Wikipedia:Teahouse

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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242

Diffs

How can I generate a Special:Diff instead of a normal diff? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: Diffs are "hosted" on Special:Diff, "Special:" indicating it is a special page. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AssumeGoodWraith Thanks...but how do I find the revision id of a page? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: You find it by clicking on a diff and looking at the url. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=913873043. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: depending where I click/tap, the URLs I get are slightly different:

Note that sometimes the revision number you want is oldid= and sometimes diff=

The corresponding Special link is:

Special:Diff/1061200350

Diffing over multiple edits is done thus:

. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 19:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelagic Thanks, for the detailed explanation. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 02:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible, User:Enterprisey/diff-permalink script adds Special:Diff links to normal diff pages. Hemanthah (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemanthah Thanks. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 06:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AssumeGoodWraith@Hemanthah@Pelagic Hey, but what is a perma link and what is the use of it? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: A permanent link to an older revision. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AssumeGoodWraith How may I generate one? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: WP:PERMALINK – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AssumeGoodWraith Does the link of older revisions change? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the difference between a special link and a permanent link? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: Special link? Where did you get that? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A special link looks like this Special:Diff/1051183990 ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: That's a diff. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AssumeGoodWraith Yes, but what is the difference between a diff link and a permanent link? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: diff, compares a revision to another, permalink, shows an old revision – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AssumeGoodWraith Ok so now I understand. A difference shows the changes made, while a permanent link shows the old version of the page right? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: Exactly. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AssumeGoodWraith Thanks for clarifying all my doubts. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denoting school accounts?

How do you show that an IP address belongs to a school? 14.238.83.146 (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! Try {{Shared IP edu}}. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the output of that template at User talk:81.145.212.114, for example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty@Michael D. Turnbull Hi, sorry to interrupt on someone else's post. But how did you determine which school's ip is 81.145.212.144. What's the technique? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't, Itcouldbepossible, but anyone can by using the "Whois" link at the bottom of all Talk Pages for IP addresses. In this case this is the link. That's why we recommend that editors create accounts. The ones who don't can potentially reveal much more about themselves than those who do. However, many IP addresses are only temporary, depending on the Internet Service Provider. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull Well, I did not really know who did it. I only pinged you because, you said the following. Thanks for letting me know about WHOIS. I already knew about it. But never knew that the organization name can also be revealed. And one last question here. When and why do we guess that it is a shared IP used by a particular organization? I mean, we won't just be searching each and every ip, to find out if it belongs to an organization. Isn't it? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I certainly don't bother to look up random IP addresses to see whether they link to organisations or not. The only reason I went to that particular talk page was because I had reverted vandalism on one page I was watching. When I discovered the IP was for a UK school, I sent them an email to point out that the school perhaps would not wish to be associated with vandalism of Wikipedia, in this case by adding childish swearwords. That IP address has subsequently been blocked at times for repeated vandalism. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull No, I am not asking about that. I am asking, whoever added that tag, why did they suddenly suspect that IP address to be a shared IP address, that too by a school. I mean, we won't just be searching each and every ip, to find out if it belongs to an organization - I meant, that we won't surely be looking at each ip and see if it is shared or not. What are the conditions, or symptoms for which can check ip addresses to determine if they are shared or not? I have to deal with many ip addresses too. It would be great if, I knew the trick and could disguise the shared ip addresses, and watch out for their contributions. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "trick" that I'm aware of, Itcouldbepossible. The tag was added to that particular IP address because an editor had noticed vandalism and took the trouble to find out via WHOIS that it was associated with a school, which they named when adding the template to the talk page in 2015. As I said, my reason for visiting that talk page was the same, after noticing more vandalism this year. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull Ok no problem. Thanks for trying to help me. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I sometimes see the thing called FYI, written in some threads. I know it is "For Your Information", but don't know why to use, and how to use? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: This is a good question. "FYI" is typically used when you want to let somebody know something that they don't need to act upon, for instance "FYI, I mentioned you in a Teahouse thread". It would typically not be used if you wanted the other person to do something, for instance "I mentioned you in a Teahouse thread, and it would be great if you could participate in that discussion". But that is not a clear-cut "rule", I could for instance imagine saying "FYI, there is already an article about that topic, so instead of creating a new draft you could edit that article". Sometimes, people use "FYI" when they say something that the other person already knows (or could be expected to know), and to me that comes across as patronising: saying "FYI, Wikipedia articles need reliable sources" to an administrator would be an example of that. And it is also not a great expression to use in an argument where there are different opinions: "FYI, the Duckburg Daredevils are the best gravel hockey team ever." --bonadea contributions talk 08:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea Thanks. But what is the need to use FYI? I mean, there is actually no need, isn't it. Also please answer my question on your talk page. Sorry to bother you. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 09:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you were actually asking about the "FYI" template used in some threads here; it is indeed very useful, but if you don't think it is, you don't have to use it. --bonadea contributions talk 08:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea "Also please answer my question on your talk page" - No, I am actually talking about this. Have you stopped answering questions on your talk page? I wrote it to you many days ago, and I saw that you had not also answered anyone else's question there too. So that is why I wrote it here too. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Itcouldbepossible, "FYI" is an example of what Rodney Huddleston, Geoffrey K. Pullum and Brett Reynolds call a speech-act adjunct (A Student's Introduction to English Grammar, 2nd ed, pp219–220). There's been at least one paper (doi:10.1177/1461445605048769) devoted to it and closely related matters. The speech act most often performed by it seems to have changed over time, from something like "What I'm about to write may interest or even help you, but maybe it won't; if it doesn't, don't take it amiss" to a somewhat sarcastic reference to the same, something like "What I'm about to write is something you really ought to know and to bear in mind already; I shouldn't have to repeat it to you." (Of course some people may still be using it in its earlier sense.) ¶ If you have further questions about the meaning or usability of this or that bit of English (or other language), don't post them here; instead, post them to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. -- Hoary (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary Thanks Hoary for your answer. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: BTW: there are many other abbreviations in common use. FWIW you can always look them up in a search engine to get a sense of what they mean in modern usage. IIRC, one of the most often confused ones is LOL (lots of love? or laugh out loud?) If you're not sure, just ignore tham and mumble to yourself "DILLIGAS"! LOL

NM Demo (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NM Demo Yeah, now I think it is better to ignore such stuff, until I am quite familiar with it. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct phrasing for graduating with a degree

Would you say: "John Smith graduated with a PhD from Oxford University", or "John Smith was awarded a PhD from Oxford University", or would some other phrasing be preferable? Ficaia (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ficaia, I don't see a problem with either usage, though I personally tend to go with "earned a [degree] from [school]". I don't know if differing national varieties of English are at play here. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 19:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ficaia Given you specifically mention Oxford, then I'd say that the first expression is definitely wrong. A PhD is a postgraduate degree according to how that expression is used in the UK. One would usually already have an undergraduate degree before starting it and so would already have graduated. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ficaia: Also, technically it's the University of Oxford, not to be pedantic at all. YorkshireExpat (talk) 11:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian song writer

Does anyone have any information about Tom Colvin, 1925- who wrote the words to "That Boy-Child of Mary"? The song was originally copywritten in 1969 by Hope Publishing Company, Carol Stream, Il. 60188. It is in my Baptist Hymnal, (c) 1991 by Convention Press, p. 110. question by Elteral3 Elteral3 (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elteral3, welcome to a page for questions about editing Wikipedia. Your question is one you may wish to ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. (Incidentally, when you say "copywritten" I think you mean to say "copyrighted".) -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elteral3: Wikipedia (WP) doesn't seem to have an article about him, so WP can't really provide any further help. Going outside WP, there are articles at Hymnary and The Canterbury Dictionary of Hymnology (although the latter is a subscription service). Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth creating a 'Good Article' on a topic which possibly won't get much views?

Talking about Draft:Pollicitation in French civil law, doesn't have citations as of now, but it can easily get a good amount of source once I start working on it more. The point of my question is should I make such a long article even if it won't get much views? Excellenc1 (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Excellenc1 improving an article is always a good thing, regardless of how many reads it gets. Improving an article might very well result in an increase in readership. However, imho viewing statistics are of little importance, editing Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodger67: But what is the use of creating such a long article if almost no one will view it. Why to spend time on something that won't affect me or anyone in any way? All the good articles are already made. Excellenc1 (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellenc1, if you're saying that all the articles that could be good are already good, then either you're setting a very low bar for "good" or you're wrong. I'd say that Wikipedia is brimming with crap articles on worthwhile subjects (as well of course as crap articles on dubious subjects). Improve, or create, the articles that you want to improve or create. If there aren't any, then take a Festivus break. -- Hoary (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Excellenc1 I have never looked at the viewer statistics of any of the approximately 70 articles that I have created. I simply don't care if anyone ever reads them, my satisfaction comes from the article's existence and that I've done as good a job of it as I could, not its popularity. There's some good advice at WP:DGAF that I highly recommend. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I write and contribute to a lot of articles that receive few views. Sufficient reason for me is that I'm interested in the subject -- even if nobody else is. Hey, Emily Dickinson didn't have many readers while she was alive. Posthumous fame is a possibility. (That's a joke.) One of the few ego-enhancing aspects of writing for Wikipedia is that a google search often lists the Wikipedia article first. Another reason is to right wrongs. Speaking of which, right now I'm contemplating whether the Wikipedia article on Edgar Allen Poe (judged one of Wikipedia's best articles) accords enough respect and attention to his insight on the finite universe. I may get around to looking into that. Someday. Or not. Smallchief (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, the article is not yet rated at all. Second, the great majority of the content (once past the lead) is not referenced at all. Third, as to "All the good articles are already made." - rubbish! Fewer than one percent of English language articles are GAs, the ones that are not include, for example, highly viewed Vitamin D, which gets >1,000,000 views/year. France is not GA. Notre-Dame de Paris is not GA. David notMD (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: I am referring to notable topics, topics which have greater chance of being viewed and hence, proving to be helpful. Why waste time creating beautifully cited articles if no one's going to read them? Excellenc1 (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it this way. If you write an article on an obscure article, you may be the most read and influential author on that subject. If you write an article about something everybody already knows about, you're just one of a thundering herd of bovines and you'll get trampled in the stampede.Smallchief (talk)

