Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SleepyWhippet (talk | contribs) at 08:44, 6 May 2022 (→Article Flagged and Deleted in Minutes: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to top
Skip to bottom


This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, a Teahouse host

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

Set preferences or what for vertical quotes and apostrophes

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

This is more of an iPhone question than a Wikipedia question. Does this link answer it? [1] CodeTalker (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Doncram. This might be something worth asking about at WP:VPT, but it might turn out that there's nothing anyone can do on Wikipedia's end. I understand the "problem" you're experiencing, but perhaps it's not a major issue as long as it doesn't significantly affect how the text in question is being displayed in the article. These appear to be minor MOS issues that usually are going to eventually cleaned up by some bot or user who likes to look for such things; you can always go back "fix" things yourself (which is what I do) if you want. Some languages use full-width characters and perhaps there's something similar to that being done by Apple with respect to its iPhones because it seems to use smart quotes. If you Google this, you'll might find some information on this feature and whether it can be disabled (like this). Finally, although an excessive number of "full-width" or "smart" characters can sometimes be a indication of content being copied-and-pasted from external websites into Wikipedia articles, you should be OK as long as you're not doing anything like that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed now, i think, thanks! Googling "how turn off smart quotes in iphone" gets me to this page which points me to turning off "smart punctuation" under my iPhone settings/keyboard options. Yay, i can bold and "straight-quote" and 'vertical apostrophize(?)'. Not sure what else is covered in "smart punctuation" that I'm losing, except i see there's something about dashes. Yeah, i bet typing two hyphens now (as here -- and here--here) they won't be converted to an em-dash or en-dash, and that's fine by me. Thanks! Doncram (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 for the phrase banish the curlies in that Bear doc! I've followed the advice and toggled the setting on my iPad. I prefer curly quotes in other contexts, but I do more WP editing on this device than other writing, so perhaps that trade-off will be worth it. (I tend to use the B I buttons where they are available because ''' is so hard to type. But the mobile source editor ...) My next decision will be what to do about spelling correction. @Doncram, do you have issues positioning the cursor next to a word that iOS (or maybe Safari) thinks is mis-spelled? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 23:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "bear doc", o i c, the link i gave goes to bear.app something. But, yes, if i have something Safari in IOS thinks is misspelled, like when I tested selecting several accented letters like this: áÁãé, then i could get stuck in edit mode where it is absolutely insisting that I replace that. I could not go on with an edit, the only thing I could do would be to exit the edit, losing anything else i had already typed. User:Pelagic, is there any workaround for that which you can see or imagine? --Doncram (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can see, but it drives me nuts too, Doncram. Good to know I'm not the only one. If I find the magic combination of settings I'll let you know. I don't want to completely abandon spell check and/or autocomplete, but I imagine they could be involved. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 15:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only Talk page showing up on Google search

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

@Llmeyers: Welcome to the Teahouse. New pages aren't indexed by search engines like Google until a new pages patroller reviews it or 90 days have passed, whichever comes first. I didn't have any issues with getting to the article via Wikipedia's search bar. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thank you! For some reason I thought it had been reviewed by a patroller... Llmeyers (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Llmeyers: Not sure why that is happening to you, but when I search I get this Carey_R._Dunne RudolfRed (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks RudolfRed. It seems like others aren't seeing what I'm seeing. Will circle back... Llmeyers (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone else has intel on this problem, please lmk! Llmeyers (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that Talk pages were not indexed by search engines.?.? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so too, but if you Google "Carey R Dunne", ONLY the Talk page shows up. Any help from an admin or patroller? Llmeyers (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't happen for me. Would you mind linking your search results Llmeyers? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, here are the results -- https://www.google.com/search?q=carey+r+dunne+wiki&oq=carey+r+&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l3j69i57j0i512j69i60l3.1165j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Llmeyers (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something? Llmeyers (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Llmeyers: As others have stated above it will take some time for the article to appear in a google search. As to why the talk page appears when you add "wiki" or "wikipedia" to the search result I'm not sure since talk pages shouldn't appear in search engines (unless it's on a wikipedia mirror). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks Blaze Wolf. Kind of a mystery about the talk page. I guess I will wait a while and check back to see if the article, rather than the talk page, shows up. Llmeyers (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the article's "Options" section, I set it as "Default indexing" Llmeyers (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Articles don't have any options section... I'm confused as to what you mean. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Llmeyers, is "Options" from a gadget or add-in? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of!! I click the three lines at top right --> categories, page settings, etc. Is that an add in? I didn't think so. Llmeyers (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All the other pages I've edited have the same settings. I don't think it's a gadget or add-in issue. Why would it be showing up instead of the Article? Llmeyers (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the wrong venue for this. See WP:VPT for hopefully better explanation. Mathglot (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to WP:VPT § Talk page appears in Google search results

I want to nominate Led Zeppelin as a daily article

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

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

Hello, Cdope666. Wikipedia has two top levels of assessed articles, which are Good articles which are very good, and Featured articles, which are the best. Only Featured articles are eligible for "Today's featured article" on the main page. Lorde is a Featured article and therefore eligible. Led Zeppelin is a Good article and therefore ineligible at this time. You could work to upgrade the rating of the article if you want, but that involves a rigorous peer review process that could take weeks or months. You would need to be thoroughly conversant with the reliable source literature about Led Zeppelin, which currently has 235 references. If you are willing to do the work, go for it, but be aware that it will be a lot of work, and you will have to convince every active editor who watches that page that your edits are beneficial. But if you succeed, it will likely be "Today's featured article" at some time in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Led Zeppelin made GA in 2011, and then was a FA candidate in 2012 and 2013, but was not promoted. David notMD (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fascinating. . I wonder why it wasn't promoted:(. . :) THX Cdope666 (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
THX for chatting. . It all seems subjective considering it's up to Wiki's editors (first line in FA). . :) Cdope666 (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can read the most recent FA review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Led Zeppelin/archive4, Cdope666. Of course there's always some element of editor judgment involved, but articles are assessed against a list of criteria. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article has undergone more than 2,500 edits since the last FA review! That does not necessarily mean better, but it is much longer and with more references. David notMD (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Larry!!:) Cdope666 (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cdope666, and welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds as if you think that being the subject of a Featured Article is somehow an honour or a tribute to the subject. It is not. Wikipedia articles are not in any way for the benefit (or the detriment) of their subjects. "Having an article" (a phrase I usually avoid, for just this reason) means only two things: enough has been published about the subject to meet the criteria for notability, and one or more Wikipedia editors have been interested enough to create the article. It says nothing about whether the subject is worthy or laudable - indeed, we have articles on many subjects that are neither. The same applies a fortiori to a Featured Article. ColinFine (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Colin and thanks for your reply and greetings. I've loved Wiki for almost 17 years and I always see articles that are obviously picked by the young generation that runs Wiki. To me having that Bronze star and being on the front page is special. Stupid I know. Many of things have been published. . most from 4 to 5 decades ago. Led Zeppelin is one of the highest selling bands and held attendance records for years. I really like one of the editors to do this. :):):) Cdope666 (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you're citing the 7th edition, published in 2020, of a statistics textbook, readers will infer that there were at least six earlier editions, will probably have no interest in this, and, if they are interested, can easily look up the earlier ones at WorldCat or similar. If it's a revised and slightly augmented edition of a book that argues for this or that (such as Pinker's The Blank Slate or Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel) readers will of course need to know that it's the such-and-such edition (for the new page numbers, if nothing else), but would benefit from a subtle reminder that this is an update of an earlier book. If it's a corrected text of something regarded as literature (say, a "Library of America" reissue of an essay collection by Didion), then again, the subtle reminder. Are you finding inclusion of the additional year onerous, Kamhiri? (It shouldn't be.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For this book, https://apnaorg.com/books/english/history-of-sikhs-v2/history-of-sikhs-v2.pdf. The first few pages state the preface to the first edition, the second edition, and the third edition. It started off as a PhD thesis for a prominent university scholar in 1937, the second edition in 1952 being a revised edition with many sections being added, some deleted, and clarifying statements and facts added. In 1978, the third edition having many changes added to it, including addition of information and deletion of other as well correction of mistakes and facts. So I'm wondering if the book is to be used, is it necessary to include the 1937 date as an original publication date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamhiri (talk • contribs) 13:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say no, Kamhiri. It is necessary to state that this is a 2007 reprint of the 3rd edition of 1978, and to do so in such a way that there's no risk of a misunderstanding that 1978 was when the 1st edition was published. If this were a 1980 reprint, I normally wouldn't bother mentioning that it was a reprint. (There are cases when I would, but I shan't bother going into them here.) But it's unlikely that a 29-years-later "reprint" is a reprint in the straightforward sense, and there could be differences in the content, page numbering or both of the 1978 and the 2007 books. -- Hoary (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks for your help Hoary!
  • Hoary This is good discussion but question for you. Since majority of the content in 2nd and third edition still forwards from the 1st edition, so shouldn't original publication date be included in that case? Granted that some changes are added, removed and corrected but if we look at the majority, that should still be the same as the 1st edition, also especially if the pages in discussion were not part of the changes in 2nd or 3rd edition. So in this case, isn't it reasonable to add original publication date? What is your opinion on this? MehmoodS (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, there doesn't seem to me to be any obligation to say that the book dates back to 1952 (or earlier). Yes, it may be reasonable to say this. Kamhiri, MehmoodS, I notice that you have both been recently editing the article Battle of Lohgarh, and that this article is heavily dependent on this book. If you want/need to agree on how best in this article to refer to the 2007 version, then the best place to discuss the matter is Talk:Battle of Lohgarh. If the matter extends beyond this one article, then Talk:Battle of Lohgarh would still be a good place for discussion: the talk pages of other articles could point there. This place (the "teahouse") is not a good place, as material posted here is rapidly archived and then can't be added to. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kamhiri, MehmoodS, I have started the discussion on Talk:Battle of Lohgarh. -- Hoary (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MehmoodS, no need to follow my edits around, and thanks Hoary, I think I will ask an experienced editor/admin later on and report back on the talk page. Kamhiri (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary thank you for your suggestion and advise, well noted and helpful. Kamhiri please no need for such mistaken opinion. MehmoodS (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Level of information on a given wikipedia page

