Wikipedia:Teahouse

Finnusertop, a Teahouse host

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

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

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]

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]

I think the phrase you want is "John Smith was graduated from..." 73.127.147.187 (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, Oxford does not award a PhD. It awards a DPhil. Second, I think the correct expression is "John Smith was awarded a DPhil from the University of Oxford", not graduated. They will already have graduated, if at Oxford most likely with a BA, even if they studied science. Note also that after 21 terms from matriculating, the BA automatically becomes a MA. This used to apply until fairly recently to all Oxford students. There are now a few other degrees that are awarded to a very small proportion of Oxford students. I spent 6 years at Oxford studying chemistry back in the late 1950s and early 1960s and I can put "M.A., D.Phil." after my name. --Bduke (talk) 03:28, 27 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]

@Itcouldbepossible: It's almost always better to use {{tl}} instead of <nowiki> tags, as it helps anyone else who reads the conversation, and makes it easier in general to navigate to the template documentation. ― Qwerfjkl talk 21:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Qwerfjkl for your opinion. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:28, 27 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]

@David notMD: The conductor actually owns the copyright of the photo, and I am uploading it in on behalf of the organization. Will that be okay? Sso.ssyo (talk) 02:36, 27 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 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]

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]

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

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Twinkle Citation Helper

– ― Qwerfjkl talk 21:12, 26 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 show 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]

@Fulmard: - if you look at this permalink it shows the refs as you left them, having little stylised arrows (which should not be there) adjacent to the number; these are called embedded links. Refs are not easy for new editors. I've cleaned up the ref entries at List of massacres in Japan and also restored the content you deleted. Please use edit summaries particularly when deleting existing sourced content.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC) (I am not a Teahouser)[reply]

Fine. I read the links on references and edit summaries. I will try.Fulmard (talk) 20:57, 27 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]

In this case, the MoS only gives "one acceptable style" and does give "specific guidance." @Sdkb, how would I insert such a link? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 16:34, 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]

@Ganbaruby, Maproom, and Hoary: - thanks for giving me your views, and affirming the concerns I have. Hoary, yes all the newspaper articles were very similar.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:10, 27 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]

Jangpbest, one of the Greek transcriptions at Draft:Libation Formula reads "εἶσι אשרים". There's some Hebrew in there. Maproom (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True. The divinity, according to the paper is Semitic, and corresponds to Ashera pole. I will add it.Jangpbest (talk) 10:15, 27 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]

Ok. So basically, providing edit summary and in the same time warn the editor, is it good idea? Ctrlwiki • 17:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ctrlwiki: WP:REVEXP is a quick read which starts with "Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting." Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zenon Mariak

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]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, What it means by the article is not written like an encyclopedia entry is that the article is promoting him. In the article it seems there are a lot of peacock terms, those need to be removed. Hope that helps clear up any confusion if not just reply back here. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems kinda weird, what peacock terms were used? "Zenon Mariak is a Polish neurosurgeon, researcher, and professor who is currently head of the Department of Neurosurgery at the Medical University of Bialystok.[1][2] He previously served as the Deputy President of the Medical University of Bialystok.[3][4] He is a member of the Committee of Neurological Sciences at the 5th Faculty of Medical Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences.[3] Mariak was awarded an MD at the Medical University of Bialystok. He obtained his Ph.D. in 1995 from the Medical University of Bialystok.[3] Since August 2021, Mariak has served on the Council of Health Needs as a representative of the Podlaskie Province.[5] "

That's all the text aside from research. Reads like something out of a book or webpage entry

Hi I accidentally published my draft page with Draft: in the title. I'm not sure how to remove it.

Statecraftdaily (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Statecraftdaily: Welcome to the Teahouse. (Almost) everything on Wikipedia is publicly available to everyone. Your draft is currently in draftspace (as denoted by the Draft: in front of your title), which doesn't get indexed by search engine crawlers and isn't considered to be "part of the encyclopedia" where it is. Unless someone's specifically looking for your draft or browsing draftspace, they won't find it.
Looking at your draft, Draft:Statecraft.co.in, you must declare any paid relationship you have with the subject and pick a different username, which contravenes Wikipedia's username policy, specifically on company names.
Well, that was a fast block. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Maria Strong notable?