Your original question was about the value of raising obscure articles to GA. David notMD (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I take pleasure in improving vital articles. These often have a considerable amount of page views, but there are still ones that are left often disregarded. You may wish to view the list of vital articles to see if any topics there interest you. ––FormalDude

^talk 23:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions

Why were so many revisions recently deleted? Why cannot I see some diffs? It says copyright, but what is copyright here? I have not done anything. Please look into the matter. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 06:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Itcouldbepossible. Revision deletions are almost always done when the content of the edit was so problematic that it had absolutely zero encyclopedic value to the page in question. Revision deletions are more of an exception than the rule so there had to be something really wrong with the edit in question. If this was one of your edits, by chance, then check you user talk page because usually a corresponding notification is left their explaining in general terms what the problem was. If it wasn't one of your edits, you can try checking the WP:LOG for the page to see if a reason was given for the revision deletion. Usually, you find the name of the editor who performed the revision deletion and the reason why they did so in the page's log. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible, Eastaragency copied his draft containing copyright violations to his message here. All subsequent revisions of this page till it was removed would have shown that content and hence were deleted. It has nothing to do with you or your edits. Hemanthah (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemanthah@Marchjuly So why did not someone just remove the the post from the Teahouse. It would have solved the problem much easily.

And, what does the term "revision deleted" mean? Does it only delete the edit summary and username, or does it also remove the text other added between the deleted revisions. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible, Haha, may be if it was that simple, people would have actually done that instead of this. Revdel is explained at WP:REVDEL, but in brief, it changes visibility of the selected revisions. Hemanthah (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemanthah Another last question regarding deleted revisions. When revisions are deleted, are text also deleted? For example consider this reply of mine. If by some reason an Administrator deletes some revisions of this page and my revision also includes the deletion, will this reply vanish? Or deleting revisions mean to only remove the edit summary? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between user and ping templates

{{u}} vs {{ping}}

What is the difference between these two? And what are the other types that are available?

the difference ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: First, I enclosed the two templates in {{template link}} which helps us to use the templates as examples and refer to the template documentation without activating the template and possibly causing errors.

{{u}} is just shorthand for a user link. {{ping}} (which I used in the previous paragraph) adds a @ before and a colon after the username so it looks more like a reply. Either of these will notify the named user if they have enabled notifications. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 07:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Itcouldbepossible @Itcouldbepossible and ClaudineChionh: be aware that the ping template allows you to name mutltiple editors, all of whose names get shown, whereas the {{u}} template only displays one of them (check out the source code of this post). NM Demo (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NM Demo Thanks Nick. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NM Demo I learnt the difference between {{u}} and {{ping}}. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NM Demo And also, may I change the spelling of "mutltiple" to "multiple"? You have written it Itcouldbepossible @Itcouldbepossible and ClaudineChionh: be aware that the ping template allows you to name mutltiple editors, all of whose names get shown, whereas the {{u}} template only displays one of them (check out the source code of this post). ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: It's best to let editors correct their own mistakes on talk pages if they want to, though little spelling mistakes like this are not a big deal if the meaning is clear. See WP:TALKO.

Also note that it's now Christmas day in at least half the world, so many of us may be away from Wikipedia for a while and won't be responding as quickly as usual. (We have our family gatherings a few days before and after Christmas day this year, so today is a quiet day at home for me.) ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 01:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Merry Christmas. I know many will be celebrating. We will be also doing the same. Just a bit latter, because my time zone is +5.30 GMT. Thanks ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh Thanks Claudine. I understand the use of {{u}} , and {{ping}} But as you may have already guessed by now, the more I know new things, the more questions I have.

So, first of all tell me why did you use {{tl|template link}} ? Why did not you use [[Template:template link]] ? Are the two different? When should we use "tl" and when should we use "nowiki". I always thought that "nowiki" works when we want to just display the code, and not want the code to work. What is the difference between {{ping}} and nowiki {{ping}} ? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: Using the {{template link}} template displays the template's text label without executing the template code, and it also provides a link to the template documentation. But if you were looking at the source code of my reply you would see that I have a habit of using the short versions of templates if I don't need to spell it out.

So, in case this is getting confusing and self-referential: {{tl}} and {{template link}} are the same template. This template displays the text of the "linked" template without executing it (same effect as nowiki) and also provides a link to the documentation for that template (same effect as [[Template:Template link]]). ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 11:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh And also what is the use of {{tlx}} and {{tlg}} ? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: {{tlg}} is the most general template link template, with many variations including tl and tlx. The documentation for {{tlg}} has usage and examples for all the different template link templates. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 12:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh Thanks Claudine for clearing all my doubts. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh And by the way, did you change my question heading? I could not find it in the beginning. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: Yes, I changed your heading because you called the templates without parameters so they broke the heading display. That's why nowiki and the tl templates are useful. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 01:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh Ok, please do so, whenever I make mistakes. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add on to what others have said, {{yo}}, {{re}}, {{ping}}, {{reply}}, and {{replyto}} are all redirects to {{Reply to}}. In addition, you can ping multiple users using this: {{Reply to|Itcouldbepossible|Example|Example2}}, which gives this:

@Itcouldbepossible, Example, and Example2: Blah, blah, blah, blah...

Due to a limitation in the system, this only goes up to 50 users. --67.183.136.85 (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but what is blah blah blah? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The actual ping is caused by a wikilink to the user page like User:Itcouldbepossible which will ping you. No template is needed but any template which makes such a link can be used. Templates usually pipe the link with code like [[User:Itcouldbepossible|Itcouldbepossible]] so "User:" isn't displayed. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter Thanks Prime Hunter. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NM Demo, PrimeHunter, and ClaudineChionh: I have decided to experiment with the template link and all the associated templates in my sandbox. Thanks everyone for helping me so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itcouldbepossible (talk • contribs) 14:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to sign your posts, Itcouldbepossible, otherwise notifications won't be triggered regardless of which template you use. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry Sorry, I forgot. But mine is auto signature. Why did it not sign then? I don't use the ~~~~ . It automatically adds it to my reply. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry And by the way, how do you add the unsigned comment tag? Please don't bother to answer my question quickly. Merry Chirstmas. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I understand, where I had gone wrong. I always use the reply tool to reply. And it auto signs my replies. So, I have completely lost the habit of putting a ~~~~ for signing.

I did not know that I could use the {{outdent}} using the reply tool. So, I went to edit the source of this section, and use the outdent function. And thus, I forgot to sign, as I thought that I was still using the reply tool. So foolish of me. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 04:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas to you too, Itcouldbepossible. The unsigned comment template is at Template:Unsigned. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry Thanks for the letting me know about the {{Unsigned}} template. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 12:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh@NM Demo@PrimeHunter From all the above discussion, I have come to the following conclusion.

The {{nowiki}} template can does not display the template documentation, it only stops the template from acting. While the {{tl}} or {{tlx}} or {{tlg}} or whatever, stops the template from acting and also displays a template documentation. And thus, the {{nowiki}} template can be used for guiding editors who has been here for atleast some time and knows hoe to find the required template documentation, while it is best to use the {{tl}} template for guiding complete newcomers, who would like to get a clickable link and view the template documentation. I hope I am right? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 04:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article: Gleneagle Hospital Medini Johor

Hi, I have tried to submit my article but it has been rejected a few times by a same person. This my draft article Draft:Gleneagles Hospital Medini Johor the reason being is because it looks like an advertorial, can I understand which part of this article need to be changed? I have reviewed and checked the policies many times, I'm now quite confuse. Kindly advise. Please help Wcsneel (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC) Wcsneel (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wcsneel Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please review the explanation left by the reviewer on the draft. An article should not merely tell of the existence of the hospital and the services it offers. It should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, and not based on any materials put out by the hospital(such as interviews, press releases, basic announcements, mere descriptions), showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.

I would say as a start that the entire services section should be removed. Then please gather the three best independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about this hospital; if you tell us what those are, we can give further advice. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wcsneel: I added some {{citation needed}} templates to your draft. I also suggest expanding the existing citation templates to include a |work= or |publisher= parameter. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wcsneel and welcome to the Teahouse. It might help you if you understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot, @GoingBatty, @ColinFine Thank you for the advises. I have made some changes accordingly. The big 3 independent sources that I got the info from are TheStar and SinarHarian, these are among the Malaysia's top news publishers, and third one would be TheEdgeMarket. I also got some from journals (please look for IskandarMalaysia) and online book (please look for The Private Healthcare Sector in Johor: Trends and Prospects). Please let me know if these are relevant enough. Thank you. Wcsneel (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Wcsneel. The IskandarMalaysia is a passing mention, and does not provide significant coverage of the hospital. I cannot read The Star without logging in, or SinarHarian without translating, but they both look very much like articles based on press releases or interviews: if so, they are not independent and do not contribute to establishing notability. Please reread my previous comment: if the words come from the hospital, Wikipedia is not interested in them, irrespective of how or where they are published. --ColinFine (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wcsneel: I expanded a few of the references in the draft, which can help reviewers evaluate the references. You can do the same with the rest. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can court documents of divorce be acceptable as a source for the fact of the divorce?