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

Hello, Delphinium1. The answer is "by reaching consensus", not by appeal to authority, or some hypothetical "rule". See dispute resolution for the avaiable resources. ColinFine (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the answer also isn't edit-warring. Not a single established user has objected to my cleanup campaign of long-term abuse by Raindrop73; in fact several have thanked me for it. Raindrop73 added grotesquely inappropriate detail about Pennsylvania over a period of many years, especially to hundreds of public school districts in the state, making the articles ridiculously large compared to similar ones in other US states and around the world (see my above link). Wikipedia is not a place for information of hyperlocal and extreme fringe interest. Delphinium1, the only reason I'm not following up on my message on your talk page is your attempt to reach out to the community here. Also, you must declare any conflict of interest you have relating to this topic. Graham87 13:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call the education of over a million students in PA a fringe interest. I removed nearly half of Raindrop73's edit information and this still isn't enough? Delphinium1 (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also see this old help desk thread. Graham87 14:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also looked at the revisions and the reversions, at the activity on the (Sayre Area School District) page. I found both versions to be fine. Still, in all, I feel that an encyclopedia is full of facts, that these facts are pedantic, and mostly of little interest to the majority of users. If anything, the more verbose version of the page is, in my view, MORE encyclopedic than the shorter version. These little, boring, and uninteresting facts that load an article up with a lot of verbiage are only of value to those who need them, and very occasionally. An encyclopedia is useful in that way, since the person who needs these little items of information is saved many hours of research, since those facts are gathered together in one place, having been put together by the author of the article. Of course, it would seem "unnecessary" to the casual reader. It is inherent in the composition of an encyclopedia that it contains boring facts. If this were an online pamphlet or an online magazine, such pedantic facts wouldn't belong here. Since this is an encyclopedia, I believe that too much summarization is less valuable than more verbosity. Most people, yes, do not need so many facts, but most people do not look up things in an encyclopedia on a regular basis. Additionally, the longer version of the article was very well composed and organized, and looks quite professional, impartial and uncontroversial. I hope this helps. 69.112.128.218 (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reproducing - in detail - what a primary source (in this case, the Pennsylvania Department of Education) puts out isn't what any encyclopedia, much less Wikipedia, is for, IMHO. It's for collating what reliable secondary sources have decided is important and remarkable about the subject, and the words of these secondary sources are lost in that sea of primary material. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I removed much of this material with my most recent edit. Delphinium1 (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one, till now, mentioned plagiarism. That definitely makes a difference. Plagiarised content would be wrong to include on any page. If the page was composed of plagiarised material from the department of education, then it should be revised. 69.112.128.218 (talk)
I wasn't implying that anything had been plagiarized - I have no idea, I haven't checked (and since this is all apparently US government-produced material and probably under a compatible license, it would only need to be attributed anyway). My point was more aimed at WP:TOOMUCH and WP:NOT. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

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

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you want to submit your article to Articles for Creation, there is a blue button on the top of your sandbox that you press which says "submit your article for review". Click it, and it will guide you through the process for you. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi Leonardinho Báez and welcome to the teahouse! I've added a template to your sandbox that will allow you to easily publish your draft by just pressing the button. however before you do, please take note of the notability guidelines for people: does de Marchena count as notable under one of these guidelines? once you do, please add reliable, independent sources stating such (not youtube, not facebook). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

hi Babe2012 and welcome to the teahouse' unfortunately this is not the place for such questions. the best way to answer this would probably to ask your mom if it's still there, or (if you can) head over there yourself. happy reading! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fortaleza de Santa Teresa, in Uruguay, for the other insatiably curious folks out there. It seems like a place that might have a lot of cupolas to search. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's SOCCER.

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

Mostly agree, except of course it's FOOTBALL. However, see "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" near the top of Talk:Association football. If you're not on a laptop, you may have to tap something to see it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most people call it football, except Americans who have a game I call handegg. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 08:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it's mostly called football, and we shouldn't default to US terminology for the sport. However, many places on Wikipedia call it "association football" to distinguish it from other sports known as "football" in some countries e.g. American football, Australian rules football, Gaelic football. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And IP user, please stop trying to remove all of List of association football competitions, and redirecting it to the non-existent page List of soccer competitions. You will get blocked if you continue. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can i get a pages quality changed

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

@Massimo510 Until you get into GA/FA territory, these quality marks are informal and anyone is allowed to change them, but changes should of course follow the linked quality scales. So you can do it yourself, or try asking at the talkpage of one of the wikiprojects mentioned on the article talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appears you decided to upgrade from Start to C-class. David notMD (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Oh Gosh im so sorry about this i uploaded those images a while ago before i knew much about copyright and probably should have checked or deleted them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massimo510 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OLa

