue because someone could take it as harassment. Starlighsky (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Starlighsky, and welcome to the Teahouse. The best place to discuss how the software works, rather than the editing side, is WP:VPT. ColinFine (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Starlighsky (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Unblock, help with creation of article about an artist

Eleanorahon is indefinitely blocked as a puppet of globally blocked Eleonorahon. -- Hoary (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, please can somebody guide and assist me in creation of article about my work since I was blocked doing it by myself. I would still like to gather data on Wikidata to enable research. My ancient username was Eleonorahon, it was b locked, I had created another, the same today, and wanted to create a developer account on Wikimedia Wikidata, as Wikidata is still blocked / but can not connect neither, probably as my IP address is blocked. I did not care about publicity, awards, etc in the past so had some issues with prove of notability, however believe in recognition on the content end execution level. / Norma De Saint Picman &Noravisionsolar was the article created, which lasted quite some time since there was domino/ effect of editors which were even not instructed in Arts that erased the article and also all data. There was also kind of push from editors, that are willing to assist creation of pages by being paid who counselled me to, and in panics I had made some stupid things, like stockpupetting. As the initial account was blocked / Eleonorahon / was blocked on Wikidata, created Eleonorahonguard today as well, but it does not work so I am again in the same conflict. Please help me to resolve that issue> have many more editions to made. best regards Eleanorahon (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Hi @Eleanorahon. Firstly, it sounds like you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest as you work for Norma. You need to declare that immediately (follow the instructions in the link). Secondly, you may have been asked to create this article by Norma. Please have a read of Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia which goes over why this is not a good idea. Thirdly, you need to establish if Norma meets the Wikipedia:Notability (people) threshold before you consider creating an article. People who do not meet the notability criteria are not permitted to have an article about them. Once you have read all that, before creating an article you must find sources that cover Norma in detail. Do not create the article Wikipedia:BACKWARD by writing it and then finding sources. You need to find sources first and then write the article by summarising the sources in your own words. Note that the sources must be: - Reliable: Your sources should be published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts, but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation. - Independent: Your sources should be independent of Norma, for example not self-published or from the her own website. - Show significant coverage: Norma should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth information and analysis about Norma, going beyond basic facts or promotional material. - From multiple places:You should find at least three separate strong, reliable, secondary sources that discuss Norma. If you can't find sources that meet the above requirements, then Norma is not notable by Wikipedia definition and cannot have an article at this time. Please note that Wikipedia is not a place for promotion or advertisement (see Wikipedia:PROMO). This means that your article must both be written in a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and the sources you find can't have been directly influenced by Norma, for example a publicity interview. Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Hi Eleanorahon, if you stil believe you/the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, you could add an article request at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Visual arts. Sionk (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Maplink template

Hi please look at the map I have placed on Hyderabad Multi-Modal Transport System in the infobox using the maplink template (that generated the transport network system automatically) . But it has been expanded recently to more stations and that is not present on the map. What am I supposed to do get that reflected on the map? (Please tag if you reply) Thank you. 456legend(talk) 12:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, 456legend, and welcome back to the Teahouse. I'm pretty sure that the data used in the map comes from the Wikidata item d:Q1952301, which is the item for the system. That Wikidata item does not have any lines or stations, but if you pick "What links here" on the Wikidata item, you will find various lines and stations. My guess (I don't know for sure) that any additions will need to be added to Wikidata and linked to the system appropriately for {{maplink}} to pick them up. ColinFine (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

links

when there is an entity with location in the name, should I link both for example los Angeles (link) police department (lapd link) or just one los Angeles police department (lapd link)? Michael21107 (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Michael21107 - just link the one, overall, description. We try to avoid two links next to each other, as WP:SEAOFBLUE and Los Angeles Police Department is the specific article you are trying to link to - Arjayay (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

ok thank you Michael H 16:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced changes

