Wikipedia:Teahouse

Tigraan, 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
1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245

css in userpage

Hello there,

does anyone if it's possible to change the style sheet of my userpage ? And if yes, how ?

thank you Vincent-vst (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is only possible in the template space. See TemplateStyles. Why are you trying to change the CSS on your userpage? Please remember that distrupting the MediaWiki interface is not allowed, even on userpages. small jars tc 12:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi,

thank you for your answer,

I just wanted to change the styling of my userpage, just for design purpose ... Vincent-vst (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps are you referring to your common.js/common.css page, or just changing the design or layout of your userpage? Kpddg ^(talk) 12:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i found this recently : https://2015.igem.org/Wiki_Requirements/Using_HTML,_CSS,_and_Javascript

but when i try to put a <html> tag, it doesn't render properly. i can't seem to edit the html/css in my userpage.

i can put some <div> but when i start to insert some div in another div, well, it doesn't work anymore... Anyway, i was just curious if some users succeded to make pretty userpage with html/css. Vincent-vst (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vincent-vst: you can't use high-level tags like <html>, <head>, or <body> in your userpage code, because they're already part of the page. Whatever you put on your userpage is stuffed into the <html> tag in the MediaWiki interface, and nesting <html> tags is invalid. All you can really do for styling is to use inline styles or get fixed aspects of css functionality (eg. hover effects) from certain templates. small jars tc 22:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Vincent-vst (talk) 06:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's the correct thing to do when someone has requested that an article be improved by translation, but the original has no references?

The case in question is Appenzeller_string_music. It's been tagged for improvement by translation from the German article, which I would happily do. But the German original is supported by no citations. It's almost certainly accurate and decent text, so I could translate and add a citations needed template, but I don't want to waste my time if someone's simply going to revert all the changes as unsourced. 79.64.7.127 (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. I don't know if what you speak of is acceptable on the German Wikipedia, but here an article must be supported with citations to reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot:, thank you for the reply. It sounds as though there is no point in doing the translation. I'm guessing we leave the tag on the English article suggesting that it could be improved by translation of the German, on the grounds that the German article may, one day, grow citations and become usable - otherwise the template seems a bit pointless? 79.64.7.127 (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not heard of "improvement by translation". An article could be translated, and/or improved by adding references or improving the text, and these things could be done at more or less the same time. But I don't understand what "improvement by translation" is supposed to mean. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Improvement by translation" is a reference to Template:Expand language. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shantavira Thanks for that. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's normal for a poor article about a Japan-related subject to have a template suggesting improvement by ransacking the Japanese-language article about the same subject, and for the Japanese-language article to be terrible. Maybe the templates are added by editors who can't read Japanese and can't be bothered to feed the Japanese-language article into Google Translate, or similar, and who instead just appreciate bulk. I could investigate, but fear that I'd be depressed by what I'd discover. So usually I leave the templates in place. But I've been known to remove them. -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: Google Translate returns "blind idiot" translations when it comes to Japanese (or any other East Asian pictographic language) for anything other than small snippets of text. The same goes for any other automated translation service. Japanese is a bit too convoluted and context-dependent. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jéské Couriano, please, no language is pictographic. (A script might be pictographic, but Japanese script is only tenuously and trivially pictographic.) Problems with machine translation from Japanese come from such features of the language as a lack of a grammatical requirement for a main clause to have an expressed subject. (This lack isn't at all unusual, of course.) My poorly expressed point was that Category:Articles needing translation from Japanese Wikipedia takes us to concoctions such as Alice or Alice, and that Google Translate is easily good enough to tell anyone that while the corresponding Japanese-language article may outweigh the English-language thing in bulk/cruft/trivia, that's about the extent of its superiority. -- Hoary (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: You say that jp → en automatic translation is crap, but I have to ask, compared to what? If the standard is a professional translation, or even translation by a advanced student of the language, sure. But it beats "I cannot read/speak the language" by a large margin, and that is the state of a non-speaker browsing the internet. I once had to "read" a scientific article written in Japanese; automatic translation produced some text; it was awful English, but it was sufficient for me to discern the general outline and find the information I was looking for. Sure, scientific articles usually follow a standard structure, I knew what the article would talk about and what I was looking for etc.; but an en-wp editor searching for usable sources in a jp-wp article has the same kind of meta-clues (I concede that checking the sources found would probably require better-than-machine translation).

In fact, I would say that the surprising fact is not that automated translation between English and Japanese yields mediocre results, but rather that automated translation between loosely-related languages (such as English and French) works at all, let alone almost flawlessly. For funsies, I copy-pasted the lead of machine translation into DeepL, a tad above 2000 words, and asked for a French translation. I could find zero clear translation mistakes; there is one weird turn of phrase "en premier lieu et surtout X", but that is the translation of "first and most notably" which arguably is not idiomatic English either. (There were grammar mistakes / ambiguities, but those were in the original; I corrected one.)}} Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I remove these, with the edit summary "not suitable for translation as de-wiki article has no citations" or similar. -- asilvering (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question of typography

Dear all,

I am in creating a contribution for the English Wikipedia. See: User:Alexander Peren. The subject of this article is for a recently installed museum in Germany (Place of Remembrance Badehaus), treating the special place Camp Föhrenwald from its beginning to its change towards a "regular" living quarter. It is mainly the translation of the same article of the German Wikipedia "Erinnerungsort Badehaus". However, I face some problems with typographic questions.

In my contribution appear names of associations/institutions and groups, so what is normally called "proper name". Addtionally, it appears names of books, films, exhibitions, which are as well "proper names", but s.th. completely different. And finally it appear some German expressions, for which no "official" counterpart exists in the english language.

I would like to distinguish these three typs of "proper names" (associations/institutions; titels; German expressions) with typographic medium.