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

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

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

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

@BigCdogWS: Hello BigCdog! While i can't say anything about the editor (PKT pinging so hopefully they can provide us with a bit more of an explanation), I can tell you that while you may live there, your own knowledge of the region cannot be included in the article as it is considered original research which is not permitted in articles. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted some bad editing with inadequate references. Details were left on BigCdogWS's talk page, and of course their edits are in the history of Regional Municipality of Durham. Specifically regarding the reference: BigCdogWS was referring to a committee report, but their reference was merely to "www.durham.ca", and not to the committee's report. This made the text impossible to check into. PKT(alk) 15:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if I could verify information from the committee report, I'll be happy to help shape the referencing and language of the text into something acceptable to Wikipedia standards. PKT(alk) 15:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
that is a bold faced obfuscation of truth!...durham region website www.durham.ca is where you can access the advisory committee minutes, you are a hired shill by durham region is my thoughts BigCdogWS (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BigCdogWS: We need to keep this topic on the content and not on the user aspirations especially without any sort of evidence as per our no personal attacks, PKT has given a valid reason for their removal of your edit. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BigCdogWS: Please refrain from the personal attacks, and understand that Wikipedia cites the closest webpage for verifiability. The Durham homepage is inadequate for citing purposes, so actually pointing to the minutes would be helpful. Furthermore, your edit was not in a neutral tone, and I would've reverted it on sight as well. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks to you the fake news keeps coming, you are shameful BigCdogWS (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BigCdogWS: I will thank you to strike that personal attack, as it is becoming increasingly apparent that you may not be a good fit for a collaborative project. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BigC: If you do not know how to strike a comment we would be willing to assist you with learning how to do so. All you have to do is ask. --ARoseWolf 15:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i agree as i lost my cool....i am going to become a editor as i see so much fake news on wikipedia pushing "agendas" without proper references....this may work out well, what is good for the goose is good for the gander lol....i will try to relax, i agree i let things get to me at times as a person with disability...furthermore as a person with disability i notice human rights violations on this site i am now addressing BigCdogWS (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before you get too deep into addressing any human rights violations, you might want to take a quick look at WP:No legal threats. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you can easily go to wwww.durham.ca and access the advisory committee on homelessness minutes to see what i am saying is correct, our state funded news like cbc has been hiding the crisis in durham that is the worst in canada...if all we write are positive lies our readers will fall victim to the reality that durham region is unsafe due to homelessness fostering hard crime....even oshawa police chief martin was entangled in corruption with criminal chair john henry...i live here, i know what is going on!!...i sourced things correctly, wikipedia should ban PKT from further edits BigCdogWS (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BigCdogWS: Once again, you did not source correctly; please provide a link directly to the minutes, and absorb WP:NPOV. Otherwise, please discuss on the article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BigC - It is 100% on you to provide a reference that links to the advisory committee report/minutes on homelessness. David notMD (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I would suggest is that BigCdogWS go to the article talk page and begin discussions with @PKT because the only way this is going to be resolved is through good faith collaborative efforts. I would also like to remind @BigCdog that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA is a thing. Lets avoid casting aspersions when discussing. --ARoseWolf 15:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are these the minutes? In which case they do not support the assertion made  Velella  Velella Talk   15:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that those just describe what happened at the meeting, and that BigC is referring to a specific report on Homelessness. However, I've been looking on the Durham website for the past ten or so minutes and haven't found anything yet. ― Tuna + 15:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
as a person with disability i have serious human rights law concerns with this site and the "agendas" being pushed like attacks on good places like russia without proof other than state funded media theories from government paid shills like cbc...i have a degree in political science from sir wilfred grenfell, i am going to be become a editor too and start challenging references myself....if you can't beat them join them lol BigCdogWS (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BigCdogWS, you're trying to provide references in good faith, but you haven't quite worked out our standards yet. Are you willing to work with us on your talk page to figure out how to do this right? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unfortunately, the ultimate result was a block. Reka Szekely does seem to be a journalist who's published on poverty issues in the area, if anyone wants to look further into incorporating something into the article. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We tried. David notMD (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question about spaces...

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

@Th78blue: I see them occasionally. They don't render when articles are being read, but some editors are used to leaving two spaces in-between sentences as style. I personally remove them as extraneous. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. If that is all that it is, then I also would remove them when I see them as extraneous. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who learned to type when the dinosaurs were still around, I was taught that terminal punctuation must be followed by two spaces. Therefore, I wouldn't necessarily say it's erroneous, more an outdated convention, and I for one don't see the need to change it, especially as it makes no difference to page rendering. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of us said that they were erroneous; only that they were redundant when it came to being rendered. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We even have an article on the history of how this happened, Sentence_spacing. Unfortunately the article is exemplary in adopting a neutral point of view, so it's not going to tell you whether double spaces are good or bad. My take on it is that double spaces between sentences are a habit that some people were taught, particularly people with a slightly formal, old-fashioned secretarial training, but it's not very relevant in the modern world. I don't do it myself, but I certainly wouldn't actively remove it either, it's part of typography's rich pageant. Elemimele (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posting first new page

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, FilmFiend. You have not yet submitted Draft:Leona's Sister Gerri for review, and I strongly suggest that you wait a while and do more work on it first. You do not have any properly formatted references, but just a list of bare URLs at the end. Read Referencing for beginners and convert those URLs into properly formatted inline citations. Then, go to WP:AFC to learn how to submit the draft for review. Continuing work on a draft after submission should not have an effect on how long the review will take. Cullen328 (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the content to Draft:Leona's Sister Gerri where you can continue to work on it. In due course , when it is properly sourced, you may submit it for review which, if successful, will publish the article to mainspace.  Velella  Velella Talk   15:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, your article reads rather like a (favorable) magazine review--or perhaps even a promotional press release. I have nothing to do with deciding what Drafts pass muster, but from what I've seen, I think you'll need to edit out such phrases and expressions as:
  • ... approaches one of the most divisive topics ...
  • ... tells the dramatic story of ...
  • Reprinted thousands of times ...
  • ... this grisly photo ...
  • ... pro-choice icon.
  • Powerfully addressing issues of ...
  • ... video is a moving portrait of ...
There are a bunch more wrapped in quotes; they might be all right if you properly attribute the quote, but right now, there is not a clue where the quote came from.
There are no sources, but lots of "External" links (a link to a Wikipedia article is not external) largely to things that would be meant to promote the film. One could suspect that your goal in this endeavor is not so much to improve Wikipedia as an information reference, but to "get the message out" in a timely way, given recent goings-on in the news. That's something for blogs or magazine articles, not for Wikipedia or for pretty much any other encyclopedia. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I'll work on the draft. FilmFiend (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FilmFiend, just a friendly nudge to check out WP:COI, as you will likely need to be very familiar with it if you are going edit articles which you have a Conflict of Interest in (although the best advice, generally, is don't edit with a COI!). HenryTemplo (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FilmFiend, there's a copyright violation at the end of the opening (lead) section. If you want to quote material written by someone else, you must attribute it. I think the quoted material is from here, but it's behind a paywall so I can't check. Maproom (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have generally rewritten the article to make it more suitable for Wiki. I have removed the quotation. FilmFiend (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw your User page. You say you are married to the film maker who made the film you're writing about, and you frankly acknowledge that you're trying to write about her career in general. Uporządnicki (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. Trying to be transparent about it. There is suddenly, because of current events, a great deal of interest in the film Leona's Sister, Gerri. Many publications are discussing the circumstances of the picture that is at the core of this film (of an anonymous woman, dead from an illegal abortion, on a hotel room floor). There was no mention of the film or the director on Wikipedia. I honestly believe that there is sufficient evidence to show that this film deserves a place on Wikipedia (exensive critical discussion, awards, repeated screenings on PBS to huge national audiences, as well as the repeated republication of the photograph and display of the image). It seems like it's important to provide some basic information about the cast and crew of the film, links to some of the articles that have reviewed it, and generally provide the basis for anyone with an interest in the subject to do their own research. My first attempts at creating the page were poor and clearly didn't follow Wikipedia guidelines. I have completely rewritten the proposed page to try to bring it into compliance with Wiki standards. I have tried to be as neutral as possible, provide citations for important points, and generally give the reader the tools to further explore the subject. I look forward to any constructive comments, and certainly encourage others to add information and edit what's there. I think it's in good shape now, and I am almost ready to publish to mainspace. Ultimately, I am relying on the Wikipedia community to decide if this article has value and is acceptably written to be included. I am very appreciative to all who have offered constructive advice. FilmFiend (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FilmFiend, thank you very much for your transparency and willingness to work within our guidelines. I think folks are mainly concerned with you reading and heeding the restrictions around editing with a WP:COI. So far, I don't think you've violated those - I do notice you've been editing Alloy Orchestra, but as a former employee your contributions will be under less scrutiny, though be prepared for a possible challenge if your editing comes across promotionally; there are definitely a few issues with that article's structure at present, which I'll probably head over to correct now.
Incidentally, I'm a big silent film fan, I've probably heard and enjoyed more than one of your soundtracks over the years! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I have resisted editing the Alloy Orchestra page for years, even though it was filled with broken links (the Alloy website no longer exists and it now directs viewers to an Indonesian video game page), inaccuracies, and very little actual information about the groups work. Again, I've tried to be as neutral as possible, to include lots of verifiable information, and to provide copious citations. I would have preferred that someone else did this editing, but it wasn't happening. Please check it out and make any additions, subtractions or to ask me any questions. FilmFiend (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be extra-transparent, @FilmFiend, perhaps you would like to try placing some COI templates and userboxes on the relevant pages. If your unsure how, I'll be happy to place them for you :). HenryTemplo (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, I don't know how to do that, but would like to. Your help would be greatly appreciated! FilmFiend (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually started editing the Alloy page to follow Wikipedia's suggestion to make edits to existing pages as a way to learn how to work with Wiki in order to write a new page (Leona's Sister, Gerri). I started simply, but got lured into making substantial edits. FilmFiend (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rightio, I'll get the templates placed. Do you want to place an userbox on your talk page? This one is the one you'll need, let me know if you have any problems. HenryTemplo (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I meant place the userbox on your user page! HenryTemplo (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for all your (and others) help. It shouldn't be a surprise, but so far I've found Wikipedia community to be extremely helpful. I'm having a very positive experience and hope to learn more and get better at editing Wiki. FilmFiend (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My Wikipedia Subpages