Two IP editors have been changing people's year of birth and death repeatedly on Template:Lee Kuan Yew family tree. I have asked them to provide sources because these changes are not explained nor justified by any sources. In fact, existing sources contradict their edits. I have also commented on the talk page and asked for responses, but I got none. I'm at the 3RR limit, so I'm wondering what I should do if the other party simply continues editing without giving any response. Is dispute resolution appropriate? Or perhaps this counts as vandalism and I should go straight to the administrator's noticeboard. Thanks! PetraMagna (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@PetraMagna: Hello, I suggest you assume good faith and take it to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Also, I suggest you leave a comment and notify the IP editors about this discussion on the IP editors' talk pages (courtesy link for the first editor and the second editor), since pings don't usually notify IP editors. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 13:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Matr1x-101: All done. Dispute resolution is filed on Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Template:Lee_Kuan_Yew_family_tree. Hopefully I didn't miss anything. PetraMagna (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I am about to close the case at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and I will explain here. First, it is always better to request dispute resolution than to edit-war, even if the dispute is not ripe for the particular method of dispute resolution. However, second, DRN requires extensive prior discussion at the article talk page, or, in this case, template talk page. There has not been discussion, because, as User:PetraMagna says, the unregistered editor has not responded on the talk page, but is simply repeating his edits. Third, that is almost certainly one human behind the two IP addresses. The trailing parts of IP addresses often shift because Internet Service Providers manage and reassign pools of addresses. It does not matter whether it is one human or two, but it is almost certainly one human. Fourth, DRN is not a place to go in a dispute with an editor who does not discuss. Fifth, if one or more unregistered editors persist in editing and do not discuss, it may be a good idea to request semi-protection at Requests for Page Protection. I will be making that request for you in a few minutes. DRN is for content disputes when discussion has been lengthy and inconclusive. In this case, semi-protection seems to be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The template has been semi-protected for three days. You may edit the template for three days without interference by the IP. After it comes off protection, if the disruption recurs, you may request a longer semi-protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Image Licensing question

Greetings Teahouse Staff,

I just uploaded my first photo to Wikipedia, an image of the actress B.K. Cannon for her article, but I'm not sure which specific copyright status tag I should add to the "Licensing" section within https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:B.K._Cannon.png.

If a Teahouse member could tell me what to add in there (or assist me by adding it themselves, that'd be most appreciated!) SMT153 (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, SMT153, and welcome to the Teahouse. You say it was her own webcam recording. Are you Cannon? If you are, you probably own the copyright, and can license it, recording it as "own work". If you are not, you do not own the copyright, you do not have the legal power to license it, you should not have uploaded it to Commons, and it should be deleted from there ASAP.

Commons allows only material which may be freely reused, i.e. either it is in the public domain, or the copyright owner (nobody else) has explicitly licensed it under a licence such as CC-BY-SA, either publicly, or in a direct communication with the Wikimedia Foundation: see donating copyright materials.

It is possible that this image could be used non-free. To do that you would upload as non-free media to Wikipedia (not to commons), giving an appropriate non-free justification. It would be your responsibility to ensure that every one of the non-free content criteria was met. ColinFine (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that the non-free exemption almost never applies to photos of living people, as you would basically have to show that it is practically impossible to obtain a free alternative photo. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

You're right, Dodger - I forgot about that. Sorry, SMT ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Colin, no worries! Thank you both for the info! SMT153 (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated the image for deletion from Commons. ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Standalone list notability

So I've started a draft called List of Canadian battles during the Second World War (to compliment this one) but before I get too invested in it, I'd like a second opinion about whether it qualifies for an article. I believe this meets the criteria in WP:LISTN, but there's only one articles similar to these two, so I'm not too sure. Thanks for your help. ARandomName123 (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:List of Canadian battles during the Second World War. GoingBatty (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@ARandomName123: Welcome to the Teahouse! WP:NLIST gives some good guidance. I believe someone would need to see your list of independent reliable sources before giving their opinion. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:NLIST says that the list is considered notable if the topic or set is considered notable. In this case, the topic would be Canadian battles during WW2. Does this mean any source covering a group of Canadian battles during WW2 would work? If so, would literally all history books and resources about Canada in WW2 work?

Ex. See: Notable Canadian Battles | The Canadian Encyclopedia, Great Canadian Battles: Heroism and Courage Through the Years - Edward Humphreys - Google Books, The Canadians at war, 1939/45 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. There's many more in the references section of Canada in World War II. ARandomName123 (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Imho, definitely notable. Keep working on it; would be a good addition to the encyclopedia. Mathglot (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Where can I draw attention to WP:AIV?

