Wikipedia:Teahouse

jmcgnh, 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

Factual errors in citing

It is important that we do not have lies in Wikipedia. The article There's a Small Hotel asserts that a cited book contains a particular statement. It does not. This is easily confirmed by searching the book on line. I removed the lie and substituted a different citation that gives a sensible explanation of the story. Someone has reverted the text to what it was before, apparently failing to notice what I said in the Edit Summary. What can be done? It would be unseemly for this to be changed back and forth ad infinitum.Roryjohnston (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You can contact them on their talk page to point this out, perhaps they didn't see the error you are trying to correct. Tesleemah (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Roryjohnston. This is probably something you should discuss on the article's talk page. The editor who reverted you has provided a quote from the source in support of the content they restored. The source might be wrong, but that's something to at least first try to resolve through article talk page discussion. Finally, it might be a good idea to consider the reversion of your edit as having been made in good faith, and refrain from referring to the content in question as a "lie". It's not uncommon for reliable sources to provide conflicting information on the same subject. Whether that's the case here is something to figure out through talk page discussion. Using the word "lie" runs the risk of starting the discussion off on the wrong foot and creating an atmosphere not conducive to friendly discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for yours. There is confusion that needs to be cleared up. This has nothing to do with two sources disagreeing with each other. It’s about correctly interpreting what a source says. The quotation from Nolan does not establish that Richard Rodgers went to Stockton. I have posted my reasoning on the article’s Talk page.Roryjohnston (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Roryjohnston, your "someone" is Pdebee. As Marchjuly suggests, you and Pdebee should discuss this on Talk:There's a Small Hotel. It's been 16 years since anyone discussed a proposed or actual edit there. -- Hoary (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

To: Roryjohnston

Copy: Tesleemah, Marchjuly, Hoary

Dear Colleague,
Thank you for your interest in "There's a Small Hotel" and in aiming to get it right. As Marchjuly suggested, I am happy to work with you in a collaborative way, per WP:DISPUTED. In the past, when I came across similar situations while creating articles myself, I opted to write a footnote to indicate that the fact in question is disputed across the sources, as I did in the first entry, here (see "i"). This way, we demonstrate to the reader that various sources themselves are in conflict about the fact, without us having to do any more than simply point this out. With this in mind, I will now continue this discussion at the article's talk page later today, and I invite you to join me in this constructive effort. Thank you.
With kind regards for now;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 11:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for yours. I have figured out that this has nothing to do with two sources disagreeing. I have posted my reasoning on the article’s Talk page.Roryjohnston (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Rory; I have replied to your entry at the article's talk page and will now apply your suggested correction. Thank you for following up on this and please accept my apologies for my part in this confusion.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 07:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

A Good step! Tesleemah (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

How should I move Draft:Childhood dementia to the mainspace?

Hello. I created a draft for Childhood dementia (a devastating yet under-recognised group of diseases) 14 days ago, and have progressively improved it. I've now been trying to make sure it meets Wikipedia's policies well enough to move on to the article space , especially the core policies (WP:NPOV, V, and NOR). From my understanding reading the policies, I *think* it's in a state where it can be moved to the mainspace. But it's possible I'm mistaken.

While I am auto-confirmed, since Childhood dementia is currently a redirect {{r with possibilities}}, trying to publish the draft through the normal path fails.

How should I proceed? Should I make a request at WP:RM? Does the article need more work before being published? Or should I proceed with a different option?

Thank you in advance for your time. Irina Rainbow (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've notified WikiProject Medicine of this discussion to see if anyone has suggestions for improvement. Moving over a redirect merely requires a technical move request, but a page mover may hesitate to fufill such a request if the draft appears unready. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

There's that big blue button that says "submit the draft for review". Click that and follow the process.

Though I will say with empty sections, it's doubtful people will accept it as ready for prime time. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• It's certainly a viable topic with some decent sourcing available/used. Bon courage (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Rotideypoc41352, Headbomb, and Bon courage.

To Headbomb: I've thought about submitting it for review, but since I heard it can take some weeks to months for an article to be, and this is still a fairly unknown yet very important topic, I thought it'd be better to put in work to make it ready relatively quickly and publish it directly.

Important note: I do want to make it clear that the reason I made this article *is* to raise awareness (so advocacy in a way. I did make sure to read WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:ADVOCACY) but I will try my darnest to respect wikipedia's rules and help make the article encyclopedic. Irina Rainbow (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Weeks/months tend to be for articles that are less well written (e.g. missing sections), or for topics no one cares about (random tech investor). The better written an article is, the easier (and more interesting) it is to review. Make sure to tag the talk page with relevant wikiproject banners (here, {{WP Medicine}} and {{WP Disability}} come to mind, Talk:Dementia might have more), so they get notified when the article is submitted for review. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see. I'll try to work on fleshing out the placeholder sections, which should help.

Also, I see I've already heeded your advice! Tagging the talk page with relevant wikiprojects (including {{WP Medicine}}, {{WP Disability}} and others) was one of the first things I did after creating the draft, since I saw it recommended in "Improving your odds of a speedy review" on the AfC submission template. Irina Rainbow (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone, but to me, the way you've described your advocacy point of view sounds like it ought to be fine: as long as the article has no elements of advocacy in it, you are who you are. It may be uncomfortable to have to avoid adding things such as advice, treatments that aren't well recognized yet, or unofficial symptoms to the article. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This type of situation requires admin help, which can be requested here: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests It's possible that dropping a simple sentence in each of the empty sections – though theoretically not required – would reassure the admin that it's really an uncontroversial move.

I like the variety of sources that you've used. The one about psychosocial impact would probably be useful for putting something in the ==Society and culture== section (e.g., anything about school and friendship). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Haha. I think the variety is mostly an accident, since I just couldn't find all that many sources on it, which is to be expected. Though, before I found some of the other sources, I did add verywellhealth.com for a bit but quickly realized its blocked and considered unreliable, or at least inconsistent. Wouldn't be a good look for the article to use it instead of higher quality sources. Irina Rainbow (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I recommend you submit Draft:Childhood dementia to AfC rather than move it to mainspace. The AfC backlog is not a queue, so it may be reviewed sooner than your think. If to mainspace, in time the New Pages Patrol could move it back to draft. Also either remove or fill in the now-blank sections. What you have is typical for diseases, but there may not be available refs for those sections. Otherwise, interesting topic. David notMD (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I've nominated the redirect for deletion and can review the AFC once that happens. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The draft has been accepted into article space. McClenon mobile (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, the notifications let me know first, but thank you nonetheless for making sure the message reached me! Irina Rainbow (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Beginning with this diff, two editors have added a term ("white-supremacist") to a page's short description without citing a source.

Talk page discussion is here.

What's the best way to proceed?

ClifV (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

ClifV, the best way to proceed is to stop objecting to a white supremacist group being called white supremacist. It's that simple. Cullen328 (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to anyone calling anything by any term, but am under the impression that WP:BURDEN applies as much to that page (the short description, in this case) as it does to any other.

ClifV (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@ClifV There are literally FOUR citations in the first sentence of the article supporting that statement!

What more do you expect?

(We don't add citations to short descriptions - that's why they're called 'short descriptions') Nick Moyes (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I've reviewed those sources, as you can see on the talk page, and none of them describe MDE as white supremacist. The lede of the article also does not use the term*.
EDIT: *as applied to the subject
ClifV (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@ClifV In that case (and I've not looked at the citations given, or others used in that article), your issue is less with the short description than the wording of the lead. I suggest you focus on that, as you do indeed appear to be doing. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the lead is accurate--"Indeed, the relationship between MDE and its community is a major reason for the cancellation campaign." (Buzzfeednews). If you're referring to the is/was distinction, I found MrSchimpf's reasoning to be reasonable from an article writing standpoint if not an aligns-with-reality one.

Given that the short description is part of the article and subject to the normal rules on content, I'm just looking for a single editor (preferably one of the ones who added the content, but that's looking like a longshot) to write "This source explicitly states the conclusion that Million Dollar Extreme is white-supremacist: [insert relevant source here]".

ClifV (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Part of the situation (and therefore necessarily part of the article) is MDE's abuse of plausible deniability. When someone's words and actions don't match, we cannot report only their words, we have to report their actions too. A duck who complains that he has never represented himself as a duck, is still a duck. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@ClifV: More simply, what subjects say about themselves is never trustworthy, and MDE are even less trustworthy because deceiving people is a funny part of their schtick AND they also intend to deceive for real. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Contacted by editor

How do I know if a Wikipedia editor who reached out is real? His name is peter agahchi Ka.ol.cle (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ka.ol.cle if he offered to provide editing, it is almost most likely a WP:SCAM. All editing activity here is public and communication should happen over Wikipedia from the same accounts you are interacting with. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the response!

Before he reached out I was already thinking about getting a page created. How will I then find an editor that can do that? Ka.ol.cle (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ka.ol.cle We are not a promotion platform that creates articles because people pay for them. See WP:VOLUNTEERS. If you are interested in collaborating, you can check out WP:TUTORIAL ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The page a wanted to create is for a public figure, I’m he’s manager and fiancé. I read that if you have a relationship with the person the page is about, you can’t create it yourself. So I would have to find someone to do so and work with them. How do I find someone who can create the page with me? Ka.ol.cle (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ka.ol.cle There is no bar to your creating a draft article about someone where you have a conflict of interest. As that link explains, we expect editors with a COI to declare that on their userpage and submit a draft using the articles for creation process. If accepted, COI editors are expected to subsequently make update requests on the Talk Page, with a few exceptions mentioned at WP:ASFAQ. The issue is not so much your COI as your inexperience in writing biographies of living people, which have very stringent citation requirements. If you name the person you want to write about here in this thread and give what you consider are the best sources meeting the golden rules for sources, we can provide further advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The person I’m talking about is creative explained (Armen Adamjan) maybe you know him. Here’s a link to an interview he did with reader’s digest.