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

This seems to be in regards to Bbb23, whom I'll courtesy ping here. OP also seems to have created User talk:Bbb23/sandbox to leave a templated warning. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, TatiVogue. You were creating several hoax articles in your userspace. That is not permitted. Cullen328 (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TatiVogue, you also forged another editor's signature in their userspace. That is outright disruptive and you need to stop this behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When?? Also, how is it a hoax. I never passed it off as real, and I even stated it was fake. I was believing/tricking/manipulating anyone into believing it was real. Also, I just copied & pasted something. TatiVogue (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you never stated it was fake. Never. casualdejekyll 16:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not engage in any further disruptive behavior. You have been warned. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service for you to create hoax articles. Cullen328 (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, it was my sandbox. You could've just warned me & told me to specify more clearly that it was not a real article! TatiVogue (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oy user page, I said custom drag race season. Also, instead of immediately deleting it, you could just told me to better clarify that it was fake. Also, people can use common sense to decipher that it is fake. It's not a draft, not an official wikipedia article, and Tati Vogue appears as a guest judge. Tati Vogue isn't even a real person. TatiVogue (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TatiVogue: In this diff, where you used Bb223's signature rather than your own. I strongly recommend you slow down, as it seems you might not be here to contribute to an encyclopedia (particularly when one uses Wikipedia like a web host), which may end in your account being blocked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, no tea no shade no pink lemonade but you're a grown adult and can't tell if an article is fake... As I said, no tea no shade but I did specify that it was FAKE & CUSTOM on my user page. I worked a lot to experience myself with WikiText & be more familiar with editing, and for all my work just to be taken away without even a first warning to specify that it was fake more clearly is extremely irritating. This whole situation makes me want to quit Wikipedia, because I worked extremely hard on these articles, and even struggled HARDER than the average Wikipedia user because English isn't my first language, and I had to work extremely hard. TatiVogue (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to have more experience with wiki markup, might I suggest you try out the interactive tutorial? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

Could you have just left on my talk page, "Hello, can you specify that these articles are NOT REAL." TatiVogue (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TatiVogue, the answer is no. You are misusing Wikipedia as a free web host and that is contrary to policy. Please read WP:U5 and stop arguing. Cullen328 (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also read WP:FAKEARTICLE. Cullen328 (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to create custom articles, may I recommend Fandom? You can start your own Wiki there and not worry about Wikipedia's rules. HenryTemplo (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although Fandom does have some rules about the content that can be in any Wiki, although they aren't nearly as strict as Wikipedia's ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @TatiVogue, your work isn't permanently "lost". While it won't be allowed on Wikipedia publicly (for the reasons stated by other uses above) , administrators should have access to your deleted sandbox pages. Some of them are even willing to provide you with a copy, just ask nicely and you might be in luck! HenryTemplo (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. TatiVogue (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome! I hope you continue to make productive edits to Wikipedia, and help contribute in the ways you can! Enjoy your day! HenryTemplo (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, there's also Miraheze that offers similar freedoms. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was once a fandom user in 2019, but I was a lot more immature back then seeing as I had just turned 13. I'm sorry if I came across rude/immature, and I'm sorry that I didn't fully read the rules. I'll keep this in my brain next time I continue to edit Wikipedia. Thank you TatiVogue (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The text of the article - Personal life - states he died in London, but there is no reference for that. Provide a ref for place of death first, and then change place in the Infobox. David notMD (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David notMD: I would like to note that the reference stating he died in London might be in there, however there's only 1 inline citation in the entire article making it unclear what reference is supporting what claim. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze Wolf and GGraver: After taking a look at the article and using the "Find" section of my browser, it's not the inline source that's cited, it's this one [3], which is the third source linked in the sources section. Clovermoss (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC); edited for clarification[reply]
@Clovermoss: I figured it wouldn't be the single source that is cited. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at that article, and it's been lacking inline citations pretty much since it was created (although it was unsourced when it was created the first source was added in 2007 and it just happened to be the source for his death). Might need checking to see if the person is actually notable by modern standards. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, if asking a simple question resulted in an AfD nomination. David notMD (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily the user's fault if that happens. They just happened to come across an article with an inaccuracy, which more experienced editors fixed (me after we found out what source supported the claim) as well as other issues. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze Wolf and David notMD: The lede mentions that he was a Premier of Queensland. From my understanding of WP:NPOL, he'd likely meet it. Clovermoss (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Many thanks for correcting place of death. The death was reported in The Scotsman - Monday 22 September 1873, p 8 as well as the Pall Mall Gazette - Wednesday 24 September 1873, p 4. He also has an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography although I have also contacted them to correct his place of death from Scotland to London.
Regards GGraver (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's in the ODNB, he's surely fine by current notability standards. I haven't gone looking for other WP:SIGCOV but I'd be really surprised to learn it couldn't be found. -- asilvering (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hirtle chart

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

I'm no expert, but the page appears to be a redirect to Commons, I would leave it as is. More experienced editors, let me know if I'm wrong! HenryTemplo (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of only 12 (that are in the hidden category and excluding the 2 shorthand redirects which I'm fairly sure would go to commons anyways) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never seen that before. Could be considered helpful, but I wonder "should we do that?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page in question is a soft redirect, in this case to Wikimedia Commons. Although not often used, they are usually helpful. In this case, we don't (yet) have an article on "Hirtle chart" but do have the chart as a .pdf on Commons: it helps readers determine when US media enters the public domain. Soft redirects don't take readers directly to the target page but allow them to click through there if they want to after reading the brief description. So, bottom line, NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh is that you should do nothing. Such redirects are cheap to create and useful. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help me do Clean up

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

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

How to ask a question in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elections?

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

@18egr: You can simply ask the same question at the Wikiproject's talk page at WT:WikiProject Elections and Referendums ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! 18egr (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three Questions re. Citations

May I ask,

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

Thanks,

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

WikiArticleCheck Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Sources must be reliable sources with a reputation of fact checking and editorial control. This usually excludes things like some blogs. The number of sources needed for a particular statement can vary depending on how controversial it might be; something fairly non-controversial like someone playing for a sports team probably does not need many sources. A paywall is not a barrier to using a source, see WP:PAYWALL. Sources do not need to be free or easy to access, as long as they are available to the public(such as something in a non-online archive in a library). 331dot (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your fast response - it is greatly appreciated. WikiArticleCheck (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiArticleCheck It's also worth having a look at WP:RSP if you're feeling uncertain about how to evaluate sources, especially newspaper sources, which come up pretty frequently and often have an existing consensus on whether they are "reliable" or not that you can find on that page. -- asilvering (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this WikiArticleCheck (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frequent Grammar Issues

I have noticed many errors in grammar, and approximately 98% of all articles have a majority of typographical errors.