There are a ton of vandals which have been reported on WP:AIV, but none of them are getting blocked. Is there any way I can get an admin to check the page? Thank you. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Professor Penguino Yes, you can flag this up for the attention of admins at WP:AN. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Professor Penguino (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Professor Penguino I should add that there's generally no point in leaving a final warning for an IP editor and immediately reporting them to WP:AIV. We expect editors to monitor what the user is doing, and only report them after they've ignored your warning and still continued vandalising. However, the edits of the IP you reported who was repeatedly damaging List of public broadcasters by country did deserve an immediate block. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the note. I'm happy to help. Have a nice day! Professor Penguino (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Zentangle

Is a art form definition. 3.5"x3.5" post of shapes & patterns. shadowowlBold Big Darby (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@big darby: this is not the place to start your article. use the article wizard. lettherebedarklight晚安 02:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC) (edited 05:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC))

No, don't use the "article wizard". Here's how the most recent version started: Zentangle / What is Zentangle? / The Zentangle Method is an easy-to-learn, relaxing, and fun way to create beautiful images by drawing structured patterns. / Almost anyone can use it to create beautiful images. It increases focus and creativity, provides artistic satisfaction along with an increased sense of personal well being. The Zentangle Method is enjoyed all over this world across a wide range of skills, interests and ages. / We believe that life is an art form and that our Zentangle Method is an elegant metaphor for deliberate artistry in life. (My emphases.) Just stop, Big Darby. The history of attempts to create a dud article on this subject is already too long. If you want to advertise your Zentangle, find some other website for the purpose. -- Hoary (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Big Darby for being here only to promote and advertise Zentangle. Cullen328 (talk) 06:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

What do you do when an article's History of a classic song has major dubious allegations made in it?

In the article entry on the classic UK acid house track, "Stakker Humanoid," it appears that the History has been rewritten by one of the contributors of the song (the engineer and producer) to allege some fairly harsh broadsides against the original composer of the song: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakker_Humanoid

The frustration seems to be that the original composer did not share rights to the song after it was re-recorded and augmented in a group session.

One of the members of the team, Mark McClean, who is characterized as being also jilted, in fact went on to work with the original composer Brian Dougans for many years, supplying cover art, sleeve art and visuals for the Future Sound of London. McClean is a visual artist and not a musician to begin with, so the inclusion of McClean in the allegation is strained. Dougans also retained his contract for a while with the Westside Records label that released "Stakker Humanoid," so clearly the label owner saw the track as authored by Dougans, not the engineer and co-producer.

I personally am sensitive to creative authorship. I understand why John Lake (who seems to be the one who changed the History at some point to air his contributions and grievances) may feel the need to prosecute his case on this Wikipedia page. But it is not supported by any independent source (no citations) and it has been well established for years by journalists and upheld legally it seems, that Dougans is the primary author of the track. Tellingly, the History begins with the note that the composition existed before the session involving Lake.

Also, Lake never did anything of note in the years following, whereas Dougans has, over and over, as recently as helping Daniel Pemberton source many of the sounds for Pemberton's impactful Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse score (citation: https://twitter.com/danielpemberton/status/1075816351611142144?lang=en&fbclid=IwAR2XaHvI4g58Q8HMILYatQGPT5kR7uj2HYx4Q2819Lk9JtrZajPqMzFV-iU), among his continued acclaimed output in the FSOL mold over the past three decades.

It makes Wikipedia look bad that this kind of stuff can show up here. It seems that Lake played the role he was supposed to as an engineer, got a producer credit for his contributions, but is bitter that he did not get the money that Dougans has received for being the original author. Also, contrary to the general thrust of the article, it seems Dougans has not tried to erase the others from the history of the song, as can be seen in this Electronic Sound article, where he mentions everyone involved, including Laker: https://www.electronicsound.co.uk/landmarks/humanoid/

What exactly does one do in a case like this? I think the History needs major revisions, and the Lake allegations need an objective context, if they should stay in the History at all. Ghostdeeper (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ghostdeeper: Welcome to the Teahouse! One solution could be to revert the unsourced content, and ask them to discuss it on the article's talk page per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. GoingBatty (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Why does my article have to be blocked when it has no intention of promoting a person / service?