My first idea was to put associations/institutions in italic, the titels in 'apostroph' and the German expressions in "quotation marks". You can see this version in looking older versions of my contributions

But then, with the help of Adakiko, my attention was attracted to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. Inside this link I found (citation) When not to use italics Shortcut MOS:NOITALIC Italics are generally used only for titles of longer works. Titles of shorter works should be enclosed in double quotation marks ("text like this"). This particularly applies to works that exist as a smaller part of a larger work. These include but are not limited to: Articles, essays, papers, chapters, reference work entries, newspaper and magazine sections or departments, episodes of audio-visual series, segments or skits in longer programs, short poems, short stories, story lines and plot arcs; songs, album tracks and other short musical works; leaflets and circulars. (See WP:Manual of Style/Titles § Quotation marks for details.) (citation end) This means for me: titels belonging to a serie/sequence have to be written in quotation marks

In the same link it is written: (citation) Quotations Further information: MOS:QUOTE and MOS:WORDSASWORDS Shortcut MOS:NOITALQUOTE It is normally incorrect to put quotations in italics. They should only be used if the material would otherwise call for italics, such as for emphasis or to indicate use of non-English words. Quotation marks alone are sufficient and the correct way to denote quotations. Indicate whether italics were used in the original text or whether they were added later. For example: "Now cracks a noble heart. Good night sweet prince: And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!" (emphasis added). (citation end) means for me, that German expressions (like Hitlerbeton) also have to be put in quotation marks.

And italic, as far as I believe having read in this link, is exclusively for standing-alone titels of books etc.

Per consequence, I face now the situation for my contribution that mostly the quotation mark is used, rarely the italic and not at all the apostrophe.

Can someone of you help me with my difficulties to distinguish the three different "proper names" in my contribution by help of typography? Which way is acceptable not to viol against the Wikipedia rules? As I already wrote, my preferred solution would be apostrophe for titels, italic for associations/institutions and quotation marks for German expressions without official english counterpart.

Furthermore, my contribution is - with the exception of these typographic questions - more or less ready. Might it please be possible for someone of you to have a look to my article and to make suggestions for improvement, if necessary, or if the article is already good enough to move it towards the regular Wikipedia.

This would be great. I already thank you in advance so much for all your help and your proposals.

Best regards, take care and stay healthy

--Alexander Peren (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alexander Peren, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your user page is not an appropriate place to draft an article, and I have moved it to Draft:Erinnerungsort Badehaus. You can move it to Erinnerungsort Badehaus when it is ready, or if you prefer to ask for review, paste {{subst:submit}} at the top. (I have not answered your question because I find it difficult to get any interest in questions of ~~technology~~typography. I'm sure somebody else will do so). ColinFine (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Peren This rather technical issue must be something that's been discussed before by members of WP:WikiProject Germany, so I suggest you post on their talk page and also look at their archive. The draft article seems to be coming along well, although I did notice several Wikilinks to disambiguation pages rather than the best targets. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexander Peren Titles of books go in Italics. For German-language text, you can use Template:lang-de. This template has the added bonus of helping text-to-speech programs read the words more correctly. -- asilvering (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

not sure to understand watchlist

Hello,

I'm a bit new here and I still struggle to understand what whatchlist are.

Is there a way to save a page for when I find an article that is worth reading but do not have time ?

thank you Vincent-vst (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whatchlist updates you when a page on it is edited; It's not a static list of articles. Maybe you could add a "to read" section to your userpage and save them there. small jars tc 19:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you ! Vincent-vst (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vincent-vst. Read Help:Watchlist. Experienced editors use their watchlists to look for possible vandalism or disruptive editing on articles they care about, and to look for ongoing discussions that they may wish to contribute to. Your watchlist can be very useful once you learn how it works. Cullen328 (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Vincent-vst and welcome to the Teahouse! You can choose articles to be on your watchlist so if you press "watchlist" above you can see the edits made to them. To add an article to your watchlist, press the empty star near the "edit" button on a page. It will turn blue, indicating that it is now on your watchlist. Happy editing! 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔) 01:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vincent-vst: Welcome to the Teahouse. Adding on to what people have said about the watchlist, should you decide to use that to keep track on articles you're interested in, please note that by default it marks X changes made in the past Y days, where X and Y are positive integers. If a page you've added to your watchlist hasn't been edited in a very long time, you won't see it. To see the whole watchlist without that constraint you can click on the "View and edit watchlist" link near the top of the page, or go directly to Special:EditWatchlist in Wikipedia's search bar. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Vincent-vst (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No profane word in TimedText namespace.

Can't not use profane word due to errors can be use Asterisk symbol (*) is use. 2001:44C8:4204:946D:B52E:108A:4C14:BC8C (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear what you are trying to say but Wikipedia is not censored so I have reverted [1] your removal of correct lyrics. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do not bowdlerize words in direct quotations. Never. Cullen328 (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

undo pls 2001:44C8:4204:946D:B52E:108A:4C14:BC8C (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Cullen328 (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a social media captions. 2001:44C8:4204:946D:B52E:108A:4C14:BC8C (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have no control over how social media networks (ab)use our content as long as they comply with Wikipedia's licensing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 03:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Offensive material#How to treat offensive material in articles says "words should never be bowdlerized". The lyrics are displayed at Stay (The Kid Laroi and Justin Bieber song)#Composition and lyrics when the audio sample is played so the rule applies. When a rule says "articles" it generally means all reader-facing material. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what "TimedText" signifies. It doesn't really matter, because the policy has been explained three times. It won't change, and it shouldn't. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To understand TimedText, please read Commons: Timed text. It is closely related to Closed captioning for hearing impaired people. In the spirit of full disclosure, my wife is deaf. I object to the notion that hearing people can listen to "bad words" but that deaf people cannot be allowed to read "bad words". That is a condescending and patronizing attitude that I have opposed for 40+ years. Cullen328 (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 Thanks for that info. And I know that the Deaf community have rich, full lives, and some of them who I knew had a "ribald" sense of humor. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When to warn?