The preponderance of most articles has denied the foundational rules of English grammar. 98s (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're requesting that 'someone' proofread nearly six and a half million articles? How long would you expect that to take?
All of Wikipedia's articles are in principle ongoing projects, but all of Wikipedia's editors are unpaid volunteers who are free to choose what they do (or don't). Only a small proportion are interested in actively pursuing copyediting, though many will copyedit something needing it if they happen to stumble across it.
If you're interested in helping out, there is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. (I myself have resisted joining it as, being an ex-professional copyeditor, I know that if I did it would consume my every available waking hour to the exclusion of all else.) However, you probably first need to learn how to spell "Grammar" ;-). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.88.97 (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@98s, welcome to the Teahouse. Be sure that you are really seeing grammar issues. When you edited Matadero Madrid you changed perfectly correct spellings from British English to American English. Don't do that. Please read WP:ENGVAR before doing any more copy editing and make sure you understand that various varieties of English are used here. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@98s The majority of your edits have been reverted, which suggests you do not have a firm a grasp on grammar that you think you have. David notMD (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
98s, an editor who misspells "grammer" and "descried" is not in a strong position to make sweeping assertions about grammar problems in the world's most popular encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@98s, you are incorrect. Most articles do not have over 47 grammar issues. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely that this user has had enough time to descry(2) the majority of our six million articles, no matter how strongly they descry(1) it now. Perhaps someone who knows more statistical theory could advise a sufficient sample size to draw a meaningful conclusion? I suspect a significant proportion of articles would have fewer than 47 sentences. Fun aside, though — 98s: code of the form [[namespace:Page name]] should not have a space after the colon. I wish this was the first time that I had seen someone enact that misconception. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 09:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have discovered literally many thousands of articles (mostly on species) for which the categorization could be improved--or was out of date, or just plain wrong. I generally don't "descry" them--whatever that means. What I have done is to go through and fix them--literally many thousands of them. But for the reasons given above, maybe that's not the best suggestion in this case. Uporządnicki (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@98s, Re: your user page, what does "Contrubutes" mean? Uporządnicki (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)I[reply]
It's worth noting that English Wikipedia serves the entire English-speaking world, and within that range, there are a lot of different approaches to grammar. What is correct in American English may be wrong in English English, and vice versa. Even within one "brand", English is not a prescriptive language: there are often multiple acceptable ways to express oneself, and last year's edgy, informal street-speak is next year's appropriate grammar for the boardroom. Wikipedia permits a wide range of grammar and spelling; there is no single true correct path to grammarish correctness. There are limitations: if an article is about a US-American subject, is already written in US-American vocabulary, or is marked that it should use US-American spellings, we Brits must keep our 'rubbish' to ourselves, and instead write garbage. But one should be cautious about 'correcting' grammar. The grammar may have been correct in the original author's variety of language, and changing it a waste of time - and possibly borderline-rude. Copy-editing is sometimes regarded as a bit of a trivial task, but it actually requires knowledge, skill and judgement. Elemimele (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@98s, although you're allowed to change your own comments, doing it after they've already been replied to is very much frowned upon - see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments. As to your new question, unfortunately they haven't yet invented a bot smart enough to handle all the various complexities of all the complex varieties of English. It's quite a mess. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@98s: repeatedly changing your initial comment, after you have been advised that this is misleading, really hurts your credibility. You still have not provided any evidence to support any of your accusations about grammar issues here. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 23:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am NOT suspecting you to do anything about this subject, only to take it under consideration. 98s (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi 98s! by confiscate it under consideration, what do you mean? please take note that wikipedia is a volunteer service and we have no obligation to fix grammar issues immediately. as you may already know, we have a system that allows people to tag articles for copyediting, where others can help out in their free time. 💜  melecie  talk - 02:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
also, are you by chance using a grammar-checking tool like Grammarly to detect grammatical errors? 💜  melecie  talk - 03:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@98s The phrase "approximately 98% of all articles have a majority of typographical errors" doesn't make sense either. I have tried to parse that in several different ways, and I just can't. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploading criteria clarification for copyrighted material

Hey all,


So, I'm trying to (hopefully) write some articles on a series of films from a distribution company that has some of it's films on Wikipedia and some not. I'm not being paid for them or anything - I just figured it would be a pretty "simple" jumping off point for article writing and well, who doesn't like to check out a new film. I mention all of this just to make it clear I'm not trying to upload my Cousin Johnny's indie camcorder film or anything.


That being said I was wondering how uploading the image for the page's Infobox [which seems to near universally be the theatrical poster for the film] works in terms of Wikipedia's rules for image uploading. It appears pretty stringent that if an image has copyright belonging to another person/entity it cannot be uploaded, but at the same time it's hard for me to imagine that the only way to get a poster image uploaded would be to ring up the production company or whatever and ask them to pretty please upload it themselves.


Am I just missing something in terms of the rules that permits these types of uploads? Or how does this normally occur? I've been stupid in the past, so I may be missing something obvious.


Thanks!

P.S. Do drafts save automatically or should I be "publishing" them and just hoping they don't get instantly deleted while they're still a WIP? Sweating a bit over here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A MINOTAUR (talk • contribs) 01:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


-A MINOTAUR A MINOTAUR (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A MINOTAUR, they do not save automatically, definitely hit that "Publish" button. It doesn't push an article to main space, it's just a signal that what you 'post' will be public and visible. Also, BTW, saving a copy of your work in a handy Word/text/etc. document on your device is a good idea. 97.126.106.3 (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Thank you! Definitely saved me from a tough situation down the road.
I've been spoiled by that sweet sweet google docs feature I suppose. A MINOTAUR (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A MINOTAUR, to answer your second question, I'm going to point you toward Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. If you have some time, you may want to read up on fair use, you'll come across it a lot in regards to copyright issues here. Oh, and welcome to the Teahouse! 97.126.106.3 (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see! Yes thank you, I believe that covers it and makes a lot more sense. I appreciate the link. Wikipedia has so many (often rather dense, if you don't mind me saying) introductory pages it can sometimes be tricky to find what you're looking for.
But - I'm glad I've got the Teahouse to rely on. Have a good one! A MINOTAUR (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A MINOTAUR, it can be difficult sometimes to find what you're looking for. I'll drop a welcome on your talk page with some links you'll hopefully find useful. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A MINOTAUR, to simplify a bit, there are two kinds of images used on Wikipedia. The first type are freely licensed, or copyright free, either because the copyright has expired, or they are in the public domain by law. This includes images created by employees of the U.S. federal government performing their job duties. These images can be used anywhere by anyone for any purposes with the only restriction being attribution in some cases.
The second type are non-free images used in a single article with stringent restrictions, as pointed out above by the IP editor. This type of usage must comply with every aspect of the policy.
Quite concerning is User:A MINOTAUR/sandbox. What the heck are you doing there? That behavior is inappropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? I thought the purpose of the sandbox was to play around in the editor to get the feeling for everything.
Regardless, thanks for the other tips A MINOTAUR (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A MINOTAUR. The "freely licensed images" Cullen328 described above can also include copyrighted images which have been released by their copyright holders under certain types of free licenses that the Wikipedia Foundtion accepts. You can find a little more about this here and here. Creators of copyright protectable works can versions of their work under certain types of copyright licenses that make it easy for others to use, but also allows the creator to retain copyright ownerships over it. This might sound odd in a sense, but it's basically what you, me and everyone else is doing every time we edit Wikipedia and click the "Publish changes" button. We still retain copyright over the content of edits, but are just agreeing to release in under a license that makes it easier for others to reuse in some way. So, if you can find images online that have been released by their copyright holders under an acceptable, then those should be OK to upload and use. Sometimes, however, people will try and claim copyright ownership over public domain works or copyrighted works created by others; therefore, it can be tricky to figure things out. If you've not sure about an image, it usually a good idea to ask for assistance at WP:MCQ or c:COM:VPC, and someone will try and help sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sources are fake?