I don't know enough about the US administration system. Looks to me like a civil-servant/lawyer doing her job. The current references are useless (just press-releases from her employer). But I don't want to PROD if the post itself is sufficiently important to confer notability without sources. Any thoughts? Elemimele (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based off those references I do not think the article is notable, but their could be other sources that could replace those references. The article might be a WP:FAILN. you can see further instructions on notability on that page. Happy editing! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elemimele, as an American, I do not believe that her job is at a sufficiently high level that notability can be presumed. I share your concerns about the notability of this person. Cullen328 (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I've added a couple of possible citations, but have also added a notability-tag as recommended in WP:FAILN (thank you, Kaleeb18). I've already prodded one article and AfD'd another today, and didn't wake up in a destructive frame of mind; I couldn't bring myself to AfD this one too. I'll keep an eye on it, and if nothing happens, reconsider in a day or two. Elemimele (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele: No problem, and before you put/if you put the article for deletion just remember to see it has any good sources if not, you can move on with the process and put it on AFD and vote on it/discuss it. Happy editing! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 22:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for the plot of a novel

If an article about a novel (or any other work of fiction) contains a summary of the plot, what would be an appropriate citation (if any) for that summary?

I'm asking specifically in connection with the article on Lockdown (novel). The original article (written by myself) contained a summary of the plot, without any citation. This was on the basis if WP:PLOTCITE, which I take to mean that the novel itself is the source of the information and does not require any further citation.

However, another editor (@Lakex:) has removed most of the summary, because of the lack of citation. I have reverted that change, but I am not sure if that was the right thing to do. What is the correct approach here? I am anxious to do the right thing. Thanks in advance. Mike Marchmont (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Marchmont, Hello! Per MOS:PLOTSOURCE it's fine to write a plot without inline citations, however they are sometimes considered necessary for "tricky" bits. Slightly below MOS:PLOTSOURCE it says "Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work." MOS:PLOTLENGTH may be relevant. Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @:@Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Thanks for your very helpful reply. Based on what you said, I feel justified in reinstating the plot summary in the above-mentioned article. I also checked MOS:PLOTLENGTH and am happy with what it says. I have left a note on the Talk page of the editor who deleted the plot summary to explain what I did. So, once again, the Teahouse proves its value. Best wishes, Mike Marchmont (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Communicating with WikiProjects

Hi all, I’m new and would like to request help with cleaning up an article. I assume the appropriate place to do so would be at an associated WikiProject, but I don’t know where/how to request this help. Do I simply leave a message on the WikiProject talk page, or is it okay to ask specific active members of the Project, or what? Thanks for your help. :-) postleft on mobile! 18:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can simply ask on the WikiProject's talk page, or on one of the member's talk page of that Wikiproject to see if they are interested, and you can even ask on the articles talk page. Happy editing! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

error in citation

Can anyone tell me where I went wrong with regards to the error message in the second citation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Toronto-Addis_Ababa_Academic_Collaboration CT55555 (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CT55555: Welcome to the Teahouse! It looks like the issue was that the reference named ":3" had different values, which was kindly fixed by Victor Schmidt. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best way for a newcomer to flag a potential error?

Hello, I'm building towards offering my first edits to some Wikipedia pages in near future (with a focus on Mathematics and Science), but for now I would just like to flag a simple formatting error that I noticed on this page: Orthogonal matrix.

If this is appropriate, what is the best way to do this? thank you CJ7903 (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CJ7903: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, you can look at a list of templates that you might want to use in articles at the Template index cleanup and here is a general list of all templates. If you want to use the template make sure you are in source editor and place it at the top of the page. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 22:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CJ7903, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you think you can fix it, then you're welcome to do so. If you're unsure, then start a discussion on the talk page Orthogonal matrix. If that talk page doesn't get much traffic, you could also post on WT:WikiProject Mathematics, directing people to the discussion you have started. --21:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance. I used "add section" to add my comment to Orthogonal matrix, hopefully all in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ7903 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are disclaimers protected?

Why can only administrators edit disclaimers? Damianlewis21 (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Damianlewis21: Welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have any examples that you're talking about in particular? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which disclaimer do you wish to edit? You may make an edit request on the associated talk page. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Damianlewis21. I'm going to guess that you're asking about WP:Editnotices. Is there any reason that you need to edit one of these yourself? Most pages that are protected on Wikipedia are usually done some for a fairly good reason. When things are protected to the degree that they only can be edited by administrators it's often because either of the following: (1) there's been a lot of serious disruption in the past or (2) the potential for serious disruption is great. For example, some templates are strongly protected because they are used so on so many pages that even an accidental syntax error can cause lots of problems. Most pages on Wikipedia have a corresponding talk page and changes can be requested on them when they're protected. So, you can make a edit request and ask someone to make the changes you think need to be made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As in Wikipedia:General disclaimer etc? Basically it's a bad idea to have people mess around with those. The "goldlock" is placed on "Articles with persistent disruption from extended confirmed accounts; critical templates & modules". What's in the disclaimers probably have legal significance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't I upload a JPG snippet of a Wikipedia article to "Talk" to assist in explaining the issue?