At Academic studies about Wikipedia, I reverted two edits I thought were vandalism. Should I also add a warning to the user’s talk page? If so, which level? What would you do? LumonRedacts (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @LumonRedacts and welcome to the teahouse! when reverting a disruptive edit, it's best to warn so the user may be able to take notice about the reversions and why those edits were reverted. in this case, you can use {{subst:uw-disruptive1}} to warn them. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 04:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Melecie! I just ran out brain space there for figuring out that next step. Happy editing! LumonRedacts (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LumonRedacts. When to warn is a personal decision, since every action that a Wikipedia editor takes is voluntary. In this case, a warning for changing Wikipedia's founding date from 2001 to 2021 is justified. But the editor is an IP editor who made two edits in one minute and disappeared. That's what happens with many IP vandals. The effort to warn needs to be balanced against the fact that many IP vandals never see the warning. A benefit of a warning is that administrators, in general, are quicker to block if warnings have been given and the vandalism continues. So, I would recommend that you focus your warnings on editors who are more likely to respond positively to your warnings or to those whose disruption is ongoing. Warning fleeting vandals may be a waste of your time. In the end, that decision is yours. Cullen328 (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cullen328. I definitely appreciate your insights! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LumonRedacts (talk • contribs) 01:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a specific barnstar.

Is there a barnstar for reviewers of good articles? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 05:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reviewer's barnstars (though good articles don't generally need reviewing). Take a look at Wikipedia:Barnstars. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those reviewer barnstars are for pending changes and such. I wanted to thank a reviewer who has gone unrecognized in his GA reviews. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 10:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex3427 Why not just add a personal comment on his Talk Page? I think that barnstars are a bit naff and a proper thank-you a better way of expressing your recognition of someone's work. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vortex3427, I found this template, which might be what you are looking for. Kpddg ^(talk) 12:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help moving a page

I created Draft:The Forever Story and I need help moving it to The Forever Story. Castlepalace 10:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - JID's previous two albums, The Never Story (2017) and DiCaprio 2 (2018), exist as articles. Those have much more detail than this draft. David notMD (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. The album hasn't been released yet, that's why it lacks detail. @David notMD Castlepalace 19:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously going to update the article with a lot more detail once it's out and more sources are available. @David notMD Castlepalace 19:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i messed up

I tried to upload an image on my sandbox, and now it's in commons.wikimedia.org

I don't know why it's there, how can I delete it ? (also i thought it was an image i made with an AI and i claimed it as mine but after a quick reverse search on google image it was clear that the image was not one of mine, Hencewhy i don't want to claim it as mine.)

Thanks in advance Vincent-vst (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent-vst Add the template {{Db-author}} at the very top of the page Commons:File:Lofi2.jpg. It will then be speedily deleted by an admin. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you ! Vincent-vst (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reason of reverting the information I added to a page.

I would like to know the reason why my recent edits to the page Ramagundam has been reverted. I added all correct information based on the government sources. The original page is missing a lot of information about the city. Biswabandan Satpathy (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The editor that reverted you left a message in the edit summary "Rv mass of totally unsourced additions + deleting templates", which sums it up pretty well. Any additions need to be supported by reliable source. See WP:V. - X201 (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article was already tagged as having an excessive amount of intricate detail but instead of tackling that problem you added a mass of more detail, including in the WP:LEAD, which is supposed to summarise the rest of the article, not present independent information. All additions must be WP:CITEd with inline sources, so readers can verify the information themselves without working out which "government sources" you actually used: express specific information in your own words but cite sources to back up what you add. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull Should the "intricate detail" tag be removed now? The article looks a lot better. Wow, there was a lot of stuff there before @Arjayay trimmed it. I have never seen such a mass of detail. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. That tag was added when the page looked like this (in 2018). It's not much different now: the "stuff" you saw just before Arjayay reverted it was that added by the OP for this Teahouse thread. I'm no expert on Indian cities, so I'll leave it to those who are to decide on what tags are currently warranted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull Yes, it looks much cleaner now, after the reversion. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons image changed

Hi, please see this discussion at commons [2]. Someone at commons changed two images of Olivia Newton-John, blurring the background. The new blurred images are terrible. Note one of the images is in the infobox at Olivia Newton-John which is currently listed in RD on the main page. I tried to revert the changes but the images appear to be protected - it also seems the blurring affects previous versions of the images for some reason. Does anyone here use commons or have sufficiently elevated rights there to revert the two images back to their original state? Polyamorph (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, looks like the one in the infobox at Olivia Newton-John has already been reverted. Polyamorph (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Now reverted back to the crap version. Polyamorph (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should ask about this either on the Commons, or at wp:Graphics Lab. small jars tc 13:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask at commons. All sorted now, thanks Polyamorph (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted both back to the originals and have left an edit notice explaining how many different Wikis they are affecting (over 20 in one case). Told them to upload blurred version as a derivative work. - X201 (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for sorting it Polyamorph (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to Spanish version of wikipedia

I am trying to link a person to his spanish wikipedia article as he does not appear in the English wikipedia. But having trouble doing this. So when your click on his name it redirects to the spanish wiki.

I am trying to link from an english wiki page) to https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_Florescano

Can anybody help with the code please. Yozick72 (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use template:ill. {{ill|Enrique Florescano|es}} will produce "Enrique Florescano [es]" small jars tc 12:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Guess that will have to do.

I did actually try that before but was hoping one could do it without the es, so it would link straight through.

Thank you. Yozick72 (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can do just that, but it's not ideal because people will think it's in English and become confused when they end up on a Spanish article. small jars tc 13:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Academic article

Good afternoon.

