When a celebrity dies - How is their page edited so fast?
whenever there is a celebrity death, the moment it is announced I go to Wikipedia and someone has already changed their profile to say "was" and edited the article to be in the past tense.
@MrBauer24, here's an article about that from 2018:[1]. And, of course, there's Deaditor. There are a lot more people than the regular editors who knows that they can edit, and it seems that when people see this particular error, it makes sense to them to correct it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MrBauer24, it is a well known fact going back hundreds of years that mass media interest surges after the death of a celebrity. Since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and there are many many millions of people constantly monitorig the internet news and social media ecosystem, it is not surprising that there would be countless people rushing to edit Wikipedia when a celebrity dies. A problem is that false death reports are frequent, and we have the obligation to get it right. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deaditor redirects to Death and Wikipedia, which starts Death and Wikipedia includes all discussions of how Wikipedia editors present death of public figures. Which is one of the more leaden of the opening sentences I've encountered. Incidentally, in the second sentence the article appears to change its mind: Wikipedia editors, plural, don't attend to this solemn task; the "Wikipedia community", singular, does. So fix it would be a reasonable response; but I plead laziness. -- Hoary (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary, based on your "leaden" comment, I boldly changed this to say "Death and Wikipedia discusses how Wikipedia editors present the death of public figures." The first part definitely needed changing, and "the" was sorely lacking. David10244 (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
David10244, thank you; I thereupon perpetrated this. I hardly touched that opening sentence, which strikes me as superfluous. As for the rest of the article, although it purports to be about "Wikipedia", I suspect that most if not all of it is about English-language Wikipedia. (What it says may very well be true of other-language Wikipedias, but most of the article cites English-language US sources, and experience tells me that in these, "Wikipedia" generally means English-language Wikipedia.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary I like everything you did there. Especially changing "articles of" to "articles about"... You simplified some of the other prose, which is always good. I dither between "the media has" vs. "the media have", but it's not worth worrying about. I also considered "the deaths of public figures" instead of "death", but I left "death". On to something more cheerful now... Thanks. David10244 (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I wrote an article which was published to Wikipedia and it was removed due to lack of resources. I have since fixed the article and submitted it for review, but wondered if I needed to recreate the article and publish again instead. Also, i noticed that my title has the word "draft", will that disappear once the article is approved/published? Sorry for the questions, but I am a newbie. :) Here is my article: Draft:Hygord AmédéeManywords4u (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Manywords4u: the draft has the 'Draft:' prefix as long as it remains unpublished, in the draft space.
You say you have submitted it for review, but you haven't. I can do that for you, if you'd like.
That being said, the draft would only be declined, as it is almost entirely unreferenced (which is especially a problem in articles on living people), and there is no evidence that the subject is notable in Wikipedia terms. For that reason, I would suggest that you continue working on it before submitting it. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Manywords4u: What is needed is to demonstrate that this person is "notable" in Wikipedia’s meaning of the term. That requires references that are (1) independent of him, (2) reliable, and (3) deal with him in-depth. We do not need many references, but we need high-quality ones.
Of your three references, two are related to institutes/foundations that he is involved in, and the last is a journal piece they wrote. All of those fail part (1).
@Manywords4u Along with the rest of the great advice, note that the sources that you want to use, as references, are from published material that talks about him. We don't need to know (only) what he has done, but what others have said about him. Good luck. David10244 (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've linked each of his books to amazon.fr via amzn.eu. I'm surprised that you've linked each to a retailer, and I'm also surprised that Wikipedia hasn't yet put amzn.eu on its blacklist (for being a redirecting service). Incidentally, if the books are "translated into several languages (English, French, Creole)", then which language(s) are they translated from? Other problems: Why is "Education" treated at more length than is any other section, and where are the sources for it? And most importantly (and as raised above), where are three in-depth, reliable sources about the man? -- Hoary (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the hyperlinks for the books. Career needs dates (years) and refs. Education needs refs. Everything needs refs. Listing his books is OK but contributes zero to confirming notability because self-published. David notMD (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Hygord Amédée has two paragraphs about his education. Where did you get this information? It there a publication to cite? Information about a living person may be true, but unless it can be verified by citing a reliable source reference it cannot be in the article. Same for career information. If your source is from speaking with or corresponding with Hygord Amédée, that cannot be used. What people say or write about themselves is not a reliable source. That includes published interviews. David notMD (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not seeing why he is notable in any aspect. His books are self-published (which anyone in the world can do). Very few references to support this as an article let alone a BLP. How is he notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia? I honestly think that is where you need to start the draft and work on that section. Right now it reads to me as you are writing this because you are the subject of the article (and I’m assuming good faith that you are not) but the wording and lack of what is needed for a BLP is simply not there. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:78CC:6741:3C62:5708 (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Decline
Hello Teahouse members, I created Draft:Sangramsingh Thakur and it was rejected by User:Akevsharma which is Sockpuppet after that User:Bonadea rejected my draft for reasons the draft do not show significant coverage but according to Wikipedia WP:PUBLISHEDWP:RS I'm citing all sources with Draft there have also significant projects available on Wikipedia with name and also some WP:REF available. So please help me about it. Rajmama (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rajmama Articles about this person were deleted three times backin 2018-19. Because of the repeats, "This page has been protected so only extended confirmed users can create it." You do not qualify. For your draft, it has been Declined (not Rejected) twice for insufficient referencing. I agree. Your refs mention Thakur by name, but do not have at-length content about him. The other reason also exists, as you are not extended confirmed yet. David notMD (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rajmama: WP:SIGCOV states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". In order to demonstrate notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, you would need to find multiple published reliable sources that discuss Thakur's work in detail, not just a mention that he appears in a particular film. I also added a few {{citation needed}} tags to point out unreferenced information in your draft. GoingBatty (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty thank you for your suggestion. I have one more doubt, as I'm started working on thakur's Draft I have read all articles and sources related to Indian Predator: Murder In A Courtroom and I saw thakur is one of the pararal lead actor of the series and I'm added his name in that series in starring section but user:bonadea removed his name for a reason he is not a actor of this series and said attached sources.after that I'm added his name with sources but he again removed his name and this time he give me reason for that I'm promoting him. So I'm asking all wikipedians that Is creating articles of specific topic on Wikipedia or contributing on Wikipedia it that means you promoting them? Rajmama (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty it's an typical mistake its Parallel not pararal. And I'm also concerned with Bonadea but according to him I'm promoting thakur but I'm just contributing. so what can I do now? should i leave it in the middle? Rajmama (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again: a) Since Thakur is not notable at this point, you will only be wasting your own time if you try to create an article about him. b) No reliable, independent sourcing has supported the claim that Thakur is a "parallel lead" in the TV series. As you know, the source you added is neither reliable nor independent, and it doesn't make that claim in any case. It's rather odd to keep adding that one name, and not either of the narrators or any of the rest of the cast... c) This guideline (which you have also been asked to read) discusses how to list cast members, including non-starring cast that are worth mentioning, in an article. --bonadeacontributionstalk20:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can recreate the article, but make sure you have a lot of references to make the subject appear notable and it will be less likely to get declined. Juckchurd (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Juckchurd That advice is not stated very well. An article does not need "a lot of references", it needs a few good references to demonstrate notability. And the references must show that the subject is notable; we shouldn't try to make something appear notable if it's not.
I realize that a lot of (especially the new) editors want to create an article. Their focus becomes "how can I make it look like this subject is notable", or "help, I am having trouble finding sources to support what I have written". Instead, they should be asking themselves "is this subject notable, or not?". In an ideal world, the new editor who wants to create an article will look for references, and if very few, or none, are found, they would say "ok, I tried; this subject must not be ready for an encyclopedia article" instead of (this happens occasionally) arguing with the helpers, or begging to have an article accepted that is short on references. Not all new editors are like this, but some are. I realize it's hard if you have your heart set on creating a specific article and the sources are not there. (The question comes up, "where did you get all of the information you wrote?" If it's from a reliable source, then cite it; otherwise, delete it.)