[1]https://www.thehealthy.com/mental-health/happiness/creative-explained-interview-exclusive/ Ka.ol.cle (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Also on he’s website he has a few links to news and articles he’s been featured in, but he hasn’t updated it so there’s a lot more out there.[2]https://www.creativeexplained.com/pages/news-press Ka.ol.cle (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Mike Turnbull linked you WP:42 for a reason; following those basic rules is necessary to create content on Wikipedia. You're trying to establish notability here, but an important fact is that sources here have to be independent, which explicitly notes that books and articles written by the subject are unsuitable, including interviews. If you want to write an article about Adamjan, you need to establish notability through reliable sources that are unconnected with him. Many of the links on his site are unsuitable for this purpose as they're interviews and coverage of a "hack" about reviving dead plants with hair don't really constitute significant coverage about him. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I get what you’re saying, but how will you be sure that a source is reliable and the facts are true if it hasn’t been confirmed by the person himself? Like how can a source that never met him know the basic facts like his height, where he was born or name of his daughter if they didn’t get that from him? Wouldn’t it then just be guessing? I understand that overall a lot of things can be bias when it comes from the person themselves, but there’s certain things that can’t be bias because it’s just facts. I’m just curious to fully understand the different aspects of this. Ka.ol.cle (talk) 11:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used in certain circumstances, but never to establish notability. As to how independent reliable sources know their information, they perform research and fact checking.

Height isn't usually in an article unless it is relevant to the person's career(like an athlete), and in those cases it's usually documented somewhere(usually by the team). The names of minor children should not be in articles about their parents unless the children themselves merit articles. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I quite easily found two articles in the online version of The Indian Express, which is a newspaper considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. The first would be great, in theory, as it is certainly independent of Adamjan and is a secondary source: in fact it debunks one of his hacks. Unfortunately, it barely mentions him as a person, so would not meet the test of significant coverage. Similarly the second, which again is a simple mention of him as being responsible for a hack. My conclusion is that there simply isn't enough published about him yet to show wikinotability, given that interviews (of which there are several including a BBC one) don't count. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I get that! A lot of the articles written about him is focused on something related to he’s work, mostly talking about a specific hack because that’s what he’s known for, not like an actor being part of a movie project and showing their personal work-life as content that would be written about in articles.

So I can see why it might be more challenging writing a page about him. Ka.ol.cle (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ka.ol.cle, and welcome to the Teahouse.

When a person comes here with the primary purpose of writing an article about somebody (especially somebody they are connected with) it is usually the case that their purpose is what Wikipedia calls promotion, and they don't realise that Wikipedia forbids promotion of any sort.

If there is an article about your client - whoever writes it - the article will not belong to your client or you, will not be controlled by either of you, will not necessarily say what you want it to, and should be based almost 100% on what people wholly unconnected with your client have said about them, not on what you or your client say or want to say. Please see WP:PROUD. ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Ka.ol.cle, neither "Peter_Agahchi" nor "peter_agahchi" even exists. (Click either of those links and read what you get.) Incidentally, "reaching out" always sounds to me like what happens in the few seconds (at most) before pickpocketing (or groping) starts. Beware! -- Hoary (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, happy I went here to ask before responding! Ka.ol.cle (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no user account called Special:CentralAuth/Peter agahchi or Special:CentralAuth/Peter Agahchi. If he claims he can help you with a Wikipedia article then it's probably a scammer looking for money. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Ka.ol.cle (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

For completeness' sake, there's also no Special:CentralAuth/PeterAgahchi or Special:CentralAuth/Peteragahchi. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ka.ol.cle: as my other colleagues have pointed out, you were most likely contacted by a scammer. See this warning on similar scam operations. I guess that you were contacted by email? In that case, I advise you to forward the emails you received to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. JavaHurricane 12:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Merging content from a sandbox into a main article

I am doing a major re-write (really upgrade) of an existing article. As it is so extensive, I have had to do it in my sandbox. When I am finished, do I just "paste" my sandbox content into the existing article in one go, or, am I expected to do some kind of "history merge" of my sandbox into the existing article. Or does it matter? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Aszx5000 You can paste right in. Attribution from draft does not matter, since you're the sole author of your sandbox attributions. You don't legally need to attribute yourself. If you were merging two main-space articles, that's a different story. Then you should use {{merged from}} and {{merged to}} which are notices on talk page. Only in rare cases, do you need to request an admin to merge histories. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Great - thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Aszx5000 Before you rush to replace an entire article with your own sandbox re-write, I would strongly urge you to discuss your proposal on the relevant talk page, linking to your sandbox revision, and then wait a suitable time for feedback. This will avoid the inevitable frustration when your entire copy/paste action is reverted because someone takes exception to one particular section of your re-write, or to an issue such as lack of citations in one or more areas. Normally, I might suggest working on replacing one section at a time, but there are times in a rewrite where that simply isn't appropriate or practical.

I assume User:Aszx5000/sandbox2 is intended to replace the pretty expansive Rock climbing page? At this stage it looks pretty good, though I would have a number of issues with it as it stands. (I can comment on a few of those should you wish me to, though the original article's talk page - or your sandbox's own talk page - would be the best places to keep all feedback together in one place. ). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is Nick Moyes. Please do comment on the original article talk page (maybe best to keep a record of it). I still have a bit to go in terms of filling out the references and doing a final re-write, but I think the structure is there, and hopefully will be an improvement on what is an important article in climbing. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I would also recommend replacing one paragraph/section at a time, to allow other editors to also see what changed/fix/catch any mistakes and make improvements. It's a delicate balance between WP:BEBOLD and finding WP:Consensus. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Aszx5000 OK - happy to do that. And another Teahouse host (Cullen328) might also be interested to comment as they also have a climbing background. Might I suggest you do put that invitation to comment on the talk page of Rock climbing and then ping me in. I would hate to constructively criticise content which I know the author is already planning to change. But, as a quick fly-past, here are some brief observations.

Moved to Talk:Rock climbing § Rewrite of this article (moved discussion)

 – Aszx5000 (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Books

When creating a draft for books, what do we write? The contents of the book? The reason why it was written? The notability of the book? The author's notability? Some parts of the book? I have a great knowledge (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@I have a great knowledge strict anti-copyright violation would prevent repeating passages of the book but some examples you mentioned make sense. A book could also have influence on other books/fields of literature. See WP:NBOOKS for what books are considered notable under Wikipedia's special criteria. While WP:Other stuff exists warns against using other articles as proof of what is allowed, you can get a taste from reading other wiki articles covering books. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The crazy thing is, the book that I wanted to write about did not get any award, but the author(James Dokhuma) got a title because of the book. So is the book still considered notable? The book is Ṭawng Un Hrilhfiahna. However, there is another book also written by him called Irrawaddy Lui Kamah(on the river banks of Irrawaddy) that talks about WW-II and the experiences of the author and the Mizos about the Japanese invasion. It is used as a textbook for Class IX in Mizoram. Which one has better chances? I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@I have a great knowledge: To understand the chances for the books, compare them with everything that it says at WP:NBOOKS. Doing all the reading so that you understand every detail on that page will really save you a lot of time and stress. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:NBOOKS is important, because if the book doesn't pass that, there shouldn't even be an article. So I recommend you start by carefully comparing your book with that; then if it doesn't pass, you won't waste time on a rejected article, and you can work on something else instead. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

To get an article, a book has to be notable by itself. If it's not notable enough for a book article, it may still deserve to be mentioned in the author's article (but only if the author is notable and already has an article). TooManyFingers (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I will also suggest that you look for secondary sources that discuss the impact of the text, as that will help establish its notability in a direct way.

Book reviews' discussion of the summary will help avoid the PRIMARY SOURCE problem. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Neither sounds Wikipedia-notable, and your current version of Draft:James Dokhuma is not ready to submit. It needs references that are about him. David notMD (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I might add to the end of David notMD's response: It needs references that are about him, and not from him. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

they are not from him. I have a great knowledge (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Note that it's often the case that a book is notable (because it has been reviewed and otherwise discussed by others) even when its author isn't notable (because not enough has been independently published about them as a writer and/or a person).

However, being a notable book doesn't in itself make the author notable; equally, being a notable person doesn't automatically make a book by that person notable.

It might be possible to write an article about the author, or one about the book, but it shouldn't try to be about both equally. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.171.3 (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

When I said "not from him" I was thinking specifically of his book. None of the references in the James Dokhuma article should come from his book. (Except in a little section of the article that's literally talking about the book.) TooManyFingers (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Uploading images

Hi, had a quick question on how to upload images to a page I have edited. I am relatively new to wikipedia

List of mosques in the United States Chirpingsparrow (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chirpingsparrow Do you have the right to upload the images you wish to upload? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Chirpingsparrow, I imagine that these are photographs. Was it you who took each of the photographs? (If not, please explain.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It is pictures that I found on google images - assuming it breaks the copyright policy. Chirpingsparrow (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

That is indeed a good assumption. Please do not attempt to upload any of them to Wikimedia Commons, English-language Wikipedia, or the Wikipedia of any other language, until you are prepared to point to clear, public evidence that a particular image either is in the public domain or is copyleft according to an acceptable license. See "What licenses to the files I want to upload have to use?". Note that "in the public domain" does not mean something like "already easily available to the public"; it means instead "free of any kind of copyright". -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for you prompt replies Chirpingsparrow (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Provide Article

Hi you all,

i tried to improve my article about a living musician.

Seems like an admin was not happy with the sources.

I tried to adjust these.

In my opinion, these are all prime sources. All of the TV appearances are documented with videos that the TV stations themselves have published on YouTube (and these are the largest media stations in Germany). As well as Hintermüller's activity as an author. Any statements made are also backed up by newspaper articles. The AGO (America's largest trade journal for church music) and Musica Sacra (the largest trade journal for church music in Germany) are very reputable sources. All magazine sources come directly from the publishers.

In addition, there is the fact that the special visa categeory in the USA requires an extensive examination. Accordingly, there is also relevant evidence here that Hintermuller is an important church musician of our time and that he performed internationally and not just locally. Thus he also has a strong relevance in the music scene (notability). He is present in reliable sources.

I would be happy to receive feedback on how I can improve the article and the references to make everything better.  Draft talk:Christoph Hintermüller JPreisler1987 (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing seven million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing!