If I would like to publish an article (New Knowledge) which references my PHD, would I be able to host that article on Wikipedia.

It will have links to the the body of work hosted at the University library, as well as additional journal references.

Kind regards

Craig Craighorne (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. What do you mean, by new knowledge? Could you clarify what "referenc[ing] my P[h]D" means? Are you going to talk about yourself in the article? If so, that would be a conflict of interest and/or an autobiography which goes against Wikipedia guidelines. What university? It is hard to understand what you are asking. Have you started a draft already?

Asparagusus (interaction) 13:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Craighorne, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you mean what I think you mean, the answer is No. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If your research is part of a larger subject which is already documented in a number of reliable published sources, you may write an article which summarises those, and one of those sources could be your thesis (though if you did that, you should declare a conflict of interest). But if you do that, you should not include any argument or conclusions which are sourced only to your own work. ColinFine (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My husband’s Wikipedia page disappeared

My husband, Skeeter Zachary Reece, an American clown, had a Wikipedia page. Several months ago, the links to the pictures disappeared, but the biography of him remained. Two months ago, we noticed it had been taken over by something called “people pill” and no longer shows up as a Wikipedia page. Does anyone know anything about this? Can it be restored to Wikipedia with the links to the pictures? What is this “people pill”? Is it connected to Wikipedia? Thank you. Mamadancer (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted as the result of a community discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary "Skeeter" Reece, it is unlikely to be restored as consensu was reached and after looking for sources myself, I fail to see how he meets notability criteria PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His career happened before the internet. He is 70 now and mostly retired. He did perform at the White House. He was with Ringling for 10 years, then worked for 20 years in Las Vegas performing in several hotels. He was on a news segment in Palo Alto, California in 1982. All of this was before YouTube or any online links. He was in the Geo magazine April 1981 which is on the Internet but has his name listed INCORRECTLY as “Skeeter Heece”. He is in several books: “Clown Alley” by Bill Ballantine. “Jokes My Father Never Told Me” by Rain Pryor. “A Very Young Circus Flyer” by Jill Krementz. Mamadancer (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mamadancer, you are free to recreate the page as long as these extra sources can establish notability. Sungodtemple (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The caveat being it needs to go through WP:AFC, @Sungodtemple. Please do not tell people to outright create AFD'd articles. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: The AfC process is optional, though it should also be used by anyone with a conflict of interest (link in original), which Mamadancer has essentially disclosed in the opening post. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The AFC process is optional but for COI editors and for articles that have been DELETED AT AFD, it is strongly encouraged to the point that we nearly require it. It was bad advice. Period. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't great advice, but saying that it needs to go through WP:AFC (link in original, emphasis added) is incorrect. Necessity is not the same as vehemently recommending it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point that I was correcting bad advice and trying to actually help the OP and save them from immediately getting a G4 slapped onto their article. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't miss your point; I'm saying that in your plight in helping the OP you misrepresented the optionality of AFC. OP can choose to go the same route again, but potentially suffer the consequences you mentioned (or worse). It's like telling people they can't write about themselves on here; they can, but the result is virtually always going to be disappointing for them, which is why we strongly discourage, not forbid. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree @Tenryuu, and I misrepresented it as well when I said that @Mamadancer must go through the AFC process. I said that because I was trying to help the editor avoid the disappointment of doing all the work and the results being the same. It may be the inevitable ending but in my desire to help them I misspoke. AFC is optional but strongly recommended. --ARose Wolf 16:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ARoseWolf@Praxidicae, other interested. I've got these:[3][4] (see [5] on what that is) [6]. Not brilliant but we've seen worse. Also, these from ProQuest (via the WP-library) [7][8], am I getting the full text or just an extract?

This [9] doesn't help with WP:N but has some useable info. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mamadancer, welcome to the Teahouse, I know it seems our responses can be a little harsh sometimes and Wikipedia policies can be extremely confusing for experienced editors much less someone just wanting to know why something disappeared that was there a short time ago. Please know that every editor responding to you is a volunteer and they are taking time out of their day to respond so by them replying they are trying to help you with your question. As Prax explained, the article on your husband was deleted after a discussion by editors came to the consensus that the sources in the article were not sufficient enough to prove your husband's notability. Wikipedia can not make someone notable, they have to already be notable. Of course, seeing as your husband's career was mostly before the internet then online sources may be scarce. Written sources can be used, such as books and newspapers. Extra care must be given when providing these sources because all information must have the ability to be verified. That does not mean it has to be freely accessible to the public at any point as some written sources may be in specific university libraries or behind a pay wall. These sources are still valid and can be used to prove notability. As you have an obvious COI being the spouse of the subject in question it is strongly recommended that you not try to create or edit an article on your husband. If you do decide to recreate the article then you ~~must~~are strongly encouraged take the article through the Wp:AFC process. However, I would suggest you try going to WT:BIOG, which is the talk page for WikiProject:Biography, and see if anyone there might be willing to take on the task of seeing if the sources you know about would prove his notability. Remember that we are all volunteers here. I understand your frustrations, just know that if your husband doesn't have an article on Wikipedia that doesn't mean that your husband isn't important to you or any of the children or adults he may have brought joy to during his career. Thank you for asking your question at the Teahouse. --ARose Wolf 14:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC) --edited 16:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got curious about this "people pill" thing. When neither your husband's name nor "people pill" turned up in a search here, I Googled your husband's name. I found a short piece about your husband on a website called "people pill." Without having looked further into the site, I'm supposing it has little write-ups on ... well ... PEOPLE. It's not at all unusual that when you Google something you'll find sites with write-ups that are word-for-word the same as a Wikipedia article on whatever you Googled. I believe that these sites have just copied the Wikipedia article. And sometimes they've copied an old version, with errors that have since been corrected--in Wikipedia; those errors might or might not get corrected on the sites that lifted the articles from here.Uporządnicki (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you do decide to create a new draft, see List of clowns for many examples of articles about individual clowns. David notMD (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had never encountered people pill before. And the website looks strange. Mamadancer (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mamadancer It's one of several so called Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Basically, they take WP-content and put it on their own website. It's allowed if they do it right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind reply. I will work on it. Mamadancer (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Since you're the deleting administrator, and given the discussion above, the additional sources found, and the low participation in the AFD, would you object to restoring the article to draft space for improvement? @Mamadancer: If it was restored to draft space, it would be an easier starting point than starting from scratch. I'm happy to remain involved too. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three people arguing for delete plus the nominator is not low participation IMO. The additional sources found are not good in my opinion. The NY Daily News is not about Reece, it's about some lady who got to be a clown for a day and Reece put her makeup on for her. Uncle JR is explicitly "community-driven" and supported by the family, so I'm not sure it's independent. The Sarasota Journal source is barely about him, it's essentially an ad for the show (and it's like 60 words tops). I haven't been able to locate the full text of the article from The Oregonian so can't evaluate that for SIGCOV at this time. The Tampa Tribune article is about the show, not about Reece. Even if The Oregonian is SIGCOV (which to be honest I doubt), a single piece of SIGCOV isn't enough to support a claim to notability.