Article Draft: Channa Wijesekara - A biography on a award-winning well accomplished entrepreneur proficient in woodworking and so forth. Guide me as to why it was deleted and how can I improve. Vithushanr (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Vithushanr, it was deleted because, in Liz's opinion, it was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Here's a sample: With exceptional talent, an innovative approach, and an unwavering commitment to excellence, Wijesekara has made a lasting impact on the industry. His visionary perspective and meticulous attention to detail have elevated the standards of interior design in Sri Lanka. Wijesekara is widely recognized as a leading figure in the design community, renowned for his ability to create captivating spaces that harmoniously blend form and function, transforming ordinary environments into extraordinary experiences. Yes, I warmly agree with Liz. Had I seen it before Liz did, I'd have had no hesitation in deleting it. If you really had no intention of promoting the subject, I don't understand why you stuffed this draft with flattering flatus. -- Hoary (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Vithushanr No matter how much we admire someone, our own feelings must not come across in what we write here. We can only summarise what others have written. Further, we should only summarise independent writing. In the case of Wijesekara, he's an author, which makes life complicated, because when a book is released, publicists will have gone to a lot of trouble to arrange interviews and reviews in order to raise the book's profile - and these will all be glowing with praise. We have to filter what is written about him, and look only at material written independently, "uncontaminated" by the activities of publicists. You can only say that someone is innovative if an independent writer has described him that way. In general, it is impossible to be sure of someone's lasting impact, or know whether they were truly an innovator in their time, until we have the perspective of history, and until a reasonable number of experts, historians and critics have reviewed their life and work in context. As a result, you will find that Wikipedia tends only to describe someone as a leading innovator, leading figure in a movement, etc., long after their career is over. Wikipedia is a cautious place, sticking to facts. You can list his awards (provided they're not trivial or paid-for!), but you can't say he's exceptionally talented because you think so, or say that he's unwaveringly committed because he says so. Elemimele (talk) 09:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Autoconfirmation approval

How can I get autoconfirmation approval to edit the Wikipedia pages that require it? Spacefan321 (talk) 07:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Spacefan321: Welcome to the Teahouse! You need to make at least 10 edits and your account must have existed for at least 4 days. For more information, check Wikipedia:User access levels § Autoconfirmed and confirmed users. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 09:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

(ec)Spacefan321 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Autoconfirmed requires 10 edits or more and that your account be at least four days old, both of these occurred for you long ago. If you mean Extended-Confirmed, that is 30 days old and 500 edits(you are far short of 500) You are welcome to make edit requests on the talk pages of articles you cannot directly edit. Please don't make edits just to increase your edit count. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

according to xtools you already are autoconfirmed, perhaps the page you want to is extended confirmed protected (500 edits and 30 days) or even fully protected (admin only) Sobsz (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Why use 'ref name=":0" ' for a named reference?

When editing in source mode, I see a lot of named references using the same cryptic names for named reference. I assumed there must be some reason/benefit, so I tried to search but I only found a couple pages that explicitly say not to use name=":0" without explaining why. So why do people consistently use this same set of cryptic names instead of something from the source itself like:

<ref name=Elk1972>Elk, Anne (November 16, 1972), Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses</ref>

I realize this kind of an abstract question, but I don't want to make the names descriptive if there's some actual reason that they were made cryptic, Rjjiii (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

There is some tool (Visual Editor??) that defaults to this numbering scheme. Your version is much better. —Kusma (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:REFILL does it like that when it merges refs. A more descriptive refname is much more helpful for editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Rjjiii In my view, it's a major, major weakness with Visual Editor that it doesn't permit one to give a 'raf name' to any citation, but simply numbers them sequentially. For that reason, even when creating content in Visual Editor, I always switch over to Source Editor for adding references. It has a much better interface, but then I can switch back again for more WYSIWYG editing. Just click the dark, slanted pencil icon in either editor to alternate between the two whilst editing. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T92432