I tried to upload a small snippet image to the "Talk" section of this Wikipedia article Orthogonal matrix to include in my explanation of a formatting issue that needs to be fixed. But I was prevented from uploading it. Given the article is already published it's clearly not a copyright issue so I'm not sure why it would not upload?

Is there a workaround I can use for this in future? CJ7903 (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CJ7903, you haven't said where you tried to upload the snippet image to. Anyway, a simple workaround would be to upload it to some public free-to-use site, and give a link from the talk page to your uploaded image. Maproom (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CJ7903. The Given the article is already published it's clearly not a copyright issue so I'm not sure why it would not upload? is a bit unclear, but in general things tend to be more complicated than that. If the "article" you're referring to is a Wikipedia article and the image is an one being used in said article, then you can add the image to the talk page by simply adding its syntax to the relevant section on the talk page. You do, however, need to be a bit careful here because non-free content isn't allow to be used on talk pages as explained here. If, on the other hand, the image you want to add is something found on an external website (i.e. one that hasn't been already uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons), you will need to upload it first and then add it to the article. In that case, the copyright status of the file really does matter and it might be a good idea for you to take a look at c:Commons:Licensing before uploading anything. Now, if all you want to do is show an image that supports whatever point you're trying to make on the article's talk page, you don't really need to upload a file; instead, you can simply add an external link for the webpage to the relevant section on the article talk page. Once again, though, you do need to be careful and avoid linking to any content which might be considered a copyright violation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:June 18-19 floods

Even though I am a teahouse host, I am asking this question: Is there anything wrong with my draft? Draft:June 18-19 floods Severe storm 28 22:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First reaction: "Where? (Burma? The Netherlands? Abkhazia?)" But I clicked on it anyway, and there read the opening sentence: The June 18-19 floods was a flooding event taking place in the Midwest, mainly in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The event occured in Mid-June in 2021. "Floods" (plural) "was" (singular)? And perhaps it's down to my lack of imagination, but I can't imagine either a flood not being a flooding event, or June 18–19 not occurring in mid-June. So I'd say: needs a bit of work. -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: Thank you for the advice. I will work on this after the holidays. Severe storm 28 01:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Severestorm28: I changed it to "The June 18-19 floods took place in 2021 in the Midwestern United States, mainly in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio." Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GoingBatty, how about Areas of the Midwestern United States, particularly in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, were flooded on June 18–19, 2021? (Note MOS:FIRST: "if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text".) -- Hoary (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: Go for it - it's less awkward than my edit. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: @Hoary: Thank you for further advice. This will also help on my draft. Severe storm 28 15:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Severestorm28: I have been watching you draft for a while now and I have some quick comments. Since you mention the tornadoes in that article, it is common to add some infoboxes about them similar to how the December 2021 Midwest derecho and tornado outbreak has them listed. List of United States tornadoes from April to June 2021 is where you can find that tornado information. Also, once the draft is moved to mainspace, it will qualify for the Weather of 2021 list article, which doesn't mean anything directly for the article, except possible "extra" traffic. So instead of the article getting maybe 100 views in 30 days, it might get 500-600 in 30 days, just being on that list article. All that means is you might want to work to get the article to start class instead of stub class, so notability wouldn't be questioned as easily. Hopefully that helps! Elijahandskip (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijahandskip: Yes, this helps. Thank you very much! Severe storm 28 22:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How long should it take?