Given the level of sourcing, I don't think the subject would survive a second trip to AfD, so no, I won't restore to draft. I won't object if you choose to, but fair warning, I will watchlist the mainspace page and take it back to AfD if it gets mainspaced with this level of sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos, thinking about the AfC implications being discussed, I have been trying to deal with a new bio slipped-in via the back door straight to mainspace, by a novice (but longstanding) editor. If it had been submitted through AfC, IMO it would likely have been declined with guidance; is there any flag that informs an author to consider the AfC way, instead of mainspace?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 09:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since this isn't related to the current discussion, I've replied at your talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inline interlanguage links

When is it necessary to put an inline interlanguage link in english Wikipedia? I've seen a lot of inline interlanguage links in english articles with a rather "local" subject (e.g. Indonesia's Next Top Model, Vietnam Idol, etc), especially links to a person's biography (mostly celebrities) that don't have their english article counterpart. These links don't include a language code either. Should they be unlinked (black)? I personally think the majority of english speaking public will not find a non-english page useful for them, and putting them under a blue link in an english article might lead them to think it leads to another english article when it's not. Your input would be much appreciated for my future edits. Thank you! 「HypeBoy」^TALK 14:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the person is notable, I prefer to use a red link with a small link to other language Wikipedias. This can be done using {{interlanguage link}} (shortcut {{ill}}). See Ludwig Ferdinand Huber for a couple of examples. I find direct links to foreign Wikipedias better than nothing, but some people prefer them in some contexts where the formatting of {{ill}} is inconvenient. —Kusma (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, most of the people linked in those articles I mentioned are not known outside their country, and definitely are not known worldwide/among english-speaking public. How am I to determine their notability? From what I noticed, celebrities that are actually notable in their own country almost always have their english article. These people who don't (only having an article in their own language), are not as notable. 「HypeBoy」^TALK 14:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being known outside their home country is not a requirement for notability. But whether celebrities are notable can be difficult to determine (most reality show participants should not have standalone articles, but many actors should). The general rules are at WP:N. —Kusma (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Based on MOS:REDLINK, too many red links leads to overlinking and unassuming black text color is the "most productive". Since many of these names are cluttered together on the same paragraph, I will stick with not linking them. I believe notable people (particularly the ones in the articles I mentioned) will have their own english article anyway, so I'll use that as an indicator. 「HypeBoy」^TALK 18:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant information to include

Hello everyone. Lately I have been wondering, when it comes to artists, poets, photographers, and people like that, is it relevant to list books that their work appears in? For example, if a poets work is included in something like a "Best poems of the decade" book collection, if that is considered an accomplishment or something note-worthy. Wimpkitty (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wimpkitty Not usually, since Wikipedia is not supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of all information on a topic. If there's something particularly unusual or notable about it though, by all means go ahead. For example, if the poet was an unknown before appearing in a "best of" and this made them famous; if the "best of" is an extremely notable list in its own right; if this appears to be the highest recognition any of the creator's pieces have achieved; etc. For a very famous classic work that appears on many such lists you might go for something like "The novel still regularly appears on major 'best novel' lists, like [example], [example], and [example]." -- asilvering (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poland page: can someone add mention of their poor Press Freedom Index

In light of how the media has acted during the crisis on the Oder river, I believe it would be prudent to mention Poland's poor standing in regards to freedom of the press on the intro section to their page. The page mentions their "very high standards of living, safety and economic freedom", so I feel it is only appropriate, and fair, to mention their issues in this area also.

https://rsf.org/en/country/poland johnnycat (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmschilling: I have done so. Thank you for the suggestion. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 20:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmschilling @Kaleeb18 welcome to Teahouse! In this case, I find [[Freedom of press] less helpful than a specific article that can contextualize Poland's freedom of press specifically. This section seems relevant. I encourage you to directly edit it yourself: Freedom of speech by country § Poland. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... I did not see that article, but I still think it was good to mention a little bit of it in the lead. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 00:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

vandalim

Hey guys,
I came across some vandalism at World Clown Association going back to the last edit of user:Materialscientist, so not easily reversible with undo. I'll leave the info here for some better skilled editor to deal with. Dutchy45 (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I've reverted back to the last good revision. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Potential vandalism

Good afternoon. I am concerned about vandalism made to the article for the Great Pyrenees. A recent edit has introduced the term "swag retriever" to the article, however, I can find no evidence of the breed ever being referred to by that name.

