Wikipedia:Teahouse

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, 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

How credible the citation sources are?

Hello Wikipedians,

Please take a look at the draft at User:Sultanularefeen/sandbox - Wikipedia and let me know if the citation sources have enough credibility for the subject mentioned topic in the draft.

Thanks for any help. Sultanularefeen (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Sultanularefeen/sandbox - 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sultanularefeen Brief answer: no. The topic is not mentioned at endometriosis, where I would expect it to be if a proven technique. Note that Wikipedia has very strict sourcing requirements for medical-related topics, summarised at WP:MEDRS, which you should read carefully. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Michael D. Turnbull for your suggestions. I shall try the subject mentioned article if the sourcing requirements are fulfilled. May be later on, I shall try to add some information about the topic to Endometriosis Sultanularefeen (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sultanularefeen: Looking at the sources, I think they are not reliable. Our articles on medical topics require a highly credible sources for information, and the ones listed do not meet those requirements. — Wug·a·po·des 19:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions Wugapodes. Would you give me a clue about the type of suitable references for this kind of article? Can published research papers in the relevant fields be accepted as authentic source of reference? Sultanularefeen (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sultanularefeen As the guideline which we linked says, the main distinction is between a WP:PRIMARY source and a WP:SECONDARY one. All Wikipedia articles should mainly be based on the latter type, and for medicine-related articles they should be used almost exclusively. Even primary publications in high-quality journals like The Lancet need to be seen through the eyes of qualified professionals and placed into context, which is what secondary sources do. Medical claims do not always stand up to close scrutiny, especially if there is some conflict-of-interest (e.g. a drug manufacturer or an academic reporting initial trial results). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Michael D. Turnbull. Is 1 appropriate reference from The Lancet enough to support an article? If no, would you tell me about some other authentic medical journals like The Lancet? Sultanularefeen (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sultanularefeen One reference can, of course, support part of any article but the usual guidance is that it takes WP:THREE unrelated ones to merit the creation of a separate article. If you are not familiar with high-quality peer-reviewed medical sources, then perhaps you are not the best person to create a new article and would be better to stick to improving existing ones. There are in fact many medical journals, which on Wikipedia are listed at Category:General medical journals. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks Michael D. Turnbull for your helpful information. Sultanularefeen (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I am curious on how to approach revisions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am a 53yo retired military person and familiar with several writing styles such as official correspondence, educational training courses, standard PowerPoint briefs, instruction manuals, award submissions, and a few other documents. I am currently trying to put up a reference page to account for a musical band. I have reviewed several other Wiki pages for musical acts and feel I have captured the main feel and reference points required, but the article was denied by “ARandomName123” and the suggestion made to utilize the “Teahouse” for assistance to accomplish “needed changes” for the page acceptance. I am requesting assistance from the team here to achieve success. I am unsure if anyone here has the ability to review the Draft:Chaos Warehouse . Thanks in advance for any assistance to help move forward.

Very respectfully, Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lucien, of the two notes the reviewer left on Draft:Chaos Warehouse, the one about sources is the bigger impediment to the draft being accepted for publication. See the notability guideline for bands, which will explain the sources you will need to add for it to be accepted. Some general copy editing and style adjustments (e.g. removing inline external links) would also help, but they're less critical. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Lucien, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you have taken on an extremely difficult task, for which I suspect little of your writing experience will prepare you. The issue is that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.

Obviously this is difficult to achieve when the article is about yourself: that is why writing about yourself is so strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. Generally, you should not include anything at all in the article that cannot be verified from a reliably published source totally unconnected with you. ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The two sources cited in Draft:Chaos_Warehouse are both Wikipedia articles (and therefore not reliable - if WP regarded everything anyone has added to it as reliable it would soon turn into garbage), and neither of them mentions Chaos Warehouse. Therefore neither does anything to establish that the subject is notable. Maproom (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Revolucien, I quote: The music has an aggressive punch with melodic interlude and chorus textures, mixed in with some ferocious leads. The blend of progressive and thrash styles can be felt throughout the album and is an explosive introduction [to] the heavy metal scene. In the opinion of which reliable source(es) (NB "reliable" as defined by and for Wikipedia) is the punch aggressive, are the interlude and chorus textures melodic, are the leads ferocious, can these styles be felt throughout the album, and is the introduction explosive? For each claim, either add a reference, or delete. -- Hoary (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I deleted all that. Do not restore unless - per Hoary - that content comes from reliable source references. David notMD (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

FYI - Teahouse Hosts are generalists - what their expertise is about is format, style, referencing requirements, etc. There is no requirement that Hosts (or Reviewers) have music career experience to review a draft. David notMD (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I have left the changes you made and applied content to support the Wiki:Notability reqs with WP:Band. The album is currently in worldwide rotation/distribution with Amazon, Apple, Pandora, Spotify for major networks and SoundCloud, BandCamp, ReverbNation and Jango for minor networks. I did not put external links to the actual album on their sites, but it can be found and verified on each one.

I appreciate all the input and assistance you all have provided, Thank you very much.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Revolucien, nothing you have posted here or written in the draft seems to meet the requirements of WP:NBAND. There are 12 criteria listed - which one(s) are you saying this band meets? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, you need to declare as a paid editor per WP:PAID, since this seems to be your band and your album. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

...

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

Spotify, Pandora, Apple Music and Amazon Music are MAJOR worldwide music listening networks and Chaos Warehouse is on all of them as well as the minor(but also worldwide) platforms SoundCloud, BandCamp, ReverbNation, and Jango.

I believe I have edited my USER page with the Paid Editor template, it was a little confusing and hope I have made the correct adjustments.

The band currently does not make money and is only me paying into it right now, the initial submission for the page is just a statement of current facts- A. the band does exist and is named as such. B. It is a completely solo performance for art, music, recording, production and distribution. C. It is an internationally recognized band by the major music platforms and is registered with ASCAP and GS1.

Thank you for the assistance and I look forward to all information that will lead to successful completion.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Revolucien, those platforms do not count as major networks, since they allow self-publication without editorial oversight. It sounds like your band is not yet notable. My advice would be to focus your efforts on attractive coverage from media outlets. Once that happens, it'll possible to have an article. But without those sources, there is nothing that can be changed at the article that would make it acceptable for Wikipedia. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Spotify, Pandora, Amazon and Apple all have a curation process and require review and oversight by their curators before they reach a rotation status just like NBC, ABC, or Fox for TV. I did not submit directly to them as all submission to them came from my Publisher (CDBaby - Ref[2] on the page) who also provides oversight and review before THEY do the actual submission to those Networks. The minor networks SoundCloud, BandCamp, ReverbNation and Jango accepted self-submission without review. I will also look into the media outlet coverage. Revolucien (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Revolucien, those are music streaming services. I think you'll find that they do not qualify as major radio or music television networks. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there a definition provided for "Major" ? In the first Quarter of 2023 Pandora had 46.7 Million listeners in the US alone https://www.statista.com/statistics/190989/active-users-of-music-streaming-service-pandora-since-2009/ , and Spotify for the same time period had 210 million worldwide paying listeners https://www.statista.com/statistics/244995/number-of-paying-spotify-subscribers/ These are not just major, they are the new way that people listen to music and have far more reach and listeners than ANY air broadcast network. Revolucien (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Revolucien, the fundamental point is that we require reliable sources to have taken note of your work in order for it to warrant a page here. There are a million works on Spotify etc. that do not meet that threshold, so we are never going to accept appearance on Spotify as sufficient for an article. Bluntly, see WP:GARAGEBAND. You are not going to shift consensus on this by arguing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not trying to argue or change consensus, just ask for information- What is the definition of “Major”, so that I may provide facts as to the largest/Major musical platforms.