Your article was not rejected, rather it was declined so you can continue to make improvements. From a policy point of view, can you state which exact criteria article subject qualifies under Wikipedia:Notability (music)? I would highly recommend reading the links I shared, because some of your understandings of primary/secondary sources would benefit from this. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

hi @Shushugah Thank you that are helpful advices. I will directly read through it! JPreisler1987 (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

JPreisler1987, your draft is strewn with boldface. Most articles need a grand total of one use of boldface: at the very start. This draft is no exception. As for verifiability, when you write for In October 2023, Hintermüller was granted the rare O1-B visa by the United States, awarded to artists with extraordinary abilities in the national interest of the USA you provide evidence for the second half of this but not for the first half. -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks that is helpful! I removed the boldface!

Ok I believe the artist has published a photo of the visa with the visa number blacked out on his website or social media. Such a photo would count as proof, right? JPreisler1987 (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Got finally the visa and included it. I hope this provides the requested evidence! JPreisler1987 (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Not really. We're looking for published sources that say this. If it's not published, it's probably not something we want in a wikipedia article in the first place. I do think it would be very strange to mention someone's visa status in their encyclopedia article. -- asilvering (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I think in this case the visa status is being offered as evidence of their talent, akin to an award. That would only be valid if independent sources discuss this, an image of the visa(probably unwise to have even with details redacted) wouldn't work. 331dot (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that the act of getting that visa, and the photo of it, are only important in one person's life. (Similarly, every time I go to the dentist IS a major event in my life, but no one else thinks so.) I think the more significant thing is the fact of getting the job itself, plus showing that a special visa is always required in such cases. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, the crucial point is that the artistic expertise is proven and that the person is relevant in their field. The American authorities check precisely this very meticulously and only grant this visa to people who are outstanding and relevant in their field of art/music. These art visas are always tied to the job. The authorities also only grant these visas if it is an outstanding position in the field. This is all described in detail on the Wikipedia page on the O1 visa. But in general, this is just one point. There are countless articles, concert reviews and TV reports about him from independent and TV stations and national newspapers. That just proves once again what the visa says, or am I seeing it wrong? JPreisler1987 (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, what we want are those articles, concert reviews, and so on, not the visa. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I will happily strike my reply if it turns out I'm incorrect, but I don't believe Hoary brought up the visa because it was some key to notability, but because it was a factual statement in the draft that didn't have a cite at the time, and those things have to be substantiated. The government wasn't acting as the custodian of an encyclopedia in this context, but simply evaluating Hintermüller's legal status. What mostly matters is the underlying information that would lead one to the conclusion that Hintermüller qualifies under WP:NMUSIC, not the government's evaluation of artistic merit. I see no reason in policy to think we've outsourced notability of artists to the government. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I See! I will work on that! Thanks for all your ideas and help! JPreisler1987 (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Request for Review: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Md_Zillul_Karim,"

Hello,

I hope you’re well. I am currently participating in the editing of the article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Md_Zillul_Karim," collaborating with other editors, including Keith D. We’ve made several improvements based on feedback, and we’re eager to see if the article is now ready for approval.

Could someone please review it for us? Your guidance would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you! 103.178.95.3 (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse! You have submitted Draft:Md Zillul Karim 5 times and it has been reviewed four times. It will be reviewed a fifth time. We are all WP:VOLUNTEERS and not in a WP:RUSH to meet deadlines. There are no shortcuts, if you want to increase your skills, improving any of our existing 6 million articles is your best bet. Happy editing and patience! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I appreciate the work that goes into the review process. I’ll continue to be patient and look forward to any updates on the draft.

Thank you! 103.178.95.3 (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Your draft says this person is notable because they are a Social Entrepreneur along with unnecessary capitalization. My immediate response is that phrase is promptionalism devoid of serious content. If we say that a person is a physician or a photographer or an astronomer or an architect or a plumber, we immediately have a very good idea of what the person actually does to earn a living. But what the heck is a "social entrepeneur"? Well, we actually have an article Social entrepreneurship which says The concept of social entrepreneurship emerged in the 1980s and since then has been gaining more momentum. Despite this, after decades of efforts to find a common ground to define the concept, no consensus has been reached. The dynamic nature of the object and the multiplicity of the conceptual lens used by researchers has made it impossible to capture it, to such an extent that scholars have compared it with a mythological beast. That is not at all a reassuring tool for assessing the notability of a person whose actual role is so vague and poorly defined. We later learn that he gained recognition as a successful young social entrepreneur through his work in education and parenting support. He began his entrepreneurial journey as a co-founder of Light of Hope. That is overtly promotional content that belongs in a fundraising brochure, not a neutrally written encyclopedia article. "Entrepreneurial journey"? Give me a break. Nobody writes that way unless they are trying to promote something, and promotional content is not permitted on Wikipedia. And then we have the almost obligatory name dropping of the world famous Muhammad Yunus. Working on something alongside Muhammad Yunus does not confer notability, and such mentions tend to irritate AFC reviewers. In my view, this draft needs a total rewrite from top to bottom to bring it into compliance with Verifiability and the Neutral point of view, which are two of our three core content policies. Without such a rewrite, your draft violates No original research, our third core content policy. Three out of three is bad in this context. Cullen328 (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear Cullen328

Thank you for your insightful feedback on the draft regarding Zillul Karim. I have taken your comments seriously and made some adjustments, including the removal of Dr. Muhammad Yunus's name from the article.

I also want to acknowledge that David (notMD), a highly experienced Wikipedia editor, has contributed to the article, and his edits have taken a step in the right direction.

I value your perspective and would greatly appreciate it if you could take a moment to review the updated draft when you have the time. Your suggestions would be invaluable as I strive to meet Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thank you for your assistance! 103.178.95.3 (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The tone of the draft is improved, so thank you for that. However, when I look at your references, I find that some of them do not mention Karim, and are therefore of no value in establishing his notability. Others are interviews of Karim or mention him only because they are quoting him as a spokesperson. Those are not independent sources and do not establish his notability. What are required are references to sources that meet three standards: They must be reliable. They must be independent of Karim. They must devote significant coverage to Karim. Which of your references meet that three part standard? Cullen328 (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's a revised response that includes all the news links you've provided:

----

Thank you for your feedback regarding the draft. I appreciate your acknowledgment of the improved tone. However, I would like to clarify that the references I provided include independent coverage of Zillul Karim's achievements, not solely interviews where he is quoted as a spokesperson.

For instance, the following articles directly mention Zillul Karim and provide substantial independent coverage of his contributions:

1. Channel I: ToguMogu Parenting App National ICT Award 2022 - This article notes that the award was presented to Zillul Karim alongside Dr. Nazmul Arefin.
2. Daily Observer: ToguMogu Wins BASIS ICT Award - This article mentions Zillul Karim's involvement in receiving the BASIS National ICT Award.
3. Call for Nation: 1st Runner-up Award - This page includes information about the award and Zillul Karim's project video link.
4. The Daily Star: ToguMogu App - Hacking Your Way to Better Parenting - This article features Zillul Karim discussing the app's development and goals.
5. Daily Sun: Daily Sun Article - This article mentions Zillul Karim, albeit with a spelling mistake.
6. BBF Digital: Collaboration to Solve Malnutrition - This piece mentions Zillul Karim with a spelling mistake.
7. Daily Asian Age: Zillul Karim's Efforts - This article discusses Zillul Karim's contributions to enhancing children's development.

These references come from reliable and independent sources, offering substantial coverage of Zillul Karim’s achievements and contributions. I hope this helps clarify the notability aspect. I would greatly appreciate any further review or assistance you could provide regarding this article. Thank you for your time and consideration! 103.178.95.3 (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, let's go through those sources:

1. I cannot read this source but your summary does not sound like significant coverage.

2. This source is a passing mention and is not significant coverage.

3. A link to a video of Karim speaking is neither independent nor significant coverage.

4. A quote from Karim is neither independent nor significant coverage.

5. A passing mention is not significant coverage.

6. A passing mention is not significant coverage.

7. The Asian Age source says more about Karim, but has the hallmarks of being generated by a press release and/or an interview.

Your sources are exceptionally weak. It seems that you for not understand what significant coverage means. Cullen328 (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear Cullen328,

Thank you once again for your detailed review and feedback. I sincerely appreciate your continued guidance as I work to bring the draft into alignment with Wikipedia’s policies. I fully understand your concerns regarding the significance and independence of the sources, and I recognize the importance of ensuring they meet Wikipedia's rigorous standards for notability.

Based on your feedback, I will focus on identifying and including references that provide substantial, independent, and reliable coverage of Zillul Karim. I now have a clearer understanding of what constitutes "significant coverage" and will re-evaluate the current sources to ensure they align with that standard.

In the meantime, I will continue refining the article to ensure neutrality and compliance with Wikipedia's core content policies. I deeply value the time and effort you have put into assisting me with this draft and would greatly appreciate your review once I’ve made the necessary revisions.

Thank you again for your patience and support. 103.178.95.3 (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

copyright rule question

Should I rephrase this article due to the copyright alert? Or is the duplication just from references, so not a problem? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Jean Ensminger Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

What did the alert say? What part did it complain about? TooManyFingers (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Potential copyright violation log b 13:45 CopyPatrolBot talk contribs marked revision 1247033714 on Draft:Jean Ensminger as a potential copyright violation ‎ Tag: PageTriage Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand it. I looked at the log of changes you made today, and I saw filters three times complaining that you had used someone's blog as a reference - those are normally no good - but either I don't know how to find the copyright violation message or it doesn't exist.