Since I started using Twinkle to revert vandalism, my watchlist has been useless. It's full of pages that were vandalized and un-vandalized weeks ago. While this can be useful while patrolling recent changes, I now can't keep track of pages I actually care about. I assume there's an obvious solution to this that I'm missing. 〜 Festucalex • talk13:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you're looking at your watchlist, there's a link at the top that says "Edit your list of watched pages". Click that and you can manage your list of watched pages. --Jayron3213:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Festucalex: I use a script called watchlist cleaner which will allow you to clean out your watchlist with various settings (Such as removing articles you haven't edited in a while, articles you've never edited, or articles that have been deleted). You might find it useful for your needs. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654513:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that, but I have around 300 pages in there. I can't go around manually deleting 50 pages from the watchlist every time I patrol recent changes. Isn't there a way to automatically exclude pages added by Twinkle? 〜 Festucalex • talk13:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what happens when I have it set to watch pages upon rollback and I use SWViewer (annoyingly I can't tell it to only watch them for 30 days) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654515:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. User pages are for Wikipedia editors to tell about themselves as Wikipedia editors. Here's my user page. Are you asking how to write an encyclopedia article about an author? (which is very different) 331dot (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to accept that the rejection of this new article was a correct application of the rule, and notwithstanding that, I nevertheless assert that this article ought to exist. If a rule decrees that the creation of this article is improper, then the problem is with the rule.
To be clear, I actually have no interest in correcting the rule nor in demonstrating that the rule does not properly apply, I'm just pointing out that this application of this rule is detrimental to Wikipedia. Fabrickator (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, the draft was not rejected, but declined. This is a material difference, as decline means it can be resubmitted after the reasons for declining have been addressed. However, the author appears to have requested speedy deletion instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fabrickator You can ask for the draft to be restored and then add more references before resubmitting. As drafts can stay drafts for six months, it is even possible that stuff not yet published can become refs. David notMD (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm not clear on why you are bringing this up if you have no interest in working to reverse the decision at issue or in working to change the rule. I mean, that's fine, you don't have to, but I don't understand what your goal is. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, what you are saying, Fabrickator, is "I don't know or care what your rules are, but you've got it wrong, so yah boo sucks to you!" Is that right? ColinFine (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that I have a deep philosophical difference of opinion about this. Some editor came along and they corrected a particular problem in Wikipedia. Nobody is coming forth to dispute that the new article wasn't needed. Rather, the claim is that somebody didn't abide by the proper process.
I am claiming that there wasn't anything wrong with content that had been added, but if somebody believed that there really was some deficiency in the content that was added, then the proper response would have been to make the change they believed was required, not to revert that change and make things worse.
If the Wikipedia editor community (such as it is represented in this discussion) has determined that that the revert of that change was in accordance with the Rules of Wikipedia, then on that, I am going to disagree (i.e. either the added content was in accordance with those rules, or alternatively, that those rules are defective).
My contention is that this is an issue of either bad or misconstrued policy, and I choose to call out that the policy is either flawed or misapplied, and that to comply with this erroneous "as applied" policy would only serve to reinforce the bad policy or application of policy. I've called out the problem, but this does not mean I have some sort of moral obligation to fix it.
You could construe my point to be that if you're gong to make a change, you should make things better, not worse. I contend that is what I am doing by refusing to add the source that is being demanded, and that in doing so, I am encouraging other editors to realize where the true problem lies. Fabrickator (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may point out whatever you wish(though this isn't really the forum to do that, the Village Pump is better) but to be frank if you are unwilling to work on the problem, very few people will pay attention to you and you are just taking up volunteer time. If you feel that a policy was incorrectly applied, or that a policy is wrong, it's up to you to do something about it. Not morally, just because we're all volunteers here. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. Setting aside the issue of whether this is the best place for this discussion, I am doing something about it. I'm calling out what seems to be a problem with what I argue is an erroneous policy or a mis-application of policy. Discussing theoretically how a policy might have bad results is unlikely to have any good effect, while "fixing" the problem (e.g. by adding a source to support the claim) only reinforces the bad practice (i.e. declining/rejecting an AfC under these circumstances).
I contend my comments here are productive. They could lead to a refinement of a rule, inasmuch as the intention of the new article would presumably have been to establish the relationship to two pre-existing articles, so maybe this is a distinct sort of case. Or maybe we just need some other sort of "exception" to the requirement for a source. What's a little weird in this case is that the name change is effectively based on what would be an acceptable "self-published source", since the Smithsonian Institution is decreeing the terminology it will use to refer to these collections ... the only issue here is the fact that it implicates the creation of a new (or possibly renamed) article. OTOH, it actually looks like, contrary to the explanation of the decline, there were appropriate sources actually available (which bypasses the issues I have raised, but which begs the question as to why one would have chosen to support the AfC decline). Fabrickator (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fabrickator, the topic is clearly notable and we ought to have an article about it. Your draft was not rejected. Instead, you were asked to do a little bit more work but you chose not to do that and instead asked for your draft to be deleted. According to the WP:GNG, A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Your draft had two sources. One was to the Smithsonian's own website, which is not an independent source and therefore does not establish notability. The second, a Washington Post article, was excellent. So, you had one source that indicated notability but the word "sources" in the guideline is plural. A quick Google News search shows plenty of other significant coverage of this combined museum in reliable, independent sources. All you would need to have done is select the best two or three of them, add them to the draft, and it would have been accepted. Instead, you chose to take your ball and go home. That's kind of sad, but it's the path you chose. Cullen328 (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328. Well, not my draft! If the article just needed to have a source added, shouldn't it have been moved to draft space rather than declined? (I'm completely unfamiliar with the process.) Alternatively, it could have been accepted with a tag added regarding notability. Fabrickator (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, Fabrickator. I thought you were the author. I am not sure what you mean when you say "shouldn't it have been moved to draft space rather than declined?" It was a draft and it was submitted to AFC, and declined for the reasons I explained above. The unusual thing is that the author requested deletion instead of correcting the very easy to fix problem. Cullen328 (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 So if I'm understanding this correctly, the user involved submitted his draft, it got declined on the grounds that it wasn't notable. That happened on 17 February 2023. At that point, it would have been left in draft space, but rather than just leaving it in draft space, he asked to have it deleted. Perhaps he didn't understand how to address the issue of it being not notable (having been told that it actually wasn't) or perhaps he was just annoyed at the process. And if that's the fact, then I'm empathizing with him, which is really in line with what I've been saying. Fabrickator (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fabrickator, the reviewer did not say the the topic is not notable. Instead, the decline notice said: This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject), reliable, secondary, independent of the subject.Cullen328 (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this type of source can be used as a reference for basic, uncontroversial facts. But it does not contribute to assessing notability because it is not independent of the topic. Please read WP:ABOUTSELF. Cullen328 (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, I wonder what would have happened if there weren't some non-Smithsonian publications that had an article with some degree of "in-depth" coverage. Would we then have refused to create the new article? Would we have demanded this if it had been a straight rename, rather than (in effect) two notable entities being combined into a single entity?
The decline of the simply article wasn't necessary. It would have required common sense to approve the article without requiring such references, but we are cautioned away from this, presumably because failing to insist that we rely on arbitrary policies to make decisions would lead to madness. I presume that JMutka had decided that he'd had enough nonsense, and I credit him with pulling the request. Refusing to go along with nonsense rules helps, ever so slightly, to move Wikipedia in the right direction. Fabrickator (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fabrickator, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have powered this website to become #7 in the world, and #1 by far worldwide in originally written educational content. Wikipedia has billions of pageviews each month. And here you are, presuming to describe the very policies and guidelines that have made Wikipedia a success as "madness" and "nonsense" and "arbitrary policies" that defy "common sense" as defined by Fabrickator, one random anonymous individual on the internet. Do you really think that anybody is going to pay attention to your hyperbolic evidence-free ramblings? Perhaps you might choose to frame your critiques in a more productive way, instead of huffing and puffing and blowing off steam. Cullen328 (talk)
When is it necessary to create album pages for artists?