If it is not facts that decide the decision of what is “Major” and it is a consensus, then I accept that answer as well, but I have provided facts and numbers from an outside source to show major share of listeners on the planet utilize those platforms and only asked for the deciding factors of what constitutes “major” for Wikipedia.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The rules on Wikipedia are decided by consensus. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, I have to say it feels like more weight is being applied to the WP:GarageBand blurb that WikiPedia "Bluntly: states "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously." and "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." , rather than the data that was provided.

I will say thank you for the assistance provided as it was an education in the operation and standards used, and very much appreciated. I feel I have learned quite a bit in this initial page write and will use that information moving forward.

I will leave you with this as a small return learning piece for the status of the music business and TV regarding streaming vs broadcast and which is is larger.

" When “Drivers License” bowed at No. 1 on Billboard’s Hot 100 — which determines songs’ popularity based on a combination of sales, radio play and digital streams — it drew 8.1 million radio audience impressions, not bad for a song that’s new to the market. But that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the 76.1 million streams the song clocked in that same week." Variety Magazine https://variety.com/2021/music/news/radio-signal-fading-streaming-1234904387/

and this one from Forbes regarding TV- https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2021/06/17/nielsen-streaming-video-audience-share-is-higher-than-broadcast-tv/?sh=31133f82c0e3

Thanks to all in the TeaHouse who participated in this conversation.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of how many times a song has been listened to, if it hasn't been written about in reliable, independent sources, then we have no material to base an article on, Revolucien. That's why the notability criteria exist. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the response and refer to the criteria being met under # 11 of the WP:Band requirements for notability. The only question that was left was, “What determines a MAJOR network?”. I feel I have provided the data to show the networks it is played on ARE the MAJOR networks, but in light of data showing where the MAJORity of listeners are, the consensus by the team has decided in opposition to the evidence provided. I did not write the rules for notability in WP:Band, nor was I part of the consensus to apply them, I was just attempting to adhere to them. I have already accepted the decision of the team here and understand that these are the operational standards that will be utilized. I appreciate the response and information provided.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I would however like to recommend to the team that they may possibly want to rewrite the WP:NBAND notability requirements to meet the current consensus point of view and ensure smooth sailing moving forward. A simple change to WP:NBAND, instead of “may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria”, perhaps it should be changed to “they must meet two of the following criteria to satisfy notability requirements”. This may put other pages in jeopardy, but it would satisfy the current views of the editors who have spoken.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

'Major networks' are things like MTV, VH1, iHeartMedia, Cumulus Media. These are traditional broadcasting type arrangements where all listeners are hearing the same thing at the same time. Streaming services are not networks. MrOllie (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

MrOllie,

MTV and VH1 are TV.

Air broadcast is not what is major for listening anymore, those platforms will try to pitch that because they still want your advertising dollars, but here is some independent research from non-affiliated Edison Research - https://www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/The-Infinite-Dial-2020-from-Edison-Research-and-Triton-Digital.pdf

You can start at page 39 for "Audio Brands" and scroll down to see where IHeart Media stacks against Pandora, Spotify, Apple Music and other networks. Listeners do not need to hear the same thing at the same time for a station to have a major audience. I refer to page 48 in particular titled "Audio Brand Used Most Often" .

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

NBAND#11 refers to rotation. Following the link, read the first sentence: In broadcasting, rotation is the repeated airing of a limited playlist of songs on a radio station or satellite radio channel, or music videos on a TV network. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, bluntly, Wikipedia writes about topics that have historical significance. Your band does not have a significant audience that has attracted critical attention (it doesn't even have a single song with more than 1,000 streams, if I read the lack of play counts on Spotify correctly), so it does not come close to meriting an article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

According to the link provided, Rotation describes that it is in a placement of rotation for repeated airings, the amount of "spins" or plays as in measured airplay is not a stipulation, and no quantifiable number of spins is associated in WP:NBAND #11. A quantifiable number of plays may be part of one of the other criteria, but not criteria #11.

You say "Again, bluntly", but nothing is more blunt than the very clear first line of WP:NBAND " Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least ONE of the following criteria." and the criteria #11 "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." 

I have provided the data and references from independent sources to support that, and I also accept that you choose not publish the page in light of the information provided.  I do not mind continuing conversation regarding the adherence and validity of the guidelines or the supporting data, but again I would recommend making changes to the WP:NBAND requirements for clarification and to meet the current viewpoints of the editors.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to suggest clarification changes to the guideline at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I actually agree with the current writing of the Notability requirements in WP:BAND since the outside sourced data I have provided shows in detail that my page meets the requirements as it is currently stated. My recommendation is to prevent the team here from being contradictory to the current guidelines- when the rule doesn't meet your needs- rewrite the rule to meet the needs of the consensus.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Again as has been said before Streaming services such as spotify etc. ARE NOT major radio or music television networks for WP:NBAND. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

...which seems like an outdated approach. There's nothing special or magical about a radio DJ choosing to play a song, and radio DJing is a dying medium anyway. Streaming is overwhelmingly the "major" means of music dissemination nowadays, radio and "music television networks" are minor players in the space. NBAND's distinction between streaming and radio might have made sense in 2005, but not in 2023. I'm agnostic on whether or not Mr. Levasseur's proposed article merits inclusion, but if the only thing holding is back is that Spotify, Pandora etc. aren't "major" - I'd agree with Mr. Levassuer that this policy should undergo further independent discussion. Pecopteris (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not fond of the modification of WP:NBAND as I believe it supports my current page admission, but a rewrite would clarify and support what seems is a current consensus. I would say that changing the number from "ONE" to "TWO" criteria requirements from WP:NBAND would most likely resolve the present challenge, but it may also negatively impact a significant number of currently approved pages.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The team here has stated on more than one occasion that the data must be outside verifiable from unaffiliated sources.  I have provided that data with links showing that the Streaming sources are indeed "MAJOR" and larger in some cases, and presented by outside verifiable sources.  You and a couple others, have said they are not major, but have not provided anything to show they do not possess a market share, presence or audience that is considered other than major in comparison. Revolucien (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

In my view, this debate is missing the point. Wikipedia articles have to summarise what independent, published sources have to say about a topic. Do independent sources discuss the article topic, Revolucien? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

No, but that's not the question. They do discuss what is a "Major" music platform, which is the current item of contention.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, but if there are no sources that discuss Chaos Warehouse then there can be no article. Hopefully you understand that now, Revolucien. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The Notability requirements in WP:NBAND state the eligibility of the Chaos Warehouse page. The only point of contention was the definition of "Major" in Criteria #11 of WP:NBAND. I have provided the data from outside sources to show the current networks meet the definition of major.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes but as WP:NBAND states "no criterion listed in this page confers an exemption from having to reliably source the article just because passage of the criterion has been claimed". You could have the wording of the criterion changed, but if there still aren't sources to base an article on, there still can't be an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

No exemption is being requested, the reliable sources ASCAP, Spotify, Pandora, Amazon and other sources listed are all searchable and will be found holding the data showing Chaos Warehouse.

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

What "data" will you get from those sources to base the article on? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, I just looked up Chaos Warehouse on Spotify and it says the band has three monthly listeners. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

That Chaos Warehouse is curated and in their catalog.