I hope someone smarter than me sees this. TooManyFingers (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Allthemilescombined1, don't worry about this. What it means is that your edit has been referred to Copypatrol by a bot, not that there was any infringement. If there was infringement, someone at copypatrol will request WP:REVDEL of the offending text. (if that happens, take this as a lesson that your edit was a problem!) If there was no infringement, it will simply be marked as a false positive and nothing further will happen. -- asilvering (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Allthemilescombined1: It may help to know that what you put into an article can't be even close-ish to the way the source says it. You have to completely rewrite every bit of everything so that there's no trace of their wording or phrasing. I would guess that a different method might help this problem; try not using the Copy or Paste commands at all. Instead, treat the source material as "look but don't touch", and type by hand every single word of your own completely independent version, to give people a similar idea while using almost none of the same words. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, great points. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Is that something you're willing to really do? I don't know you well, and sometimes when people say "great points" they mean "... but no way am I doing that". I'm sure you've known someone who talks that way. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@TooManyFingersI'm truly in need of advice when it comes to copyright violations, given my history. I do not plagiarize. It's a bit of a fine line between "no original research" and "no copying", right? So it's truly helpful to understand that I can't experiment with the wording in the space. I've also had my 'original research' removed, which is, of course, frustrating. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Whenever I requests for page protection edit permission the form never submits

Title. Trying to edit a page as a noticed a small problem. A section was removed but not all information in it was distributed across the replacement section despite it probably should've been. AnonyHelper (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know the exact rule, but I think you might be too new and inexperienced on Wikipedia to be allowed to do that yet. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

right, im not trying to actually edit the article just submit the form to request perms AnonyHelper (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. What's the name of this form? TooManyFingers (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to appear disrespectful, but it seems to me that keeping brand-new editors out of there is exactly the reason that the page was protected. Why not write something on the article's Talk page instead? TooManyFingers (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I tried to! It said I dont have permission to talk in the talk page but maybe i was doing it wrong lol

also no worries no disrespect. this is the page:

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit/Form AnonyHelper (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@AnonyHelper: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your account is likely too new to get past a page's protection. You may wish to submit an edit request on the relevant article's talk page. Generally special permissions aren't given to editors for particular pages. You should be autoconfirmed in about 3 or so days. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Understood i can wait three days. I was just confused because when I tried to post on the talkpage it said i couldnlt AnonyHelper (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Which talk page? Some talk pages on contentious subjects (such as Talk:Zionism for example) are extended-confirmed protected, and you cannot comment on them even if you wait a few more days, you need to have 500 edits and 30 days. There should be an icon at the upper right saying what kind of protection it has. You can also make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit, which is where people often go to request an edit to an article when they can't edit a talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@AnonyHelper Hello TyphoonAmpil. Wait 3 days will make autoconfirmed, date is September 26. Thanks! †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - Tools) 09:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Discerning reliable sources

I was under the impression upon my first submission that there were indeed enough reliable sources to the standard of Wikipedia, mainly baring on the "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" portion of the rejection for my submission. I have added more third-party sources in an attempt to properly cover this. Many of my original links however showed that the person has been cited numerous times outside of her own publications. I am wondering if what is there now, that I have added to it, is more so of what was being asked by the requirement for reliable sources.

Draft:Susan L. Epstein NBmua (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that I'm not an expert on this, but your reference list is absolutely packed with items where "Susan Epstein" is an author.

I think it's fair to say that you've got the categories wrong. What we need is articles from reliable sources where "Susan Epstein" is the TITLE, not the author. We need articles about her, not articles by her. I need to add that anything sourced from her employers or her publishers doesn't count as reliable in terms of her notability. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It appears to me that this type of conflict, "presenting the person by means of their published and influential work" vs. "presenting the person as a noted individual in society" is natural among academics, because being influential in their field is a major factor in how academics compete for jobs. They're so accustomed to (and skilled at) demonstrating job qualifications that they tend to do so even in situations that aren't about getting a job (viz. "When the only tool you have is a hammer ...). TooManyFingers (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@NBmua: Welcome to the Teahouse. In addition to what TooManyFingers has said, I would remove any use of reference 13 as of this revision because the source is a wiki. User-generated content does nothing to establish wikinotability of a subject. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@NBmua: There may also be useful information about this at WP:NACADEMIC, if it applies. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Small note: Your draft was Declined, which is not as severe as Rejected. David notMD (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Articles about academics often have a "Selected publications" section. This provides a place for journal articles, book chapters, etc. However, the publications do not usually contribute to establishing notability. As mentioned above, the draft needs refs for what people have written about Epstein; also, per WP:ACADEMIC, the types of university positions, journal boards, significant science awards, etc. that contribute to notability. David notMD (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The "chair" positions mentioned in the lead may be sufficient, although they aren't "named chairs" (which I have always found to be an objectionable criterion when universities can name a chair to memorialize someone otherwise non-notable who happens to give a big donation). ~Anachronist (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:CATSPACING

Is there a policy concerning spacing of categories at the bottom of an article, similar to WP:STUBSPACING? Tule-hog (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know of such as up to 200 categories can be added to an article, you can also check here for further reading WP:Category Tesleemah (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Unlike templates or text, the Categories remain linked at the bottom of the page (unless it is a manual Help:Interlanguage links), no matter where you place the categories. Still Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Standard_appendices_and_footers has guidelines where to place them, but nothing related to spacing. Happy editing ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

BEFOREE search

Greetings! I have come across plenty of Wikipedia talks using the term "BEFORE search." There seems to be no Wikipedia guideline associated with it, and I'm asking here what that means. Thanks! Pygos (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! To make your question clearer, instead of naming a search tool, what is the actual information you want to find? TooManyFingers (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE. Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

That. Basically, BEFORE nominating an article for deletion, one should make an effort to look for sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Inline Citation

Hello, kindly, I need help in working on the inline citation of my article, like I recently published my article and I cannot seem to understand where I went wrong with the citations. I have read the wikipedia citation page but I cannot seem to understand a couple of things. I will appreciate the guidance I get Mercy Mungai (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

You added some citation from external sources as if they are wiki links, see this and this. They should be added as a reference instead (I don't know how reliable they are yet as I didn't check deeply), but I see that's the main issue the reviewer pointed out. Tesleemah (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

oh wow this is so nice and an eye opener. Okay let me ask, so where do I put wiki links and where do I put it as a reference? Mercy Mungai (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mercy Mungai: Please see Easy referencing for beginners. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

okay thank you very much Mercy Mungai (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mercy Mungai A wikilink is one that points users to another Wikipedia page. So your draft might have had a link to Cardior Pharmaceuticals but that would appear in red since there is no such article. Instead you used an external link to their website. That's wrong on two counts. First, we don't normally use such external links in the body text of an article. that's explained at WP:EL. Many articles do have relevant external links in a separate section at the very end of the article. Secondly, your use of a simple link to the homepage of the Cardior website as a reference (#8 at present) is itself no use since it doesn't verify that Thum was indeed the founder of that company. You must cite a specific webpage (or other source) that makes that point explicitly. Your draft has many other problems. For example you say Prof. Thum is recognized for pioneering oligonucleotide-based therapies.... but the only citation is to his own publication. Who said it was "pioneering"? Our neutral point of view policy means we can only call something "pioneering" if we cite a direct quote to that effect. There is also no need to repeat the "Prof." in that sentence: just use his surname. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull and @Tenryuu already provided sufficient guideline moving forward. Tesleemah (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed all the "Prof." You need to delete the hyperlinks in the text. David notMD (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

How to match WP:ENCORP for my article?

Hi everybody,

Maybe you can give me a few tips regarding the publication of my article Draft:Hokushin_Seiki.

The dilemma is the following: unlike in the German Wikipedia, my article does not fulfill the relevance criteria "WP:ENCORP" in the English Wikipedia. As Japan's largest manufacturer of airbrushes and ODM for countless companies, this manufacturer is, in my opinion, absolutely notable for the airbrush sector. However, since the supply of ODM products to customers (not consumers) takes place exclusively within Japan, with the exception of one company, no documentation is publicly available and could be used as a reference. Therefore, I have referred to some technical details that refer to the manufacturer by comparing technical drawings (in operating manuals of the distributing companies) and the patent registration of these technical details as a "reference". Only the company Anest Iwata-Medea, Inc., headquartered in the USA, can be verified via websites such as https://www.importgenius.com/suppliers/hokushin-seiki-co-ltd as a customer of Hokushin Seiki for airbrushes (the HS code is unambiguous)...

I appreciate any advice on how my article can fulfill the relevance criteria here. Thank you very much. Zaubertinte (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. If no public independent reliable sources discuss this company and show how it is notable, it would not merit an article on the English Wikipedia. If it is acceptable on the German Wikipedia, you should concentrate your efforts there. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zaubertinte Sources do not have to be in English: see WP:FOREIGNSOURCES. If there aren't even sources in Japanese, that would be the end of the matter for en:Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

According to Google Translate, the German wikipedia notability policy says this:

"

Companies that:

• have at least 1000 full-time employees or
• have an annual turnover of more than 100 million euros (conversion), or
• on a German stock exchange on the regulated market, on the Vienna Stock Exchange in the market segments prime market or standard market or in an equivalent stock exchange segment in other countries, or
• at least 20 plants within the meaning of Art. 5 OECD-MA DBA (online version, pdf, 237 kB) own (so that includes its own branches, production sites, branches, retail stores, but not independent sales agents or sales partners) and (as a whole) correspond to at least one large (for example within the meaning , )
• have a dominant position or innovative pioneering role in a relevant product group or service (independent source required) or
• one of these criteria historically met.

The information on full-time employees and annual turnover must be documented by suitable publications in public registers (such as the German company register) and comparable publications.

"

This is very different from the English Wikipedia notability policy: the German Wikipedia says that companies deserve an article if they are, essentially, big enough or have an important position. The English Wikipedia says:

"

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

"

The English Wikipedia essentially does not care about how big or relevant the company is, but only whether there are multiple reliable secondary sources (in any language) describing it. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

"Identifies as nonbinary" vs "Is nonbinary"

I stumbled across an IP who had edited the articles of several nonbinary individuals, changing the sentence "x is nonbinary and uses they/them pronouns." to "x identifies as nonbinary and uses they/them pronouns." This phrasing makes me uncomfortable as a nonbinary person(I don't "identify" as anything, I am nonbinary) but I wasn't able to find anything in WP:LGBT or the MOS to find justification to change it back. I'd rather not make an edit for my own comfort if it's ultimately pointless, so is there a WP page I might be able to look to about this? LaffyTaffer (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm specifically bothered by the deliberate and pointless change to "identifies as". The word "is" worked just fine, and is possibly preferred by some of the people whose articles were edited. LaffyTaffer (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi LaffyTaffer. You don't need to find your justification in some WP: or MOS: page. If a revert improves the article, go for it. That said, you might find your reason in the spirit of WP:VOICE, part of WP:NPOV, which says "Avoid stating facts as opinions." Also MOS:DOUBT. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you very much :) LaffyTaffer (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

On Portal:Transgender, near the beginning of the second major paragraph, the phrase "identify as" is used, non-disapprovingly and in the author's voice. However, it's being used in a somewhat different context there. If its appearance in that paragraph "proves" anything, it would be "A person exists who doesn't mind this phrase, and there has apparently not been a long-term agreement to avoid it".