There are different ways to create articles. Just avoid one of the article creation routes that is likely to have someone critically analyzing the content to high standards. Probably your best bet is to become autoconfirmed by waiting four days and making ten edits. After that, you will be able to create pages in main space and it might take several days for a random person separate from AfC to review it. In general, the more references you have, the better chances article has of not being deleted because it will seem more notable. I hope this helps! Juckchurd (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, a topic needs to be notable, and the references need to show that. We are not trying to make something seem notable if it's not. Too many references, especially poor ones, can obscure the good ones. If an article has an excessive number of references, reviewers might be put off by having to wade through them. David10244 (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you don't have experience creating articles, then using the WP:YFA process is strongly recommended. Becoming autoconfirmed and then placing articles directly in mainspace is not a good idea for a new editor. David10244 (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Help me out with an article on Sanket Goel
Hi! Can anybody help me out with this article. Draft:Sanket Goel
This article has been declined 3-4 times due to referencing and citations issues. I've worked to fix them but I wanna if there is anything else possible. It would be great if you guys could help me out.
Shashy 922 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft has been declined, not rejected- rejected would mean resubmission is not possible. You have submitted it for another review, the reviewer will give you feedback. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shashy 922 Your references need a lot of work. Most are bare URL, when they ought to use the full {{cite web}} template, with as many parameters such as author, date and access-date filled in. This is so readers can verify the information and it is properly credited to the people who created it. Also, the cite must back up what the text says. I picked this URL which is supposed to confirm he was a Fulbright scholar. It led to an Excel file that was supposed to contain a list of these scholars but actually had no data at all! That is simply not good enough. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The great majority of the refs, for example 7-20, are only name mentions of Sanket Goel. I did not check 1-6. As such, those do not contribute to Wikipedia notability. Unless there are publications ABOUT Goel, not just mentions of projects he has been part of, he may fail notability. That said, academics are rarely written ABOUT, but there are criteria described at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for establishing notability, including such criteria as holding an endowed chair at a university, winning significant awards and being a member of a reputation-exclusive scientific organization. Being highly cited matters. David notMD (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I use his google scholar h-index to show how much cited he is? Also I did include his memberships as editor in various scientific journals and also his fellowships such as Fulbright and JSPS. I have also included some awards he has won. I'm still working on finding more references and sources, but I haven't found any 'ABOUT' the subject yet and more on the subject's research and patents. Shashy 922 (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there are not sources that are about him, discussing him in depth and showing how is notable, he would not merit an article at this time. His work being cited means little unless there are sources that discuss why he is cited a lot. 331dot (talk) 16:39, of 1 April 2023 (UTC)
331dot, this is not a correct summary of WP:ACADEMIC, which is a distinctive notability guideline that does not require "sources that are about him, discussing him in depth". Unusually heavy citation in the relevant academic field is sufficient in itself. Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fellowships are not considered significant awards. Same for being on editorial boards of journals. Same for being inventor for issued patents. I doubt being at Fellow level at IETE and IE are prestigious enough to convey notability. David notMD (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added the references in the draft and have published it. Can you please have a look once again and see if there are any further problems? Shashy 922 (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been searching for Wikipedia articles in my locality that are lacking imagery. I'd love to be able to give back to Wikipedia by donating some of my time to providing photos for articles in the place I live.
Are there any guidelines on this beyond: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Licensing? For example I found a page about a brewery up the road from me and noticed it has no photo. Can I take a photo of the exterior of the building and upload it to the article?
Also is there any way to list articles without images that are relate to locations in a specific city? I did look at a wikimap but as it's dependent on articles having geocoordinates, I suspect it's only revealing a small number of the articles around me. I'd be delighted to go out on a photo cycle once a month capturing photos of places around me for Wikipedia. Alex Leonard (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Alexleonard and welcome to the Teahouse. Take a look at Special:Nearby. You may be asked to allow Wikipedia to access your location. You will then see a list of articles accompanied by a thumbnail image. If there is no image it is likely that one is required. To switch to a different loction, edit the URL bar with the new longitude and latitude. Shantavira|feed me13:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah super, thanks so much for the answer. I had a feeling there was something like that but couldn't find it. And whilst it looks quite bare for me (I'm in Berlin, Germany), if I visit the German version https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:In_der_N%C3%A4he there are a lot more local articles listed. I'll scout through there and see if there's anything I can contribute to. Thanks again! Alex Leonard (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shantavira if you didn't, you would be instantly wealthy for finding a way for companies to transmit data with lower broadband costs. Netflix would love it! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Flag Creator: If you mean the uploaded file is 307 px and you want to display a larger version then it's not possible in our MediaWiki software. If you try to specify a larger size then it's just displayed at the uploaded size. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shantavira Don't you watch detective shows on TV? They frequently "enhance" a picture, such as a grainy security camera image, so they can see a face or read a license plate. We just need to do what they do! David10244 (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm new and I'd like to contribute the proper way
Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. I tried to add a template on the sandbox page, but I did smething incorrectly.
I don't know what I did wrong, I wrote the paragraph and then I added a link, apparently only the link got through but not the paragraph, I must have missed a step, could someone help me, please? Truthbetold27 (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see the paragraph I intended to add revealed, thank you. Now, how do I get it resubmitted witouth incurring in an error, please? Truthbetold27 (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered adding to the Grigori Grabovoi article? Wikipedia's standard for the creation of a standalone article is notability. The policy is at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability It's often summarized as at least 3 reliable, secondary sources. If the material you want to add only has one source, it won't meet our threshold for a separate article but can be added to an existing article. Take care, Rjjiii (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went to the sandbox and it has a section where we can type, and I typed away, after I typed the paragraph, I clicked on 'insert' so that I could insert the link related to the information reported in the paragraph, but when I clicked on 'publish' it only sent the link and I must have missed a step. Thank you for your interest in helping me Truthbetold27 (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template for quoting ChatGPT on chat pages
Is there a template that can be used for quoting ChatGPT on chattalk pages? Ideally a template that is aesthetically pleasing to the various readers, and makes clear the authorship and copyright status of the quoted text. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are no chat pages on Wikipedia, and ChatGPT should never be quoted in Wikipedia as it is not a reliable published source. If you can explain exactly what you want to do and why, we might be able to give you a better answer. Shantavira|feed me18:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a host, but I'm pretty sure ChatGPT is not reliable, ChatGPT knows barely anything about the world post-2021, and you might miss a change or event that happened after that. Also, I'm not sure how you'd cite ChatGPT... Vamsi20 (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Walt Yoder, @Vamsi20 Proposals for a possible future policy on the use of such large language models within Wikipedia are being developed at WP:LLM. This already includes suggestions for their use (and attribution) on Talk Pages. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Refs in lead
So for a good article (good in a general sense, not the good article award thing), how many references should be in the MOS:LEDE? Or should there be no references at all? Vamsi20 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Vamsi20. In general, references are not required in the lead section, as long as the body of the article is well-referenced, and the lead correctly summarizes it. There are exceptions, though. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says: The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.. Cullen328 (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, you have a two-sentence, three reference Lead with no other content. OK as is, but perhaps there is an article to add? David notMD (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vamsi20, if you expand the article as David suggests you can then move your references from the lead to later sections. The policy on sources in the lead doesn't apply to very small articles with only a few paragraphs or sentences. Here are a couple examples of Featured Articles (having gone through Wikipedia's FA review) that are fairly short but have all references in the body paragraphs:
I need help understanding why my article is not being accepted. Can someone help? We are a cancer fundraising bike ride and just looking to get our information to the public. 100% of our profits go to Sarcoma cancer research. So when we get a decline, it hurts. Thanks 65.60.141.251 (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been submitting articles to publications since the 1970s, and know that all have specific rules and regulations for what they will publish. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, is no exception. I’m sure your cancer fundraiser is a worthwhile organization, and I hope that you are able to find ways to publicize the yearly bike ride. You may want to consider contacting newspapers, radio and television stations near Delaware, Ohio. Perhaps starting your own website or Facebook account would be worthwhile. Best wishes on your fundraising efforts. Karenthewriter (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s because your article would be promotional in nature (i.e. intended solely to advertise whatever fundraising thing you’re doing). No one at Wikipedia cares about whatever cancer charity you’re trying to advertise and you will probably be blocked if you persist in trying to promote your organisation. Juckchurd (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Veganpurplefox. The infobox Template should go before the lead section. Also, you have an excess reference tag at the end of the infobox that may possibly be suppressing the display. Cullen328 (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
basically Luke's dad is abusive and Tommy's mom is depressed so both want to escape their lives into another country ,idk if it makes more sense? Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Veganpurplefox, "Both want to escape their lives to America as Luke's dad abuseabuses him and Tommy's mom doesn't taletake care of him as she only staresall she does is stare at the TV." -- Hoary (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Veganpurplefox. The infobox displays properly now, but your references are completely inadequate to establish the notability of this film, and that issue is far more important than an infobox issue. Infoboxes are optional, after all, but high quality references are mandatory. Cullen328 (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to add that there seems to be a conflict between the release date of 2016 (more hits on this date) and 2018 (only one hit on this date). I don’t see anything major about the movie except very low ratings and no nominations or awards were given. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:78CC:6741:3C62:5708 (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia wont let me Upload a Photo that my wife has copyright to
I have a photo of high historical value taken by my wife back in 1975 at a protest rally over the dismissal of the Whitlam Labor Govt in Australia.