There is no requirement for number of listeners, but I believe if you look at the Spotify process monthly listeners are people who have actually created a station based off that band, this does not constitute any claims I have made for the inclusion of the page. What the page does claim-

1. The band Chaos Warehouse does exist.  (Verifiable CDBaby, GS1 and ASCAP)

2. It is a truly solo project. (Verifiable CDBaby, GS1 and ASCAP)

3. It is available on major music platforms. (Verifiable on Spotify, Pandora, Apple, Amazon and meets WP:NBAND criteria-without exception)

4. It is registered with ASCAP and GS1. (Verifiable CDBaby, GS1 and ASCAP)

Very respectfully,

Lucien Levasseur Revolucien (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

None of this helps satisfy WP:GNG, I'm afraid. As I've tried to explain, articles have to be based on in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources. In this case, things like newspaper articles about the band and album reviews are the sorts of things you need. Without those, you're wasting your time. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft:To Dream

would it be better if I'd remove the entire section of production as from primary sources and not from secondary ones for better way of getting it approved ? Veganpurplefox (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox, so here's my process:

1. find an instance of significant coverage of my subject in a reliable, independent secondary source
2. write a draft that includes only information from those sources, citing them each time I make an assertion
3. find a second instance of significant coverage, and then a third, ditto

Once you've proven notability, you can add detail from other sources. But the primary hurdle is to show the subject is notable, and for that we ideally would like to see an article written from three instances of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. And giving us a couple dozen sources to assess makes it harder for us. Which THREE are the ones that show notability? Valereee (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I would say that avclub, apple tv and rotten tomatoes has more informations Veganpurplefox (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

None of those three seem to provide significant coverage; read the link for more information. They're all just listings. They prove the film exists, but they don't prove it's notable (info at the link), which is the minimum standard for having an article.

We need to see someone discussing the film at length. Ideally three someones in three different sources, and interviews don't count. For films, lengthy reviews are the kind of thing we generally see, but the reviews this one has had look to be blogs, which we generally don't use (an exception might be if it was the blog of a notable film expert). The awards...unless an award is generally considered important (in which case it is highly likely to be notable and therefore have its own article), it's unlikely any number of such nominations or even wins will get the film over the hump. Valereee (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

There isnt any for now,but hopefully when the film get more recognised that articles will wrote significant coverage of it so i could add the infos Veganpurplefox (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I found the film threat review on the news section on the draft help thing where we can find reliable sources, so why if i found it there it isnt counsidered reliable? If it wasnt i believe it wouldnt show in the source section? Veganpurplefox (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking. Valereee (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I found the film threat review on the news thing there so why would findit there if i cant use tjis one?: Veganpurplefox (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Editor resources

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL Veganpurplefox (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

That's just a google search. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what a "film threat review" is, but I think you're saying you found it by clicking on "news" in the editor resources? That's just a search tool, not something that returns guaranteed reliable sources. You said If it wasnt i believe it wouldnt show in the source section?, that's not correct. It's just a link to search engines. Valereee (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Uploading image

I have a logo that is free to use from a public press kit, how can I upload it? Because I have to tick a box that states I own this image.

What to do? BassieMonz (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, BassieMonz. What license is the image under? 'Free to use' is quite ambiguous here. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, BassieMonz, and welcome to the Teahouse! It's actually unlikely that the logo is actually licensed in a way that allows for the free use of the logo. However, non-free content can be used in limited scenarios such as what you are describing here. Assuming you want to upload a corporate logo, you can use the file upload wizard and select "Upload a non-free file", choose "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." in step 3, then indicate that the image is a logo. If you need any further help or clarification, please feel free to ask. Tollens (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1jhbHPy2l7-VGEYxGW-Ec4DXFm35wM2IJ

Here is a link to the Injective Brand Assets.. This was shared by the team members when I asked for logo to use BassieMonz (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Unless they offer the images to everyone under a free content license (which doesn't appear to be the case), they still aren't technically free, regardless of whether you follow their brand guidelines or not, but as mentioned above, that isn't really an issue. However, if as Mike Turnbull has mentioned you intend to use the images in a draft, you will have to wait until it is published before you upload the image. Tollens (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Even if they were to tell you in writing that the logo could be used on Wikipedia, Wikipedia's policies state that unless the material is free to use by anyone, in any medium, for any purpose, even commercially, it is considered non-free for our purposes. Tollens (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The only other edits you have made are to Draft:Injective. The presence or otherwise of a logo will not contribute to notability of the subject and WP:NONFREE logos are not in any case allowed in drafts. See WP:LOGO for more guidance. If you can provide the URL of the logo in question we can give further advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1jhbHPy2l7-VGEYxGW-Ec4DXFm35wM2IJ

Here is a link to the Injective Brand Assets.. This should useable if you comply with the 'Brand Guidelines' that are accompanied in the link, right? Thank you BassieMonz (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@BassieMonz My previous comment will apply: your first task is to get your draft accepted. At present, it has been declined and there is a long way to go to establish notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism on Superpowers

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_superpower In this arcticle users keep removing Brazil as a potential superpower, while Brazil is a potential superpower Morisfoint (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism is a serious charge, Morisfoint. Don't accuse people of vandalism unless you can back it up with diffs. I see no vandalism (though I haven't looked carefully). I see attempts on Talk:Potential superpower to show that Brazil is a "potential superpower". Good: that's where attempts should be. But the attempts haven't been convincing. If reliable, disinterested sources say Brazil is a "potential superpower", then cite those sources. If you can't, you've lost the argument. -- Hoary (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

they have sources about Brazil is a potentional superpower, the other users vandalized the page and they removed Brazil. Morisfoint (talk) 06:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism is described in WP:Vandalism, Morisfoint. Read that page. Alternatively, don't bother to read it, and also stop your accusations of vandalism. Accusations of vandalism aside, on Talk:Potential superpower, list the best three to five sources that describe Brazil as a potential superpower. -- Hoary (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, @Morisfoint, welcome to the teahouse. However, requesting for sysops' help against other users should be made on related noticeboard, such as WP:AIV for vandalism, WP:ANI for complicated case and WP:EWN for edit warrings. -Lemonaka‎ 06:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

(service) Lemonaka‎ probbably meant WP:ANI rather than the nonexistant WP:ANM. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

OP now blocked as a sock. --ColinFine (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Refs reliability

Are these sources reliable to write about Vladimir Furdik?

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

Thank you in advance. ColinSchm (talk) 10:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem at Vladimir Furdik is that it is under-referenced because an editor recently removed the above listed four of the five refs. Consider contacting User:Hipal to ask why. David notMD (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello - I think posting WP:RSN is better for reliability questions. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@ColinSchm Just looking at the URL, 2 of these are wikis, which are inherently unreliable as WP:USERGENERATED. And "ladbible.com" doesn't sound very hopeful, either! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I did read all the pages to be an admin now where is the application?