Hi,

Myself and others recently reverted several unsourced attempts to add a divorce to the article Kenny Doughty. Eventually, the article was protected. Now, however, I have gotten this message on my talk page, where one of the users who was adding the divorce has produced an image of a convincing court divorce order.

I know Wikipedia is strict about the use of primary sources, and especially when it concerns living people (see WP:BLPPRIMARY). But using this document as a source for just the fact of the divorce does not seem to me to be supporting assertions, revealing personal details or require any original interpretation. So, can I use this document to support the fact that Kenny Doughty divorced his wife in 2021, and if yes, how do I cite such a document?

Thanks in advance for any help! — Knuthove (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Knuthove the document appears to state that the marriage will dissolve in six weeks unless someone shows why that shouldn't happen. I'm not familiar with law in that jurisdiction, but I'm wondering if another document was issued a few months later stating that the marriage was dissolved, and the divorce is official. Karenthewriter (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karenthewriter, I thought so too at first, but a careful reading shows that this is in fact that later document. This is the "decree absolute" (which the document says in tiny writing in the lower right corner). It makes absolute the earlier "decree nisi". You can read about this on e.g. this UK government page. The decree nisi also has a big disclaimer that explains how it is not final, as you can see in e.g. this example. — Knuthove (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Knuthove, sorry for not seeing the fine print, but my laptop monitor is rather small, and my eyes aren't as young as they used to be! Karenthewriter (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Karenthewriter: No problem! — Knuthove (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until a WP:BLP-good source notice it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, need valid ref to confirm he and Caroline got married (here and in article about her) AND to confirm the divorce. David notMD (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably reliably sourced coverage of the divorce is also prima facie evidence of marriage.Slywriter (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies Gråbergs Gråa Sång, David notMD and Slywriter. I agree that coverage in a reliable secondary source would be best, but if this document is an acceptable source, should we stop the user on my talk page from adding it? If a better source is found, then this one could be replaced. But I can’t see what policy it would break to source the divorce (and marriage) to this document, so I can’t see why it should not be ok to do so. — Knuthove (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Knuthove: Unfortunately, the issue is that this doesn't look to me to be an acceptable source. As I understand it, User:Updater6947 has supplied you with a link to a hosting website of a scan of a probably (but not necessarily) genuine document. They believe this is sufficient proof. Can it be found online on an official archival/legal website, or does Mr Doughty's own social media accounts state that a divorce has come through? (I could find nothing on his Twitter account, and got bored by all his football-relate tweets to wade too far). If the editor can find mention of a divorce there, or statements in reliably-published media sources, it can then go in the article. If not, it can't. IMdB is user-generated, so also can't be relied upon. We simply cannot allow every user who want to add content to submit an image purporting to be proof to free hosting websites and hope to have it accepted by us. Whilst neither questioning the veracity of this particular image, nor the intentions of the editor themselves, I don't feel uploaded scanned documents of this type could ever be relied upon as being genuine, and wouldn't necessarily remain online for long. Documents in unpublished archives can be a wonderful source of information to researchers, but little use to Wikipedia as they don't allow someone on the other side of the world to WP:VERIFY their existence. Uploading an unpublished archival document to Commons wouldn't be acceptable proof either. I've used archives within the museum sphere and find this quite frustrating here, but it's the reality of how we work (by copying what secondary sources say) and it's really important that we follow our policies when it comes to information that affects the lives of living people, and which could end up being incorrectly reported here, then repeated elsewhere. That said, we do actually have a template for citing archived material (see {{Template:Cite archive}}, though I would still be very wary of trying to cite something that cannot easily be refound or proven genuine. How did this user come by the scan they made, do we know? NM Demo (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter answer: No. Unreliable source documents cannot be placeholders until someone can provide a reliable source document. David notMD (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NM Demo, I agree wholeheartedly that this picture is not a good source, both because of its fleeting nature, and because of the trust issues due to being user generated. David notMD, I also agree that unreliable sources cannot be placeholders for reliable ones. What I was suggesting was citing the document, by some unique identifier such as perhaps the case number, so that anyone could verify it by going to the right UK legal archive. I don’t know how User:Updater6947 got the image, and it would certainly be relevant to ask them, but I understand that these documents are publicly available. For instance, this page says: "When someone has obtained decree absolute (the final decree of divorce meaning the marriage is dissolved and you are divorced) is their divorce then a matter of public record? The simple answer is yes. Anyone will be able to obtain a copy of the decree absolute". I see WP:sourceaccess says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access", and WP:offline says "there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources." So perhaps the question boils down to if we trust that User:Updater6947 is accurately citing the hard to access, offline document. I am inclined to do so. If we do not, then why? Who gets to cite hard to access sources, and who does not? — Knuthove (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy area. For example, my doctoral thesis exists as a hard copy in my university library (also in a box in my basement). It is not indexed in any searchable database. Can that be a reference? More to the point, Wikipedia is a trailing indicator for biology articles about living people. Refs can likely be found that KD and CC got married in 2006. There are news mentions (speculations?) that KD is romantically involved with someone else. In time, his divorce from CC will be confirmed. David notMD (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In need of a help to edit a biography draft article

Greetings hosts, We would like to humbly ask for help in editing a Biography Wikipedia draft article. As we have tried to write and submit the article a few times, but we are not knowledgeable enough in writing skills to have the draft approved and published. We also don't quite understand the comments given by Wikipedia about the draft

May we know the procedure of asking for this type of help, please?

Here is the link to the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eugene_Pook

Thank you so much for your time. Sso.ssyo (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC) Sso.ssyo (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sso.ssyo: The "Education" section needs references. I made some edits to the draft and the references for you. Hope this helps, and good luck with your draft! GoingBatty (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with the "we." Accounts are for individuals. On your User page you have declared your COI with the orchestra. This should be changed to paid, and add a paid declaration for Draft:Eugene Pook (the conductor of the orchestra). David notMD (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GoingBatty David notMD Thank you so much for the advice! I have now edited the article and added paid declaration. May I know if the article is now ready to be submitted? Thank you! Sso.ssyo (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think not. Too much of the content is listing places he has played clarinet. Is he being proposed as notable as a musician or as a conductor and music director? If the latter, delete all the clarinet stuff. David notMD (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was submitted to Commons as your own work. Did you in fact take this photograph? If not, is the photographer willing to create an account, and then post the photo at commons with the understanding that this surrenders all control over use of the photo, including commercial use? David notMD (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking draft rejection advice

Hello, I have written a page, Draft:Ambrose Kenny-Smith, which was rejected. To my understanding it was rejected because of lack of significant coverage. I would like some advice on how to improve the page in that regard! Thanks! Nolightss (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nolightss: Welcome to the Teahouse! Per the gray box at the top of your draft, the reviewer is asking you to add more "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". There are a lot of wikilinks in that box to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help you with your draft. Hope this helps, and good luck with the draft! GoingBatty (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nolightss, your draft was not rejected. It was declined. What you need to do is to improve the draft, if you can, by providing links to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to that person and their music. References to such sources are mandatory. Without them, no acceptable Wikipedia article can be created. Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

black sabbath record profits 1973

76.115.12.165 (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user. Welcome to the Teahouse. How may I help you? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 09:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tens

Sachin Tendulkar needs to grammatically correct. The article written in present Tens, But it's present Tens not suitable for International & Domestic career section b'cause he left Cricket playing in 2013. Some natives Eng speaking editor have to fix its grammar. Holland Tok (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Holland Tok: I scanned the Sachin Tendulkar article, and see that the past tense is used frequently. I suggest you post your request on the article talk page. Talk:Sachin Tendulkar, with specific examples where the present tense is used incorrectly. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special Links

How can I generate a special link for a certain page log, or to say it in more advanced terms, a particular action on a particular page, like this. What if I want to make a special links for this particular move, or in simple terms, how can I generate an internal link for this action. I already know how to generate special diffs with a user script made by Enterprisey. But what about this? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 09:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: Do you want to link to a specific log entry? Say, with {{logid}}? ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 09:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh Yes Claudine. If you know it, please help me. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 10:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: See the template documentation for {{logid}} – use that to link to a log entry. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 11:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Claudine. So this would look like this now. Thanks ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh Learnt another thing for you. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link to nationality in BLP léde

Links to nationalities (especially the origin countries rather than the people of the country, even though the latter is what should be done if you really want to do it) in BLP ledes are very common, despite being straight violations of this part of the Manual of Style. I coined a term for them: Presley link, named after, you guessed it, Elvis Presley, because the first revision of his page had just what I described.