It is indeed a very major weakness in Visual Editor. You can read more about it at WP:VisualEditor/Named references. There is also a wonderful tool that will fix up these annoying numeric ref names after the fact; see User:Nardog/RefRenamer. Mathglot (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

who invented the shark cage

THE SHARK CAGE WAS INVENTED BY JAMES M ELLIS OF PORT LINCOLN SOUTH AUSTRALIA PATENT NUMBER 4166462. Margesson (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. We are here to answer questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question? 09:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC) JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE CLEARLY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SURFACE CAGE SHARK DIVING ( STATIC CAGE ATTACHED TO BOAT ) AND SELF PROPELLED SHARK PROOF DIVING CAGE. Margesson (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Margesson and welcome to the Teahouse. You should make suggestions and raise your concerns at the article talk page. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

When you make your suggestion, Margesson, it's likely to be taken more seriously if not EXPRESSED IN CAPITALS. (And of course it must come with a reliable source.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hoary.

Thanks for your advice. Can you tell me if there is a company that can assist me in person to edit Wikipedia. I live in Adelaide South Australia.  Regards Margesson Margesson (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Undeletion?

In backtracking some IP edits for previous damages I found <this page> - it was created by a now blocked user by moving the previous page into their user page and then requesting speedy deletion of that user page under G7, which worked.

As far as I can tell the only thing the page had before was a redirect to a different page, which at the time redirected to BMW GT which is where the blocked user copied the content for the new page from - they also turned BMW GT into a redirect to the new page (which caused a bot to change the other redirects too).

Basically, what is the procedure here? Is it worth it to get the original page that was <in here>, and was likely just a redirect, to be reinstated, with a request at WP:REFUND? What is the proper order for doing this to not create an infinite redirect loop?

Thank you for your time. – 2804:F14:80B3:CB01:D427:B819:5DC8:2330 (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I may be talking out of my ass, but since the article creator was banned per WP:3X, I don't know if I would ask to recover the page. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 11:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The creator according to <the logs> isn't blocked though.

Maybe I overcomplicated things a bit, I'm just wondering if reverting BMW GT to be the actual page and making the one created by the blocked user (via this take-over thing that they did that deleted the previous page) into a redirect (like it supposedly originally was) - and then waiting for the bots to fix whatever other redirects are out there - is the way to go about this. Or if I should instead request the original BMW Gran Turismo page be reinstated and moved back as well, because it might have had more edits than a redirect. – 2804:F14:80B3:CB01:D427:B819:5DC8:2330 (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, true. Might be worth a shot to ask for an undeletion. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 13:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU: For what it's worth, I've tracked all the redirects etc and there's nothing of value to undelete. All the intermittent edits are copy/pastes from this revision. I've reverted the dab back to BMW GT as Google hits give much more for it than BMW Gran Turismo. Anarchyte (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Clarify: I've deleted the AudiGuy-1204 version of BMW Gran Turismo and restored the FreeRogue one from 2013. Anarchyte (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Oh, thank you. I didn't have time to request this earlier, but that's exactly what I would have requested.

– 2804:F14:80B3:CB01:F4A3:CBC5:B217:C28E (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Megan L Hughes page

Good afternoon, firstly thank you for looking over my first draft submission. Although this frist draft was rejected, i would really appreciate some support into have to move on and edit to hopefully have my first article published. I must state first, i have a disability, so apoligise if this isnt the best quality. The rejection details below:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you. Michael L Little (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I've responded to your other posting, please only use one method of seeking assistance, to avoid duplication of effort. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Megan Hughes (actress) was Declined (not Rejected) due to insufficient referencing. A question: you claim to have taken that photo of her. True or not? David notMD (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, My apologies, I did not take the photo, I found it on the public domain and downloaded it, My mistake i thought it was permissible and that that meant i took the photo from the public domain. Again apologies, no intension to cause any concern, this is my first time and learning. Thank you for pointing this out, how is best to resolve. Michael L Little (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I removed the image. David notMD (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