But ... I consider myself near enough to being binary, and the context of where and how those additions to articles were made is making ME uncomfortable. I hope this is resolved without any worse stuff. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm a nonbinary person who identifies as a lot of things, including nonbinary. I'd probably prefer that use of language generally because it comes from the person's own voice, and it's the easiest way I've found to explain what it feels like to cis people; I do/don't identify with certain genders. Without any more information, if someone told me they don't identify as anything in the context of gender, I'd take that to mean they're agender. For Wikipedia's purposes, it's probably best to just go with what the sources say, unless there is a guideline that advises otherwise. Do the sources explicitly say they "identify" as anything or do they just describe the subject as such? HerrWaus (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I personally dislike the term since it can come with an implication that we're just "playing pretend", but I acknowledge that the phrasing still has its uses and that some prefer it. I've been sure not to touch articles where the main source on the subject's gender identity explicitly uses the phrase. If I've been over-eager in making those changes though, I recognize that this can boil down to a personal gripe, and I have no issue with the edits being reverted. LaffyTaffer (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @LaffyTaffer, TooManyFingers, and HerrWaus: – this is a worthy topic, and you can see the multiplicity of views here about it already. At this point, it has, imho, exceeded the purpose for which the Teahouse was designed, as it is getting into nuanced areas of guidelines, and opinions by different editors. If you would like to say more about this topic, that would be welcome, and I think a continuation at WT:LGBT would be the right venue for an extended discussion about it. You may also get additional responses there from other interested parties not aware of this discussion. If you wish to go that route, just open a new discussion there, starting off with template {{Discussion moved from}}, and add a {{Discussion moved to}} template below. If you feel this has about run it's course here already, that's fine, too, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! Adding Firefangledfeathers. Mathglot (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Too long?

Hello longtime editor first time tea drinker! When List of slave traders of the United States started it had seven names. It now has...more. I've heard tell of such a thing as too many templates or too many sources and I'd like to deal w it before it breaks something. Or maybe I should leave it alone and direct my anxiety elsewhere? Do we have any official advice on when and how to break down long lists, etc? TIA jengod (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I hope you enjoy your tea. :)

WP:SPLITLIST may be what you're thinking of. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

OK that works for me. And the tea was lovely. Cheers.

Resolved

jengod (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Jengod, I wonder why that list exists. Wikipedia doesn't have lists of horse traders, real estate dealers, grain dealers, etc. If it's to be retained, it should be reduced to a list of notable (in WP's sense) slave traders. Maproom (talk) 07:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe there are less slave traders? The slave trade might have been a bigger operation than just buying grain one place and taking it to another. But given how many are listed, you might be right. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

To delete, stub, or draftify Naftali Herz Halevy

I'm looking for opinions and policies that will help me understand how to approach a tricky article.

I've been trying to reverse the damage cause by a Wiki user who has been banned for creating AI-generated articles and using sock puppets to create and maintain articles on topics that they seem highly invested in. One such article that they created is Naftali Herz Halevy.

A review of the sources shows that they are largely fabricated (e.g. pointing to a general library website while claiming to provide information on the article's subject) and I highly highly suspect that the whole article is AI-generated (if any users have tips on how to verify this, I would be deeply grateful).

I would nominate the article for deletion based on the fact that it seems to be fabricated whole-cloth, but I think there is an argument to be made that this person meets WP:GNG. A majority of this user's articles have been draftified, but I don't know if that is something that any wiki user can do for a newer article or if it requires certain privileges. I am also loathe to let the article remain given that this user and their socks seem to be actively harming Wikipedia by creating dozens of articles like this.

Vegantics (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, based on your last sentence: Are they still creating more articles, or do they seem to be gone? TooManyFingers (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

They have active sock puppet investigations open (full disclosure, I opened one of them) so it is suspected that this person is still creating articles but the main account is gone.

Vegantics (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Vegantics, I too suspect that this person is notable but I agree with you that the referencing is very poor. I think that it would take an experienced editor fluent in Modern Hebrew to sort it out. I suggest that you explain your concerns at Talk:Naftali Herz Halevy. Cullen328 (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Priva

I wish I understood the jargon here. All I know is that a page about me was removed and cannot be found. Is there an expert one can hire to navigate all this? Priva (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Priva, please read WP:SCAM and be very cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The whole page Peter Riva is gone. My brother, Michael Riva and my mother Maria Riva's pages are there... Priva (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

There used to be a page that was mostly accurate about me, but it has disappeared. Why? And can I get it back? Frankly, it was very useful to have a quick look at my 50+ year career. Priva (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

You can find the discussion of why it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Riva. However, you cannot make edits to articles in which you have a conflict of interest (See WP:COI). You need to stop editing articles where you have a personal relationship to the subject.

Vegantics (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I never edited my own page. There were gaps in "proof" which I supplied or gave links to (for example testimony before the Congress).... is that considered "editing?"

I do spend time editing my grandmother's page which is full of BS half the time (Marlene Dietrich). Priva (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

If you modified the article at all, that is considered editing. If you want to make changes to an article where you have a personal connection, you should go to the "Talk" page (such as Talk:Marlene Dietrich), identify your personal connection, and request the change you want to have made. You can find more information at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

Vegantics (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

To summarize the discussion of why the article about you was deleted, Wikipedia has guidelines to establish that a public figure is notable enough to merit having a Wikipedia article about them. The article about you did not meet these criteria and had a demonstrated history of being edited by either you or someone close to you.

You cannot have the article about you restored or recreated because you have a conflict of interest. Hiring someone to help you to do so would be unethical. While you have referred to that article as "your page," from Wikipedia's perspective it is not yours. It is meant to be an objective record as created by a neutral third party and so you may actually prefer for there to not be an article, rather than one that you cannot control the tone of.

Vegantics (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Having a record of your own career is a purely personal matter, not the job of an encyclopedia. I'm sure you've used a (paper) encyclopedia before, and I'm sure it didn't occur to you to look for an entry about yourself in there, because that's not how encyclopedias work.

You can certainly get yourself a private website or blog (completely unrelated to Wikipedia) which would be yours to do with as you please; what you can't do is self-declare that you (or your friends or relatives) merit Wikipedia articles. The public is not interested in you at all, and it doesn't make sense for you to tell them they ought to be. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

"The public is not interested in you at all" is rather harsh; some would even say rude. Then again, even if it were justified, well, the public (as normally understood) is very little interested in a pile of subjects that rightly have articles in en:WP. (Can you interest the man on the Clapham omnibus in, say, the Lebesgue measure?) -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

A different take: while Wikipedia frowns on attempts at autobiography, it is not forbidden. Using WP:YFA as a guide, you could create a referenced draft and then submit it for review. David notMD (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

From info at the deletion notice (above) you can contact the Administrator at User talk:Explicit and ask to have the deleted article restored as a draft. You should also indicate on your User page that you have a conflict of interest (WP:COI). Work on adding as references what people have published about you. David notMD (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Years ago, you edited the articles about your brother, mother and grandmother (Marlene Dietrich). Please don't do that anymore, as the same COI rules apply. David notMD (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Please note that those "rules" [sic] do not prohibit all editing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Priva: As already noted, you can read about the deletion of the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Riva. The page is jargon-heavy, but read the linked pages, and ask here if anything is not clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Requesting help on adding Season 16 episodes of Cook's Country

Hi everyone,

I heard PBS aired Season 16 of Cook's Country and I need some help adding 15 episodes of the 16th season on List of Cook's Country episodes. Do you think you can help me out? Janlanuzo (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

What do you need help with? Tesleemah (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Janlanuzo I'm afraid the only help I can offer would be to suggest that the entire List article be deleted for non-notability, and that simply adding the few urls used to create it to the Cook's Country article would suffice. After all, every single citation in that List article is to the Cook's Country website, so any users could very easily find the same information there. But that's probably not what you want to hear! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Janlanuzo Can help you on Cook's Country. the 16th season on List of Cook's Country episodes. is Missing. Thanks †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - Tools) 04:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Warning users about vandalism/violating neutral POV?

I'd just like to know if users (especially like me, with a not-too-high edit count) are allowed to warn other users about violating WP's neutral point of view with, for example, templates like Uw-npov2? Thanks! ~eticangaaa (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. But do try hard not to misdiagnose what you see, and try hard to choose the most appropriate warning template. (The templates are conveniently listed in Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace.) Remember that damage to an article isn't necessarily a matter of vandalism, and presenting a point of view doesn't necessarily violate neutrality. -- Hoary (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Eticangaaa Many editors like to use TWINKLE to help them automate and speed up the process of leaving the most appropriate level of warning to other editors. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. You probably can remember the positive/negative interactions you had in the past when someone on Wikipedia slapped a template on your article or user page versus proactively improving/proving gentle feedback. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers is an excellent essay. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Eticangaaa NPOV (listed on Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace). Do not bite newcomers. Please Assume good faith. Thanks. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - Tools) 14:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Good faith does not preclude people from leaving warnings. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

ask for protection

Why is the Java article not protected? I want the information article about Java Island to be protected because the article has been targeted by vandals who have deleted the entire contents of the article. OriginalFixed (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Page protection may be requested at WP:RFPP. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Last week, one idiot tried it, twice, within a two-hour period. They don't seem to have tried again. DS (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I hope so too because it's very annoying. OriginalFixed (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

An article/page for an Organization and individual on wikipedia

Can I get people/editors here to write an article about an organization and an individual? TransformationAgent (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Not really. There is Requested Articles, where you can add ideas for articles, but it's mostly inactive and was never an on-demand service anyway. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, TransformationAgent, and welcome to the Teahouse. The fact that you're asking that question suggests that you believe that such an article would benefit the organisation and the individual in question. It might do - but it might not: see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Wikipedia does not care in the slightest whether an article is of benefiy or detriment to the subject, as long as it conforms with Wikipedia's policies. ColinFine (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi AntiDionysius, I know about the policies and guidelines but I have not seen any unfavourable thing about the organization and individual in question. TransformationAgent (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

TransformationAgent, I see that you have enabled email. So it's quite likely that somebody reading your question/request here will email you saying that yes, they may be able to do this for you (for a price). Do not agree to do this, because it's likely that the "writer"/"editor" will disappear with your money or will turn out to be incompetent. (See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Solicitations_by_paid_editors.) It's better not to reply to any such mail. -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. 110.141.4.90 (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

2006 article hijack?