(Redacted) and I have read all the pages about admin ship I even have autism and I do work at company's I have a LinkedIn account so see it and then reply and tell me about the admin-ship (redacted) Mac and cheese king (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. I can definitively say that you currently lack the skills and knowledge needed for the community to grant you the administrator toolset. It isn't a job- it's a toolset, and you need to show that you need the tools and have the experience and knowledge to use them wisely. You must read WP:YOUNG. Please read it with a parent or guardian. Do not post personal information about yourself. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Where can I test the admin tools? Mac and cheese king (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no ability to test the admin tools. The chances of the community granting you the admin tools are zero right now. That's not forever, but you will need to spend time- years- building up an edit history that demonstrates a good understanding of Wikipedia policies as well as a need for the tools. Keep in mind that you can do probably 95% of tasks here without being an administrator- and you currently don't have a single edit to the encyclopedia. Just concentrate on being a good editor and not specifically on being an administrator, and over time, should you show that giving you the tools is a good idea and would benefit Wikipedia, someone will eventually nominate you for a community discussion. I again ask you to read WP:YOUNG with your parent or guardian. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I did read it + I really want to be quizzed to see if I can get every admin question right (Just want to be quizzed to see if I can pass If I still pass I still don't get admin tools). Mac and cheese king (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

no. ltbdl (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I also can hack Mac and cheese king (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

being an administrator on wikipedia does not mean anything important: it only allows easier access to certain tools.

i'll say it again: being an administrator on wikipedia does not mean anything. ltbdl (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

There isn't an admin application with predetermined questions to fill out, there isn't a test. Do you intend to make any edits to the encyclopedia? 331dot (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

yes Mac and cheese king (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Could you describe one edit that you are interested in making? 331dot (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I was busy coding a bot in python, unity and c# Mac and cheese king (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I have decided to block for WP:CIR issues. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

To summarize what is above, applying for an Administration position is based on years of editing and thousands of edits. There is no test. You are now blocked because nothing you did suggested that you intended to be a contributing editor to the Wikipedia encyclopedia. You can petition to be unblocked, but that would require a statement that you will abandon any and all interest in Administration status, and instead will commit to improving existing articles. All of this was explained on your Talk page, which you have chosen to blank (all edits, even if blanked, can be seen via View history). David notMD (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

You wrote that you need Wikipedia for a school assignment. Being blocked does not block your access to articles; it only blocks your ability to edit articles. David notMD (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Subsequently blocked from Talk. David notMD (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Roman Gujarati Numerals considered as numeral

Dear friends,

As such I started editing wikipedia (en, gu, hi) in 2009. But due to the scarcity of time, I took a long pause and recently, I started it again. So, in a way I am a new. A difficulty I am facing is the numeral used in template 586.7 kilometres (365 mi) that converts km to mile. But I want input and output to use ૧૨૩૪૫૬૭૮૯૦ this gujarati numerals. Dr. Dinesh Karia^{(Talk) (contribs)} 17:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@dineshjk: that is very unlikely to be considered. most editors will not know what gujarati numerals are, and will be confused when they see them. ltbdl (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ltbdl Note that en.wikipedia is not the only version. While en.wikipedia readers may not be familiar with these numerals, readers of other Wikimedia projects may be. Dr. Karia is active at several non-English Wikimedia sites, including Gujarati Wikitionary. Possibly, they came here to the en.wiki Teahouse because they felt their question would be seen by more people than on some obscure Gujarati Wikitionary talk page.

Unfortunately, I don't have the answer to Dr. Karia's question - I just wanted to point out that it is a relevant question that should not be dismissed. Pecopteris (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ltbdl Thanks for seconding my idea. Yes I mean that for gu.wikipedia.org. Dr. Dinesh Karia^{(Talk) (contribs)} 19:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@dineshjk, do you need the output in these specific numerals for use on the other wikiprojects you mentioned? The {{convert}} template is available in many projects, so the output (numerals) would adapt, I think. Or is my answer way off? Then I apologize! --Maresa63 ^Talk 18:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Maresa63 No Sir, your answer is very much on the line of my point. Thaks for your anser. Yes, I want the change in the local version of convert on gu.wikipedia.org. My question did not intend to ask for a change in the en.wikipedia at all. Since, I do not know how to make those changes, I asked the question her to bring it to the notice of more experts. Dr. Dinesh Karia^{(Talk) (contribs)} 19:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dineshjk, that's a she/her you're calling sir. Valereee (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee and @Maresa63 Extremely sorry for being gender specific and that to quite opposite to what she is. I beg pardon. Dr. Dinesh Karia^{(Talk) (contribs)} 08:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

No need to apologize! Maresa63 ^Talk 09:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to see why this is relevant to English Wikipedia. Templates (such as {{convert}}) are local to a particular Wikipedia: altering the template in en-wiki will have no effect on a similar template in gu-wiki and vice versa.

If you seriously want to argue the case for a template in en-wiki generating Gujerati numerals, the place to argue it is the talk page of that template, eg Template talk:convert. ColinFine (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear @ColinFine I am sorry for not being clear to you in my original question. Let me be clear that I asked this question here because I wanted to reach more expert with my question. I do not intend to propose any change in the template convert in en.wikipedia but I want to make changes in the corresponding local version on gu.wikipedia. Unaware of how to make change, I asked it here. I hope I am clear. Thanks for your time and bringing clarity to my question. Dr. Dinesh Karia^{(Talk) (contribs)} 19:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dineshjk: To request a change to gu-wiki, you'll have to ask there. You could start a talk page for gu:ઢાંચો:Convert, or ask at whatever their equivalent is for a Teahouse or Help desk. GoingBatty (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

OK Dr. Dinesh Karia^{(Talk) (contribs)} 08:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Dinesh. Convert uses a module written in Lua, and Lua's tonumber() is likely limited to 0–9,A-Z. It appears Gujarati numerals use the same base-10 positional system as westernised hindu-arabic, so one good approach could be to create a separate template/module that replaces Gujarati digits with western ones, then feed the results of that into Convert. (Or vice-versa.) You could then also re-use the digit-replacer for other purposes.

Nesting ten #replace seems ugly but could work. Or the equivalent with Lua gsub(). Maybe WP:VPT could advise more, or a template-focused wikiproject? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 11:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pelagic Thanks. Dr. Dinesh Karia^{(Talk) (contribs)} 13:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding template within ref tags in VE

Hi. Template:Creative Commons text attribution notice is usually placed within <ref> tags. Is there a way to put a template inside ref tags in Visual Editor? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Coming here after a long time. Recently at Wikimania, I captured this interesting image that relates to VisualEditor. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Clayoquot Yes but it is tedious and much easier in the source editor. In VE, I think that you would need first to do the citation and then use the drop-down "Insert" menu to choose "Template", then type in the first part of the name of the template until the software offers the template you require. The next part in the case you want is to fill in the parameters, which can get very fiddly! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the chuckle TheAafi and thanks for the answer Mike. This user experience is awful. Beyond the fiddlyness of it, it doesn't even work - the template ends up in the body rather than in the references section. What is the best way to complain to the WMF about the technology for citing sources? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Citation best practices for text available before copyright year

What is the best practice in a citation for the date of a text available before its copyright year?

I will incorporate some sourcing from a text which is available now, but states 2024 on the copyright page.

My assumption is 2023 better as I expect it will otherwise be too confusing and generate edits by others to "fix."

Any better way to address this? JArthur1984 (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@JArthur1984: Assuming this is a web source, it might be possible to find other dates somewhere else - I might be able to help if you provide a link? Alternatively, if you're certain that this source was published this year, 2023 would be correct, but I'd recommend leaving a note in your edit summary and/or as an HTML comment to clarify. Tollens (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It’s a physical academic text as seen here.

Indeed, the copyright date both on the physical copy and in the publisher’s catalog are “2024.”

But obviously it’s available for order now and I’m holding it here in fall 2023. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

On further examination I see that in addition to a 2024 copyright date, an august 2023 publication is listed online. I suppose I had never considered that copyright might run differently than publication date JArthur1984 (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I was just typing a reply saying the same thing - copyright is sometimes a bit different on books if they are published late enough in the year, especially textbooks. Tollens (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Tollens. I'll just be using 2023. I'm glad we discussed as this helped me orient to the solution. Many thanks. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Please highlight issues in this filing so that I can learn and where else should I report of this kind of abuse(user using an IP)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Whole summary can be found here - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pirate of the High Seas

Clerk is saying that this doesn't qualify for a filing. Then what does? Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article should be deleted?