The photo contains images of the then Premier of South Australia Don Dunstan, the then leader of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Bob Hawke and the local federal member Chris Hurford MP marching up King William St, Adelaide sometime in late November 1975.
We have the only negatives and I have digitised the 35mm black and white film.
My wife would like the photo uploaded but she is not interested in becoming a wikipedia editor and in any case she would get the same response.
Wikipedia says I can't upload the photo as it thinks I don't have permission to use it.
How can I prove my wife has copyright and I have permission to upload it.
Yes I know and my wife has given me permission to upload and identify her as the copyright holder. But I can't even upload it or indicate on the upload panel that she is copyright holder. Stringybark316 (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be crystal clear, Stringybark316, your wife CANNOT casually give you permission to freely licence the photo on her behalf, unless she completes and signs a very complex legal document with every t crossed and every i dotted. Any tiny error will cause the upload to be rejected. It would be vastly easier for her to register her own account and freely licence the photo herself. That's the easy, fast way, and the other way is the very hard and very slow way.Cullen328 (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, Stringybark316, you could create an account for your wife, and upload the image from that account by clicking the option for "this is my own work". Technically that is lying (and also sockpuppetting), but presumably your wife will not mind, and it will be muuuuch easier this way.
I have a very specific question with MOS:GEOCOMMA, which states the following:
"In geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g., city, state/province, country), a comma separates each element and follows the last element unless followed by other punctuation. The last element is treated as parenthetical."
What about Washington, D.C., or other similarly abbreviated multi-level geographical references, when not being used at the end of a sentence? In this way, "D.C." is followed by "other punctuation," but it is not being treated as parenthetical without a comma.
This may just be an edge case, but I have seen many instances with and without the comma, and not for other grammatical reasons so am very curious about it.
Thanks, Rjjiii. Appreciate the input and reference to the Chicago MOS. I'm more familiar with APA. I'll post the question to the MOS talk page. I should have also mentioned that I have seen many instances without the parenthetical comma on prominent political articles (e.g., articles about presidents), which I won't edit without knowing how to handle per the Wikipedia MOS, with certainty. Thanks again. Ed Edward Bednar (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that page flagged for review?
Hello! I'm new. I looked through the list of articles to improve and found this one. The improvement hint says to look for spelling, grammar, and tone. The page also has on on-page warning about tone, dating back to May 2022.
I see neither spelling errors, nor grammar errors. I also see nothing wrong with the tone of the article.
Nothing obvious, Wandermunch, no. Here's how the article has changed from when the "improvement hint" (template) was attached until now: perhaps edits made during this period improved the article considerably. Feel free to remove the template. -- Hoary (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What was the Library I was invited to again? Because I forgot. I remember making contributions and enough to be just invited to a website of a library of some-sorts from an administrator, where you can get information from the most reliable pages. Can someone please direct me to that page, that would be very helpful. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just had my edit reverted. Said not to be constructive. Buchi attended my secondary school but location of College was wrong. Methodist College is in Uzuakoli and not Enugu. Federal Government College is in Enugu. I had sent a message to Buchi Atuonwu that I had made the correction only to find out that it has been wrongly reverted 80.5.207.200 (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing up the matter here, rather than reverting the reversion. What the article Buchi Atuonwu needs are reliable sources, so that we have reason to believe that Uzuakoli is correct (or, if ObjectivismLover's suspicions are well founded, that Enugu is correct). If you can't immediately find a reliable source, then you're welcome to start a discussion about the problem at the foot of Talk:Buchi Atuonwu. -- Hoary (talk) 09:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rewording
Hello all - I have posed a question on a televised shows talk page talk:Barnwood_Builders#Changes about the wording used in the article. The show doesn’t build just homes and such anymore. They build other buildings as well and also started a store where they use reclaimed wood and other reclaimed parts to build things to sell like kitchen carts, bars, etc. I wanted to get input from the community on how to best address this premise change. Thanks. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:78CC:6741:3C62:5708 (talk) 09:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IP, and welcome to the Teahouse! Great job seeking community consensus on your proposed changes. I would wait for other users to comment on the discussion, but if you do end up making the changes, be sure to cite reliable sources. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Illusion Flame: Thanks! That is why I wanted to seek this as I saw a few episodes tonight and looked up the article which hadn’t had any major changes in a long time, especially on the lede where it cited an old reference from when the show started. I can work on finding some references somehow even though reading the episode descriptions well tell you alone “The team outfits a standard office with reclaimed wood and turns it into their new store…” I am assuming the description for the episode would not be an acceptable reference? 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:78CC:6741:3C62:5708 (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking to cite an affidavit (see here) in an article I'm currently writing but I'm unsure of how to do so or if I'm even allowed to do so. Help would be appreciated. --Dawnbails (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Infobox: Artist does not appear to have a dedicated parameter for signatures, as you identified correctly. In this kind of scenario, you can usually check the source code or the template parameters on the page that you're taking inspiration from. For example, the Peter Paul Rubens infobox solves this by using the "module" parameter. That parameter is given the following text: "{{Infobox person|child=yes
:| signature = Rubens autograph.png}}". You can probably replicate this for any other article with an artist infobox if there is an image file of that artist's signature. Good luck! Actualcpscm (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Applemcg, at the top of that page there are three numbered items. Number 1 is the one you quoted; it starts with "If you see two empty white boxes below, one small and one big, please complete the following, ...". But as you observe, there are not two white boxes below. So reading further, item number 2 says "If you see a single big input box below, which starts with ...". And if you look below, you will see that there is indeed a single big box which starts with that text. So you should ignore item number 1 and follow the instructions for item number 2. CodeTalker (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Applemcg: Do you se empty white boxes? I see text lines with black text on white background. The whole area has pink background and several empty parts but none of them enclosed in a way which could be called a box. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
indeed. my mistake, of course,
however, it might help to emphasize EMPTY, as I saw TWO ... WHITE boxes.
alternatively, it might make more sense to swap bullets 1 and 2. As a developer, it's taken me quite a while to recall, reading Code Complete, I believe:
That while "IF boolean THEN do this if true ELSE do this other ENDIF",
the boolean expression should be cast to a negative declaration in order to put the shorter action in the THEN clause, which is clearly the case here.
exceptions occur for 'the obvious default' or performance reasons.