I apologize if this is the wrong avenue for this report; I was unable to find a report button or a designated method for communicating these types of issues.

Pyrenean Mountain Dog

73.54.194.23 (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has reverted that addition. Thanks for pointing it out! Schazjmd (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cake recipe

hello will you please be kind to help supply me with a delicious recipe for a vanilla cake recipe thank you -tim Tim W. Jacobson (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ask at the Reference desks. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim W. Jacobson Welcome to the Teahouse. Better still, why not just use a search engine and do your own research? I use that technique for a lot of my cooking, and would never consider asking Wikipedian's for a recipe. Good luck and good cooking! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim W. Jacobson Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! This is a place for new Wikipedia editors to ask questions about editing. Your question made me smile, but it does not fit here. I wish you good luck on your quest for a recipe, though!

Asparagusus (interaction) 13:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, cake would go well with the tea around here! Polyamorph (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim W. Jacobson Wikipedia uses an encyclopaedic style and promotional language is not permitted, so we cannot recommend a 'delicious' recipe, unless the recipe has been described as 'delicious' by a reliable secondary sauce. We can only provide a neutral and well-balanced cake. In assessing the cake, our sauces must have depth, and be independent of the original recipe. In general, baking is discouraged as we're not allowed to synthesise our own cake. Also, when it comes to the consumption, you will probably find that Original Research is an attractive proposition, but it too, is not allowed in Wikipedia. We cannot have our cake and write about it. I would also recommend that you look for cake recipes elsewhere because our article Cake is written in American English, and is therefore eaten on the wrong side of the road. 149.155.219.44 (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the laugh @149.155.219.44! That's a really good one, I'm bookmarking that for future reference :D --LordPeterII (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What a sweet post. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite delicious. Lectonar (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to check references

Hello! I am trying to get Draft:Justin Brown (author) checked :) I have noted this in the reference help desk too, but would like to know your help and feedback. Thank you! Note: It has been improved with strong sources. AyrtonHolloway (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a reviewer, but it looks good to me. However, I'm not that experienced at looking at drafts, so I'll leave it to somebody else to decide. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 02:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Last note was, This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. - I think it's been improved. Hoping to get this checked again :) --AyrtonHolloway (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AyrtonHolloway,:please note that you've been asked more than once to add material which has been written about Brown. As long as that material is lacking, your article will be problematic.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WAY OVER-REFERENCED to no benefit; does not need two to six refs for each book. Much of the rest are refs that are mere name-mentions, or to stuff he wrote (bowling in India, etc.) Unless there are publications ABOUT Brown, will be declined again. David notMD (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax/false statement in article

Hi all! I was recently rereading an article that I'd read a while back and I think I may have found a hoax (I think it was a clear and deliberate attempt to deceptively present false information as fact) planted in 2018. Is there anyone who manages this type of stuff (hoaxes) that I can reach out to, because maybe they could confirm whether it truly qualifies as a 'hoax' or not and then document it on the 'list of hoaxes on Wikipedia' page. Thanks! Marcustcii (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think if it's an obvious hoax, you can put {{Db-hoax}} on top of it to get an administrator to delete it. Otherwise, go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Although, if it survived for four whole years, it may eventually get archived at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 03:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response! Would tagging it like that work if the 'hoax' I'm talking about in the article is not the whole article but rather a misleading portion? Marcustcii (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marcustcii, in order to properly answer you last question, please tell us which artile has the problematic content. Thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course — [it is]. The reason I'm not sure if it qualifies as a hoax is because it's just one word but someone clearly deleted the true singer's name and replaced it with their own and then may have added citations to make it look legitimate. Marcustcii (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

here it is* sorry Marcustcii (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the citations were there earlier — got ahead of myself. Marcustcii (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcustcii, you found an example of "drive-by" vandalism, from 2018, by an unregistered user from a suburb of Washington, DC. It was the only edit from that particular IP address. Probably done at school to impress friends. Thanks for finding that; I've manually reverted it.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah that makes more sense since it was just one word! Thanks for clarifying! Marcustcii (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to create page?

How do I create a page Wikikoolr (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikikoolr Hello. You asked this at the Help Desk; please only use one method of seeking assistance, to avoid duplication of effort. 331dot (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry Im new and I thought this might give more help but now I know so that's good Wikikoolr (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

so now I know the rules and I won't do it again. Wikikoolr (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikikoolr So far, all of your article edits have been reverted, and your attempt at creating a draft has no references. Per the advice you got at Help Desk, become more skilled at improving existing articles before creating and submitting a draft to AfC. Also, in your draft, you capitalized many words which should not be capitalized. David notMD (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting custom flags

'Hey! How do you get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Swedish-speaking_Finns.svg as a flag image when inserting a flag via , and how would I link "Finland Swedish - Wikipedia" via [[ | ]]? Gamazations (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamazations: {{Flagicon|Swedish-speaking Finns}}. ––FormalDude talk 07:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about inserting the page "Finland_Swedish" via [[ | ]], like "Finnish"? Aside from this, thank you! :) @FormalDude Gamazations (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamazations: It looks like the template automatically links to Swedish-speaking population of Finland and I don't see a way to change that. ––FormalDude talk 08:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is perfectly fine my friend, thank you so much for what you have provided me. Have a great day! :) Gamazations (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article part unreadable on mobile

The timeline of events on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting are very hard to read on mobile and isn't properly formatted 58.170.101.142 (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP! Could you specify what you mean? I'm not seeing any issue with the text (although it may be due to me using a PC and viewing the mobile version of the website). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 12:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any obvious problems reading on Firefox Mobile on Android 12. It might be helpful if IP lets us know what device and browser they are using as well as more details about what issues they are seeing someone will be more able to help. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to add translation to an Arabic page

Hello,

I have always wanted to give adding articles to Wikipedia and wanted to start by translating some pages between Arabic & English. One particular page I found (annoying) was the following page:

أيمن بن توفيق المؤيد - ويكيبيديا (wikipedia.org)

The reason it is annoying is because this is a page for a Bahraini Minister in Arabic, when I go to the English page, it takes me to the Cabinet page instead of a page about the person in English - this is the page Wikipedia takes me to : Cabinet of Bahrain - Wikipedia

How can I fix or report this issue> and can I contribute with a translation in English if this can be fixed?