thank you Michael L Little (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what is meant by public domain, which is a legal term. That photo is not in the public domain. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I didn't realise that I'd somehow re-added the image when making minor changes to the Title Case headings. I'd skipped back a revision to check out the removed image. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that Shantavira (above) is a little harsh. It's not so simple a misunderstanding. According to Wiktionary, one meaning of "public domain" is "The state of not or no longer being confidential or secret" (its example of this is "Very little information about the treaty is in the public domain"). However, here in Wikipedia -- and also in law -- this meaning doesn't apply. -- Hoary (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Haven't been able to find the image on Google, but it is on the subject's Instagram here. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Where it is copyright protected David notMD (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Michael L Little: Okay, so we now have three inline citations, and really need more (see the sections templated as unreferenced). Also, apart from the fact that the items listed in "Awards and recognition" are only nominations, and unreferenced, I can't see any mention of the subject, Megan Hughes. So they do not confer notability on her. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Triangle with exclamation mark research tool missing...

Hello :-) Does anyone know why I can't access the research tool when improving articles? It doesn't appear on my toolbar.

Tool Bar Image

When I used the article wizard previously it was there. All guidance gratefully received, thanks. The Nookster (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@The Nookster I think you need to look at H:ETOOL and WP:RefToolbar/2.0 and then check your Special:Preferences to set everything up correctly as these pages instruct. Or maybe you meant some other research tool I'm not familiar with? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

What it is/was supposed to look like

Actually, looking at Help:VisualEditor and comparing the images there with what I get when I activate the visual editor (which I never use), I see that the icon that looks like a black triange with an exclamation mark inside it is indeed missing. Someone else may know why but I don't.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

OK! The plot thickens... The Nookster (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: The should only appear if the page has an edit notice. Strange that you're not seeing it at Raine Allen-Miller, because I see it on my end when I open it up in the visual editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks Mike, I'll have a look. I'm sure I'll figure it out before my head explodes from having oodles of windows open on different sources LOL The Nookster (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@The Nookster: Welcome to the Teahouse. Do you remember what icon or button this "research tool" is under? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for trying to help. It was just on the visual editor toolbar when I used the article wizard. When I clicked on it, it took me through to a bunch of hyperlinks in a box such as Google, news, JSTOR, TWL etc so I could search for reliable sources all from one place rather than having loads of windows open. The Nookster (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@The Nookster: Upon further investigation, I suspect you'll only see it if a page is in draftspace. Look up any other draft (like Draft:Nahal Rafiah) and click on the . Is that what you mean? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes! Good stuff. Am I allowed to have access that tool? It’s so useful because I’m not a student or an academic nor have accounts with newspapers.com etc

I have been improving the Raine Allen-Miller article today to help redress the gender bias on WP. It has taken me ages compared to when I created my first article through the article wizard. I’ve not made much progress without that research tool :-( The Nookster (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

As long as the page is in draftspace you'll see it. As far as I can tell it only puts the article's title as a search string into those websites; it doesn't necessarily give you special access to those sites. What you want is to become eligible for the Wikipedia Library, which can give you access to databases like newspapers.com so long as your account meets certain criteria. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much for this information. You are really helping me get my head wrapped around being a new editor. Sorry to ask such basic questions!

Can I put an article into draftspace to work on it that has already been published into the articlespace?

I had read previously that after I have done 500 edits I will be able to search the TWL. I don’t think it will be too long before I have had the honour of contributing 500 edits :-)

I am thoroughly committed to helping WP as much as humanely possible. I owe this platform so much in terms of teaching me so much and supporting my writing life. I really want to give back as much as possible.

Once again, many thanks 🙏 The Nookster (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Unless there's something fundamentally wrong with the article such that it isn't suitable for mainspace, no, it shouldn't be moved into draftspace. Attempting to do so without a clear justified reason can, in the worst-case scenario, be seen as disruptive editing, which can include a suspension of editing privileges. Raine Allen-Miller also appears to have been in mainspace for over 90 days, and as a rule of thumb shouldn't be moved over to draftspace without prior consensus at AfD or another suitable venue (wikilink added). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your guidance. I’ll just keep chipping away :-) The Nookster (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

INSERER UN WIKIPEDIA IN ENGLISH

Good morning, The WIKIPEDIA ALEXANDRE RAYMOND (1872-1941) exists in French. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Raymond I had it translated by a professional English translator. I want to insert this English wikipedia. How to do ? Where can I insert this translation? Should I create a new account? karagil