-----
also, on the matter of a BOX*, i was looking for box on the Draft page. it might then be instructive to point out the BOX on THIS page?!
Hello senior Wikipedia Editors. I have added information after reading Hazara Gazetteer 1883 and Hazara Gazetteer 1907. Pakhal Sarkar was a kingdom and I want to add template like I have seen in other Kingdom pages . please somebody add an template to that page so I became able to add information into the template Gibari Sultan (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dont know if this is the right place to do this- im very new to wikipedia editing, but I want to make an article on the pyrotechnics incident in Montreal while Metallica was performing. Can someone please help me? Squebbs the Pebbs (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Squebbs the Pebbs Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough information on the 1992 incident that you may be able to create and submit a referenced draft, but for a new editor, I would suggest instead creating a section in the Metallica article. See Help:Referencing for beginners on how to format refs. And perhaps use your own Sandbox to work on the text and refs, only moving the content to the article when everything works. David notMD (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a state of lack of clarity about what is the most appropriate time frame for the titles of the Egyptian Super Cup articles. Unusually, this cup is attributed to the season in which the league and the local cup champions were crowned, not the year. Source from RSSSF. Sakiv (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Sakiv and Welxome to the Teahouse! I am unable to find what question you need and answer to. This comment may be better placed on the talk page of the article. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In Herman Melville, in the section on "Education and father's death," footnote numeral 24 is two lines below the indented quote to which it should be attached. Under "Edit source," no space is apparent. What is the problem with this? Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Maurice Magnus, and welcome to the Teahouse. The problem was that the {{sfnp}} citation template was outside the {{Cquote}} template, which indents the quote and ends the paragraph. I fixed it by moving the citation inside. Done. ColinFine (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Submitting information to an article about yourself
When, or is it appropriate to submit corrections to articles about yourself? For example if your marital status or birth or age is inaccurate. What is acceptable way to cite your DOB or marital status? Toddmeagher (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Toddmeagher Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We need a published reliable source to support such information. If that information(like your date of birth or age) are not in any published reliable sources, then they shouldn't be in the article. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In general, can I add or correct information about myself if I can cite it from a reliable source, or does editing an article about yourself violate Wikipedia guidelines? Toddmeagher (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should not directly edit an article about yourself. Instead you can place a Template:Request edit on the article's talk page. In the edit request, you describe the edit you want to be done to the article with sources attached to it. See the guide WP:COIE for more info. Carpimaps (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the guideline WP:ABOUTSELF allows the usage of any verified social media account of the subject of the article to verify information they say about themselves. So all you need to post your correction on one of your verified social media account so readers may verify the information. Carpimaps (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
one thing i noticed is that non-rhythm games usually don't have their tracks listed... except for when they do. it seems that mostly occurs when the soundtrack is mostly preexisting songs from people not related to the game in question's development, but there was a whole debate about that around hotline miami episode ii: the jacketing's article (see history and talk pages, but mostly talk), where it got deleted because of vgscope, but it seems fine around games slightly more focused on their funny noises (see ddr for an example)
is there some sort of pattern to it besides that, or is it really something that should stick to rhythm games but gets put in other articles anyway? cogsan (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just click on the reference and use ctrl+c and ctrl+v to copy-paste the ref. Simple! But make sure you check the page once you've published it, since this can break in unexpected ways if you edit the reference. -- asilvering (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Old layout
The layout of Wikipedia page has been changed. Was that necessary? Is it possible to revert back to old layout, with lighter blue background color? 87.214.100.46 (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not want to register, there are various web-browser addons which will apparently make wikipedia show you the old layout, e.g. this, this, or this for firefox though I don't use and cannot vouch for any particular one. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the MOS guideline for a certain style of writing...
Hi X750. I believe what you're looking for is WP:PROSELINE; please note, however, that is just an WP:ESSAY, which means it might be a good idea in many cases but not really something that necessarily needs to be done. So, before you start an extensive rewritting of any articles, you might want to be WP:CAUTIOUS and discuss things on the article's talk page first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
X750 I do that a lot with film/TV people I update occasionally, as I know nothing about them most of the time, other than what films/TV shows they've worked on. Even if I do know who they are, I never know what to write, so it's easier for me to just list the years and say things like:
In 2010, they appeared in "film 1" directed by "writer." They also appeared in "film 2" written and directed by "writer 2."
4 months ago I renamed an article, which should have been renamed 13 years ago when it's name changed.
Today I got a notification to say that the redirect (for the article with the old name) had been reviewed.
Are redirects normally reviewed?
I would have thought that the article with the new name is what should be reviewed, unless that's what "reviewing a redirect" entails. Danstarr69 (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are normally reviewed, yes. The article you renamed was presumably already reviewed by the time you moved it. Reviewing is done by WP:NPP to newly created pages. -- asilvering (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I need help, advice or time
Greetings colleagues. I hope you are fine.
I am a Venezuelan Wikipedian, and I have been active on Wikipedia in Spanish for more than 4 years (more than 300 articles), and for the last 3 years I have participated sporadically on Wikipedia in English (less than 100 articles).
My intervention in this space is to place a situation that I am going through in context: days ago there was an inconvenience that has been growing as if it were an avalanche, and that is that a user reviewed my latest articles and considers that there is a conflict of interest.
I would like to know your opinions about it in each consultation. All I have done these years is create content that I consider relevant due to the references that can be found on the internet, but if I have not had a good eye to distinguish which is a paid press and which is not, I apologize and acknowledge my mistake.
I have to confess that English is not my main language, however, I have a good interpretation to support me in the writing and creation of articles that I consider may be useful for this Wikipedia. I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused by my ignorance. Thanks. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a truckload for you, ChuchoVCJMuzikI looked at one of these, Aiona Santana. Unfortunately I don't read Spanish (and I distrust Google Translate and the like), and therefore can't check various sources; however:
Since 2018, she has officially ventured into music. Does "officially venturing into" something mean performing it for the public?
She gave a stellar performance at the Tulip Festival when she was 17 years old. No. Wikipedia can't say this. It can say "She gave what the critic Joe Bloggs called 'a stellar performance' at the Tulip Festival when she was 17 years old", of course with a reference to Bloggs's review. There's a reference. I looked at the cited source -- but this has no text. So effectively there's no reference.
claiming her place on the local music scene: I really don't know the meaning of claiming one's place on this or that scene. Same reference, to the source with no text.
Sorry, but wording like this does seem gushy (Variety/PR-speak), and will get other editors' antennae twitching. I suggest that you go through each article, and:
Cut material that seems trivial. For Santana, this would include (but not be limited to) minor beauty pageants, and her announcements of what she intended/intends to do.
For what remains, check that the references actually point to reliable sources that really say what the're presented as saying. Any material that you can't reference properly, cut. ((If you later find sources for it, you can then reinstate it.)
Within what remains, look for vague phrasing such as the three I point out above and replace it with easily-comprehensible phrasing.
At at least two of the AfDs you have added large amounts of text and references in support of your opposition to the AfD. This does not help. If the refs were already in the article, no need to duplicate. If the refs are intended to be added to the article, do that, and at AfD, state concisely that refs have been added. One constant issue is that Wikipedia English has a stricter standard for refs needed to support notability than some other language Wikis. I agree with Hoary that all of the articles need editing to be more concise. And correct - pronouns used in Sagcy are both she/her and he/his. David notMD (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recently finished writing my first article and submitted it through 'publish changes' in my sandbox, but during that, when I put in the title in the space, it said no such draft existed. I googled the same and followed this article. but now my sandboxis the article and that's not what I wanted? also I'd like to have it reviewed, which doesn't seem possible now. What can I do to revert that? Really sorry for the incompetence Nautilusblue8 (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nautilusblue8, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your sandbox contains a redirect to the article: you can edit your sandbox, and remove the redirect - you might blank it, or you might start a new article there.