About 4 days ago, I proposed an edit to the semi-protected page of Neo-Nazism. I checked the page again this morning and my request is still unanswered. How long should I expect to have to wait for? I feel like it's ignored intentionally because my proposed edit maybe isn't popular. In that case, what can I do alternatively to expedite the process? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neo-Nazism#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_22_December_2021_(2) WesternChristianitytestballi (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WesternChristianitytestballi: Welcome to the Teahouse. I wouldn't jump to conclusions about wait times at this time of year, seeing that many of us are travelling or spending more time with family. Just speaking for myself, I have not been rushing to respond to requests on heavier topics such as Neo-Nazism as I'm giving myself a bit of a mental holiday for a few more days. You have provided sources and wording, which does make it easier to evaluate and act on your request, so hopefully someone will be in the right frame of mind to action it soon. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 23:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi WesternChristianitytestballi. Before automatically assuming the worst of others, try and remember that all editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs and sometimes get WP:BUSY, particularly at this time of the year. You can always try posting a Template:Please see on one of the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed at the top of Talk:Neo-Nazism, but it just might take some more time for someone to get your request. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will wait a bit more. It's just that my first request was answered rapidly in less than 2 hours. It got rejected for being too ambiguous so I replied back and pinged the person who responded. But no response after a while. So thought maybe I should create another fresh request perhaps as my First request was already considered "answered". And then waited 4 days with no response. But maybe you are right about the holidays. People are busy and volunteers don't get paid. My apologies and I will wait and check back in a fortnight or two. But my question was more on how long should I typically expect to wait for a response? What's the normal waiting period for these things? I just wanted to know that. WesternChristianitytestballi (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WesternChristianitytestballi, there simply isn't any normal waiting period at any time of the year. Some edit requests are very easy to either implement or decline, and tend to be processed promptly. Others may require a significant amount of analysis and/or subject matter expertise, and it can take weeks for someone to take them on. Cullen328 (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, Template:Requested edit currenlty states "The requested edits backlog is high. Please be very patient. There are currently 153 requests waiting for review." Of course, it's possible that an easily to implement request will be answered fairly quickly, but a lot may depend on which editors are online answering requests and how much time they want to devote to a particular request. More difficult requests may be left for the next editor to try and sort out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

link my translation with the original text

How can I link my English translation with the original Arabic text. A message appeared that the page could not be found on enwiki. Thank you in advance. Hanan Al-Dhaifi (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC) Hanan Al-Dhaifi (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hanan Al-Dhaifi. I guess that you are talking about User:Hanan Al-Dhaifi/Morning and Evening Remembrances. Your translation is not yet an encyclopedia article. It needs references and wikilinks. It contains non-neutral religious language. I suggest that you follow all the advice at Your first article and use the Articles for Creation process. Cullen328 (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And as for the link: [[:ar:title of article]]. If on the other hand you're asking how to get Wikipedia to add a link from the article in one language to the article on the same subject in another language, you don't need to do this (and cannot do it either within English-language or Arabic-language Wikipedia); instead, the process is (if I may simplify for now) automated. -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC) corrected Hoary (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admins

How Can I help the Admins Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC) Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By not making more work for them: by making carefully researched, referenced and written improvements to articles; and, whenever you disagree with one or more other editors, discussing this coolly, concisely and courteously on the relevant article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The criminality of the Weston oligarchs.

My edits to the article on G Weston Jr attracted this censorship: "I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Galen Weston Jr. have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox." Exposing criminality by oligarchs is always 'constructive'. Your article on this junior one is a whitewash. Are the contributing a lot of money to get this treatment? 2001:569:BF62:F400:F46F:CFFA:E12C:6ED4 (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donations do not determine content. You should discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits contained language that was both non-encyclopedic and unsourced. "Exposing" things is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Feel free to take your suggestions to the Talk Page. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, you seem to be here only to argue that this Canadian Weston family are a bunch of very bad people with ill-gotten gains. Donations or lack of donations by you or by the Weston family have exactly zero impact on the content of these articles. Experienced Wikipedia editors take great pride in ignoring anyone who mentions donations in a discussion about article content. Donations do not matter. Cullen328 (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Historic U.S. 6 Route signage on all potions of the old alignment

Wikipedia should add: However, the State of California currently recognizes the decommissioned portion between Bishop and Long Beach California as being Historic U.S. Route 6. The State of California approved the placement of Historic U.S. 6 Route signage on all potions of the old alignment; RE: State Concurrent Resolution No. 26 as filed with the Secretary of State on July 3, 2007.

Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 26 RESOLUTION CHAPTER 67 Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 26—Relati ve to Historic U.S. Highway Route 6. [Filed with Secretary of State July 3, 2007.] legislative counsel’s digest ACR 26, Sharon Runner. Historic U.S. Highway Route 6. The measure w ould request the Department of Transportation, upon application by an interested local agenc y or private entity, to identify an y section of former U.S. Highway Route 6 that is still a publicly maintained highway and that is of interest to the applicant, and to designate that section as Historic U.S. Highw ay Route 6. This measure w ould also request the department to determine the costs of appropriate highway markers or signs showing that special designation and, upon receiving donations from nonstate sources covering that cost, to erect appropriate highw ay markers or signs on the portions of former U.S. Highw ay Route 6 that are part of the state highway system. WHEREAS, U.S. Highway Route 6 began in the 1920s as a short route between Provincetown, Massachusetts, and Brewster, New York; and WHEREAS, Thereafter, U.S. Highway Route 6 was extended westward and, in 1926, ended in Denver, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Around 1937, U.S. Highw ay Route 6 became a transcontinental highway when it was extended to Long Beach, California. The route thereby stretched a distance of 3,517 miles, making it the longest highway in the country; and WHEREAS, U.S. Highw ay Route 6 has been called the Roose velt Highway and is no w officially named the Grand Army of the Republic Highway; and WHEREAS, In 1964, California renumbered its state highw ay system and truncated U.S. Highway Route 6 at Bishop, California; and WHEREAS, U.S. Highw ay Route 6 no w stretches 3,249 miles and is recognized as the second longest highway in the country; and WHEREAS, U.S. Highw ay Route 6, in addition to its importance in transportation, has outstanding natural, cultural, historic, and scenic qualities; and WHEREAS, Ov er the years, U.S. Highw ay Route 6 has con veyed commerce and pleasure tra velers whose needs were met by nearby cities and counties; and 96 WHEREAS, Though largely supplanted by other state highw ay routes, segments of the original U.S. Highway Route 6 remain, although many are no longer identified as such; and WHEREAS, Former U.S. Highway Route 6 served as the main street of many California cities and to wns along its length and, though no longer designated as former U.S. Highway Route 6, these segments represent both state and local historic significance; and WHEREAS, Without formal designation, the history and contribution of these segments of U.S. Highw ay Route 6 to the de velopment of the state would remain less known; and WHEREAS, Recognition of these se gments will foster the economic health and cultural preserv ation of small communities and to wns located along the highway; and WHEREAS, It is fitting that a means to designate these historic sections of former U.S. Highway Route 6 be established; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate ther eof concurring, That the Legislature hereby recognizes the remaining segments of former U.S. Highw ay Route 6 for their historical significance and importance in the development of California; and be it further Resolved, That the Department of Transportation is requested, upon application by an interested local agenc y or private entity, to identify an y section of former U.S. Highway Route 6 that is still a publicly maintained highway and that is of interest to the applicant, and to designate that section of highway as Historic U.S. Highway Route 6; and be it further Resolved, That the department is requested to determine the cost of appropriate highway markers or signs consistent with signing requirements for the state highw ay system sho wing the special Historic U.S. Highw ay Route 6 designation and, upon recei ving donations from nonstate sources covering that cost, to erect those highway markers or signs on the portions of former U.S. Highway Route 6 that are part of the state highway system; and be it further Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the Director ofTransportation and to the author for appropriate distribution. O 96 — 2 —Res. Ch. 67 GuyRCook (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The place to make such a proposal would be on the talk page of the relevant article, supported by a reference to where the source is published. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can create the article with a redlink, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/(Insert desired link here). There are also a variety of Wikipedia tools to help you out when creating pages. Urban Versis 32 (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GuyRCook. Your post is pretty much a classic example of Too long, didn't read. And I have driven parts of the historic Route 6 highway and find it interesting. But we do not rely on primary sources like resolutions by state legislatures. Secondary sources are always preferable. Imagine a poor editor from Australia or the UK trying to make sense out of your exceedingyly long post! The Teahouse does not exist to make decisions on content matters. It is instead to ask and answer questions about how to edit this encyclopedia productively. Accordingly, my advice to you is "be concise" and realize that your goal is to persuade other editors, not to rhetorically hammer them over their heads. Cullen328 (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article: Gleneagle Hospital Medini Johor

Hi, I posted my question before but it's now gone. Can I confirm if the reference from their official website are strictly not allowed? Wcsneel (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC) Wcsneel (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wcsneel, the question and answers are here. You can use a hospital's website as a source for information that doesn't describe the hospital's achievements, excellence, or significance. This means that it can't be used for much. -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Simplest steps to make a article.

Hi! Please help me with writing my first article in wikipedia. It's something I'm struggling with. Please help me with it. By telling the shortest way to write a article and get it published. Mr cosmic king (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The shortest way is to, in order:

Find sources first;
Write your article based off the information provided by the sources, without extrapolation or editorialising,
Forget about images and infoboxes, as they're at best window dressing

That help? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 08:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr cosmic king (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know if there is a simple answer, as successfully writing a new article is probably the hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. It is usually recommended that one edit existing articles first, to better understand how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Diving right in to creating articles can lead to disappointment and frustration as things one does not understand happen to something they worked a long time on. Using the new user tutorial is also helpful.