Hello, I found Manuel Rendon and it looks like it was initially a page, which then got blanked and redirected to Manuel Rendón Seminario, then got replaced with the current engineer(which may be unfocused or promotional imo but that's not what I bring up here), my question is, is this an "Article Hijack"/should history be merged as appropriate? Akaibu (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say no to a histmerge per WP:PARALLEL. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 11:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Akaibu Looking a the full edit history, the page was a redirect from 2006 to 2015 having started as a duplicate article which was redirected on the same day as it had been created in 2006. So I agree with Rotideypoc41352. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Most of the source links to Manuel Rendon are intended for Manuel Rendón Seminario, so disambiguation is needed. DuncanHill (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually it's a bit more complicated. There is a currect redirect from Manuel Rendón to Manuel Rendón Seminario and both are listed at Rendon (surname). With only two people having names which can be confused, a hatnote is probably the best solution. I'll try to fix the linking: there are not many of them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the primary usage for Manuel Rendon is Manuel Rendón Seminario, so move Manuel Rendon to Manuel Rendon (meaningful disambiguator) and redirect Manuel Rendon to Manuel Rendón Seminario. DuncanHill (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@DuncanHill I've made the changes implied by what's above, including the incoming links. If you want to do the "primary usage" stuff, go ahead. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

My Own Wikipedia Page

How do I submit a page about me and my band's history. I released tracks on EP and compilation album formats which had radio and TV success in the '80s with my band based in Glasgow, Scotland :'The No Entry Band' and worked with other known musicians. I am releasing an album on vinyl and CD this October/November 2024 and wanted to submit a page for approval about my band's history and current work. Please advise. Thank you. Ilona Wewiorski (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Writing about yourself is very, very strongly discouraged; if you did so, you would need to make certain declarations for the sake of transparency, and the article would be unlikely to be approved because almost everyone has a hard time writing about themselves in the objective, neutral way that Wikipedia articles should be written. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ilona Wewiorski What Anti said, but also upon doing a quick search for sources on The No Entry Band, I was unable to find any. I'm assuming that there might be some on a newspaper somewhere, and I'll have a quick poke around, but you need to have reliable, secondary sources talking about your band to start creating an article about it. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 14:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll second this, you mentioned TV success, we need reliable sources for either you or your band, you mentioned TV success, can you elaborate that? if say, perhaps whatever your music was in has its own article, that might help establish notablity. Akaibu (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not encouraged to write a Wikipedia article about yourself and even for those close to you, you will need to disclose your relationship with them. Tesleemah (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Ilona Wewiorski, I agree with what's come before, I just wanted to chime in with a couple of links for you to read up on: WP:Conflict of interest, and WP:DISCLOSE. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Редактирование статьи Leonard Riggio

Здравствуйте! Почему отменили мое редактирование статьи Leonard Riggio? GrandeHermano (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@GrandeHermano: If you have a suggestion for the article Leonard_Riggio you can start a discussion in English on that article's talk page.

If you need help with the Russian wikipedia, ask at ru:Википедия:Форум/Вопросы RudolfRed (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I reverted your edits. As you did not have the courtesy to leave an edit summary I could read, I could not be bothered to translate it. As said above, this Wikipedia operates in English. That said, I couldn't see what you were trying to do anyway (and you didn't tell us!) – all I could see is that you changed his date of death from 27 August to today, 24 September. The article contains links to news of his death that is dated in August. So either you know something that other people don't, and you need to explain it in English and give a reliable source for it, or you will get reverted. If you have got other data then great, please bring it on. I would not revert you if I understood what you were doing and it had a good source. DBaK (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Death of Jacques Breuer

Hello! I just read on dewiki that Jacques Breuer has died on 5 September 2024. I don't know how to implement the German ref/template to the english article. So I copied it to the article talkpage. Maybe someone can help with the apropriate template. Thank you! Maresa63 ^Talk 16:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done, you may want to check if everything looks fine now. NotAGenious (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine! Thank you very much! 👍 Maresa63 ^Talk 17:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Maresa63 and NotAGenious:, next time, save yourself the trouble and just paste the German citation directly into the English article. For example, the death date is cited in the German article de:Jacques Breuer (Schauspieler) in note 1 like this:

<ref name="focus.de 24. September 2024">{{Internetquelle |url=https://www.focus.de/kultur/stars/mit-67-jahren-trauer-um-tatort-star-jacques-breuer-ueberraschend-gestorben_id_260338564.html |titel=Trauer um „Tatort“-Star: Jacques Breuer überraschend gestorben |werk=[[focus.de]] |datum=2024-09-24 |abruf=2024-09-24}}</ref>

Just copy that directly into the English article as is, and our ref translator will pick it up after a little while, and substitute the proper English citation for the German one; {{cite web}} in this case. This trick works for about 10 to 16 languages, depending exactly which citation template is being used in the foreign wikipedia; see the link for documentation. It would be helpful if you could add parameter |trans-title= to the citation as well, after copying it over. Mathglot (talk) 05:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

For the record, this also works perfectly well in Visual Editor - just open the de-wiki article in edit mode, click on the footnote, and copy-paste it into the article here. -- asilvering (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Music charts on articles

Hello there! How do I add music chart data on articles about artists? is there a template, a guide to follow, how is it done? Thanks in advance - feni (tellmehi) 16:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you looking for Template:Single chart and Template:Album chart? NotAGenious (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Bare URL references

Can there be / should there be sanctions (possibly leading to a block) of editors who refuse to desist from posting bare URL references? Not pointing the finger at anyone in particular, but I'm aware of editors who have done this for a long time and despite talk page requests from more than one fellow editor, they continue to post bare URL references. I consider it bad practice, even bad manners (as I'm a Brit) because it means another editor has to go in and clean up afterwards. Just asking a question, or looking for pointers to relevant policy / essays / established consensus. Thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a message on their talk page will help, I'm not sure block can be applied except they have been persistently warned on their talk page. Tesleemah (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Warned for what though? Is it actually against any policy to continually post bare URL references? 10mmsocket (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not ideal, but it's not prohibited. You can, if you want, post a friendly message on their user talk page advising them of things like WP:CITEHOW, WP:PLRT, WP:BareURLs, etc.; however, I don't think any stronger action will be taken unless adding the bare URLs is associated with some other type of more serious disruption (e.g. WP:SPAMLINK). -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Remind them that bare URLs are much more vulnerable to link rot. Metadata facilitates their recovery. DS (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I need help on making a reference.

so I don't know how to reference myself,help me on Draft:Zhwe with breve so I can reference,please help 86.98.181.137 (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I just checked the article now, you are only attaching an image, please see citing sources but I can give you a breakdown here:

To Cite an article, you need a reliable independent (This means you can't cite from subject's book or their website) sources like newspapers, magazines, journals and books that have major coverage of the subject.

To cite, make use of the " double quote like this on top of your page after clicking on edit pen, you can add automatically or manual if the option is not available. I would have help with the first one if you have a reliable reference at hand. I like that you are starting with draft too, this makes your work easier and not get your article deleted (As it is, that article can't stand on the main page).

Do let me know if you have further question. Tesleemah (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tesleemah I presume you meant to write: This means you can't cite from a self-published author's book or their website)? Nick Moyes (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

yes please, did I give impression of another thing entirely? Tesleemah (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tesleemah Well, for those experienced editors "in the know", I think we would could interpret exactly what you meant. But I really wanted to clarify your wording for the IP's sake, as it was perhaps a little ambiguous.

For new editors, the distinction between reliably published sources and others (such as blogs, self-published websites with no editorial scrutiny or vanity publications) can sometimes be a little hard to appreciate. But don't let that put you off being one of our newest Hosts here. It's really great to have both the IP user asking good questions and you willing to answer them - so a warm Teahouse welcome to both of you! Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! This is warm to hear. I hope to adapt more better sooner. Tesleemah (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Is the page I created publish or still need to be reviewed

Hello,

I created a page around a Medieval Castle in my village https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%A2teau_des_Marbais_(Vieux_Ch%C3%A2telet)

I am not sure if the page is already published. I suppose so as I can find it via a google research.

The page also show a banner with "La mise en forme de cet article est à améliorer (septembre 2024). La mise en forme du texte ne suit pas les recommandations de Wikipédia : il faut le « wikifier »". I am not sure what I are the next steps I should undertake.

Thank you very much for the help :-).

Best regards,

Tanguy Tanguy.th (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Tanguy.th. This is the English Wikipedia. You will have to ask your qurstion at the French Wikipedia, which is a separate project. Cullen328 (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok thank you very much for the redirection. Tanguy.th (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Tanguy.th, and welcome to the Teahouse. Whilst we would normally say that we cannot advise on the policies of other language versions of Wikipedia, it is immediately clear to me that your article lacks inline citations for eleven of its paragraphs - some of them quite lengthy, and grouped in completely uncited sub-sections.

I assume French Wikipedia is just as concerned about the ability to WP:VERIFY factual statements as we are over here. This is something you could immediately address. I would also expect the inline citations to come immediately after the end punctuation, not before it.

But don't be disheartened: it is very common - almost 'de rigeur' - for brand new articles to be tagged by other editors for improvement, as even the most experienced editor can forget certain things, or make slips, in their keenness to make their article available. But yes, Cullen is right to recommend you seek help at fr.wiki and not here. Their version of the Teahouse can be found here. Alternatively, look at the version history of the article to see who added the template and drop them a note to ask for their help. We love to assist keen newcomers, and I'm sure they'll give you some additional feedback relevant to the French Wiki.

Ah - I've just checked when the 'formatting' template was added! I see it was inserted extremely early in page creation process, when - to be frank - it was a complete mess with just subheading titles but no content. See HERE. So it might simply be a 'hangover' from that point, and could reasonably be removed once you've fixed the little things I've mentioned above. But do ask over there for genuine advice, as all Wikipedia versions have their own guidelines and rules that they follow, and few of us know what they are, except for our own language(s). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Nick Moyes,

Thank you very much for your lengthy answer on a non English page. It brings already quite some answers. I have launched my question on the French Forum as well for further follow up.

I will start to improve the page already based on your advise.

I wish you a good evening.