What can we do to remove these links? 2A01:36D:1201:606:5952:60DB:91B6:3699 (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! You can remove the links when you see them, and include WP:OVERLINK in your edit summary. You could also ask your question on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking - maybe there would be support for a bot to remove the links. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming an Article

An article is there called Gantchhora. It is an article based on a tv show. However, the spelling is wrong from the beginning itself. According to Hotstar it should be "Gaatchora". So is there a way of renaming the page. I know I won't be able to do that myself, since I have no user rights, but where should I request the renaming of the page. Please help. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 09:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RM, but be careful of WP:RMNOT! Leijurv (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you don't have the rights to? Try it: Special:MovePage/Gantchhora Leijurv (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Leijurv Well, I know about that. You can see my contributions, I have moved subpages from my user page to another place, and then requested to delete the redirect. I was only asking if there was a way to directly move the page without keeping a redirect, but I know that I am not a page mover, and it cannot be done like that. So I was just seeking the alternative. And thanks for the WP:RM and the WP:RMNOT Wikipedia policy pages. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: The spelling differs. In the official fb page of the channel, it is spelled 'Gantchhora'. So the current spelling isn't wrong. Shinnosuke15, 11:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shinnosuke15 Ok, so need to rename. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: I said 'Gantchhora' is also right. So no need to rename. You can create a redirect to the remaining page i.e. Gaatchora to Gantchhora. Shinnosuke15, 12:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shinnosuke15 I wrote it wrong. I should have written "Ok, so no need to rename". ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please help for the advancement of Pugazh.

This is to inform you that Pugazh is constantly been given a speed deletion by a person which is unfair of pointing out the valuable wikipedia users while adjoining them. So to prove it as this page should be improved by you (as you have been editing for more pages) may help to detect it and stop it for the improper validity and help on updating it for more advancement. Thank you. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raajesh khan (talk • contribs)

@Raajesh khan: The article was not deleted but moved to draft space. It can be found at this link: Draft:Pugazh where you can work to try to bring it up to the standards required for main space. meanwhile, please ensure you sign all your contributions to Talk pages with four keyboard tildes (~ characters) so we know who has made which comment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull:This is an unexpected situation created in this wikipedia space while if you could help on bring it back to the default space this would be a christmas gift which you gave to the created user and the other fellow members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raajesh khan (talk • contribs)

No. I am not an articles for creation reviewer and will not be associated with lowering the standards of accepted Wikipedia articles. As it currently stands, there are insufficient sources to show that this person is a notable actor. In passing, I note that there is already an article called Pugazh (italicised, as it is the name of a film) so you need to rename your draft something like Pugazh (actor). This will be done by the AfC reviewer if and when it is accepted. Incidentally, your "ping" did not work because you still did not sign your new message with the necessary four tildes (yes, that's ~~~~)! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is a likely sockpuppet of User:Editiors, just fyi. Mako001 (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a lot of them around, The Alternate Mako. The article has just been submitted for review by Micheal.D.Comp, an account created minutes ago. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not Impersonating at all... Ill add them to the SPI. Mako001 (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Raajesh khan: There is also Draft:Pugazh (actor), which I helped to edit. Feel free to combine the drafts and request that one of them be deleted. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: We seem to have been sucked into a sock-drawer. There was already a deletion discussion linked here for Pugazh (actor), with outcome "delete" so it should now probably be a candidate for salting. Celestina007 was involved in the deletion and a SPI is also in progress for a bunch of accounts, linked here and mentioned above wasting everyone's time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Legion page Gallery addition-Jewish_Legion

Hello, I recently uploaded a photo of my grandfather's separation papers from the Jewish Legion, dated 1920, which was successfully published in the gallery on that page. Here is the link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Legion#/media/File:Royal-fusiliers-discharge-HermanGrant.jpg

I then wanted to add a photo of then Private Herman Grant to the gallery as well. You accepted the photo, which is stored here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Herman-1918-Palestine.jpg#filelinks

I have tried several times to add it to the gallery of photos on that page, since it is always a good idea to associate a face with a name on a random certificate.

Is there some reason that Wikipedia is not allowing this? I notice there are other photos of privates who are relatively unknown or not famous presented on that page.

Can you help me to correct this? I would like to have his photo placed next to the above certificate of service.

Thank you,

Lee Turchin (user name is LouFarr) LouFarr (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC) LouFarr (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LouFarr: Welcome to the Teahouse. The photo (shown here) can be included in a page using this script:

[[File:Herman-1918-Palestine.jpg|thumb|Herman-1918-Palestine]]

and then by adding a more informative caption.

However, if you were to try to add it to a gallery in that form, it would not work. You would need to strip out the wikilink double brackets. If you edit the source code for that page, you'll see the difference. Or read WP:GALLERY for further advice.

However, I don't feel that image should be added to the article at all. The discharge paper adds encyclopaedic content (at least it would if you were to add a caption to the image to say what it is), whereas simply adding a now sadly torn and faded photo of one of the legion members doesn't not meet our guidelines on when images should be added. I think it would only serve to confuse the article unless he were mentioned within it. It would be better for you to edit the discharge paper image to link to his photograph and ensure that you add relevant categorisation to the phot so it stands a chance of being found by someone within the right context. At the very least: Category:Jewish Legion in World War I is definitely needed. I would then ask you to consider how uninformative your image description of him actually is on Commons, and to address that, too. None of us are mind-readers and stuff that you know that isn't written down in the image description just makes it that less useful. Please don't be offended by this advice - it's done with the intention of seeing the right information not getting lost. NM Demo (talk) 13:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question on sources

sources of different languages R30591 (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC) Hello there, I wonder if it's possible to use Farsi references and sources for an English Article or not?[reply]

R30591, sources of any language are allowed. Just make sure that you can properly translate the source. For example see this article with multiple non-english sources. Sungodtemple (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of film

Hi. Would anyone please tell me if any upcoming film has no principal photography commence date but have a shooting place and the principal photography has already began, will it be notable? Thanks. Firebanana (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firebanana, any film, whether released or upcoming, that is notable enough, can have an article. For example see Avatar 2. Sungodtemple (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sungodtemple, the sources says that the filming has began and the filming location. But don't say the date. Will the film notable in this case? Firebanana (talk) 14:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firebanana, the specifics of filming are irrelevant in this case, the only thing that matters is how well it is backed up by sources. What is the film in question? Sungodtemple (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sungodtemple, it's Hitpig, an animated feature film. Firebanana (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firebanana, I couldn't find many sources with the power of Google, although it seems to be somewhat notable. As Marchjuly said, you might want to try asking at WT:FILM. Sungodtemple (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Firebanana. You can find some information about this type of thing in Wikipedia:Planned films, but you might also want to try asking at WT:FILM since that's where you're going to find editors familar with articles about films. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

Please tell me what kind of details I have to add to get the Draft:BKTPP Prabir Sengupta Vidyalaya published. Please, this is my first project. Michri michri (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michri michri, you need to add more reliable sources that have substantial content about the school. At the moment it does not have enough sources. See WP:NSCHOOLS for more specific criteria. Sungodtemple (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Michri michri: I also suggest you review Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice. For example, the list of teachers is not appropriate for the draft. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your invaluable advice. As the draft is entirely single-handed and my first one, it may contain flaws and errors. If Sungodtemple and GoingBatty, you two can correct those, please do so, please. Thank you in advance.Michri michri (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to add a article to WikiProject ?

How it affect the article ? How many WikiProject active in the USA and India ? Holland Tok (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holland Tok, add the corresponding template into the article's talk page. For example Sun would have {{Wikiproject Astronomy}} and {{Wikiproject Physics}}. Adding a page to a category does not affect the reader's experience but adds it to a category that gives it the attention of Wikipedians interested in the topic.

As for the number of Wikiprojects active, since anyone can create a Wikiproject, well a lot. There is one for pretty much everything from science to Bollywood to even guns. See Category:WikiProjects. Sungodtemple (talk) 14:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sungodtemple: Ok, I tried by this way on Jamshedpur to add it in WP : WikiProject Jharkhand but it did not happened, it showed red link.Holland Tok (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holland Tok, the Wikiproject is already added at the top of the talk page. It's collapsed, so you might have missed it. (Also make sure to add the template on the top of the article). Sungodtemple (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sungodtemple: At the top means where? And one more question how to request image, tons of bio articles don't have a single image. As you mentioned in your talk page that your a copy editor, can you do copy editing on MS Dhoni, Sachin Tendulkar theses have grammar issues and many others errors.Holland Tok (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Holland Tok: At the top of the article talk page - Talk:Jamshedpur - in the box "WikiProject India / Cities / Jharkhand". Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Holland Tok @GoingBatty it is admittedly hard to find existing WikiProjects on mobile navigation, switch your view to "desktop mode" and you should more easily see the existing WikiProjects. User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing is an excellent essay on this topic. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How many pictures should be included in a Wikipedia article on a surname?

To specify, in the infobox near the leading paragraph on the article? Is there a max amount or guideline on this matter? Aleena98 (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a set policy on this except perhaps Wikipedia:NOTGALLERY. But I agree with you that four is plenty in that context.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can I write an article for Wiki

2A00:23C7:B805:9501:6D5C:45DE:40B2:42B6 (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, IP user. It will be easier to communicate if you create an account. You may like to read some or all of these help-type articles:

My main advice would be to start by improving existing articles. Creating new ones is really difficult for users who are unfamiliar with the standards of writing and sourcing required. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having trouble keeping content on, its getting deleted

Hi, I am trying to add the following content on the Artificial Gravity page but it gets taken down. Is there anything wrong with it? Also, my gif doesnt animate.