Your draft was rejected because it did little more than tell about the app involved and it was only cited to the Apple Store where the app is available. Wikipedia is not a place to merely document the existence of something. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. You should gather at least three independent sources that have chosen on their own(not based on any materials put out by those that make the app) to write about it, and then summarize what they say. If you cannot find at least three such sources, the app would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time.

You have also chosen to edit in a contentious area, nontraditional medicine. This has special rules, which you were notified about on your user talk page- please review that if you haven't already.

If you have an association with this app, you should review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can a editor please add a source to my article and a couple of other things?

Hello Wikipedia. I posted a request to add a source two days ago and it somehow got missed. Is there a way an editor can go get the source link off the article talk page and add it where they see it fits? Also I noticed the there is a clarification tag on the career section that can easy be fixed if the editor replaces it with "Sledge released his song Seen It All in 2021.

That should fix the clarification issue. I'm a COI editor so I can't touch the article. Also I noticed the musician category was removed from the page? The artist produces and composes his own music so he is a musician. Let me know if anyone can help the page is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AJDaGuru

Also one last request I have is can the editor add a picture to the article? https://ibb.co/jM4j8Wd Godsentme1 (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC) Godsentme1 (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the image is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 08:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jéské Couriano Can you help me understand what does that mean about the Titanic does that mean no you can't add the picture correct? And what about the other request? Godsentme1 (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that adding the image wouldn't help the page at all. No comment on the source because of your well-established history of refusing to listen to honest criticism. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 08:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have communicated on the article talk page, which is where these requests belong; you suggested the source 24 hours ago, not two days, and the fact that it has not been added to the article doesn't necessarily mean that your request was "missed". The source, which was created two days ago (maybe you confused that date with the date you posted to the article talk page) is no better than any of the other sources in the article, and you have not provided any information about which information it's supposed to support.

Re the category, Category:Musicians_from_Connecticut was removed, because the article is a member of Category:Singers_from_Connecticut and Category:Rappers_from_Connecticut. Both categories are sub-categories of Category:Musicians_from_Connecticut. More info here. --bonadea contributions talk 08:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadea I may have gotten the dates wrong. Apologies for that, also I did mention what it's should support. It should support the career section of the article. It can support the intro section as well. I've put that on the talk page. Thank you.Godsentme1 (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you mixed it up with the time the source was written doesn't strike me as innocent coincidence, given the history of sourcing with this article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 09:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsentme1: You may post your suggestions on Talk:AJDaGuru with the {{edit request}} template, or use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am the tech guy and decided to start contributing to technological articles and help with the first article would be greatly appreciated

Hello,

I am Python software developer working as a web scraping freelancer on various platforms and found some broken links on that article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_scraping I found a great source for #13 broken reference link to make it - https://datamam.com/web-scraping While I keep looking for others, please let me know how can changes be made, Thank you SGuvi (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your link isn't to the same document as ref 13. In this edit I have added an archive URL for ref 13. You'll find advice on how to do it at WP:DEADLINK. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SGuvi Wikipedia is not the place to WP:Promote your commercial services/tools. We are all WP:VOLUNTEER editors and would have no way of accessing your service anyways. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image (and other issues) at Cédric_Gerbehaye

Hi, weird things are going on at Cédric_Gerbehaye. Specifically, a new editor has put an image there, which they've claimed is "own work", but simultaneously identified as "Portrait of Cedric Gerbehaye by Stephan Vanfleteren", listing the copyright as Vanfleteren's. So unless the editor is Vanfleteren, something's not right. It's also a somewhat unhappy situation because yesterday an IP editor changed the text extensively, claiming to be Cédric_Gerbehaye. I reverted and tried to explain conflict of interest (but it's hard to communicate with a dynamic IP) - they put it back, Discospinster reverted on grounds of it being promotional, and the entire text is back again now, from the new editor, who doesn't claim to be Gerbehaye. I was tempted to re-revert (there's no sourcing at all), but the picture needs removing from wikimedia if it's copyright, and I don't know how to request that, and I don't want to edit-war. I've left everything as it is at the moment. Elemimele (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does it work?

How does it works? Rui Vítor Costa (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rui Vítor Costa. Welcome, and thanks for posting your question after doing The Wikipedia Adventure. The Teahouse is simply the name for a friendly help-forum for new users to ask questions if they have difficulties editing Wikipedia. We offer support, guidance and the occasional cup of tea to new editors like yourself. We have 'hosts' who are experienced editors who can usually solve most problems. Drop by again and ask a question whenever you have need. (Oh, and feel free to delete the repeat Wikipedia Adventure messages on your talk page - you get one of these every time you log back in to continue with it.) Regards from the UK, NM Demo (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the workaround for Less-than sign in article title?