There are only 2 villages with name "Ghodasgaon" and they are differentiated with their district name : Ghodasgaon, Jalgaon and Ghodasgaon, Dhule. I think their is no need of Ghodasgaon article. Ghodasgaon, Jalgaon article should be named as "Ghodasgaon" because it have many sources, the village have more population then Ghodasgaon, Dhule, the latter also don't any Citation. Tesla car owner (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

No. Named population centers, even small ones, qualify for articles. If you disagree, you can use the AfD process to nominate it for deletion. David notMD (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@David notMD: I think they mean the disambiguation page Ghodasgaon, not either of the two articles. Tollens (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that the proposal is to do away with the Ghodasgaon, Dhule and thus the needs for the disambiguation page. Tesla car owner already tried to Speedy delete the G-D article, reverted because Speedy deletion was inappropriate for an article that has been in existance for a long time. David notMD (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh - missed that, sorry. I also would oppose the deletion of either article. Tollens (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

everything I update is getting deleted..

I am trying to update a page that a special interest group has taken over. Under Administration, I added that this is the first all female team of leadership- that was removed. Even if I update the number of staff, (there are 38 scientists, not 400 as listed) that is taken down. No matter what I write it is removed. Is there any help out there? 47.149.160.178 (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi. A lot of those rollbacks were by me. It's possible one or two of them were overzealous, that I rolled-back large chunks of edits without looking closely enough; if so, I apologise. Updating staff numbers is of course fine, for example. But the chief concern is that you removed well-sourced content, without explanation, and added commentary-like content. Please don't do that. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

For the curious, this is about Washington National Primate Research Center. David notMD (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Keeping track of topics

I have opened a number of unresolved topics which I am tracking on my user page. Does Wikipedia provide a way to search for my unresolved topics, e.g. those which contain a given template? I have to keep updating my list so it would be nice to have one that updates automatically. I don't want a blanket list of all my open or subscribed topics but only want to track those which I consider unresolved. Lightbloom (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

There's a user script called W-ping that you can set to remind you to circle back, if that helps. You can find it at User:SD0001/W-Ping. Valereee (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

What about using tags on commits? Would that be possible? E.g. like the 'reverted' tag Lightbloom (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is not possible to change the tags on an edit. Tollens (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check out pings then. I suppose firing and forgetting until later is a better way to operate anyway. Lightbloom (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lightbloom - Have you tried adding those unsolved articles to your Watchlist? keyboard shortcut (alt-shift-w). Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

What's Roll Back

What is "roll back" on Wikipedia? Just wondering. Cwater1 (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

A special kind of editing tool granted to some users to more quickly roll back vandalism and other unconstructive edits. The term may also colloquially be used to refer to third party tools which accomplish the same thing. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, makes sense. I just read through about Wikipedia:Rollback. I see rollback used a lot. Cwater1 (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Earlier, I tried it but typed as two words and so therefore, I went to the wrong thing. After this, I realized it is now one word. Cwater1 (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Census enumeration districts not notable, if I remember correctly?

I'm convinced that there is a policy that declares census enumeration districts to be not notable but I can't seem to find it. (a) can anyone remind me, please? (b) is there a mechanism somewhere to facilitate searches of wp: space so I don't have to waste your time on RTFM questions? Thanks. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@JMF: WP:NPLACE indicates Census tracts [...] are not presumed to be notable. Yes, you can search any namespace - enter your search term in the search bar, choose "search for pages containing <search term>", then expand the "Search in" dropdown, where you can remove the article namespace and add the Wikipedia namespace instead. Tollens (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

TYVM. I'll add that to my list of obscure but useful links. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@JMF Help:Searching is well worth a read - the Wikipedia search engine has all kinds of useful features built into it that aren't well known, e.g. you can search for pages containing a certain category, you can search for pages containing specific templates, you can run regex on the wikitext of pages and so forth 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

falsefully removed edit

i made a edit of there is no game wrong dimension since im a fan of the game and it uses the wilhelm scream and i added it and someone says this is not useful and removed it the wilhelm scream was used in the game and i have further proof Goofyboofyhahaha3 (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Then, Goofyboofyhahaha3, explain this, lucidly, at the foot of Talk:Wilhelm scream, of course providing reliable sources for what you assert. -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia article

I have spent hours trying to understand what I actually need to do to submit an article about an important folk music artist. Why can't I just submit a Word document, a PDF or some other human-readable essay with a couple of tables for reference information? Ynnurb (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) a musician, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. Per the Biographies of living persons policy, every substantive fact about a person must be sourced. If what you have written is as I describe, you can likely submit the text via the Article Wizard, though you will need to properly format and place the references, please see Referencing for beginners. Please ask if you have more questions. 331dot (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ynnurb, if I'm understanding your question correctly, it's because someone would have to turn that doc or pdf or other human-readable essay with a couple of tables submission into an article, which would likely take quite a bit of time. Valereee (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand that. I just don't have the time, I guess, to go through a many-months-long learning process. Maybe I can find some local sources for assistance. Ynnurb (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ynnurb, if you let us know the name of the article subject, there's always a chance someone will be interested. We're all volunteers, here, so it's a matter of someone thinking, "Yeah, I'd check that out". Valereee (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The subject is a currently-living folk music icon named Debby McClatchy. She has a wide-ranging background and has performed nationally and traveled internationally at least 45 times to perform at venues and music festivals. She has also authored at least one literally, albeit short, document n the history of traditional Appalachian music. I know her personally as a friend and a guest on my bi-weekly radio show (KVMR-FM) Ynnurb (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

replace "literally" with "authentic and well-written" Ynnurb (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ynnurb, you could try asking at Women in Red - someone there might be interested. From a quick Google, it looks as if she may be notable in Wikipedia terms. Tacyarg (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Sturpeedurk

Hello everyone. I would like to introduce myself. I am new on Wikipedia and I would like to write articles and become an valued member of the community. Dentsan (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Some guideleines left on your Talk page. Standard advice is put in months learning how to improve existing articles before attempting to create articles. David notMD (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I have started a draft that I will be working on before I submit it Dentsan (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Dentsan, you are creating your draft backwards. In Wikipedia the use of references is vital; doubly so when you are making claims which, in view of American lion, are controversial. Maproom (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Saving my work

How do I save what I have done and get back to it ... I thought I did that yesterday but what I finished up with was sending a page of work to "publication". Ngeralite (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. "Publish changes" should be understood to mean "save changes". It does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". The button used to say save, but was changed to emphasize that all edits are public. 331dot (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Your content is at Draft:Briann Kearney (producer). David notMD (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Listing physical quantities missing infobox

Greetings. Does anyone know how to extract a list of articles in Category:Physical quantities (and its subcats) which do not transclude Template:Infobox physical quantity, please? Thanks! fgnievinski (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Fgnievinski: Have you tried using PetScan for this? GoingBatty (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Very intuitive, thanks for the tip! Here's what I needed: [5]. fgnievinski (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Fgnievinski You can do this in the default wikipedia search engine using operators, see Help:Searching for the details. In this case searching for incategory:"Physical quantities" -hastemplate:"Infobox physical quantity" returns the following results [6], note the negative sign on the hastemplate operator to select pages that do not contain the template. There is a deepcategory: operator that allows you to search subcategories (i.e. use deepcategory:"Physical quantities" -hastemplate:"Infobox physical quantity" to search for pages in up to 5 layers of subcategories of Category:Physical quantities that do not contain the template), but in this case the search errors out due to containing too many subcategories (plus you quickly run into categories that you probably don't actually want to search, I doubt you're actually looking for pages in Category:Fictional characters with density control abilities that don't have this template). 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't expect search to be so powerful! And thanks for the heads up about subcategories, PetScan helped me with that. fgnievinski (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Question about awards