Simulated gravity

In 2021, Vivek Kedia proposed and patented AirSim, a simpler and easier way to generate artificial gravity. Using circulating air, one can create constant force on the body. This doesn't create a constant and uniform force like gravity, as it just affects the surfaces, but being in a constant force will mimic/simulate gravity and mitigate health effects like bone and muscle loss. Further, it can also be used on planetary surfaces to increase the gravity to earth's.^[1] It's simple to implement and the technology already exists. It is not constrained by size like centripetal force idea and others. Xyzxyz321 (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzibpZ3j8uM

@Xyzxyz321, hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your only reference is to a video on the company YouTube channel - that is nowhere near sufficient. You need to find an independent, published, reliable source that discusses this technology, and summarize what they say. Also, you should not include an inline hyperlink in article text. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 17:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is the citation to reliable sources. YouTube is not normally such a source (see WP:RSPYT). You could in principle use a granted patent as a source: but I doubt that AirSim will be granted as such (I could be wrong, I haven't checked!). Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Xyzxyz321: Welcome to the Teahouse! Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you can discuss this on the article's talk page - Talk: Artificial gravity - after you have found independent sources. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, this has been helpful. As suggested, I have moved the article to talk page and am looking for other sources. Any idea how to fix the gif? Xyzxyz321 (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xyzxyz321, if you go to the file on commons, you'll see a note which says "Note: Due to technical limitations, thumbnails of high resolution GIF images such as this one will not be animated. The limit on Wikimedia Commons is width × height × number of frames ≤ 100 million." Also, it should probably be asked - do you have a conflict of interest with this company/technology? See and read WP:COI carefully. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 18:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikignome Wintergreen - Hi, thanks. Sorry, yes I am him. The inventor of this tech. I want to start a conversation about this tech. Is it ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyzxyz321 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xyzxyz321: Wikipedia should not be used a means of promotion - see WP:PROMOTION. GoingBatty (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xyzxyz321 - well, that depends on what you mean by "start a conversation". If it means you want to add information about your tech to artificial gravity, then you need to gather sources which meet our standards - as outlined in the comments above - and propose your addition on the talk page, to be evaluated by editors without a COI. You also probably qualify as a paid editor by our standards, so you'd have to make the appropriate declaration on your user page - see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editors. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 18:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty Nothing using it for self promotion. I think its a world changing idea and it should be of Wikipedia. Will have a read at all the resources and guidelines given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyzxyz321 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xyzxyz321 Wikipedia's purpose is to summarise existing coverage in independent reliable sources. It can not be a medium to start or build new conversation. It only notes such conversations after they have been had elsewhere in sufficient depth to meet WP:N. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or WP:V and WP:WEIGHT if it's to be added to existing articles. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool unable to find any other place to start. Cannot find a good journal to publish. Is ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyzxyz321 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xyzxyz321, if you can't get scientific journals, or reputable magazines or newspapers, to take notice of your product, unfortunately Wikipedia is not the place for it. Social media would be a better option. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 18:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@aWikignome Wintergreen @Usedtobecool I dont know who and how to approach. Anyways, what do you guys think of the idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyzxyz321 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xyzxyz321, this is not a forum for discussing your idea or where to promote it. Do you have any further questions about editing Wikipedia? Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 19:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikignome Wintergreen Sorry, I am good for now. Will approach if I have any more questions. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyzxyz321 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my password

I've been logged in forever. Afraid to logout since I don't remember my original password. I don't want to lose all my saved articles, and need to update my password. Thanks for any help. Robert Rasrealtor 17:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rasrealtor: I suggest you go to Special:Preferences and ensure you have a current email address listed before you change your password. Even if you were no longer able to log in to your account, you would still be able to access any articles (or other pages) on Wikipedia. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Rasrealtor Specifically to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal-email. Also, your browser probably does know it, so you could check the stored credentials. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italic

Why Wikipedians use italic text sometimes during talking. Many Wikipedia essays are same. Such as they italicize is or not etc. Why they do? Firebanana (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Different people may do so for various reasons but I use italics to emphasise something without SHOUTING. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Firebanana. Italics are used as a way of emphasizing certain important words - not in actual article text, where that use is discouraged, but in talk page posts or essays, it's fine. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 18:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

edited a page

I edited a page. May I know when it will be published? Saeid Micro (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saeid Micro Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to the draft you created, Draft:Saeid Khater, it needs to be submitted for a review. I will shortly add the appropriate information to allow you to do so. Please be aware of the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Saeid Micro and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft has not been submitted for review - you can do so with the button which another editor has added. Is this draft about yourself? If so, you have a conflict of interest which you must declare - see WP:COI. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 20:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The page title is very similar to your username, which makes it look like you're writing about yourself. Please declare a conflict of interest before submitting. You're welcome. Regards, XxxorBBroxxX (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make an article a "good article"

How can I make an article be a "good article"? Thanks for the help. XxxorBBroxxX (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XxxorBBroxxX, please read Wikipedia:Good articles. Cullen328 (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, Ah! Haha! Cullen! they are barely 1 day old here I believe creating “Good articles” should be the least of their worries now. Celestina007 (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XxxorBBroxxX, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, whilst my colleague has given you a very direct response to you direct question, but I would be honest with you, i believe creating good articles should be concerns for later, please can you start by reading WP:ADVENTURE, WP:TUTORIAL, WP:5P, WP:GNG, some of our polices and guideline which I’d send to your TP now, practice a little in your sandbox then after a while you then read WP:YFA, you should learn how to create any article at all before thinking of making a good article. Celestina007 (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, I wrote my first article very shortly after registering my account and it still exists. That is because I paid attention to the policies and guidelines here and did my best to follow them. I have been a major contributor to seven Good articles. Every edit I make to an article is to make it better, and that applies equally to articles I started as well as to those started by other editors. And if a new editor wants to put the work in to significantly improve any article, then they have the right to try to take it through the GA process. Cullen328 (talk)

Still the account is too new. You need to learn how WIkipedia works. Start by reading the pages already linked here. Don't forget to sign your comments by adding four tildes at the end. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@XxxorBBroxxX, please listen to Alexf, they are correct, forget about making good articles for now, your priority and focus right now should be to get acquainted with this collaborative project, In-fact, I see you are having trouble with signing your comments which is indicative of the obvious, slow and steady always wins the race. Celestina007 (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons episodes

Will there ever be an episode of The Simpsons that doesn't have its own Wikipedia page? I think it's ridiculous, and I'm sure a lot of others may agree with me, that all 716-and-counting episodes of this series have their own separate articles. Some may even argue that they should've never made articles for every episode to begin with. After all, they don't have an article for every episode of SpongeBob SquarePants, for example, which is at least half as culturally significant. I really think at the very least they should stop at some point very soon, if they're not already going to go back and deleting the less noteworthy ones. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the articles I looked at of the Simpsons episodes look like they would not need to be deleted as they pass the WP:GNG. Most of them are also either Good Articles or Featured Articles. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 21:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at more and it seems there are also some that rely purely on Primary sources. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 21:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18, that actually may not be a problem - per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Sourcing and quotations, plot summaries do not need inline citations, they can be based directly on the primary source. And since The Simpsons as a whole is a notable series, then each episode can have a plot summary if someone wants to write one, and they're split into individual articles to prevent the main article from getting too long. Anything on those pages beyond the plot summary should be appropriately sourced, though. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 22:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know that I was just saying that the only ones that might not pass WP:GNG are the very few that only have like 1 source and its the primary source. :) ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 22:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Trevortnidesserped: For those articles that only rely on primary sources, feel free to tag them for improvement (e.g. {{primary sources}}), or improve them yourself! Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No there probably won't be. I too think it's ridiculous. But if people are so keen to write about or read up on The Simpsons, this doesn't hinder you or me from writing about or reading up on Areopagitica, string theory, dramatic decomposition, or a ditty about a head of government. On some other hand, if an example of Simpsons/SpongeBobcruft violates Wikipedia policies, then you, Trevortnidesserped, are free to nominate it for deletion. Just be sure not to do so in order to make a point. -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Making TV episodes into separate article

Is there a help page on how to make a separate article that lists all of a TV series' episodes, with links back to the original series article? I am gathering published sources (mostly newspaper articles) to improve The Campbells. I then want to provide titles and plot summaries for all episodes, but since there are 100 of them that will be a rather bulky section. I've tried to study other television series articles that have separate articles for the episodes, but I don't want to make a mess of things by just guessing how to make things work. I'd be grateful to anyone who can point me to a how-to guide. Karenthewriter (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC) Karenthewriter (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Karenthewriter: While there doesn't seem to be a "how-to guide" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, you could look at the "List of xxxxx episodes" articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Recognized content#Featured lists, copy one into your sandbox, and rework it for The Campbells. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty Gulp. This "no-how-to-guide" seems overwhelming. Well, after Christmas I'll begin working on the rewriting-using-good-references part, then do the short summary part, (been there, done that), and then I'll take a deep breath and try to figure out how to turn the episode list article project into manageable steps. Thank you for your advice. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to get undo links on the Recent Changes page?

When I revert vandalism starting from the Recent Changes page, it takes six actions:

Right-click the "diff" link.
Click "Open in new tab".
Click the new tab.
Click "Undo".
Scroll down.
Click "Save changes".