Also, will be happy to see if there are top pages that need to be translated from or to Arabic so I can choose and help with the efforts?

Many thanks,

Al Khuzaie Alkhuzaie (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alkhuzaie: it's not an 'issue' (as in, error or problem); there has been an article (two attempts, in fact) on this person, but he was not deemed notable enough, so the articles were replaced by a redirect to the one on the Cabinet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alkhuzale, and welcome to the Teahouse. What you have found is a redirect: at the moment, nobody has written an article on Aymen Tawfeeq Almoayed, but somebody has created an entry so that if you search for that name, it takes you to an article which might be useful.

It is certainly possible to replace the redirect by an article, and you have done the right thing by creating a draft Draft:Aymen bin Tawfeeq AlMoayed. When a reviewer accepts your draft, they will sort out replacing the redirect.

But there are some problems with the draft, as you have realised.

Please read Translation. Two important things stand out here. One is that the sources (which I see you took from the Arabic article ar:أيمن بن توفيق المؤيد) are not adequate for an article in English Wikipedia. You need several sources, each of which is all three of reliably published, independent of the subject, and containing significant coverage of the subject. Your sources may all be reliable, but they are all either not independent of AlMoayed, or do not contain significant coverage of him.

The other problem is that you have not stated that the text of your draft is a translation from another Wikipedia: this is a violation of the licence. You should add a message to the draft's talk page explaining this.

I suggest that you study WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:NBIO to understand the kind of sources you need. ColinFine (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my previous reply: I had not seen (as Double Grazing pointed out) that articles about him had previously been deleted and replaced with the redirect. This means that unless you find adequate sources to establish notability, you are wasting your time working on this draft. Note that the fact that there is an article on him in ar-wiki has no bearing on the matter: each Wikipedia has its own policies, and they are not all the same. ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the quick response, fantastic details and will help me learn more and hopefully get successful contributions in the future. Will make sure to go through the links and educate myself more about the requirements Alkhuzaie (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erased sandbox

I have been using my Sandbox to draft a new wikipedia page for publication, which I understand is the proper way to use this page. Admin Bbb23 deleted the page giving the reason "U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host". I do not understand what I did wrong and how to avoid further deletions of my work in progress. Newklear007 (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Newklear007: I can restore your sandbox and move it to draft space if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, thanks. Newklear007 (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's done, Draft:Miroslav Beblavý, but you are aware that there is already an existing article. Why do you call it "new" and what are you planning on doing with the draft?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought "I can restore your sandbox and move it to draft space if you wish." meant restoring my Sandbox page and giving it some tag to let other admins know that this page is used for drafting of wikipedia pages and is not misused as a personal page. I had indeed already published the article I have developed in my Sandbox before it got deleted so the draft page can be deleted. My apologies for the confusion, I am still learning how things work around here. Now I see I do not need to use sandbox, because I can create a draft page when I want to create a new article. What would you suggest for editing an existing article when I want to develop a full article in the place of a stub as opposed to just making a small edit? Should I create a Draft page or make many small edits directly in the article? Newklear007 (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the draft. I'll let others answer your question.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Newklear007, welcome to the Teahouse - it's usually best to make smaller edits to the existing article rather than drafting a replacement somewhere else and replacing the whole thing in one fell swoop. This is so other editors who might be interested can track the changes you're making more easily and revert/discuss individual ones they may disagree with. Huge additions are more difficult to work with and sometimes send up red flags. You can still work on parts of the article in your sandbox if you wish, then copy the text over in small chunks (but review the rules on copying within Wikipedia). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is very helpful. Newklear007 (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I have addressed the issues regarding subjective matter on my piece on Iain Murray.

I feel I have addressed the issues regarding subjective matter on my piece on Iain Murray. How do I have it removed asap. I find it very hard to understand what to do to fix these issues quickly. Please advise. I am sure of the facts and will be happy to provide more if needs be but the process is quite mysterious. PLease assist FactEternal (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Iain Murray (sailor).

Don't worry about it being mysterious, FactEternal; Wikipedia seems that way to every editor when they first start – the learning curve is steep!

If you're truly sure that you've addressed the problem (I presume you've followed the link at the bottom of the template and read that Help page), you could click the "Edit" tab at the very top of the Article page and delete the second line of code that says "{{Peacock|date=August 2022}}", but as a new editor, you may not be sure and/or understandably not have the confidence to do that.

I suggest that we consult the editor who added the template, Tacyarg, and ask what they think. (My use of their username there was a "ping" which will notify them that they've been mentioned here: you (or I) could also have left a message on their Talk page.

If you're wondering how I knew who placed the template, I found the edit doing so listed in the article's View history tab.

Congratulations on having created a promising article: it's not easy! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.121.96 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your supportive and encouraging reply. You are right. It is a steep learning curve. I am in a hurry to sort everything out accordingly. All suggestions and guidance hugely appreciated. FactEternal (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FactEternal, and welcome to the teahouse. It would be helpful if you had told us which article you were referring to - I looked at all three articles about people call Iain Murray before I found that Iain Murray (sailor) has the tag you are referring to.