So, I wanted to ask, if I wanted to award a barnstar to a user, am I allowed to go ahead? Do they need to have certain amounts of edits, conflicts resolved, bytes added, time on Wikipedia, etc... For me to be able to award it? Or awarding barnstars limited to certain users like Eco. I am asking this because at least in the wikiproject I am in (WP Japan) has barely any barnstar/barnsensu awarded and no new ones has appeared for years. (Yes, I DID read barnstars page, please do not redirect me to that page.) (AlphaBetaGammsh (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC))

Hello, AlphaBetaGammsh, and welcome to the Teahouse! Go right ahead, anyone can give anyone else a barnstar - there are no specific criteria besides having done (in your personal opinion) something needing special recognition. Tollens (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Correction to a page

I noticed in this page (The Calhoun Shot), the last sentence says the basketball was autographed by Calhoun. However, the ball was signed by Michael Jordan. The article that references the statement also confirms Jordan autographed the ball. Can someone correct the information?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Calhoun_Shot 2601:444:7E:830:B033:E7A1:E6F3:20BA (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Go for it - no need to ask! Tollens (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

To just say that the basketball was autographed by Jordan would fail to make the point about the significance of getting Jordan's signature nor the challenge involved in getting this signature. It also makes it sound like Jordan was the only one who signed it. Fabrickator (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: I agree - not sure where it was implied otherwise. Tollens (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tollens: I'm confused by your response. It's not implied one way or the other, it's not mentioned at all in the cited story. It's evidently a common thing to do, whether it would be done routinely or only upon the (presumably very appreciative) request of the person who's received the ball. Jordan had made up his own policy in which he personally restricted when he would autograph balls, and the cited story goes into that. But the story doesn't mentioning anything about the conventions of autographing such balls. Without that background, it's all out of context. Fabrickator (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: Apologies for the confusing wording on my part - I meant that I never intended to give the impression that I supported a change only to "It is autographed by Jordan", rather than going into further detail. Tollens (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tollens: My fault for not doing this sooner, but this discussion really should be at Talk:The Calhoun Shot. (Sigh, it probably should have started there, but we know that trying to start such a discussion at the article talk page, but it's very common that efforts to start a discussion there go nowhere.) Please see Talk:The Calhoun Shot#Autographing the ball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrickator (talk • contribs) 17:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding national flower to Nigeria

I observed that the national flower of Nigeria is an information that should be on the info box of the Nation's wiki page, but I can't seem to edit nd add that information. Any help? ReoMartins (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@ReoMartins Hi, I can't find a parameter on the infobox country called national flower or something of that like. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The info box is intended to summarize basic key information about the country. Its national flower is of comparatively little consequence. It isn't even mentioned in our list of national flowers. If you can cite a reliable source you could add it somewhere else in the Nigeria article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Shantavira I wonder why it wasn't there though. I have added it now. Many thanks for pointing it out. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I live in California, where we are very proud of Eschscholzia californica, also known as the Golden Poppy, which is our state flower. We also have great affection for the Golden trout (also known as Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita) which is our state fish. We are also exceptionally fond of the California quail (also known as Callipepla californica), which is our state bird. And so on. But none of that appears in the California infobox, because it is not essential information. Instead, that content is covered in List of California state symbols, which also informs us that rice is the official state grain. Given the extensive rice fields that dominate much of the Northern Sacramento Valley, this is not surprising, even though I think of it infrequently . I recommend a similar structure for Nigerian national symbols. Cullen328 (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@ReoMartins The fact is that we already do this every which way, e.g. we have articles for a specific type of national symbol (List of national fruits) and we have articles for national symbols generically for a specific country (National symbols of Ecuador), and sometimes we may have an article section that covers this, and sometimes we may even have a narrow class of symbols for a specific country (List of Indonesian floral emblems, National flower of the Republic of China). Additionally, we have articles for a specific type of symbol that allows listings for all countries (such as List of national birds). We also have "lists of lists" (Lists of national symbols). And in some cases, we have lists of a specific type of symbol for a country's territories (e.g. List of U.S. state songs). Occasionally, this information even appears in an infobox (e.g. Kentucky)! Fabrickator (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I really find the info box for Kentucky quite comprehensive and interesting. It would be nice that as an encyclopedia, we are able to contribute information about certain topics as long as it is a notable one. To which i believe that countries would do well to include national symbols on their respective info boxes to interest page visitors as a vital information. Speaking from my region, a lot of us here are ignorant of the fact that certain national symbols exists, just like a national plant. Hence, my suggestion for it to be included and ultimately advancing the objectives of the movement - promoting knowledge. ReoMartins (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Page not showing up on google.

I everyone, there's a not-for-profit organisation based out of Pakistan that I created the wikipedia page for. It's called Balochistan Youth Action Committee. However, when I google I can't see the wikipedia page come up. Anything I have missed here? Appreciate the help. The organisation is working in some of the most challenging terrains of Pakistan's south western Balochistan Province. Tribal Explorer (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It’s too new, so Google hasn’t indexed it yet. nothing anyone can do about it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tribal Explorer, welcome to the Teahouse. The above reply is inaccurate. It's a new article which hasn't been patrolled by a Wikipedia editor with the required permission so it still has noindex, meaning we don't allow external search engines like Google to index it. See Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing#Indexing of articles ("mainspace"). When it's patrolled or 90 days old, it's up to Google. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @PrimeHunter, this is useful information. Thank you for sharing the Wikipedia Controlling Search Engine information. Tribal Explorer (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tribal Explorer You can check the size of the backlog at WP:NPP, which also gives some additional general information. A couple of comments: the "Mission" section is very generic. What does the organisation or the people it "empowers" actually do? Also, you have linked to the DAB page Qalat when a more correct target would be better. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Michael D. Turnbull, Super feedback - thank you. Improved it with references that I could find from the internet. Tribal Explorer (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tribal Explorer That section is now better but still uses PR-speak. Please read this about the word "solution". Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Film score overtures

Other than wikipedia film project, what projects should be added? I've noticed on The Imperial March talk page, it's only under the Star Wars project, and there is no direct music project to tag on it. I always found that odd really. As I've also just sent RoboCop (2014 soundtrack) to AfD, I was trying to work out what other delsort to add for that. Regards Govvy (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Govvy, pick and choose among those listed here. -- Hoary (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Cheers Hoary I've been editing all these years on wikipedia, but sometimes trying to find a page like you posted there feels like a needle in the haystack. Govvy (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