Curious question as I was bored and reading on WP:NCTR and under WP:FORBIDDEN, it stated that to substitute for < or any other characters that conflict with wiki markup or HTML syntax, alternative title should be used, often by replacing or removing it. But what if, removing it changes the meaning completely, such as with <3 (meaning heart), should Heart/heart be used in the article title or is it permissible in terms of guidelines/policies/MOS to swap out < for ＜ (U+FF1C; Fullwidth Less-Than Sign) as I know the software won't have any issues parsing the Fullwidth Less-Than Sign. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paper9oll: Do you have a specific issue that you have in mind? For your example, <3 is mentioned at Heart symbol. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganbaruby No for now, just curious in case I came upon title that included such forbidden characters in the future when creating articles, if similar characters are permissible as workaround or should it be substituted as word. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paper9oll: It's a case-by-case decision as to which title to use, but from my experience I've never seen the "similar character" approach that you're proposing. I'd imagine that's problematic because most readers will have a hard time typing out the Unicode characters instead a description: people are much more likely to look for "heart symbol" than "＜3" (fullwidth used here). I don't know of anywhere in the MOS that says you can't, but descriptions seem to be much more intuitive. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why did you undone it ? 223.235.21.133 (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ip user, and welcome to the Teahouse. The reason (left by the user who reverted your edits) is "Non Notable". So the edits you made maybe not notable according to the notability guidelines. Thanks. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 12:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@223.235.21.133: As per reasons given by Nkon21 and me in the edit summary, the awards added are non-notable awards with insufficient significant coverage by reliable secondary sources neither is Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Link

I sometimes cannot use the reply link to reply to comments. It says The "reply" link cannot be used to reply to this comment. To reply, please use the full page editor by clicking "Edit". What is the actual reason behind this? I use the normal editor when this error occurs. But is there any other way to avoid this? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible I have wondered the same thing. The reply-thing is still "beta", so it may still have some bugs. If you don't get a good answer here, try Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Itcouldbepossible Gråbergs Gråa Sång bugs aside, when you are about to edit a reply in one thread, it disables the reply button in other threads, which is a JavaScript client/browser behaviour. I’d definitely prefer if it didn’t bother disabling reply button for this reason. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never noticed that, but it seems you are correct. I don't see it as much of a problem, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah But I am not talking about that. I already know that. What I am saying is that I cannot use the reply link for given some replies. Consider the talkback message on my talk page. You cannot reply using reply link? Why? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unregister

Please can you advise how I unregister from the site? Mwrigh17 (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwrigh17 Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no way to unregister from here. If you don't want to edit from here, then don't. Log out from the account, and never log back again. And for security purposes, you can also place the {{retired}} tag on your userpage, which will tell other users on Wikipedia, that you have left wikipedia, and don't edit from that account. Its as simple as that. Thanks Itcouldbepossible^Talk 12:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwrigh17 PS:- A friendly suggestion. Why would you want to unregister from Wikipedia? It is such a nice place to spend your leisure time. There are so many editors to help you out, and you can also create articles of your choice here. So why unregister? Please stay here, and help us build the encyclopedia. Thanks. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 12:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwrigh17:, you've leapt in at the hardest end of things, trying to write an article, and had it declined, which is heartbreakingly crushing, and I feel for you. Can I suggest that rather than giving up on WP, you stick around, and look at articles in your general area of interest, and see if they can be improved? There are loads of bits of Wikipedia that aren't well-referenced, and loads of little things that need improving. Over time, you'll find you get a better feel for what people expect here, and will be in a better position to do handle writing a complete article. Your presence will improve Wikipedia. Elemimele (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwrigh17 Please don't leave Wikipedia, because your draft has been declined. It happens many a times. Even for me, if you go to my talk page, then you will see that many of my submissions has been declined, and one page had been also moved to draft space, though it was my fault. But I did not give up. I tried creating another article, and started doing other kinds of tasks. For help regarding creating an article, you can obviously go to WP:Your First Article and read the documentation that is available there. Alternatively, if you want to learn why your draft did not get accepted or how you can make your draft better, you can learn about the Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am not asking you to read all this in one day. Take some time, and read it. Your draft was not accepted because it lacked reliable sources, and sources are required to verifiability. You might be thinking what is all this stuff? What is the need of reliable sources? Won't they believe me? See, this is not a matter of believing. Wikipedia's policy states that verifiability is more important. For example I may have 4 children, but there are sources that state that I have 3, so Wikipedia would regard 3 as verifiable. The fact that I may have 4 sons would not be considered verifiable, until and unless the source corrects itself. And Wikipedia depends on the verifiability, and not what the fact is. You can read more if you want. You can also read about reliability to know what type of sources are considered reliable and what are not. You can also find the list of all wikipedia policies and guidelines here. However, you must read the most important policies at the beginning. You can see {{welcome menu}}, or if you feel it is too tough for you to understand, then you can as well read the welcome message left on your talk page. Well, if it strains you too much, then you can as well do other types of job. And the Teahouse is always there, it is a great place for asking questions. Experienced editors are always there to answer you questions and help you out. So, don't bother to ask questions at the Teahouse.