Best regards,

Tanguy Tanguy.th (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, just to correct a couple of misconceptions:

1. I assume French Wikipedia is just as concerned about the ability to WP:VERIFY factual statements as we are over here.
2. I would also expect the inline citations to come immediately after the end punctuation, not before it.

As someone who has done a fair number of translations from fr-wiki, and seen a whole lot more, #2 is the other way round (punct must come after the ref); as for #1, it's complicated. In theory, yes: their equivalent is at fr:Wikipédia:Vérifiabilité and says some of the same things as WP:V, but in practice, I don't see a whole lot of reaction there to ignoring it, so it often is. Or all the refs are primary, and all the content is OR. That's anecdotal, of course, based on my own experience. And fr:WP:N is in a similar situation, and I regularly see articles at fr-wiki that are completely unacceptable at en-wiki on notability grounds, and I have moved more than one translation of such an article from fr-wiki to Draft, where I presume they linger, and age, and finally end up at the great encyclopedia in the sky. Mathglot (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot Thank you for that clarification- really interesting to know about this. Pinging @Tanguy.th so they’re aware of my misunderstanding about the order of punctuation. Nick Moyes (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Nick, the whole field is actually kind of fascinating. I should write an essay on WP:EthnoWikipediology one of these days, although I feel like I'm only scratching the surface, so far. Did you know that although 144 Wikipedias support {{sfn}}-style short footnotes, German Wikipedia does not ? Or that {{interlanguage link}} is an extremely popular template, used across nearly 100 Wikipedias, but when I was astonished to find nl-wiki didn't have it and I ported it there, I nearly caused a meltdown (nl:Overleg sjabloon:Interlanguage link, several discussions)? (It is now grudgingly accepted for non-mainspace use at nl-wiki.) Or that Spanish Wikipedia, while it listed and linked the policy about copying from other Wikipedias, there was no real way to advise a user about it, and it caused a splash after an unattributed translation template was introduced there ? I have learned to tread very carefully at other Wikipedias as their cultures are so different, and my efforts to improve something may be seen as interference. This is just the tip of the WikiBerg. Among my efforts to deal with some of this cross-wiki stuff, is this template (incomplete; just proof of concept). Mathglot (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot Fascinating! I think your idea of an essay (with tables) on the key differences between how various Wikipedias approach key matters would be of great interest, and some help for those of us not knowing the key differences between our various projects. Quite surprising to see the reaction against the 'ill' template but, then again, we are a very conservative lot over here on en-wiki, hating to see new things come in without lots of consideration, discussion and plenty of huffing and puffing. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

New cat breed

Hi! I want to write about a cat breed that is in the process of being recognised - the Transylvanian cat. Currently I don't think it's notable enough for its own article, so I thought about listing it in the List of experimental cat breeds, but it seems like it doesn't fit there either. Should I just wait until the breed gets officially recognised? Kogti (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kogti Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, I think it would be appropriate to wait until there are some reliably published articles or news items about this topic. Without more sources, there is nothing really to say at this stage. With more sources it might fit into the list article, although really even the entries there should be notable and have articles of their own before being included in a List. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

You can start working on an article draft using an offline document outside of Wikipedia, collecting good references, and starting to write sections that can be reliably cited. I usually have a half-dozen “collecting info” files for upcoming Wikipedia projects that I work on periodically. When the time is right to create a complete article much of the work has already been done. Best wishes on your Transylvanian cat project. Karenthewriter (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Kogti, I did a search, and after you exclude self-published sources like social media from your search, there is almost nothing left. Based on the lack of sources, don't think this is yet a notable topic. Maybe an entry in a list article, as Nick Moyes mentioned. Mathglot (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Help With Translating Page

Hello everyone,

As a polyglot, I was thinking about starting to translating pages. But unfortunately, it seems I’m not able to publish translations yet.

I recently began translating Chomori, but it looks like I’ve only created a draft. Could someone please help me publish it so I can continue working on it?

IlEssere (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I've moved it to Draft:Chomori. But at this stage, please pause and think. Template:Cite journal should only be used for journal articles. (There are plenty of "Cite XYZ" templates for other purposes.) If you do use "Cite journal", you must specify the title of the journal. I clicked on one of your somewhat dubious-looking uses of "cite journal". 404. I clicked on another. 404. Please look for a new address for each of these files, or look for the original in the Wayback Machine. And you'd better check all the other cited sources as well. -- Hoary (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks! IlEssere (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, IlEssere, I quote Template:Cite web/doc: "website: Title of website (when the website has a clear name, use that rather than the domain name)". (And Template:Citation Style 1 serves as a quick reminder of which Cite template is for which kind of source.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? Could you please give an example? IlEssere (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

IlEssere, The term "domain name" refers to the part of a url after the scheme and before the first slash. If you cite the Smithsonian Magazine (a very reliable source, by the way), the website name is "Smithsonian Magazine" but the domain name is smithsonianmag.com. So, if you use template {{cite web}} to cite it, then your citation should include |website=Smithsonian Magazine, not |website=smithsonianmag.com. The "website" is whatever they call themself in the big header usually found at the top of their home page. Mathglot (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! IlEssere (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Steps to Get Started with Page Translation: What Do I Need?

Hello everyone,

I've translated a page and had another Wikipedian help draft it, but I'm having trouble publishing. What steps do I need to follow to make it live? How can I get started with page translations? IlEssere (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

IlEssere, Please see feedback to this question above, at § Help With Translating Page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there Ctrl+H option in editing an article?

Hi, I use the visual editor in editing an article. I can't use the code-based editor. When I want to replace a word which mentioned in several places in the article, I do one by one. Is there a command like Ctrl+H in Microsoft Word? Thank you. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I copy such an article into a text editor on my "hard drive" (SSD), edit it there, and copy it back. (I do not recommend that you use a word processor such as Word. The editor I use is Geany, but several alternatives are just as good.) -- Hoary (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary, it's a very good idea. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@DemirWikiTR34: You can use Ctrl+F in VisualEditor. It may already be a shortcut for a search feature in your browser but VisualEditor should override that. You can also click the hamburger menu icon ☰ at the top right and select "Find and replace". PrimeHunter (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

You are very right. I have just seen it. That's what I was looking for. Thank you PrimeHunter. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

How to insert a templates

Evening everyone If anyone don't mind helping me, how do I insert a template onto my talk page, because I want to insert a language template and more, if that's possible. How do I type it in too? Thank you😊 Nontombie (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

{{Template name}} Moxy🍁 01:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Nontombie, not sure which kind of language template you meant; are you talking about a language proficiency template, to list the foreign languages you are familiar with? If so, see {{Babel}}. Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Nontombie (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Afternoon, I meant in language and more. Thank you Nontombie (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nontombie To insert Template put {{Name of Template}}. for language put {{Babel}}. Thanks †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - Tools) 04:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Nontombie (talk) 11:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Nontombie Thanks! to adding template. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - Tools) 11:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you soooo much. You can now look at my User page p, I am now able to do what I've always wanted to do, contribute to Wikipedia. Thank you 😊 Nontombie (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Total number of categories

Is it possible to know the total number of categories on Wikipedia? Batrachoseps (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Batrachoseps, this search timed out (as I expected) but returned 1,054,119 categories, so there are at least that many. You may get a higher number (or lower) if you repeat the query. Mathglot (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Batrachoseps and Mathglot: the category namespace has 2,390,615 pages as of 00:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC) of which 39 are redirects. Wikipedia:Database reports/Page count by namespace and its page history give the number of pages in the Category namespace since 16 November 2008. I think the nature of the ~39 redirects (are they true synonyms? redirects to or from subtopics?) complicate matters. That said, there are only 39 redirects, so you could—if you had a very slow afternoon—do such an analysis manually by going through a list of results from searching insource:redirect or something in the Category namespace. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 11:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Batrachoseps (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

39 seems a surprisingly small number. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't include Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories (there's 119,125 of them). Category redirects are generally made into soft redirects by RussBot. Batrachoseps (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do not delete my talk

How to write "reverted 10 edits from [user name]"? And how to block someone on Wikipedia? TASALT (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@TASALT, only admins can block people. This isn't a social media platform. -- asilvering (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

And if you put stuff like this [3] on your talk page it certainly will be deleted. Meters (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

How can i be an admin?

Please: Can you demonstrate how to be an admin? TASALT (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The instructions are at WP:RFA. I don't recommend it. -- asilvering (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

TASALT, accumulate many thousands of indisputably productive edits over several years including writing many new articles of high quality. Do your best to be unfailingly friendly and helpful to other editors. Consistently demonstrate an excellent understanding of Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Be a productive contributor to the behind-the-scenes administrative functions. That should get you started. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, TASALT, if you want to be an administrator, never engage in profane personal attacks against other editors, like you did against Binksternet, a highly experienced and widely respected editor. That was not cool. Cullen328 (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@TASALT, to become an admin, you may need to read User:Clovermoss/RfA. The essay is a written experience of one of our administrator, hence it may help you keep a good track record. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Given what you've written above, you appear to want to be an admin to win a dispute. That's not how to become an admin. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

OP indef'ed by user: HJ Mitchell Meters (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

WORMS References

Is there a way to automatically insert modernised WORMS references? Using the built-in automatic citation generator, it simply cites the webpage, but it doesn't seem possible to automatically insert the proper reference (See here for an example of a modernised ref and here for the automatically inserted ref).

Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I modified the latter ref, so permalink for the hosts: Special:Permalink/1247201960#cite ref-4. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, but the problem wasn't really that one reference, and more the fact that automatically inserting a citation with WORMS creates a technically wrong reference. I was wondering if there was a way to change the automatic citation tool (in the visual editor) so that it inserts the correctly formatted ref. - SirBrahms (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@SirBrahms: For something this specialist, it is probably best to ask on Template talk:Cite WoRMS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I will go ask there - SirBrahms (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Double account / 2 languages

Hi,

I have edited two pages, one French and one English. As result, it seems that I have two different Wikipedia account but with the same username ?

Every time I'm reading an article and switch it to the French version, my account switch as well and my modifications to the French page is not showed to my main account and vice versa for the English modifications.

Is it normal and if not, how can I fix it ?