Is there any way to get an undo link directly on the Recent Changes page? It would make life a lot easier for me by eliminating a few steps. --67.183.136.85 (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! If you can explain how you determine which edits need reverting without doing steps 1-3, then maybe you could ask this question on Wikipedia talk:Recent changes patrol. You can simplify steps #4-6 by using some of the tools at Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol#Tools, such as Twinkle. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, GoingBatty is right. Twinkle is a big help when reverting vandalism, but you take full responsibility for any action you perform using Twinkle. You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies, or risk being blocked from editing. Make sure you understand what Twinkle is before you start using it. Happy editing. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 00:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Users with an account in good standing may request rollback rights, which adds a [Rollback] link, amongst other places, the recent changes list. Since this is a powerfull tool, it has to be used with caution. More on this feature at Wikipedia:Rollback. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

Hello, I made my own userbox and Im wondering how to give it a "name" instead it being a code. like the rocket league userbox "name" is {{User:Michael14375/Userboxes/Rocket League}}. Here is my userbox name {{Userbox |border-c=#00000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00000 |id-s=12 |id-fc=#fffff |info-c=#00000 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fffff info-lh=1.2em| id=File:Forza logo 2020.svg|45x45px |info=This user plays Forza.}}. I would like it to be look like this {{User Forza}} or something. How do I do that? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 01:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18: You could save your userbox as Template:User Forza. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just what I was looking for, thanks again @GoingBatty: ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 01:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Auto Ping

Whenever I write something to someone, or reply to someone, I always ping them, except when I am posting in their talk page. But there are some people who forget or don't ping me in their replies or in follow up comments. How can I tell each and every editor here, to ping me whenever they write something to me? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't guarantee it unless you say "ping me" in each of your messages. Usually when replying, it notifies people of their reply if they are using the reply feature. Most editors also use {{u|HeartGlow30797}} or some other template that will notify that user when they post. You can always put a notice at the top of your talkpage (ex: {{Usertalkback}}) or an editnotice on your talk page. Hope this helps and happy editing on Wikipedia! Heart ^(talk) 07:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look into using {{pping}} at the end of your comment, but be aware that it is only a request, and users do not necessarily have to listen to you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: I'm afraid there's nothing you can do to change another human's behaviour. You could perhaps add a note like "(please ping me)" to your signature – I have seen at least one other user do this. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 07:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using Discussion Tools (Preferences → Beta features), you can subscribe to a section, and then people won't have to ping you. (But then you get the other problem, of people pinging you when you'll already get a notification perfectly well... a fine problem to have, and I'm sure it'll be solved once enough people start using Discussion Tools.) Enterprisey (talk!) 11:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Enterprisey@ClaudineChionh@HeartGlow30797@Tenryuu Thanks everyone for trying to help me out as much as you could. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle Citation Helper

I use Twinkle, and so there is a citation helper there. I just paste the link, and it automatically generates all the necessary details about the link. There used to be a reuse citation tab, but now nothing happens whenever I click the tab. Is something going wrong from my side? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Twinkle has nothing to do with citations. You seem to be talking about the Wikipedia:RefToolbar instead. After expanding "Cite", I still see a "Named references" option using which you can reuse citations (the ones which have a <ref name="" set) – SD0001 (talk) 11:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001 Mine looks like this. But unlike you, after clicking cite, the reuse citation tab is disabled. How may I show you? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001 Please look at this photo. See, the reuse tab is disabled. Can you tell why? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible I see that now. It works for me on VisualEditor, but on the 2017 wikitext editor that you're using. Not clear to me why, I suggest asking this at WP:VPT. – SD0001 (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001 Should I just paste this in WP:VPT or tell them to look here? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 15:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

need backlink from wikipedia

hye there actually need a backlink from wikipedia all article content will be given please tell us the procedure Priyanshuyt41 (talk) 07:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Priyanshuyt41 By the way, are you looking for this? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Naleksuh - This user contacted multiple people directly off-wiki and asked for Wikipedia to cite their website. They were explained the policies about citing and reliable sources and that Wikipedia linking to their website will not offer an SEO benefit, nor can Wikipedia do so without credibility established.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naleksuh (talk • contribs)

Edit Summary Pinging

How can I ping someone in an edit summary, to draw their attention there? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just add an internal link to their userpage: [[User:Itcouldbepossible|Itcouldbepossible]]. --Thibaut (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: To ping someone, or have a notification sent to them, you can use these template {{ping|put username here}} and {{U|put username here}} and more ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleeb18, those templates don't work in edit summaries; using the format [[User:Example|Example]] is required to ping in the edit summary field, as in Thibaut120094's response. DanCherek (talk) 13:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DanCherek Thanks DanCherek. Please confirm that if you get the ping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itcouldbepossible (talk • contribs) 13:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I got your ping. DanCherek (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DanCherek Thanks Dan for confirming. Yes, I again forgot to sign. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

No questions here, but I wish everyone a Merry Christmas. I would also like to thank every volunteer for contributing to this evergrowing encyclopedia. Cheers! Galacticitis (talk) 09:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Galacticitis: Thanks and Merry Christmas to you too! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating subpages

I am new and could not find direct steps to add a subpage to Wikipedia. I added an update to ' Don't Look Up but can not see the steps to add the reference page. Can someone guide me on steps for new editor and how to create subpage. I have ADHD so I was unable to follow all the redirects to get this information. Thank you!

Wpsarhel (talk) 11:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Wpsarhel (talk) 11:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wpsarhel: Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse. Your userspace consists of User:Wpsarhel and everything starting with User:Wpsarhel/. To create a subpage, you would add a name for the subpage after the /, so for example User:Wpsarhel/Subpage 1 or User:Wpsarhel/Subpage 2. You can generally create as much subpages as you want, as long as they are part of improving the encyclopedia. If you don't want to manually constrcut the URL's for subpages each time, you can use the form below.

Note that if you want to propose an update to an existing article, its often better to leave a message at the article's talkpage, such as Talk:Don't Look Up for the disambiguation page Don't Look Up. Merry Christmas, Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wpsarhel: Welcome to Wikipedia! If you're referring to this change that was reverted, what you need is not a subpage but a reference (citation) saying where the information came from. You add a reference after the information in the article, not in a subpage. Referencing for beginners is a simple guide to what sources you need and how to add them. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 11:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I use a screenshot from social media on this context?

I want to use a screenshot from social media as an "example" for certain phenomenon. Now since the screenshot contains a meme which is not created by me; can I upload that image? Or there would be some copyright issue? notably my objective is not to claim that image as mine. my objective is to show example for a phenomenon. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 13:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most memes are someone's work at some point and would run into copyright problems. I think you would need to be more specific before anyone would have enough information to really give you advice. Britmax (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Britmax: I want to upload an example of Inspiration porn RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that is part of a campaign using work from a commercial company, it would probably not be compatible with our free licensing requirement. Britmax (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Britmax: Thanks. Probably the image isn't from a company ads, seem to be from Reddit and facebook. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RIT RAJARSHI, it makes no difference whether it's an international company or a teenager in their bedroom. Unless the creator has explicitly released the meme under a compatible licence, it's copyright and may not be used in Wikipedia unless the use meets all the criteria in the non-free content criteria: I can imagine that might be possible in an article specifically abnout the meme, but not otherwise. Note that if the meme is based on a copyright image, it's probably already a copyright violation, and Wikipedia does not even allow links to copyright violations, never mind uploading them. --ColinFine (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: Thank you I will not upload it then. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What to do if a brand-new article has copy-pasted a vast amount of text from a single source?

I ran across Cousteauvia just now. It appears that most of the text is directly lifted from a copyrighted source. I found these three places that have that text:

What does one do in this situation? Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I went ahead and removed the offending text while I wait for a response here, seemed prudent. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fred Zepelin. That's a good start. You can find instructions at WP:CV101. --ColinFine (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I write an article about a band?

There's a band I really like and they have a very strong presence on YouTube (we're talking hundreds of thousands of views), but there is very little information on them anywhere (except for very basic one you could get on bandcamp etc). I found that many people were looking for a wiki article on them (if you enter their name in google, the first suggestion is "<bandname> wiki". After a lot of searching, I finally found an interview with them, which I thought I'd convert to a wiki article, so other fans could find it as well. The problem is I don't know if this covers "notability". As I said, they are well-known name in industrial music, but there's not much literature on them. The only sources I could quote are the article and whatever info can be scavanged from music sharing sites. I mean, I could probably try to get in contact with them, but I still don't know whether that would cover the notion of notability. Could you please guide me? TheLanceMan (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLanceMan: what's the name of the band? Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheLanceMan, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the answer is, Almost certainly not. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Nothing said or written by the band or their associates will contribute to notability, wherever it was published; nothing on blogs, forums, wikis, iMDB, or social media, and almost nothing on YouTube, will contribute to notability. See GNG and WP:NBAND for the gory details. --ColinFine (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers! I'm afraid then I have no clue what on Earth could contribute to it. I doubt there will be independent research papers on any industrial electro bands :/ They are, without a question, well known on the scene, but I honestly have no idea what could contribute to their notability then. In any case, before giving up completely, Fred Zepelin, their name is Aim to Head, and this is the article I wanted to transcribe here: https://petesrocknewsandviews.com/aim-to-head/ At least this way it will remain on the page for other fans to find. I gotta say, I'm kinda disappointed that a communal information collector is so restrictive in what it publishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLanceMan (talk • contribs) 14:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

submitting an article

could your remind me of the code I use to submit my article for review? Gregorywall (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gregorywall: Welcome to the Teahouse. You can click the blue Resumbit button in the lower-left corner of the decline message. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting photos

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and just posted two photos I made back in 2019 of some landscape. I deleted both photos on the page, but it seems both are still on Wikipedia. May I request for both photos to be removed, please? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banja_Kovilja%C4%8Da_spa.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%C5%A0umadia_meadows.jpg Thank you. Serbia Economy Geek (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Serbia Economy Geek you are going to have to request deletion on Commons at c:Commons:Deletion requests as the files are hosted there. Nthep (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nthep Thank you for the fast response. I did as you instructed. Thanks again. Have a pleasant day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia Economy Geek (talk • contribs) 18:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Am I WP:NOTHERE?