so social media and google and a physical storefront are not credible sources now, not even 9 news and local newspapers.for a website known for being false information these rules seem to just be hate to people trying to present real news. can someone tell me what a real source is? i made an article and cited everything from world news, local papers, google and social media sites. WTF? Saintmythi (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Saintmythi, and welcome to the Teahouse! I assume you're talking about Draft:Pawnman. Have you read Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources? It explains what a source is and what makes it reliable; this part explains Wikipedia's stance on social media sites. I hope this helps! Perfect4th (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After the first declined you did very little before resubmitting, so no surprise that it was declined again. David notMD (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperlinks are not allowed in the text of an article and you have no references. For biography of a living person, all factual statements must be verified by reliable source references. David notMD (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Saintmythi You haven't cited anything (correctly). If you want to make edits to WP that "sticks", you have learn how to use references here, see WP:TUTORIAL about referencing and more. See also WP:BASIC, if you don't have the sources demanded there, the article will not be accepted. And since you're writing a WP:BLP, read that carefully too.
Trying to create an acceptable WP-article without any WP-editing experience is hard but maybe possible if good sources exist. If you are writing about yourself, see Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. WP is not your social media, and "real news" is not exactly what this place is about. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aw man

Why there is so much the word her on possesive pronoun as male his? The word hers is severely underutilized. The word her is one of the most annoying word in my lifetime. Why the english word her has a dual accusative and possesive term as him and his? 114.122.104.72 (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. You are going to want to ask this at the language reference desk, as this space is to ask about using or editing Wikipedia. Also, hers is a possessive pronoun. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP user. You asked a similar question yesterday, at WP:Teahouse#Her to hers and received answers. Please do not waste everyone's time by repeating this line of questioning. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bite, though, and answer the "why" nonetheless: her/hers for possession isn't equivalent to him/his (accusative/genitive), but to his/his (dependent genitive / independent genitive). Example sentences: This is her dog. The dog is hers. This is his dog. The dog is his. When you line them up like this, the answer is pretty obvious: "his" already has an s on the end. We can't add another to turn this into an independent genitive. You might be interested in reading History of the English language, English possessive, and English pronouns. -- asilvering (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering I think I know Engligh grammar pretty well, but I didn't realize, until reading this yesterday, that his and his are the same, while her and hers are different words. I know when to use them, but I never thought about the parts of speech for those. (What, there is more than just nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and pronouns? Who woulda thought?) 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His is more like a hissing cat indeed Wtf is the her and hers for no reason other than being accusative and or genitive?! I really despise the word her becayse h is for hummer or hajj anything else letter e is for ford econoline van. While the letter r is more like rrrrrrrrr! French movie in 2004 114.122.105.208 (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make jokes, please do it somewhere else. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overly aggressive deleting?

WRONG VENUE
There is already a discussion ongoing about this exact matter at WP:ANI. Please carry it on there. Whether intentional or not, this looks a bit like forum shopping. The teahouse is NOT the place to start discussions about user behavior, it's a place for new users to get help with using Wikipedia. --Jayron32 16:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Over a period of 2012-18 an editor initially editing as IP 50.29.183.144 and later as Raindrop73, added literally millions of bytes of information to hundreds of school and school district articles - mostly in Pennsylvania - with references. Raindrop73 stopped editing in 2018. Over a period of March-April 2022, Graham87 (an Administator) went to every one of these articles and deleted roughly 90% of the content and references, leaving as an Edit summary "make proper school district article after extreme and sustained disruptin by IP user who became Raindrop73". An example is North Pocono School District. To me, this feels arbitrary. Should one person - Administrator or not - be empowered to radically shorten articles that were in existance for years, based on their own concept of what a school article should be? David notMD (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ask WP:WikiProject Schools for input? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, mentioning that also asked at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes me as an odd place for this thread (perhaps a village pump would be better). In any case, I'm certainly not the only person who's had issues with articles created by Raindrop73. Most prominently, and I know This is hard to prove after the fact, about 40–50% of articles in the category for Wikipedia articles that are excessively detailed from October 2021 were there due to additions by ChillyBlanket and others (example). I began dealing with Raindrop73's edits in January and took a break in February to do some link-fixing on Australian government websites. No established users have brought up any issues with my editing of these pages until recently. Also see this thread. Graham87 12:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like several years went by between when Raindrop73 stopped editing and when Graham87 started reverting, so there wasn't an opportunity for discussion of the reverts with the original editor. Personally I think that 80-90% of that information is unencyclopedic and extraneous, which makes it hard to find the relevant bits, but that's not a huge deal compared to some of Wikipedia's other problems. Also I don't blame anyone for not wanting to spend a bunch of time combing through all that info and paring it down. 97.126.106.3 (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: This is a matter being discussed at the ANI. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; it's linked from the above thread, which is why I didn't add a link here. Yes, a lot of the text I removed was copy-and-paste boilerplate (especially the sections about 2013 academic scores). Before I started taking this on as an ongoing project, I did check a few of the largest school districts in the United States by enrollment to find out what was de rigueur in these articles (knowing that there'd naturally be a lot more encyclopedic to say about big cities than rural areas). The Los Angeles Unified School District article is probably a touch too detailed and I removed some text from it that was added by an IP as recentism. I won't lose sleep if an established editor can come up with a good reason for restoring this text, but no-one has done so in the past three months or so. Graham87 12:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(This is the same person as the IP above) I guess it comes down to two questions: Did the additions improve Wikipedia? Did they harm Wikipedia? IMHO, the answers are "no" and "eh". I did find a somewhat worrying BLP issue in the Sayre article, but it's the sort of thing you could probably expect to creep into any low traffic, lightly monitored article about populated areas. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To answer David directly, I believe, based on the spirit of the libre mission of Wikipedia, that an administrator has no more and no less power to edit an article than a regular editor except if an article is protected where only an admin can make edits to it. These are exceptionally rare cases. I won't rehash anything said at AN/I or at any talk page discussion, only answer David's question directly. I maintain that the highest position on the encyclopedia is editor. If an editor is in good standing and their edits are in good faith then they are part of the community and the community IS the highest governing body on this version of the encyclopedia. All other positions, from administrator to bureaucrat to arbitrator, are under the community even as they are entrusted with tools not given to the average editor. Those tools should never be used to cause injury to an editor acting in good faith as a member of the community. I don't find anything striking about Graham87 editing these articles in a bold manner. We all edit based on our perception. Once something is disputed, however, then the offending (not meant in a negative way, only that they are the ones adding or removing) editor, no other position matters in this case, should seek consensus to either add disputed information back or keep disputed information deleted depending on which applies. An admin is still an editor and still part of the community and receives no extra benefits which precludes them from having to follow the same policies, in those regards, as any other member of the community. In fact, if anything, they have more responsibility to be extra cautious as they have the added trust of the community and that trust is not to be taken lightly. In short, admins do not govern, they serve. The community, by consensus, governs. --ARoseWolf 13:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extensive discussion at at the ANI, so I see no need for additional separate discussion here, other to say that my initial concern was that Raindrop73 was an editor who appeared to be contributing in good faith, and Graham87 - acting as an editor, not an Administrator - made deletions apparently based on a personal decision on what belongs or does not belong in a school-related article. The ANI discussion evolved into issues about blocking, which I consider as separate from my initial concern, and (hopefully) resolved there. David notMD (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools the response was that over-detailing and over-referencing at school articles not unique to Raindrop73. David notMD (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fancruft gets everywhere. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Article

Am Snash a YouTuber from Tanzania i need to write my article ,but i don't how to get an article a published one. Snashtz (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snashtz, you created User:Snashtz/sandbox, in which you advertised your own skills, achievements, popularity, etc. Please find some other website for your PR efforts. Wikipedia is not for this purpose. -- Hoary (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're not supposed to create your own article based on WP:NPOV, WP:What Wikipedia is not, and a few others. You can ask users to create your article at requested biographies. However, an article needs to be supported by reliable sources, and there may not be any on you. Also, users aren't required to slave away creating an article for you.
Asparagusus (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help with requesting a splitting

Hi, I am trying to request a split for Aunt Jemima and I would just like to know if I used the right template in the talk page. Please let me know if I need to fix it and if I need to use another template thank you. BigRed606 (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, BigRed606! Looking over the splitting procedure, it looks like the talk page template was done correctly, although you might specify which sections you're referring to when you say "Pearl Milling Company", since none of the sections in the article have that exact title. You can also complete step two of WP:PROSPLIT by adding the {{split}} template to the article. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

does 20-30 days old page can be deleted ?