IPA usage

I dont get why Wikipedia uses the IPA. Maybe I’m in the wrong place to ask. Theobegley2013 (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theobegley2013 As in International Phonetic Alphabet? It's possible there are old discussions in archives somewhere, but my initial guess would be that it's something Wikipedians saw other encyclopedias have, and so started using. WP is supposed to be international, after all. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah! Here is something: Help talk:IPA/FAQ Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if I am typical, but I have often found it useful to have IPA in Wikipedia articles, especially for the names of non-English people and places - and even for some less familiar English ones. Mike Marchmont (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I personally find the IPA useless. Neither I nor most other people can read it to understand how something is supposed to be pronounced. I look at an article like Eurasia and the IPA is just gobbledegook. The pronunciation respelling that follows the IPA in that article is far more useful. It would also be nice to have a text-to-speech feature that recognizes IPA and pronounces it correctly. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I on the contrary find the respelling keys ambiguous and useless, while the IPA is clear and accurate. With the respelling key, how do I know if "OO" is pronounced as in "fool" or as in "book"? How do I know if "TH" is pronounced as in "this" or as in "thin"? If you don't know IPA or forget a particular symbol, you can just click on the IPA spelling and it takes you to a page that lists the pronunciation of every symbol. I really don't understand why people claim to have trouble understanding IPA. I agree however that a text-to-speech tool for IPA would be useful. I'm sure I've seen a discussion of this previously, with some rationale as to why it's not as simple as one might think, but I can't find it right now. CodeTalker (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with CodeTalker on this point. For the pronunciation of names that use non-English sounds (e.g. Hermann Göring, Hu Jintao), it's not very practical to try to express the pronunciation in English; however, the problem can be solved fairly easily in IPA. That said, I have no objection toward using respellings in conjunction with IPA, and agree that a text-to-speech tool would be a great asset if it's feasible. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm on team IPA here as well. It's standardised, whereas the respelling pronunciations vary from publisher to publisher across dictionaries. Respelling pronunciations also do a pretty poor job of capturing what something is supposed to sound like where many of the sounds don't exist in English. They do ok for many European languages, but once you get farther afield they start to fall apart under their own limitations.

I can never remember the values of the hundreds of different IPA glyphs either, but clicking on them brings me to a thing that shows what they're supposed to represent. Respelling pronunciations are also of pretty limited utility to people whose native language isn't English, because they won't have a great intuition into what it's trying to get across. Kinda reminds me of the old fanqie pronunciations in Chinese dictionaries, like "祖含切，音簪": "syllabic onset of 祖, with coda of 含: pronounced like 簪". Ok great, what if I don't know what those words sound like? Also. Folly Mox (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with this take, as IPA does not presume a reader knows how to already read some of the different schemes where combinations of letters may be pronounced differently depending on the context. Text-to-speech of an IPA transcription is best, though. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

So let's briefly consider the IPA provided for "Eurasia" within the article Eurasia. Here it is (using the original markup): /jʊəˈreɪʒə/. If you don't know how to read any part of it, you simply mouse over that part and a tooltip will tell you. The "respelt" version lacks such help. -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Eurasia is an interesting example, because the respelling uses AY which I personally interpret as /aɪ/ rather than /eɪ/. Plus the respelling uses a schwa, so it's not like it's exactly free of its own jargon. IPA exists to provide unambiguous phonetic representatons, and it's the most universally-agreed upon scheme we have. Now, whether we should have better tools or allow people to hide it or whatever are also interesting questions, but as a fundamental concept, I'm fully Team IPA here. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Completely unrelated, but Wikipedia:Why you should learn the IPA should probably be taken to MfD (work in progress since 2014?) NotAGenious (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually related. That little essay-oid relates to various posts at WP:RDL between me and the now sadly missed scholar of languages KageTora.

The way I look at it, writing about the sounds of words without reference to the IPA is like writing about chemistry without reference to the periodic table.

When I say the word "butter", some people might hear it like the word "batter". On the other hand, when I hear the word "butter" spoken in some varieties of American English, it sounds to me like they are saying "birder"; the same word spoken in some varieties of English in the UK, it sounds to me like "bot-air".

I'll challenge anyone to explain this without using the IPA. (I note that is probably outside the remit of WP:TEA.) Shirt58 (talk) 🦘

Wikipedia-book? Talk pages as subtle promo?

There seems to be a growing number of pages with 'subtle' ad-style/promo pages. Up for debate whether or not it truly is, I guess, but a single contribution where username and Userpage match as a resume-style/Match-dot-com promo seems to fit. See: here, for example.

Blatant? Fall under promo or under Userpage freedom? CMacMillan (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, CMacMillan. It does not seem to me that stating on your user page who you work for, with no more information (or a link) is promotion. Remember that user pages are not indexed by search engines, so it would not be very effective promotion anyway (though of course blatant spam is forbidden there as much as anywhere else). ColinFine (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @ColinFine, that makes perfect sense. Appreciate the viewpoint. CMacMillan (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I've seen worse. i.e., User pages that verge on being article-like in content. A simple action is to refer the Users to WP:UP and hope they correct. David notMD (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the userpage you've linked. It's innocuous. Actually, if an editor works for a government, I want to know that, so I can be fully aware of POV/bias that might arise. Pecopteris (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Guidance request

I am working on a draft that has already been rejected (Draft:Hossein_Mohammadi_Vahid_2i)

I found new sources and information from holding remarkable events and television interviews

I wanted to see if he is eligible to be an article in Wikipedia?

I think these two things apply to him:

• The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors
• The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)

In my searches, I saw that he is more of an event organizer than a winner and participant Jackpet11 (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jackpet11: the threshold for demonstrating notability according to the WP:ARTIST guideline you're referring to is very high, and in any case it requires not just the assertion of notability, but clear evidence to support that assertion.

Also, just for the record, the draft hasn't been rejected (which would mean it cannot be resubmitted), but only declined (which means it can be resubmitted, once you have addressed the reasons for the earlier decline). Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

What should I do now?

Do you think it could be an article?

Do I request a review again?It means resubmit. Jackpet11 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jackpet11: You can click on the resumbit button in the big pink box at the top of the draft. Don't do this until after you have made improvements, however. I'll add that interviews don't count toward notability, because interviews are just the subject talking about himself, not an independent source. If he is more of an event organizer, then he's unlikely to qualify under WP:NARTIST criteria, and he would need to qualify under more general WP:GNG criteria, summarized in Wikipedia:Golden Rule. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Jackpet11, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are welcome to resubmit, if you think that the draft now establishes notabililty. But as far as I can see, not one of the sources you cite in your addition is an example of somebody wholly unconnected with Vahid writing in some depth about Vahid. That is the only kind of source which will make any difference to establishing notability. Please see Golden rule to understand better what is required in a source.

Furthermore, the only time when it might be appropriate to attach more than one source to a single claim is where two or more independent commentators have written separately about the subject. Two, four, or a hundred weak sources do not add up to one adequate source.

In addition, it is not Wikipedia's business to characterize anything as "important". As with all evaluative language, an article may quote an independent reliable source describing something as "important", but should never say that in Wikipedia's voice. ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jackpet11, I've asked a question at Draft talk:Hossein Mohammadi Vahid 2i. Valereee (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thread bumping

Why is thread bumping not allowed in Internet forums? Fernandez0907 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Fernandez0907: This page is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. Your question is better asked on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: wouldn't Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing be better? —usernamekiran (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Maybe better. I didn't think of that one at the time I answered. Although, I guess it depends if the issue about thread bumping is disallowed for technical reasons or for cultural reasons. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Confused about why my edit was removed

Peace be upon you. Can someone explain to me why my edit in the Qisas article was removed? I added a source. Is there an issue with using quotations? I would appreciate some guidance on this as I am quite new to all this, and think that the Qisas article needs some correction. Anwar Jihad (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Your edit was last removed with the summary "you removed a valid secondary source (albeit one poorly documented) and replaced it with a long quote which was also poorly documented, to what looks like a primary source. take it up on the talk page please". I see you have already visited the talk page, please discuss this there. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I am confused about why it's wrong to replace one source with another, if I think one is more valid and closer to the truth. Thanks for the advice anyways, appreciate it. Anwar Jihad (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that you ask Drmies on the talk page. I don't know who is right, maybe you are. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. Should I do that on Drmies' talk page or the Qisas talk page? Sorry about so many questions! Anwar Jihad (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

If the question is about the article/its sources, do it on the article talk page. Valereee (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Is this list notable?