You moved the article direct to 2022–23 Brisbane Heat season, which is permitted, but possibly unwise for a relatively inexperienced editor. It would have been better to have submitted it for review, by adding {{subst:submit}} at the top.
What will probably happen now is that it will get reviewed by new pages patrol (which is a different process, and a different group of reviewers, from AFC review). My guess is that they will decide that it has a lack of independent sources with significant coverage of the subject, and move it back to draft space, where it can be worked on and resubmitted. (Please see WP:42 for what, in my view, is needed). ColinFine (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nautilusblue8, the article seems to be about some team sport that involves throwing or batting or both, but even this isn't clear. (Baseball? Cricket? Something else?) Also, no article should have a top-level header -- one that if you were using the source editor would look = Like this = with single equals signs (sorry, the "visual editor" is a complete mystery to me). -- Hoary (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kanabidolis. I'm afraid that Lithuanian Wikipedia is not "the Lithuanian section" of anything, but an separate project, wholly independent of the English Wikipedia. Sorry. ColinFine (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me to upload a photograph for content i have made as i am not clear
Hello please help me to upload a photograph related to a content i have made by the title Deshbhakti Ke Pavan Teerth. I am not the author of the book but i have made the content here. I dont have the copyright of the image but i am creating this wikipedia page. So in this case who shall be the owner and who shall have copyright of the image i upload. Please help. LINK OF THE CONTENT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deshbhakti_Ke_Pavan_TeerthRaksha57 (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Raksha57 welcome to Teahouse. Book covers by default have the same copyright restrictions as the book. As this book does not indicate it is freely licensed, the cover is not either. You cannot upload an image to Wikimedia Commons nor does WP:NONFREE criteria apply. The publisher of the book typically owns the copyright. Your article is tagged with a number of issues and I would prioritize those first. An image will not fix those specifically. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user. Please see your first article for how to go about creating an article. But I strongly advise that you first spend some time improving existing articles as you learn how Wikipedia works. We delete hundreds of articles every day, and many of these are created by people who plunge into trying to create an article without understand what is required. ColinFine (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently just submitted my first article and it has been rejected on the grounds of promotion policy. Is there any advice on how to adjust your article so that it is to wikipedia standards to avoid this issue?
I believe that citing the subjects own website isn't allowed? Also, language has to be entirely neutral and not necessarily "positive' when describing life events or achievements? Tom at KLOSS (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Vamsi20: per WP:BRITANNICA, there is no consensus on this. Most of it is probably reliable, but there may be some residual user-generated content which might not be. That's when we're talking about supporting facts. The bigger problem, however, especially in what comes to establishing notability per WP:GNG, is that an encyclopaedia is a tertiary source, whereas notability ideally requires secondary ones. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TDmile567 Welcome to the Teahouse. I think you would probably have more success making your request at Talk:Matthews Southern Comfort, rather than here. Personally, I never edit music articles, and I'm not really sure what it is that you want to achieve, though others might. So, unless someone here happens to have a yen to do it for you, that article talk page really is the place to make the request. If it doesn't get picked up by someone watching that article, we do also have a formal process to attract attention of editors to make those changes that you specify as clearly as you possibly can, citing sources where applicable - see WP:EDITREQUEST. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my apologies. I actually did that, but I had two tabs open and tried to copy this message onto that page but I accidentally posted it here instead. Sorry again, just ignore this message. TDmile567 (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I've recently for the first time to get an article (not mine), that was previously declined to acceptable standards. A reviewer said it looks like a CV and it has been rejected on the grounds of that. Is there any advice on how to adjust your article so that it is to wikipedia standards to avoid this issue? The page is Draft:Adetola Nola. Thank you for your time in advance. Amaekuma (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Amaekuma: Welcome to the Teahouse. Please be aware that there's a difference between a draft being declined and being rejected; the former is less serious than the latter and usually has a chance of being salvageable. The entire paragraph that begins with Veritasi aims to provide luxurious but affordable homes for middle and high income earners is something I'd expect to see in an introductory excerpt designed for prospective clients and customers in mind; it is promotional in tone. Then there's the §Personal life section, which is uncited. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Amaekuma: The usual answer to those queries is that you should check the subject is notable before worrying about polishing the draft. If the subject is not notable (which is a criterion about the existence of off-wiki sources, not something you can fix), then any work you do on the draft is wasted. "Notable" means "has been written/spoken about by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject" (see WP:GNG).
The unusual thing though is that the person you are writing about made it to the Forbes 30 under 30 list. Now, the Forbes source itself is not a WP:GNG-level source (it is a barebone interview without much to go on), but it does indicate that this might not be a lost cause; presumably Forbes did not pick a random African businessman to interview.
Hi,
I have written an article called Lemzi which is currently in my sandbox....how do I submit it for review and hence publishing. Does wikipedia put the article into a specific format? or is this to be done by me - scarface1925?
Hi @Scarface1925, welcome to the Teahouse. There are a couple of issues here. First, you have uploaded a photograph of this person as your own work, which indicates that you have some sort of connection to them. Please review WP:COI and WP:PAID and make any necessary declarations.
Second, the article you have written cites no sources, and therefore will never be accepted. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners to learn how to cite sources, and WP:RS to learn about the type of sources Wikipedia requires. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi @Scarface1925, welcome to the Teahouse. Over and above what our IP helper has suggested, there are a lot of things wrong with that page which need addressing before it's worth submitting for review. Firstly, the formatting is terrible, and all the extraneous underlining and 'nowiki' commands need removing. Then the external links need to be given as proper inline references. See WP:REFBEGIN for advice. Thirdly, and most importantly, the person (you?) needs to clearly meet our notability criteria. See WP:NMUSICIAN for how they need to do that. To be honest - read that section first as , if they/you don't meet that notability standard, then there will never be an article about that person until they do. See WP:TOOSOON. If you care to address those and then return for help with the review submission process, that would be best. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the very odd formatting and made the arrangement of various things a little closer to our standards, so it's at least more readable now. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist I fail to comprehend how you can mark that image for speedy deletion as a copyright violation (from this page) when it's obvious that the image uploaded by @Scarface1925 is of vastly higher resolution than the online version. They clearly have access to the original file from the camera so, if anything, it's likely to simply be an issue that the uploader didn't take the image of themselves, but that someone else did and the photographer supplied the high res file. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I just came across this draft which is both a hoax based on YouTube videos and self promotion because the user that created the draft, has also uploaded a video related to this Roblox "group". I tried to nominate it for deletion in the miscellany category, but once I put the template, a loophole appeared in the preview. Also, the name is clearly inspired by a real Kpop group called TNX and the characters names are those of actual kpop idols. Should I instead put the speedy deletion template? Thanks, Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I used {{cite AV media}} in the source editor to cite a song on the B-side of a vinyl singles album. It is the 2nd reference on the page Truck Drivin' Man (Lynyrd Skynyrd song). The release date was November, 1987. When I included a coma after November, the Reference Section displayed the following error: {{cite AV media}}: Check date values in: |date= (help). How do I fix that? Also, it would be helpful if someone could add more examples on the Cite AV Media help page. It took a lot of trial, error, and web searches to (maybe) get it right. -Thanks!
p.s. Explanation: On this page the song infobox provides information on the album track, not the single, because the song charted on the Billboard Rock Album Tracks chart (there's a rumor it charted on the Pops Singles, but at this time I haven't found direct evidence of that).