So, please don't leave Wikipedia. Enjoy the place, communicate with other editors, ask questions, and help us build a great encyclopedia. Who knows, in the future you might be one of the best editors at Wikipedia. I hope this encourages you, and motivates you to stay here. Thanks. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A proof of Fermat's little theorem.

Good afternoon,
Is there a mathematician that can review my work.
Who can tell me if my proof is valid and correct, can withstand the rigour of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_of_Fermat%27s_little_theorem#An_analytical_proof_of_Fermat's_little_theorem
An analytical proof of Fermat's little theorem.
I’ll be ever so thankful.
Yours sincerely, Wim Coenen.
Wim Coenen (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC) Wim Coenen (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wim Coenen, this page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. You could try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics or Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your addition to Proofs of Fermat's little theorem because Wikipedia does not publish original research (see WP:NOR). You must publish such work elsewhere, preferably in a peer-reviewed and reputable journal before we can consider adding it to any article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Eduard_Grossman

FYI

– Added section header. GoingBatty (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia, My Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eduard_Grossman) article Submission declined because its not supported by reliable sources. On my References list i had posted books and catalogues from writers that wrote on specific pages about artists including Eduard Grossman. I would like to know why my draft is not supported by reliable sources. Thank you looking forward for your reply 87.68.183.29 (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! There is a lot of information in the draft that is not tied back to one of the references you supplied, such as the first 10 paragraphs of the "Life" section, and many of the exhibitions. I also recommend you review WP:EASYREFBEGIN to learn the proper way to format references. Hope this helps, and good luck with your draft! GoingBatty (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

start a wiki page for Bassy Stacy

Hello, Can anyone help me to start a wiki page for myself? I have been in multiple bands and still do radio. Thank you 2600:1702:30A0:96A0:4C8E:B12:DAD6:913A (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! WP:AUTO explains that Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies. Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially when you have a conflict of interest (COI). To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. I suggest then spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. When you're ready to create an article, you would gather independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of you, and determine whether you meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could create an account and declare your COI on your user page. Then follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. If you are successful, then you could never edit the article directly due to your COI, but could submit edit requests on the article talk page. Hope this helps. GoingBatty (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing? You may find it to be of interest. Best wishes. Karenthewriter (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

making a new wiki page

How does someone make a new wiki page on here? MaxineJP (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxineJP: Creating a new article (not mere "page") is one of the hardest things one can start in this encyclopedia, it requires much time and practice. That being said, if you are sure you want to do this, head over to Your first article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxineJP: Building on the previous answer... To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. I suggest then spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AP World History: Ancient

Does the topic "AP World History: Ancient" count as notable? Brian+urmom (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to submit draft

I thought I had submitted my draft back in October but apparently didn't do it correctly. So any ideas on how to do it? Thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarkcoan (talk • contribs) 19:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarkcoan: I have added the necessary code for you. If you don't use the WP:AfC process at the start, it isn't intuitive how to add your proposal to the queue. I hope Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk will be useful going forward if you have further questions. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

I tried to creat separate sections for Films and Television in Akshay Kumar filmography but not able to do that, and messed up to the dagger thing, if your a editor go on and fix that article, make to seperate sub-sections for Films & Television. Holland Tok (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Holland Tok:

Fixed! GoingBatty (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures that are owned by the person who has asked it to be uploaded? what tag do I use to say it's got no copyright?

As per the heading. I have created a page and I have used pics owned by the person who has asked me to upload them. He is giving over some pics of his own, they aren't copyrighted. What do I put as the status? Stevehogan1605 (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stevehogan1605.The vast majority of photos gain copyright protection automatically as soon as they are published. In most cases, the copyright is held by the photographer. So, what evidence do you have that the photos are not copyrighted? Cullen328 (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be about Tom McCabe (Rugby League player). I removed one of the photos because it was watermarked Getty Images and therefore a clear copyright violation. I suspect that the other images are also copyright violations. Cullen328 (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]