Bonjour, Le WIKIPEDIA ALEXANDRE RAYMOND (1872-1941) existe en français. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Raymond Je l'ai fait traduire par une anglaise traductrice professionnelle. Je veux insérer ce wikipedia anglais. Comment faire ? Où puis-je insérer cette traduction ? Dois-je créer un nouveau compte ? karagil Karagil (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

You do not need to create a new account. You should use Articles for Creation to submit your translation- as each Wikipedia has its own policies, what is acceptable on the French Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Karagil The correct link to the French article is fr:Alexandre Raymond. The main problem in making it acceptable for English Wikipedia is likely to be the sources. As far as I can tell, most of the French ones are to a collection of his own writings. We need several to scholarly accounts such as the Batur book and other reliable sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Karagil, and welcome to the Teahouse. In addition to the points made by Mike Turnbull, please note that if you insert text copied or translated from (any) Wikipedia, you must attribute the source: see WP:Translation.

Also, if you "had it translated by a professional translator", it seems very likely that you are associated with Raymond. Is this the case? It does not prevent you from working on an article about him, but you need to be aware of the restrictions on editing with a conflict of interest. ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@ColinFine Unlikely, given that Raymond's dates are 1872-1941.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Participating in WP:ARB

I have something to say in the "/Preliminary statements" section of a certain ARBCOM case. I am neither an admin nor an involved party in the case, and not much of a veteran editor either. WP:AP curiously doesn't say who can participate. I'm asking here so that I'd be sure I'm not doing the equivalent of bursting into the Supreme Court, wearing a suimsuit and screaming at the top of my lungs. That would be embarrassing. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Festucalex If there's a "/Preliminary statements" section, then the time for preliminary statements is over. To quote a "/Primary statements" page: Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU: Good thing I asked. Thanks. I'm putting my swimsuit aside for the moment. 〜 Festucalex • talk 21:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

A renouned mycologist used my Wikimedia Commons contribution in his book. Please guide me entering that data into my Wikimedia Commons file.

My public domain contribution https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vesicular_Arbuscular_Mycorrhizae_40X0031_03.jpg has been used by renouned mycologist Britt Bunyard in his book The Lives of Fungi : A Natural History of Our Planet's Decomposers (https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Lives_of_Fungi/SMtMEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=RIT+RAJARSHI&pg=PA288&printsec=frontcover) ; Published from Princeton University Press, where my username has been properly credited in the page 288 (Acknowledgement page) and my Wikimedia commons contribution has been included in page number 183 bottom right of the said book. I am very thankful for that to the Author of the said book. However I want to enter the data in the image file (preferably using a category or infobox but don't know how). Please guide me for the necessary steps to link the file to the published book.

Image that has been used in the published book by the Author Britt A. Bunyard

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC) RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@RIT RAJARSHI: Exactly what data do you want to enter into the Commons page? 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I want an infobox that this file has been used in the book (book name) by Author (Author name)

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

many thanks in advance RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

You can also do it in Reference or Bibliography style

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@RIT RAJARSHI: I do not recall seeing any such thing done in Wikimedia Commons. Can you please provide an example of an image that is tagged in this way? 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Tracking_external_file_usage yes there are something like that. Could it be done manually in case the bot can't ? RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@RIT RAJARSHI: That's for tracking file usage on Wikimedia projects, not external books and such. I agree with ColinFine that you should ask at c:Commons:Help desk. 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, RIT RAJARSHI. I cannot find anything in c:Commons:First steps/Quality and description which talks about including such information in a Commons image description page; on the other hand, I can't see anything which forbids it. It may be that Commons editors would say that it is not consistent with the purposes of Commons, but I don't know.

I suggest you ask at c:Commons:Help desk. ColinFine (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Tracking_external_file_usage There are somethhing called tracking external file usage. If the Usage Bot fails to track it; could it be added manually?

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I see at the Commons talkpage that you found "The image has been used in a book". That seems about right for this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Do we have any guidance on how to handle docu-dramas based on real life people?