Just for my knowledge wanted to know if I got a page published on wikipedia and its 20-30 days old , can any one delete that page ? Kbv2024 (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbv2024: Welcome to the Teahouse. Could you provide more information as to what page it is? Answer depends on factors like whether it is in the main articlespace or Draft:. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
main articlespace Kbv2024 (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kbv2024. Only administrators can actually delete an article but any editor can propose that an article be deleted. It is the notability of the topic that matters most, not how long the article has been around. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Cullen328 (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank u for the information, Kbv2024 (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only type of page where the amount of time it has existed matters is Draft pages, and even then it will only be deleted if they have not been edited in 6 months. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox alignment again

Hello, i decided to put my userboxes in a table but they are not behaving and formatting correctly, they are all over the place and floating all the way to the bottom, is there anyway i can force them to stay together at the top?

Sincerely OGWFP (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@OGWFP: Welcome to the Teahouse. Have you tried putting the userbox templates between {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}}? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary Teahouse

Is there a Wiktionary Teahouse? I know this is not wiktionary, and I apologize in advance if this is the wrong place to ask (which I know it is), but hoping someone might know and be able to help. I predominantly edit wikipedia, but I wanted to start on some basic stuff on wiktionary as well. Thanks you.

P.S.

If someone can help directly (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Th78blue) I am trying to build a redirect (like I have for my wikipedia user page to my talk page) of my wiktionary user page to the "Discussion" page next to it (they seem to be called "Discussion" pages on wiktionary). Thanks again. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 18:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Th78blue, they have a tea room, but your question seems more suited to their information desk. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 18:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary... but glossaries are fine?

Hello! So while I was handling some requests at WP:EFFPR, I came across a report for a user who tried to edit the article Glossary of cue sports terms. The article just seems to be a list of definitions of terms used in cue sports. The thing that confuses me is this seems to violate WP:NOTDICT as Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but that article seems to basically be a dictionary for terms in cue sports. So what's so different about glossary articles that make it so they don't violate WP:NOTDICT? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf: See this note in WP:NOTDICT: "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field; such articles must be informative, not guiding in nature, because Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook." There is link to Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Specialized_list_articles. RudolfRed (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RudolfRed: Ah thanks! I had looked at WP:NOTDICT earlier to see if it mentioned anything about glossaries but I must've just missed it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After cleanup, what next???????

I want to know whats left before Rashida Bello will be reviewed, some editors have contributed, any help whats left for me to do??? would appreciate. Dorathy Nnaji (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dorathy Nnaji, it is already in article space. Sungodtemple (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dorathy Nnaji You could add a |website=, |work=, or |publisher= parameter to each reference that doesn't already have one. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Book Image Question

I recently asked a question here a few days ago about this but the post was archived and I had a follow up question.


The current main image on the Sapiens article is the Hebrew first edition cover. Would it be appropriate to either update the main image to the Harper Collins english first edition cover if it could be obtained and uploaded in the proper way, or if the Hebrew version is the best image for the article since it was the very first edition published, could the English first edition cover be added to the page? The English first edition is the image used by the author on his website and also the image most readers of the English Wikipedia page will be familiar with and be able to read the text on. There doesnt seem to be much guidance on this topic for books with multiple language first editions about which image is prefered for use with respect to the various language wikipedia pages. An image I mentioned in my post the other day has been nominated for deletion. File:Sapiens-uma-breve-historia-da-humanidade-livro-yuval-harari-320001-MLB20265211115 032015-O.jpg This image is not the official English first edition cover but it is being used on several other global wiki sites for the book image in other languages. Thanks! LightBulb22 (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any specific guidance for this situation, but if you think it would be a better image, I would go for it. A quick search turns up WP:WikiProject Books/Images, if you're looking for information about how to put images of book covers on Wikipedia while complying with fair use guidelines. – Anon423 (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help undoing vandalism

Hi, I found what appears to be a user systematically vandalizing old movie pages. The two contributor IP's I found are 71.38.23.47 and 71.222.2.166 both making the same small edits to cast listings. I started undoing them one at a time but I discovered that there are at least 30+ pages and possibly more.

Any suggestions on how to undo the vandalism in a batch process? Or, is one-at-a-time the only way to go? Thanks Glasshammered (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism typically implies malice. Are you absolutely sure these are not good-faith, but unsourced additions to the cast? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From "The Bet (2016 film)"
  • Tricia Pettitt as Woman Drinking Coffee
  • Eric Schenk as Angry Coffee Drinker
were added to the cast listing. These two names appear to have been added to the cast list of over 30 films. The additions are fairly innocuous i.e., not profane or obscene, however, they seem to be defacement of the article. Glasshammered (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also: a quick scan of the films in question reveals a range in release date from 1948 to 2016 Glasshammered (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help with draft

I have been working on a draft for the past couple of months. The times it has been rejected, I've fixed the noted issues and republished it. However, I am not entirely sure if it is pending review. Would I be able to get some help with this problem? Bellamreeves (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:David_Schendel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellamreeves (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bellamreeves: Why did you delete the declined messages? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I did then it was most likely an accident on my behalf. Is that why it's not pending review? Bellamreeves (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. Please restore the declined messages so reviewers can determine if the issues have been resolved. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restored the two Declines, which provide a Submit button. David notMD (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

I'm unable to adequately enter three references I have tried to provide. I've gone to the help page but everything I try does not work....I get this error code: Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

Don't know what I'm doing wrong....jeff Mrjeffmcc (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reformatted your question, Mrjeffmcc. When you start a reference with "<ref>", you must also end it with "</ref>". -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't do what I did once and leave off the closing </small> tag and shrink the whole Teahouse to miniature size. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I did that, Pyrrho the Skipper. (But where?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC) Oh, you did that. OK. -- Hoary (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mrjeffmcc, I notice that in Jeff McCracken (which I infer is your autobiography), you previously had <ref> [https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0566841/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1]. There are several things wrong with this:
  • It should have had a matching </ref>
  • It shouldn't have been a "bare URL".
  • IMDb is not a reliable source.
  • You shouldn't have been editing an article about yourself.
-- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As your talk page shows that you had previously been amply warned about your conduct in that article, and that you had been specifically warned against removing templates from it, and seeing that you had very recently again removed the COI flag from the article, I have blocked you from editing it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjeffmcc, you're not blocked from using the talk page (Talk:Jeff McCracken). Please use it to suggest improvements to the article. I've tweaked some of your additions; the sourcing still needs a bit of work. 97.126.106.3 (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to add reliable sources in Wikipedia article

Hey Team, I am a new user @Super30867 at here and I created an article at first time. I added all reliable sources in article by using citation but my draft: Sunil Sihag have declined by @Praxidicae. I want to know how to fix it. Super30867 (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Super30867, you can start with Help:Referencing for beginners, and then looking at WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability. For example, this webpage you referenced in Draft:Sunil Sihag isn't considered a reliable source since it appears to be a promotional press release rather than an independent news article, and we try to avoid sources associated with the subject for reasons of neutrality. – Anon423 (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to have my drafted article reviewed? I'm new but put in a solid amount of work on it.