@Dogsgopher: (edit conflict) There shoudn't be a comma in dates in "month year" form (see MOS:DATE), and putting one in confuses the citation template. But you seem to have discovered that, since there's no such error in the article now. Deor (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dogsgopher, not all date formats require a comma. Dates that are written from the largest to smallest unit or smallest to largest unit do not require one. This is why you are seeing that error message. You can find a thorough explanation on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Citation_Style_1#Dates Below are several examples of your citation with various format dates that the template will accept, note that only the month day, year formats need a comma here on Wikipedia:
Lynyrd Skynyrd (artist); Al Kooper (producer) (28 November 1987). Truck Drivin' Man (Vinyl). Universal City, CA: Duchess Music Corporation/MCA and Get Loose Music, Inc./BMI. MCA-53206.
Lynyrd Skynyrd (artist); Al Kooper (producer) (November 28, 1987). Truck Drivin' Man (Vinyl). Universal City, CA: Duchess Music Corporation/MCA and Get Loose Music, Inc./BMI. MCA-53206.
Lynyrd Skynyrd (artist); Al Kooper (producer) (Nov 28, 1987). Truck Drivin' Man (Vinyl). Universal City, CA: Duchess Music Corporation/MCA and Get Loose Music, Inc./BMI. MCA-53206.
Lynyrd Skynyrd (artist); Al Kooper (producer) (1987-11-28). Truck Drivin' Man (Vinyl). Universal City, CA: Duchess Music Corporation/MCA and Get Loose Music, Inc./BMI. MCA-53206.
Lynyrd Skynyrd (artist); Al Kooper (producer) (1987). Truck Drivin' Man (Vinyl). Universal City, CA: Duchess Music Corporation/MCA and Get Loose Music, Inc./BMI. MCA-53206.
Lynyrd Skynyrd (artist); Al Kooper (producer) (Fall 1987). Truck Drivin' Man (Vinyl). Universal City, CA: Duchess Music Corporation/MCA and Get Loose Music, Inc./BMI. MCA-53206.
Lynyrd Skynyrd (artist); Al Kooper (producer) (c. 1987). Truck Drivin' Man (Vinyl). Universal City, CA: Duchess Music Corporation/MCA and Get Loose Music, Inc./BMI. MCA-53206.
Additionally, if you are adding sources to meet Wikipedia's threshold for notability, the general expectation is 3 reliable, secondary sources that cover the work. The current sources are all either primary or just mention the song. I hope this helps, Rjjiii (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've encountered an article that I think is suitable for a deletion proposal. Where would I submit such a proposal?
As the title said. This article has a writing tone that I consider is remarkably similar to an advertisement in some parts, and does not carry much significance in my opinion as it is not a very popular brand here. Where would I submit a request for an article review/deletion? Reserve scav (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Reserve scav. Popularity is not equivalent to notability. There are countless things that have fallen out of popularity that should still be covered by this encyclopedia. First, consider the possibility of expanding and improving the article. There are three distinct deletion processes described at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Read that thoroughly, and select the most appropriate option, but only if you truly believe that the topic is not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. After some consideration, I'm still having some mixed thoughts. On the one hand, the notability of this article can be argued to be present through its mention in the listed awards. However, I've so far failed to locate any mention of this product outside of its own websites, store pages and Vietnamese spirit registry databases; and I believe that there is no more possible action to improve the article besides heavily truncating the article to the point of making it a stub. Is the Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion process suitable in this case then? Reserve scav (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, Reserve scav, "prodding" the article would not be suitable. "Prodding" is only for deletions that wouldn't be controversial (other perhaps than for the author and their chums). The number of people who've already looked at this article and thought it better to tinker with it rather than attempt to have it deleted shows me that they thought it had a future. If you think that the article should be deleted, send it to AfD. (Do I think it should be deleted? I have no opinion: I haven't bothered to read it. Although my eyes did land on this remarkable sentence: "The Empress was renowned for her virility and joy of life.") Tips: (1) With extremely rare exceptions, articles are not notable. (Certainly none that I've created is notable. Their subjects are notable, I believe; you may disagree.) So don't knock the article for not being notable. (2) Cullen328 is right about popularity. Although he may have inadvertently suggested that a subject requires popularity (of some kind) in the past, if not in the present. It does not. Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, for example, was never remotely popular, yet he certainly merits an article (and I'm happy to see that it's a "featured" one). So in an AfD, keep shtum about the non-issue of lack of popularity. -- Hoary (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
when you Google search Ohio State defense Force the result shows Ohio defense force which is incorrect The Ohio defense Force does not have anything to do with the Ohio State defense force which consists of the Ohio Army national guard the Ohio Air guard the Ohio military reserve and the Ohio cyber reserve and the Ohio Navy.
Please note again the Ohio defense force has nothing to do with the state defense force because the Ohio defense Force is a volunteer funded civilian militia group as of which the Ohio State defense force is a funded state military and federal agency.
For more information you can go to
How would I go about putting an image of a website?
Like the title says. I want to insert an image of Google One's interface on an account with an active subscription as an example, but don't know how I'd fit it in. It's my own picture of my own Google One account. Technogod (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After reading a review of new film "Tetris" I had a read about Taron Egerton. Like fellow Welsh actor Michael Sheen in 1991 he had a very fast theatre career before film appearances. In partlcular his professional debut was at the peak of UK theatre the summer he graduated. (Entry for playwright Stephen Beresford.) He was then at another London peak theatre, the Royal Court.(Entry playwright Polly Stenham.) Prior to winning a place at RADA he had performed leading roles in his home town. (Aberystwyth Arts Centre/ Theatre). Beirniad33 (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editing Taron Egeron is semi-protected and requests discussion via the Teahouse. I am not going to edit the entry myself, (not a cinema expert), but the early career could be added. The career is as often happens; a lot of experience before the first film roles. Beirniad33 (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Beirniad33, Taron Egerton is "semi-protected" (as it's called). You're very welcome to make suggestions for improving it; the place to do so is the foot of Talk:Taron Egerton. Make any suggested addition (or correction) as precise as you can (NB "peak of UK theatre" is an example of imprecision), and for each, please specify a reliable source. (Wikipedia is not a reliable source.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary, thanks for guidance- in itself it's a small thing but there is a tendency when success gets reported that the huge amount of work/ effort beforehand slips notice, Beirniad33 (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do I add my article to an infobox?/Any tips for my article?
@GeneralCraft65, see the 3 tiny letters in the top left of the template? These things are technically their own pages, and E is for edit (perhaps you knew this already). I think you have to work in wikitext, but it's doable. WP:BOLD applies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralCraft65 Editing these template pages is fairly easy. You would just insert a wikilink to your new article in the correct place in the first set of links. Don't do so until your article is accepted into Mainspace, however. If you run into any problem, come back here in the Teahouse or comment on my Talk Page and I'll fix it for you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gandhimartinnelson as @DoubleGrazing notes in their decline, the sources are not of sufficient quality. A number are from non-secondary sources, like LinkedIn or "slpblrstory". Others are non-reliable or not independent, like most of the investment stories. These are mainly press release or vanity publications, not accepted to have enough editorial control or fact-checking. Finally, sources like the Hindustan only include a small amount of content about the actual CEO - so not significant coverage.
GH.HASSAN, known professionally as Hassan Bin Aziz or simply Ebni Hassan,is an kashmiri music producer,rapper,songwritter and an actor. He started in 2016 as a session and recordinding artist,and became as a kasmiri and hip hop music producer.Later he became successful with his songs and started making songs for bollywood films. Its hassan97 (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Its hassan97 Is this a brief draft of an autobiography? We don't encourage people to write about themselves, for the reasons mentioned at that linked article. Nevertheless, if you insist on attempting a draft, you must use the WP:AfC process and you will find advice here which emphasises that you would need to show you meet these criteria. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blank edit summary warning is not working
Dear Everyone,
I just joined the English wikipedia and I would like to use the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" feature, but it seems it is not working for me.
I enabled/disabled/enabled it on my preferences page, added some edits to my user page with blank edit summary and the edits are published without warning.