Teahouse hosts…

Throughout my wiki career, I was concerned that I would be indefblocked for being WP:NOTHERE.

This may be because this month, I have been editing more in the user talk space, rather than the mainspace (Have a look at my XTools and you’ll see that I’ve made 174 user talk space edits this month, compared to 172 mainspace edits, as of 17:22, 25 December 2021). When I see a counter like that, I feel a sudden urge to edit more in the mainspace, to not give off the impression that I’m WP:NOTHERE.

I also felt as though I have gamed the system; I only have 339 total mainspace edits, and some of my total 942 edits were sandbox edits, because, earlier, I had felt the urge to get extended confirmed quickly.

I don’t know if this is just my paranoia, but I ask you: Do you believe I’m WP:NOTHERE? — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 17:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@3PPYB6, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, read both of them and ensure you always abide them. If you are abiding by them you won’t need to worry about being a NOTHERE editor or an editor who games the system, better to be safe than sorry. Celestina007 (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@3PPYB6: if you have read it and realized that you might be NOTHERE, then just change yourself. It's never too late to change for good (unless you're indef-banned from Wikipedia, but please don't worry about that.) The edit counter is not anything more than an edit counter. If you make small amounts of high-quality edits, that's better than large amounts of vandalism. (Speaking of which, vandals tend to have a very large percentage of their edits in mainspace, because they're not part of the community.) Back to being NOTHERE, if you're abiding by all of the policies, don't worry about it. --67.183.136.85 (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 3PPYB6. If you look at my edit counts, you'll see that 78% of my 20 000 edits are in the Wikipedia namespace, and only 12% in main space; but I am definitely here to build an encyclopaedia. What I spend much of my time doing is answering questions here and on the Help Desk: I regard that as a valuable part of building an encyclopaedia. --ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@67.183.136.85: I didn’t think there was anything that would make me NOTHERE, except for “interest in gaining user rights” since I had rushed to get 500 edits (to become extended confirmed).

As to @ColinFine, if that is the case, then I’m probably here to build an encyclopedia since my user talk space edits are mainly user warnings, user welcomes, and WikiLove. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 21:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@3PPYB6 I spent just 20 seconds looking at your User Contributions. You are definitely 'HERE'!

Anyone who spends time doing behind the scenes janitorial work like you do is definitely an asset to this project. It's just those new users who only ever mess around making fancy user pages and doing absolutely nothing else here who we regard as NOTHERE. Happy Christmas! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my article marked for notability

I wrote Osaka movie theater fire, this was a horrible mass-murder in which sixteen people were murdered and nine injured. It is one of Japan's worst mass murders. But it now has a big banner on top say that it may not meet Wikipedia standards. Why? Fulmard (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fulmard, it looks notable to me, but you could do more to establish its notability in the article. It has only three properly-cited sources, and nine direct external links. You should convert the latter to proper citations. Maproom (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I expect you'll have enough good sources cited by now. But you may find more (if they're not all duplicates) at https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Fifteen_killed_in_apartment_fire_in_Osaka,_Japan Maproom (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fulmard the banner states "Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources...." The section about the manager turning off the alarm has no citation, and is now tagged as Citation needed. One of your sources is Aljazeera.com, and some of its content is considered to be unreliable. Can you find a good reference about the manager and the alarm? Can you replace the Aljazeera.com citation with a more reliable source? Also, the last sentence in your first paragraph has 5 citations. If you have one reliable citation, do you really need to list all five?

Your article does seem to be on a notable topic, and a little editing to improve your citations should solve the notability concerns. Best wishes on your editing updates. Karenthewriter (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Karenthewriter: Just a query about your comment about aljazeera.com. WP:RSP says that Al Jazeera is considered generally reliable, except perhaps regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. Since the Osaka movie theater fire article is unrelated to that topic, what concern would you have about using Al Jazeera as a source in this article? CodeTalker (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeTalker I was trying to figure out what the notability problems were, so I was Googling all the sources I was not familiar with, asking if they were reliable. I don't recall which cites gave the opinion that aljazeera.com was not always reliable, but 3 or 4 came up with that verdict. I felt if an editor was slapping on banners stating the article might not be notable, and upsetting the writer, it would be wise to replace a source that might cause a reviewer problems. That was the concern I had. Karenthewriter (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will just quit. Someone just went by the article and nuked an hour of my work and gutted it completely, removing many details I added. They were claiming I added external links, but I added citations, links to relevant news articles. They just popped on by into this article I made, rollbacked everything I did today, and posted on my talk. Hats off David Biddulph, hats off David, what a fine way to improve an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulmard (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lose heart, Fulmard: your work is not lost, it's still there in the article's history. And in fact I see that Gene93k has reverted David Buddulph's edit, and has been cleaning the references up, converting them to proper citations. You would probably have had slightly less heartache if you had created the article as a draft, and submitted it for review when you thought it was ready. --ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the notability tag and added some content referenced to the New York Times. I wrote a similar article, by the way, 1973 Miami Beach firebombing. Cullen328 (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And just like that, we lose a potential contributor. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 00:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gene93k. But what is wrong with my citations? Why aren't they proper and need to be cleaned up? I put square brackets around the news links, and they show up in the text just like the other citations, they all have numbered brackets like [4], just like other citations. What is wrong with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulmard (talk • contribs) 05:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fulmard: The issue is that they're rendered as external links, which virtually never shows up in the body of articles. If you haven't, I strongly suggest you read Easy referencing for beginners. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fulmard: Do citations like this: <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://example.com|title=Example}}</ref>. See WP:REFB; your citations were incorrectly formatted.

Also, add ~~~~ to the end of your messages to sign it. For example, my signature: – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 05:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Translating a Wikipedia article

I'm a new Wikipedia contributor and was wondering if I could take an Italian WP Article (I'm Italian) and translate it to English, ofcourse with the correct spelling, punctuations and grammar.

Would it be a problem since I'm basically ripping off another contributor's work? Kuroen110 (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Kuroen110 and welcome to the Teahouse! Maybe. The first hurdle is if your subject meets the demands of WP:GNG. If you can't cite the sources demanded there, your article will be deleted sooner or later.

If you conclude "Yeah, I have those sources, no problem!", then go ahead, guidance at WP:Translation. Basically, it's ok to rip off Wikipedians as long as you state clearly that you are doing that, also known as CC BY-SA 3.0. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuroen110:, that is absolutely allowed and encouraged! It's great when a bilingual editor steps forward to this important and very useful work! It's not a ripoff at all, rather the opposite: The material in the Italian Wikipedia is donated under the same license as here, which allows almost unlimited re-use, and, far from being a rip-off, editors are assumed to be quite happy to have their work spread forward.

The only thing you have to do is put this template on the talk page of your article here, which satisfies the need to attribute the work of the editors on the Italian Wikipedia: {{Translated page|it|Italian-name-Of-Italian-Article}}. Again, this goes on the talk page. (It's also encouraged but not required to state something like "Create article via translation from Italian Wikipedia article Italian-name-Of-Italian-Article" in the edit summary of the creating edit.

As to notability, yes, but the existence of the article in the Italian is a very strong indicator that the subject is notable enough to have an article, so I wouldn't worry about that much, just use your common sense. Again, we are delighted that you are offering to do this work! I do it myself except from Russian, so message me if you have any questions. Herostratus (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus, according to Help:Translation you got the "have to"/"encouraged but not required" bits mixed up. I disagree on very strong, but what'll happen will happen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, be aware that standards of notability vary enormously between the different Wikipedias. If the article you're proposing to translate is backed up by good sources indicating notability, then you're doing good work by translating it. If it isn't, then you're wasting your time. English WP is very dependent on secondary sources, which means that if a newspaper or book hasn't written about the subject, your stuffed, no matter how influential their work might have been. Hence English WP is full of articles about Bollywood films (and Moths) but very weak in industrial chemists, for example. In terms of translation, German WP has an article on the illustrator Bruno Bergner, whose works still litter e-bay, and routinely adorn retro car conventions and museums, but the matching article in English WP was (correctly) deleted because only one newspaper journalist had actually written a full-blown, in-depth article about him. If I'd done the translating, I'd have been mildly miffed. So check your subject is notable by English WP standards, and then happy translating! Elemimele (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change my marital status- I am now divorced. I would also love to update my headshot. Thank you!!

FYI

– Removed image titled New headshot.jpg. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarastrong2021 (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This must be about Tara Strong. We can't just take your word for it that you're divorced, we'll need a reliable published source. (For one thing, we don't know that you are Tara Strong, anyone can post here and pretend to be her.) Can you provide a reference to such a source, e.g. a newspaper article mentioning the divorce? As for that photo, I see you uploaded it claiming that it's your own work. Is it really a selfie? Wikipedia is very fussy about obeying copyright law. Maproom (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarastrong2021: Welcome to the Teahouse. As has been mentioned at Talk:Tara Strong, you're going to need to prove that the copyright holder has waived the rights to the image for use anywhere (not necessarily just Wikipedia); most of the time the photographer retains the rights, not the subject. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Hi. You are Tara Strong. Well, as to your marital status, I'm looking at sources. [not allowed to post URL] I've got MediaMass which was updated tommorow (!), describes your driveway as "miles long", and speculates that you might be single as you were seen walking alone. And the article is marked "UPDATE 26/12/2021 : This story seems to be false." And MediaMass describes its remit as thus: [not allowed to post URL] "The website mediamass.net is the medium of our satire to expose with humour, exaggeration and ridicule the contemporary mass production and mass consumption that we observe". I think the basis is the cover of Come On magazine which doesn't appear to actually exist (they don't have a website, only accounts on Facebook and Instagram which don't seem to have anything to do with anything). And all the other sources I found (none really reliable) say that you're still married.