I want to make a list titled List of current United States State Legislatures. It would follow the same format as List of current legislatures, but for the State legislature (United States). Would this be notable. Masohpotato (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, does it past WP:NLIST? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

You're nearly two decades late: List of United States state legislatures. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Tool to search for author in citations

Is there a tool to see how many times an author shows up in citations on Wikipedia (assuming the cite template has been used)? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: There isn't as far as I know of - you might be able to search for articles containing their name in "Last name, First name" format (including the quotation marks), and the search tool would give you a number of pages that contain that exact string of text, but it's likely that at least some references would be slightly different, spelled wrong, or have some other problem that would make them not show up, and there may be pages which by chance contain the string without a reference, so take the number with some significant skepticism. Tollens (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I want to fix my citation problem

This generated and error at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALS : Heavy occupational work intensity was associated with increased ALS risk. <ref DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000012829 /ref> Physical activity is not a risk factor for the development of ALS and may actually be protective. <ref doi: 10.1002/ana.24150 /ref>. How can I fix this? Otto9W9otto (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The REF tag may not have such material within it, Otto9W9otto. Replace the first of those examples with <ref>{{DOI|10.1212/WNL.0000000000012829}}</ref>; the second, likewise. (Incidentally, I've added NOWIKI to your question, in order to avoid Mediawiki syntax errors.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoary, I got it worked out. Otto9W9otto (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

View sources

Hello! This may be a dumb question but I have been reading many artical like the History of Luxembourg and German occupation of Luxembourg during World War I, I have seen many sources that are cited as “Thewes (2003), p. 72” how can I view the book or source that was cited? LuxembourgLover (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

In that particular case of German occupation of Luxembourg during World War I, there is a note at the top of the footnotes section that reads Links to many of the cited primary sources, including speeches, telegrams, and despatches, can be found in the 'References' section. - that particular source does have an entry with a link there. Sometimes, a book may not have a link provided, and in that case it is up to you how to find it - you may be able to use your local library, or it may be available in digital form online, and possibly freely through the Wikipedia library. Tollens (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

LuxembourgLover, in this case, the source you seek is freely available on the web; all you have to do is click the title, and it will download a 238-page pdf which you can read at your leisure. Previously, that ref had the correct url—and still does—but it was a dead link, requiring the addition of internet archive params for the citation title link to work correctly; I've added it for you, so all you have to do is click the title. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Grammar mistakes

How do I make sure there is no grammar mistakes when I write a page? 5002 Reset (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

You could paste what you have written into a Word doc or a Google doc. Or you could use Grammarly or similar. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 23:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

"Hi.." wasn't an informative or helpful title, so I changed it. ¶ None of NightWolf1223's methods will ensure that there are no grammar mistakes. They might reduce the likelihood of mistakes, but that's all. Another way to reduce the likelihood is to read aloud what you have written, to adjust it till it no longer sounds strange, and only then to "publish" it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

5002 Reset, I'm sure you've heard about ChatGPT and other large language models. One uncontroversial thing that AI is great for, is writing grammatically, or copyediting raw text to make sure the grammar is correct. I suggest you try signing up for a free account on one of them, and ask it to copyedit your text, and then you can be sure there will be no grammar mistakes. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

but then you'd need to take at least one good look at what's actually written there, so it doesn't try to add anything weird, like overly descriptive promotional gibberish, needlessly complicated words, or fake sources

from my somewhat limited experience, the best you can actually do with one without accidentally butchering your own work is seeing how phrases can be written

handle your chatbots with care, kids cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 11:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Page view graphs don’t work

The page view graphs you can put on a user page don’t work “due to technical issues.” When will this be fixed? Langshidank (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Langshidank,

Unfortunately, there is no firm ETA on the graph tool being re-enabled. The main technical ticket for that seems to be Phabricator: T334940. DMacks (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Until then, how can I find out which users have the most page watchers? Langshidank (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Langshidank I don't know of a specific way to find that out but #1 will be User:Jimbo. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Langshidank Do you want to know the number of people watching a page (i.e. the number of people who have the page saved in their watchlist) or the number of people who've viewed the page?

To find the first click on the "page information" button in the tools menu, and look for the "number of page watchers" entry in the table.

To get a graph of page views go to https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/ 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I've asked for consensus, but no one has replied

I've asked for consensus on a talk page but have had no replies in a week Talk:Elizabeth_II#Call_for_consensus_on_Change_"trained_and_worked_as_a_driver_and_mechanic"_to_"trained_as_a_driver_and_mechanic"_in_the_section_titled_"Second_World_War".

Should I wait longer, or make the edit? Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Corsac Fox Kazakhstan, and welcome to the Teahouse! It's usually (but certainly not always) okay to assume there is consensus for anything until demonstrated otherwise, especially for a fairly minor edit as you intend to make. There is an essay on this specific phenomenon at WP:Silence and consensus. In these cases where you have no particular reason to assume the edit will be controversial, be bold and make the edit - if people disagree they'll revert the edit, which is perfectly okay - see WP:BRD. One note: people are MUCH more likely to engage in discussion if the original post is short - yours is much longer than it needs to be and likely that is much of the reason for the lack of response. An equally appropriate post to the talk page could have entirely omitted a source-by-source analysis - if people are interested they will look for themselves. Tollens (talk) 06:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Request

I’d like to become administrator on Wikipedia! Jursaniko (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jursaniko Take the time to read Wikipedia:Administrators#Becoming_an_administrator very carefully. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Jursaniko, to become an admin you'll need a long record of competent and trustworthy editing. So, avoid edits like this in which you falsified sourced data without explanation. Maproom (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

OP now blocked. -- Hoary (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Helping with draft article Kate Hayllar

I have edited this draft to help to get it accepted. But I don't know if these changes will get back to the editor who said it needed improvement. Could this be arranged. BFP1 (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@BFP1 The WP:AfC process doesn't rely on the same reviewer taking another look. If you are convinced that you have overcome the issues they mentioned, then just resubmit Draft:Kate Hayllar using the big blue button within the decline notice and the draft will go back into the review process. Before you do that, please remove the two external links to auction houses in the text in the last section. They could be turned into citations. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Need help with an article

I want to create an article for a football club near me. I have information about the club, I just don't possess the skills to create a new article. Can anyone help? Yourlocalmackem (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Replied at your talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Biography help

Folks, Craig Newmark here. I've been looking for editors to help me reorganize the Philanthropy section of the article about me, and am a bit confused on how to proceed. A while back, an editor suggested that the section needed to be restructured into subsections. I made a draft and tried the COI edit request queue and was told to establish consensus before making an edit request. Following that, I asked at Biographies of living persons and an editor said that wasn't the place to ask for help and suggested WP:BLPN. BLPN seems like it's for more serious situations than reorganizing existing content. Instead, I tried at WikiProject Biography but have not heard back. Hoping someone here might have a suggestion for what I should do? Much thanks, Cnewmark (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cnewmark: Hi there! Reading Talk:Craig Newmark#Philanthropy section reorganization and additions, I see that Spintendo wrote "The COI editor is of course welcome to seek a more broader consensus from local editors here on the talk page" (emphasis added). The "editors engaged in the subject area" would be available on the article talk page. I suggest continuing the conversation on the article talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

article is appropriate for inclusion

Hello Wikipedia, Please, I believe that article is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia and has now met all the requirements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:197.148.73.155 Lo9999* (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)