Thanks in advance Cataaliinaa (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Accounts are global, meaning that they may be used on any Wikimedia Foundation project(such as different language Wikipedias). I don't believe changes to your account (like its user page) on one Wikipedia carry over to another, though. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, but i'm not talking about changes to my account but changes to an active pages. This is my "French contributions" [4] and my "English contributions" Special:Contributions/Cataaliinaa .

They both have the same name, but not the same contributions or even monitored pages. Cataaliinaa (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Edits you make to the English Wikipedia are on your English list, and edits you make to the French Wikipedia are on your French list - what is so surprising about that? - Arjayay (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, actually explained like this, it makes sense ! Cataaliinaa (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cataaliinaa If you navigate to the bottom of the page Special:Contributions, you'll see a link that is called Global: contributions. Clicking that will take you to a toolforge page, which for you is this one. That lists any contributions, up to 20 per wiki, including to Wikimedia Commons, for example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cataaliinaa: Each Wikimedia wiki has separate logs and watchlists. Wikipedia languages count as separate wikis. The top of Special:Contributions/Cataaliinaa has a "global account" link to Special:CentralAuth/Cataaliinaa which shows where your account exists and how many edits it has. Clicking the count shows your contributions at that wiki. A local account is automatically created at a wiki if you view any page while logged in. There is no global watchlist. You have to view the watchlist at each wiki you are interested in. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Ip user

Hi. I created a disambiguation page EKCO (disambiguation) which was reviewed by a new page reviewer as OK. An IP editor, who I assume is the same user, as the IP address keeps changing, keeps deleting and tagging parts of the page based on MOS:DABNOMENTION. I have pointed out this was not noted by the new page reviewer, and as my latest in the talk page, there is mention elsewhere in an article. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

This should be at WT:DAB, but to avoid forking I'll refrain from putting anything there for now. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:B8CC:8F1:A6EA:1C6D (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

New page review only checks whether an article obviously should be deleted. It by no means gives special approval to any version of the article. You've been edit warring during an ongoing discussion. The Teahouse will not help you "win". Please read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed when there is a disagreement on content. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The fact that a page has been accepted for mainspace doesn't imply that it's incapable of further improvement. Disambiguation pages should disambiguate among articles. You have been adding non-articles to the list, and the IP user has been justifiably removing them. Maproom (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Not related to questions - Wikipedia will be write read-only for a short while

Now done

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#c-Nontombie-20240925112700-TyphoonAmpil-20240925040800 Sorry for unrelated content, please share this to everyone. Thank you Nontombie (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC) Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language The Wikimedia Foundation will switch the traffic between its data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. All traffic will switch on 25 September. The switch will start at 15:00 UTC. Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future. A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. This banner will remain visible until the end of the operation. You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time. You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday 25 September 2024. If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case. Other effects: Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped. We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards. GitLab will be unavailable for about 90 minutes. This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. Please share this information with your community. User:Trizek (WMF) (talk) Sorry that was the wrong link Nontombie (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You meant, "read-only" in the heading. Fixed. Mathglot (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Inquiry regarding notability criteria for Music artists.

To Whom It May Concern, I am reaching out to you due to the inquiry regarding notability criteria for Music Artists. How the notability will be evaluated? I would like to have a conversation with an expert in this regard, please! Looking forward to hear from you Best Regards, Marjan Hamidia Marjan Hamidia (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NMUSICIAN for the criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Marjan Hamidia: You can read WP:NMUSICIAN for Music Artists, and the general notability guidelines for every subject WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 16:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Marjan Hamidia...and our Notability Criteria for people in general should also interest you. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Article about separate company rejected

Hello,

I submitted an article about Steptoe & Johnson PLLC and was told it was rejected because an article exists already about the topic and referred me to this Wikipedia article: Steptoe LLP. However, the company I wrote about is a separate entity from what the reviewer shared. Steptoe & Johnson PLLC website is here https://www.steptoe-johnson.com/ and Steptoe LLP website is here https://www.steptoe.com/en/.

Does anyone have any advice or recommendations how I could resubmit and get it re-considered? Please reply to VisualEditor.

Thanks! Catwurst (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You could disambiguate it. The original article already existed so your new one would need to have a tag on it.

Also, I do not understand what you meant by Please reply to VisualEditor. ShowierData9978 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

According to this announcement, "Steptoe and Johnson LLP" changed its name to "Steptoe LLP" in December 2023. Fabrickator (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit confusing. The original law firm is called, Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. It split in to two law firms in the 1980s - one retained the name, "Steptoe & Johnson PLLC" (HQ is in Bridgeport, WV) and the other changed their name to "Steptoe & Johnson LLP" (HW is in Washington DC). The only difference in name was the suffix. At the end of last year (the announcement you shared) "Steptoe & Johnson LLP" changed its name officially to "Steptoe LLP".

But Steptoe & Johnson PLLC has existed under its original name and has been a separate law firm from Steptoe LLP since the 1980's. Catwurst (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this suggestion, but not sure disambiguate would work well for this instance.

It's a bit confusing. The original law firm is called, Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. It split in to two law firms in the 1980s - one retained the name, "Steptoe & Johnson PLLC" (HQ is in Bridgeport, WV) and the other changed their name to "Steptoe & Johnson LLP" (HQ is in Washington DC). The only difference in name was the suffix but they were/are separate entities. At the end of last year "Steptoe & Johnson LLP" changed its name officially to "Steptoe LLP".

But Steptoe & Johnson PLLC has existed under its original name and has been a separate law firm from Steptoe LLP since the 1980's. Catwurst (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

An admittedly politics - adjacent question

Hello Wikipedians. Ok, how much of the Wikipedia staff and editors have a left bias? This ratio might say something about the factuality of certain articles. - S L A Y T H E - (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I stay far away from editing any articles that are political or controversial in any way. On the articles I do work on I may occasionally give a short quote from a written opinion, and state that one reviewer had this to say on the topic (giving a good reference for the quote) but I strive to not let the world know my opinion on any given subject. (I don’t need added drama in my life.) All that is written is done by volunteers, so there isn’t any Wikipedia staff. I believe all the paid employees work to keep the website up and running. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Slaythe: Wikipedia editors (who, as Karen has noted, are volunteers) are not required to declare our political positions or lack thereof, so there cannot be a meaningful measure of how many editors have a particular "bias". If you are concerned about the neutrality or verifiability of Wikipedia as a whole, it's worth rereading the core principles. You may also find that your concerns have been raised by many others and summarised and addressed at Ideological bias on Wikipedia. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 22:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Fringe sources

Just a question about WP:FRINGE. It looks like it applies to fringe topics. Does this extend to fringe sources somehow, i.e. how to present work done by a figure like Richard Lynn? Is Lynn's reputation enough to discredit the work? ShinyAlbatross (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean; Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Sourcing does discuss sources. Could you give a more specific example of a situation where you're not sure how WP:FRINGE would apply? jlwoodwa (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure; I noticed that the article Religiosity and intelligence contains claims by several controversial researchers including Lynn, who openly described himself as a "scientific racist". The article doesn't do enough to describe the fringe nature of their views, and I'm uncertain how to best deal with it. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

ShinyAlbatross, a better place to raise that issue would be at Talk:Religiosity and intelligence. Lynn's work is only cited once in that article, in section § Studies comparing religious belief and IQ, and most of the next paragraph is occupied with pointing out the flaws in his methodology. As the article has 52 sources, mentioning him once, immediately followed by criticism, doesn't seem like a major concern to me. But if it does to you, I would start by raising a discussion at the Talk page.

We don't generally use the word fringe to refer to a source. Rather, we say it is reliable or unreliable, with various gradations in between, and sometimes qualified as a source that "is reliable for a particular topic", but not for others. A particular author may have hateful or questionable opinions in one area, and still be able to have papers accepted for publication in a reliable, peer-reviewed journal in another. If you have questions about the reliability of a particular source, try bringing your question to the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Does this help? Mathglot (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes that does actually help. Particularly, answers my question about whether to define a source as fringe. Thank you. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Erm

Erm, how is there no mention of the, you know, on this page? 72.27.26.133 (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

If you have suggestions to improve an article, start a discussion about it on that article's talk page and don't be coy about what you are suggesting. RudolfRed (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

How to get the requested move banner and talk page notification for an expanded RM

Hi all, I relisted and then formatted the RM to include and specificity all moves per WP:EXPLICIT but I've been waiting for the banner to appear on the current dab page but no dice. Anyone know what I missed? Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You've listed Danny Cohen (media executive) as both the current1 and the new1 title. Also, Danny Cohen is a redirect to Daniel Cohen; I'm unsure whether the bot will place the banner on the redirect, its target, or neither. I recommend asking at WT:RM, where editors who understand the innards of {{requested move/dated}} and RMCD bot are more likely to see your question. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Contributions

How do I get people to thank me for my helpful contributions? I feel like my service not on anyone's radar and I don't really feel appreciated. Wasabi-The-LoreMaster (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You've only made 39 edits, including several to your user page and talk page. Don't worry about getting accolades, just focus on improving the encyclopedia. RudolfRed (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Wasabi-The-LoreMaster, I just thanked you for this Teahouse question. See how it works? Mathglot (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

thanks Wasabi-The-LoreMaster (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

i want you to help me to post an article

321 Aleksandro Derstila (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Aleksandro Derstila, and what article might that be? Have you written it yet? Please see our tutorial Help:Your first article – it may answer most of your questions. Mathglot (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Presumably User:Aleksandro Derstila/sandbox, rejected as "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Content removed by another editor for being contentious and biased even though based on real events

Hi! I am talking about the recent edit I made on the Bhavish Aggarwal page about the comments that they made publicly based on reliable news sources (according to me, I think). But it was removed by another editor. What can I do to make it less biased when the comments made are as real as they get. Without getting into the fight.

Thanks! NerdboiIndia (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@NerdboiIndia: See WP:BRD. You made an edit, another editor reverted. Next step is to discuss it on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: hi! Thanks for your reply. I have tried to engage the same editor on the same page (by chance) previously too, but they didn't reply. I undid the revision last time and they left it as it is. So, I repeated I the same thing and undid their revision. I am not sure if that was a good idea. What do you think? NerdboiIndia (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@NerdboiIndia: I don't see any discussion at Talk:Bhavish_Aggarwal. Edit summaries are not discussion. Don't engage in an edit war RudolfRed (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)