So I mean what do you expect us to do? We can't take your word for it because we don't know for sure that User:Tarastrong2021 is really Tara Strong. Anybody can create the account User:Tarastrong2021 and since a troll could do that you wouldn't want us to take their word for it would you?

For the marital status, I'd suggest just waiting til its described in a reliable source, the request (on the article talk page) for the change and point to the source.

For the image, you'll need to submit a Wikipedia:Ticket with proof of identity, just as did with the current photo in the article. Sorry it's so complicated! Herostratus (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tarastrong2021. You don't really need to email the Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team (i.e. Wikipedia:Ticket) as suggested above, and proof of copyright authorship is going to matter more than proof of identity when it comes to uploading a photo. A photo can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by its copyright holder as explained here or here without necessarily having to email anyone. As long as copyright holder consent can be formally verified in some way (e.g. posting it on an official website or social media account under an acceptable license), there's no need for that person to email anyone. "Proof of identity" would most likely only matter if you wanted to be formally verified as being the subject of the article "Tara Strong" and plan on continuing to edit under your current username as explained here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pancho villa real name

Pancho villas real name 2600:1011:B038:BF36:0:2B:397B:6701 (talk) 23:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was José Doroteo Arango, but is better known as Pancho Villa. -- Alexf^(talk) 00:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actor names in plot summaries

It clearly states in the Manual of Style/Film (Primary content:plot) "Do not include actors' names in plot summary...", so can I assume it's ok to summarily remove such names, as long as I leave an edit summary? Pete Best Beatles (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pete Best Beatles, yep! Ideally, put a link to WP:FILMPLOT in your edit summary. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. WP:STYLEVAR applies here and local consensus can override a guideline like the MOS. You can bring it up and suggest a change but it's not as black-and-white as summarily removing it from anything you come across. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 03:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saving a draft?

How do I save a draft without publishing it? Andyjcmrdn (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By clicking "Publish changes". All this does, Andyjcmrdn, is save (but in such a way that anyone can see it). If you really don't want anyone to see it, then save it to your hard drive. -- Hoary (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyjcmrdn There is no way you can save a draft. Saving means you will have to publish it. However the draft will not show up in Wikipedia as an article, until it has been moved into mainspace, which will be done by some new article reviewer, or maybe you yourself, if you have created a number of pages. Thanks. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 04:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no way you can save a draft." Strange, as I save them all the time. Let's try that again. You click "Publish changes". This saves. It is publication in the sense that anyone can see what you've saved if they know where to find it. It's not publication in the sense that Google and the like will be nudged away from it. (Google and the like will be invited in if the draft is turned into an article.) ¶ I notice, Andyjcmrdn, that your user page says "I created this account to create a Wikipedia page about my father who was a prominent neurosurgeon from America." Thank you for your candor. You have a conflict of interest here. You are welcome to continue to work on Draft:Orlando Joseph Andy and to submit the result for promotion to article status; but if it does become an article, you should refrain from editing it thereafter. -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tip of the Day

Sorry for bothering the Teahouse again. I want to know how I can find the archives of the Tip of the Day. I searched the page but could not find the section titled Archives. Can anyone help? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: They're all linked at Wikipedia:Tip of the day. Each tip gets recycled every year. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 12:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganbaruby yes, but I am talking about past tip of the day. For example tip of the day of 21 March 2019, like this. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 12:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: What I meant by "recycled" is that the same tip is displayed on that day of the year. That means that 21 March 2019 is the same one as 21 March 2020; it's just transcluding Wikipedia:Tip of the day/March 19. I think they revise the tips from time to time, so you'll likely have to dig through page histories to see the exact text. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks Ganbaruby. You helped me a lot. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a list of Newsletters that are published here at the Wikipedia? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is a template, but except that is there something else? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Newsletters , Wikipedia:News Dege31 (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dege31. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 15:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible See the entries at Category:WikiProject newsletters ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shushugah for the category page. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 15:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where to go for Notability advice?

I just got a question from Khudaeidadkhan, asking for advice on whether a proposed subject is Notable. I'm flattered but not sure why he is asking me. He supplied some links to potential sources, but I have a couple of reservations about them. They all talk about how exciting it is that these young folks have set up a business, how they overcame obstacles, and how bright their future looks. This all makes me wonder if they are all re-hashing some media releases from the business. Secondly, I find it hard to put my finger on any actual achievements that make me wonder it it is TOOSOON. Or maybe it's okay - I am really torn. Is there somewhere I can go to discuss it with somebody who has better perspective? The details are at User_talk:Gronk_Oz#New_Article_creation,_please_check_his_eligibility_and_give_your_advice? Gronk Oz (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gronk Oz and Khudaeidadkhan: Yeah, the sources are pretty terrible. Perhaps it's syndicated, perhaps its autobiographical, but I too have no idea what this guy does for a living. They read like what an "entrepreneur" would write (air quotes intended). This is a hard call; I'd say that WP:GNG is met, but what's actually usable in terms of content probably boils down to a stub. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These guys have persuaded newspapers to describe them as "entrepreneurs", who "come up with solutions". But there's no evidence that they've ever done anything useful. Not notable, unless they can provide independent evidence. Maproom (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources linked at the top of the list says of the company: "It is a digital marketing company that has been working with different brands for quite some time and has been working with companies for better marketing of their products online; both Mehran Khan and Haris Baloch market these products on their social media platforms and explain to people the benefits of those products." That linked at the bottom of the list says of the company: "This commonly is one of the well know social media marketing companies in the whole Balochistan province." Somehow I'm reminded of those very many attempts (energetic, though not competent) to market products on Wikipedia, regarded (no, not by you or me) as a social media platform. That matter aside, the two sources I looked at are mere puff pieces. If those I didn't look at are similar, there's no notability. -- Hoary (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Libation formula

Hi, I wish to add a new topic named Libation Formula, and created a draft. However, someone erased it. Should I give a more specific name? Thanks, Jan Jangpbest (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft hasn't been deleted. It is still there at Draft:Libation Formula. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jangpbest Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. No one "erased" your draft. It is here. It has been declined because it lacks reliable sources. Thanks. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Pages

I decided to put this question up at the Teahouse, so that I could get opinions from many editors, and then make a consensus. I want to know which is better - Archiving talk pages, or removing content from talk pages. I would really be happy, if many editors comment on this topic. Thanks. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can do either (or both) for yourself. If you're talking about establishing a consensus to enforce on other users, please don't. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu No, I want to make a consensus, so that I can take a decision for me. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 15:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For an article talk page, you shouldn't usually delete content without archiving, see WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE. For your own talk page, you can (if you wish) delete content except for certain exceptions, see WP:OWNTALK. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph Thanks for the suggestion. (please

mention me on reply) ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 15:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ClueBot III vs lowercase sigmabot III

I have read WP:AUTOARCHIVE "Choosing a Bot", but still cannot decide which bot I will use to archive my talk page. There are pros and cons for both the bots. For example lowercase sigmabot III requires another bot for generating an index of archives, while cluebot can do it alone. This question would not have risen, if the pages on which cluebot III is used would have been greater than that lowercase sigmabot III, which makes lowercase sigmabot III more famous. I would have used cluebot III without further questioning. But it seems that lowercase sigmabot III is better. And also we can see that this bot also archives teahouse and other discussion pages, while I have never seen Cluebot III do any archiving. So, I would like some suggestions from experienced users, regarding which bot is better, and which one to use. Thanks. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you say that you've never seen ClueBot III do any archiving; see Special:Contributions/ClueBot III. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph Ok, I never saw the contribution of ClueBot III. Thanks. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 15:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not using edit summary when reverting

Is it ok to not leave an edit summary when reverting and warn the editor instead. I think there is nothing wrong with it. What do you think? Ctrlwiki • 14:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think edit summaries are really helpful. If, for example, you're reverting vandalism, and someone asks for page protection, the admin granting page protection needs to see evidence of vandalism, and edit summaries in the article's history are a useful indicator. Or if you're reverting because of lack of citation, a third editor might see your revert, and think "but that's true! That shouldn't have been reverted!", so they will do the wrong thing (revert you) instead of seeing a clue that the correct thing would have been to check the fact and insert a citation. Warnings will only be seen by the reverted editor, not by anyone else who's looking at the article. But opinions will no doubt differ! Elemimele (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ctrlwiki The advice (not policy) at WP:ES says Wikipedia community strongly encourages editors to provide meaningful edit summaries. Given the small amount of effort it takes I would strongly recommend it always be done. I've set my preferences at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing so that if I don't provide an edit summary, I can't save/publish my addition and that has stopped me doing stupid things on several occasions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this man is pretty famous in my city in Poland. I don't know why it says it's not written like an encyclopedia entry. I think it's straightforward and unbiased. He's a scholar and neurosurgeon, even in the national academy of sciences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zenon_Mariak 62.122.119.223 (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzibpZ3j8uM

[1]