I tried it with firefox and chrome browsers and the effects are the same.
Is this preference setting work for someone right now?
Thank you, Eightbillion (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, this feature is only enacted on non-user non-talk pages. Try making a minor edit with no edit summary on an actual page. - UtherSRG(talk)15:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When will I know it is time to give up trying to write a Wikipedia for a living person? I understand that it is a much higher bar for many good reasons, but when I volunteered to write the article I had little idea of the time and effort involved. My sense is that much of the article will be difficult to verify from independent sources, which I appreciate is one of the reasons such articles are so difficult to produce. A graceful exit seems my only option. Billyboybliss (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the bar is definitely set higher for living persons, most first-time article creators (yourself included) fall into the trap of starting with the text of the article and then try to finish it with the needed references. Per WP:BACKWARD, starting with just the references and building out from there is much easier. - UtherSRG(talk)15:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That all said, as long as the draft is only declined and not rejected you have something potentially viable to work with. I'd say start a new section of the draft with just the references you know to be acceptable, but your text out from that, scrap the rest of the draft, and submit it again. The draft doesn't have to have every bit of life detail about the person, it just needs to have enough to show notability using verifiable and reliable independent sources. Anything else can be ignored for now and added later if better sources come available. - UtherSRG(talk)15:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did she also publish as A Greenall and A Greenall Gough? Regardless, for most articles about academics, there is a modest section "Selected publications". I recommend you remove all references to her publshed work, then restore a short list to a section by that name. Be aware that listing an academic's publications contributes little to nothing in the way of confirming notability. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) as a guide for your revised attempt. David notMD (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are phrases such as "Gough has a passion for changing the way science and environmental education is taught in schools..." from you, or can that be referenced? If the former, delete. David notMD (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After doing a little checking... no, it won't indicate your place in the list. it's simply the count of all of the similar requests. 3 requests could get fulfilled and 3 more come in, and the number will be the same. If you click the "requested edits" link in the notice, you will be brought to the list of those requests and you can see if any notes have been made on yours. - UtherSRG(talk)16:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddmeagher: There’s no review queue. There's a review list (well, in fact it’s a category, but that’s a Wikipedia-arcane distinction). That is not a "queue" in the sense of "waiting for your turn in line with the guarantee to be served before anyone else that arrived later". COI edits are looked at in no particular order. Reviewers may sort the requests by oldest date, but they are under no obligation to do that.
I think your request is rather good (it is rather short and cites reasonable-looking sources). I would estimate it is more likely than not to be addressed within a week, but again, no guarantees. Other that making it short and sourced, there’s no shortcut to getting a faster review. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)16:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a draft for an article, and it says at the top that drafts will be deleted after 6 months. Does this mean after six months of not editing the draft, and if I edit it, it will reset the timer, or will it delete at the end of six months whether I edit it or not? Thanks for the assistance! Leejordan9talk sandbox16:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am translating the German article [Vanilla odorata] into English to add it to Vanilla odorata. My problem is figuring out how to correctly cite a multi volume work. The main reference is
Roland Portères: Le Genre Vanilla et ses Espèces. In: Le Vanillier et la Vanille dans le Monde. S. 243–245.
Web serching has turned up that this is an article in a multi volume work and I'm unsure how to cite it correctly.
Portères, R. (1954) Le genre Vanilla et ses espèces. In: Bouriquet, G. (Ed.) Le vanillier et la vanille. Ecyclopédie Biologique. Editions Paul Lechevalier, Paris, pp. 1–784.
This suggests to me that I should maybe use the cite Encyclopedia template, but I am not sure and would like advice. Thank you/Danke. MtBotany (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MtBotany. Google scholar gives a Chicago- style citation as Porterès, R. "Le genere Vanilla et ses espèces: pp. 94-290. Le Vanillier et la Vanille dans le Monde. Enc. Biol 46 (1954)., with the page numbers for the article within the volume and the volume number. Wikipedia has its own citation style and uses the full name Ecyclopédie Biologique. Either Template:cite book or Template:Cite encyclopedia has fields to fill in with the information. See the examples in those two templates. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nazi Control of Warsaw and Polish Citizens Aid to Jews
Some years ago there was an excellent article on this subject showing the number of Jews hidden and protected compared to the number of traitors and thugs quite willing to report Jews to the Germans. Unfortunately this article has been removed. Does anyone know how to find it or the information on which it was based?
Hello Britsubenc and welcome to the Teahouse. What was the title of the article? Articles are only deleted from Wikipedia when there is a good reason to do so, usually when it is inaccurate, biased, or poorly sourced, and therefore not to be trusted. We do have an article on the History of the Jews in Poland. Shantavira|feed me19:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
??? That then I seemed to have to switch over from User: myname/sandbox to just myname/sandbox... but then it is there somewhere and how do I publish? I had initially pressed a button in the sandbox that said "Publish" and then checked back later but nothing seems to suggest that it was waiting for review or anything...
Found a page that was in need of a rewrite (Fort Marcy). So, I researched it and now I'm ready to make the changes. I spent the time to learn how to use the visual editor. So, I think I'm ready to go, but I'm a little hesitant to start.
If I load the current page to my Sandbox and make changes will it just replace the current page or will it be reviewed and approved first? Gene11757 (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gene11757: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you copy everything over to your sandbox and edit there, Fort Marcy won't change. Why not just make small edits to the article directly for the time being? If anyone has an issue with something you've edited they'll undo it and you can discuss with them on the article's talk page or their talk page about their decision. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My entry is a complete rewrite. The current entry was flagged and I picked it up. I’ve done extensive research and I have extensive references.
Wikipedia is not censored for any reason. We have articles about pornographic actors/actresses and staff. We have articles about sex positions and techniques. We have articles about nudity. We have articles about many potentially offensive topics. We also have imagery for those articles. If you create an account, you can suppress the display of images(see WP:NOSEE). If you choose to not have an account, you will need to do something on your end to block images with your web browser. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know any british newspapers,like some sources could be reliable but since im not British i dont know if the source is actually reliable or not. I may find many sources but wont use some as i dont think its reliable bjt is instead relible and use a non reliable source as i think could be reliable. Or with British Urban Film Festival its independent and british so of course its not gonna be the teen choices awards everyone knows but still looks reliable to me. Is there some types of data that would write every british sources i could use? Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Veganpurplefox: You can check the list at WP:RSNP for some that have been discussed. For example, The Times of London is considered reliable, the Daily Mail is not. You can check out WP:RS for more information about reliable sources. RudolfRed (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mob780 Hello and welcome. This is a place to ask questions about using Wikipedia; it isn't a general question asking forum, sorry. Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? 331dot (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A bit over my head in attempting to find information for infoboxes + other questions
Hi, I've read and looked all in the help pages. But I really just want a copy and paste base infobox without LUA or any other fancy things, but I can only find things where the parameters have already been made and you just need to fill it out.
I'm also here to ask the question is it possible to put in info that exists on another page without typing it again?
Also another thing for infoboxes i noticed some take a format like "<format>{{ {{{element1}}} }}</format>" instead of just a blank parameter like "{{{1|}}}" where can I learn more? I'm trying to learn from the help templates but they don't tell me much about how to make a template from scratch or where to copy it. Tayzers (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing Contribution to : Hispanic and Latino Americans in US Politics
Hello everyone!
I recently added edits to the Hispanic and Latino Americans in US Politics article as a part of a course. I am open to hearing feedback on my contribution. Specifically on the following sections I added information to:
Courtesy link: Pakhal Sarkar Maproom (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Done. ColinFine (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Are you asking about a sudden change to Wikipedia's appearance? It is because the default skin has changed from the Vector legacy (2010) skin to the new Vector (2022) skin. If you would like to change back to the old one, you can, as a registered user, click on the 
in the top-right corner and choose 
Vector legacy (2010).
Courtesy link: Draft:Annette Gough.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 15:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)