I'm struggling a bit with The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. This article is about the Netflix documentary, and correctly makes this quite clear in the first sentence. But it contains an episode list written in the style of a typical plot-summary ("Later, an allegation rocks Gerry and Kate McCann."). I worry (1) that by passing the story through the digestive system of Netflix, we're allowing the article to bypass all our normal concerns about BLPs when basically it's telling a BLP story (albeit second-hand); and (2) because the article's title differs from our "proper" article on the disappearance (Disappearance of Madeleine McCann) merely by omission of "The", it's pretty much random which article a reader will find. We ought to be awfully careful about mixing up the balanced Wikipedian view of a recent, highly controversial event that impacted the lives of a lot of living people, and one media view of those events. Is there any guidance on situations like this? Is a typical interest-grabbing plot-summary appropriate? Elemimele (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, Elemimele. In your place, I wouldn't ask here; I'd instead ask at WP:BLPN. -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary:, thanks, have done. Elemimele (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding a redirect when the article has a hatnote

Hi, I am looking at John Maurer and considering a redirect to Social Distortion per WP:BANDMEMBER. Maurer does not appear to be individually notable, nor does his work outside Social Distortion.

However, the Maurer article has a hatnote to John J. Maurer. If I redirect it, this would be lost. WP:RASTONISH says If the redirected term could have other meanings, a hatnote (examples) should be placed at the top of the target article. But I think it would be confusing to people who had come directly to Social Distortion to see "For the American politician in Wisconsin, see John J. Maurer".

Would welcome advice - thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

You can use {{Redirect}} for this - writing {{Redirect|John Maurer|the American politician in Wisconsin|John J. Maurer}} produces:

"John Maurer" redirects here. For the American politician in Wisconsin, see John J. Maurer.

Tollens (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

If John J. Maurer is individually notable and John Maurer of Social Distortion is not, then maybe John Maurer should redirect to John J. Maurer, and then that page can have a hatnote pointing to Social Distortion. As a wild other solution, find another "John Maurer" who merits an article. Then, with 3 people of that name (including two with actual articles), John Maurer can easily stand as a disambiguation page. I took a quick look, and [1] talks about an award-winning flugelhorn player of that name. I suspect that is a field where Wikipedia's coverage is not very strong. DMacks (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Linking to a page without redirecting

how do i link to Discord (software) without redirecting the user to Discord? i dont wanna use Discord (software) if i dont have to Sebbog13 (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sebbog13: Welcome to the Teahouse. Is there a reason as to why you're trying to stay on a redirect page rather than its target? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

i guess there is not one, just wanted it for a userbox but yeah i could link to Discord just wanted to know if there was a way to not link there. Sebbog13 (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

There's the {{no redirect}} template that may be what you're looking for. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Sebbog13: See {{No redirect}}. It produces external link syntax similar to your example but the external link icon is suppressed with Help:Plainlinks. It's not a wikilink so it doesn't show up in WhatLinksHere and other wikilink tools. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Found it difficult to nominate feature image. please format it appropriately

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/fungi here is my nomination cerated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/fungi made using this page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates . Kindly check if everything is okay. if the creation of new page is inappropreiate, please move the nomination to appropriate page or column RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. It's a good image, although not really recognizable without the context of text, and not really appreciable for artistry or beauty without that context. It's also your own image, so there's a mild conflict of interest in play here. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

San Antonio International Airport accidents and incidents referencing problem

Go to above article, go to accidents and incidents section at bottom of article, go to January 31, 1967 incident. I cant seem to make the retreival date appear (6/25/2023) for some reason at end of citation. Thanks for your help.Theairportman33531 (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

You had one hyphen too many: Not "access-date" but instead "accessdate". Yes, as the former is the standard for the hugely more widely used Template:Cite web (although "accessdate" is usable as a substitute), it does seem a bit odd that the hyphen isn't acceptable for Template:ASN accident. -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems odd to me too, so I've made the hyphenated version an acceptable alias. Tollens (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

User Accounts:

I forgot my account password and really need to change my user name and I’m not recieving the recovery email. 86.142.216.245 (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

IP editor. I assume that you have tried the advice at WP:TFAQ. You'll have to let us know the name of the account for an admin to be able to tell you if it has an associated email address. My only other suggestion is to see if one of your devices has the username/password combination stored in its browser credentials. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)