 Courtesy link: Draft:Longstocking (producer)
I'm uncertain how I would give access for someone to review. Any insight for a true noob would be much appreciated. DenniKindred (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DenniKindred: Welcome to the Teahouse. You can add {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft when you are ready. That being said, you are strongly discouraged to write about yourself, especially when the draft looks promotional, which will definitely cause reviewers to decline (or even reject) your draft. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the script and the links! You rock Tenryuu DenniKindred (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Denni,
I'm also new to editing / article writing! So take what I say with a grain of salt. But I would say that more specifically, some lines such as "... and so many more.", "It was here in Seattle that her DJing and producing really took off.", and even "...her sound became part of the global underground music community." are probably going to come off as red flags to a lot of people reviewing them. Just because they're rather subjective and not in the traditional "tone" of the website. For instance, instead of saying "her DJing really took off", it would be more standard to list & cite specific examples of how this is the case.
All that being said, I would be a little ahhh cautious about the odds of your page being approved. There's no hard and fast rule for when someone is eligible for a wikipedia article, but even googling Longstocking (producer) had limited results. That being said, best of luck with everything (on and off the site)! A MINOTAUR (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm in a situation where the most notable Longstocking Apple Music page, verified Spotify page, etc are all my music but some one album punk band from 25 years ago gets credited with all my music. I thought a wiki could solve it. I'll delete that part and I may delete the draft. It sucks that a small band I've never heard of that has a single album gets a page and I can't. I'm going delete the draft and give up on the wikipedia acknowledgment. I have a couple albums and a Buch of EPs all signed. Hell, I'm signed on a Warner Music sublabel but it doesn't seem to matter. Throwing in the towel. Thanks Fam! DenniKindred (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add language code for Prefix codes for linking to Wikimedia sister projects

By default, the interwiki prefix codes link to the Wikiprojects in English.

Is there a way to add vi language code for this shortcut wikisource:Đầu Pháp Chính phủ thư ? Leemyongpak (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Leemyongpak, put it in this way: wikisource:vi:Đầu Pháp Chính phủ thư. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thank you. Leemyongpak (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Leemyongpak—You can also put it in an even shorter format: s:vi:Đầu Pháp Chính phủ thư. The "s" should indicate Wikisource. You can also read Special:Interwiki for all of the interwiki links. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 02:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move requests: a question

What to do when during a RM discussion two users on different times go ahead and make changes, while others are still commenting on the discussion (and/or the discussion is not closed yet)? I did not find something useful on the RM page itself. Cheers. --Opencross (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Under review" tag languishing for more than a week

Hello, Teahouse hosts, it's your (not-so-old) Teahouse host asking questions again. So, I submitted this draft, and a reviewer quickly tagged it as "under review". The template stated that it should not remain for any longer than 12 hours, but the tag has been there for over a week. I'm assuming that it's fairly common, and the reviewer should obviously do this at his own convenience. However, I just wanted some help as to how long it should be up there. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 02:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @3PPYB6, and welcome to the Teahouse! I've left a note on the reviewer's talk page. For what it's worth, I'm putting my metaphorical AfC reviewer stamp of approval on this one. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting File Information

Hello,

I am trying to rewrite the fair-use rationale section for an image (not uploaded by me) so that it has some better language justifying its free use. How do I do as such? The edit link on the summary section does not allow me to edit the rationale. And yes, I have read WP:COPY and WP:IUP. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article Flagged and Deleted in Minutes

Hello everyone,

I recently had an article I had authored a few days ago flagged and deleted in a matter of minutes. I am a bit confused because altho I have been a very sporadic contributor over the years, I have had two articles be approved that I drafted from scratch, and in both instances I had access to way less actual citations than this particular one. Furthermore the citations were in particularly well respected media outlets, references in actual printed books, the subject has won several awards from respected design institutions, their work has been part of a museum show, and they are faculty at a very well known university.


My question is this: I would like to receive a copy of the text that was deleted, so I can examine/work on the tone and seek guidance from more experienced editors. How do I go about doing this? And in what format can I receive it?


Also, would it perhaps be better to resubmit the page as a very brief factual stub first and wait for that to be reviewed and approved to establish the basic notability of the subject before working on adding more information? Or is it better to submit a longer article from the get go?


Finally, as I have access to a design archive library, I was able to pull even more well known printed magazine and journal articles (which date back to early 2000s), how would I go about refrencing them in a way that editors are able to actually review and verify them? I do have the ability to scan these pages, but if I do so, would I be able to host them anywhere and link the PDF? I ask because I don't think the editors would be able to pull up the actual text were I to merely cite the edition and page numbers.


Thanks in advance!

SleepyWhippet (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi SleepyWhippet and welcome to the teahouse! the best place to ask would be at Requests for undeletion. I don't exactly know why those articles were deleted, but if they were removed for not having been edited for six months (CSD G13) then you could probably retrieve them easily and continue editing. happy writing! 💜  melecie  talk - 08:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...since it probably wasn't G13, then please see WP:Deletion review instead, where you can challenge the draft's deletion. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 08:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick response @Melecie, seems like the article was actually marked for Speedy Deletion under section "G11" SleepyWhippet (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello SleepyWhippet. As melecie indicated above, you can request undeletion of most articles into draft space as long as they were not deleted for copyright infringement or the like. Usually you would ask the deleting administrator first on their talk page before going to the WP:RFU page.
However, you do not seem to have created any deleted pages. If that is actually about Fade258’s decline of Draft:Araz Fazaeli, I see you have started to discuss it on their talk page. However, please note that sources like this do not really count towards notability (in that case, it is a short interview, so not independent of the subject and arguably not in-depth coverage either). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi SleepyWhippet. Articles are not generally deleted so quickly after they’re created unless they seriously violate some major Wikipedia policy. Do you know the name of the article that was deleted? If you do, then you should be able to determine which administrator deleted the article and then ask that administrator to send you a copy of the article via email. The administrator in question may be willing to do so depending on the reason why the article was deleted. As for your other question, if the sources you which to cite are considered to be reliable per WP:RS, then they don’t need to be available online as long as they are published and readily accessible. Availability online often makes assessment easier, but it’s not required. Just provide as much information about the source as you can per WP:CITEHOW. I wouldn’t suggest you upload the sources anywhere and try to link to them because that could possibly be a copyright issue for Wikipedia’s purposes. The accuracy of the linked source may also be called into question. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SleepyWhippet, the deletion came with the summary "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: more at User talk:Rasd coduresa diziet." Two more or less random quotes from what was deleted: (1) Over the years, Corr has continued to collaborate with a diverse set of designers, brands, and fabricators to create furniture, lighting, and fixtures for high-end hospitality applications. (2) Her academic career parallels her design practice in its focus on bringing cross disciplinary perspectives to explore topics such as Luxury design and Sustainability. Neither is encyclopedic language; rather they're possibly impressive but more certainly nebulous. ¶ As has already been pointed out, there is no need for cited material to be available online; and normally you should not scan material published this century and upload these scans, because for the vast majority of material published this century uploading scans would violate copyright. (Also, Wikipedia can't link to pages that appear to violate copyright.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly@Tigraan@Hoary -- Thank you all -- I suspect the issue may be that when I decided to write the article in question last week, I first could not remember the login to my (this) account, so I made a brand new account and went through the AfC wizard on that account, so the articles origination may not be associated with this username (incidentally, is there a way to merge accounts?), as @Hoary mentioned, The article in question is was on "Jessica Corr" -- in retrospect, I can see how the highlighted language could have been more neutral. But I guess my question is: is the entire article worthy of deletion? Or is it perhaps something that could have been discussed and fixed? I have asked the Admin who deleted it for a copy of the text on their talk page, they haven't responded yet --- or should I be asking the user who originally flagged the article for deletion? SleepyWhippet (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=1086459365"