There is a link (Learn how and when to remove this template message)in the tag message - have you read that? ColinFine (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FactEternal. It is not a "piece". It is an encyclopedia article that must be written from the Neutral point of view. Examples of non-neutral language include early domination and highly competitive and He continued to become known in the sailing community and uniquely and An onerous last-minute racing schedule imposed upon the syndicates. That is the type of language used by sports journalists not encylopedia writers. In addition, many of the references are non-functional and lack basic bibliographic information like the title of the article. Your first reference, for example, is worthless for verification. The reference provided for his participation in the 2020 Tokyo Olympics does not verify his participation. References with "author" as the title make no sense and mostly do not work. In conclusion, this article needs a lot of work before the tag can be removed. Cullen328 (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for pointing out all my errors. They are hugely helpful, particularly as I need to make corrections as soon as humanly possible. Its requires quite a lot of discipline to write from a neutral point of view on this subject. Many thanks FactEternal (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FactEternal, your repeated assertions of a "need to make corrections as soon as humanly possible" are worrying. Wikipedia is not news, Wikipedia has WP:No deadlines, and it is never to be used for promotion or for the benefit of the subject (that may be an outcome, but on the other hand it could turn out to be detrimental).

You have already denied any Conflict of interest on your Talk page, and by inference any onbligation to declare editing for payment, so why is there such urgency? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.121.96 (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created in 2008, so it is not yours. The references you added are all crap. The title is never "author." Most of those are to sailboat racing news feeds that currently make no mention of Iain. Cullen328 has gone to the trouble of tagging some of those as failing to verify the factual statement in the text, but there are many others. CHECK ALL REFERENCES. David notMD (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, sorry, I didn't get the ping, but happened to see this. Yes, this looks much better now, thanks for your work on it. It was phrases like "With a prolific career spanning all aspects of competitive yachting, he is most noted for his early domination and evolution of the 18ft skiff class ... excellence and innovation in yacht design ... highly competitive" that made me think it needed the Peacock tag. I'll take it off now. Tacyarg (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the article through again - although I still think it's correct to remove the Peacock tag, I agree with others above that there are problems with the verifiability of the information. You have generally linked to the homepage of the publications rather than to individual articles, so the reader can't easily verify the information. And in some places it looks as if you have fallen into synthesising information in a way which does not reflect the sources but is a summary of several (eg "many classic motor boats" - you have sources about Murray designing specific boats but not one where an independent, reliable source has described him as designing many classic boats). Hope that is helpful. I'm also curious about the time pressure you mention. Tacyarg (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

page name change

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Jones_Memorial_United_Methodist_Church Our church name changed in June. I am trying to get the name changed here. I don't have access to that edit, so I put in for a change 3 weeks ago and have not received a response. Nancy Jo Clark (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nancy Jo Clark: Hello Nancy Jo! First, you refer to it as "our church". Are you affiliated at all with the church (outside of you being a member of the church)? If so then you have a Conflict of Interest, and need to declare it on your userpage. Second, there is no deadline. I'm not seeing a move request on the article's talk page however I'm assuming you've made the request elsewhere. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 12:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)R[reply]

It looks like Nancy Jo Clark tried to make a technical request here. That didn't work because it was entered inside hidden text, which isn't rendered on the page. It also wasn't super clear from that edit which article Nancy Jo Clark intended to be moved.

It doesn't seem super likely that after disaffiliating from the UMC, the common name is going to continue to be Sam Jones Memorial United Methodist Church, so a technical request would likely succeed – though I know little enough about this topic that I'm not going to boldly move it myself! If Nancy Jo Clark wants to try to request the move again at the page for making technical requests for page moves, being careful to follow the instructions given at the top of the page, I imagine it will likely be completed after the usual seven-day holding period. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm am the Director of Communications here at Sam Jones Methodist Church (Formerly known as Sam Jones Memorial United Methodist Church). I am responsible for the "branding" of the church. We did disaffiliate from the UMC on June 4 and we are currently an independent church. We may join another denomination in one to two years, but the name should not change. I am sorry that I don't remember where I made the request. It's been several weeks and I keep getting lost in my efforts to edit the name. I will click on the link provided and see what I can get done. Thank you for your replies. Nancy Jo Clark (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nancy Jo Clark: Alright well in that case please read WP:COI and also WP:PAID (Unless you are not paid). I would also recommend reading about what Wikipedia is not. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy time-saving note for others that this has been done. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this seemed an unobjectionable move, so I went ahead and moved the page. Deor (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPI Case

> Whether action is taken against the filer for repeatedly filing SPI case?

> Are warnings given before taking action? PravinGanechari (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PravinGanechari hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I can't infer what you mean exactly with "repeatedly filing SPI case", however, normally the only ways to get blocked for filing an SPI is when one repeatedly files baseless SPI's (calling other people a sockpuppet without evidence is a personal attack) or if one repeatedly files the same or a very similar SPI because one doesn't like the result. With regards to the second question, sometimes affected users are notified on their user talk page, however this is seldomly done and certainly not for bad-faith-sockpuppetry. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thank you PravinGanechari (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This question seems oddly similar to one you asked in what's now archive 1159. -- Hoary (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry last time I asked the question PravinGanechari (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reference or link to Wiktionary

Hey, I'm working on the dutch aticle about discrimination (discriminatie) the definition is a mess (it not very clear imo and there are/were no ref) and I'm trying to clean it up how do i refere to Wiktionary with a interal link or a external ref?

Thank you for the help! EM's96 (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EM's96, welcome to the Teahouse. On English Wikipedia, {{Wikt-lang}} can be used to link a particular word to Wiktionary, or {{wikt}} can be used to create a little box off to the side with a Wiktionary link. Dutch Wikipedia may not have these templates, however. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But if those templates are not available, you can use a wikilink, like wikt:discriminatie. I'm guessing that if you use that from nl-wiki, it will point to nl-wikt; but you can even use wikt:nl:discriminatie to be sure.

(I usually start wikilinks to other projects with a colon: this is always permissible, though not always necessary. But in cases where a link is treated specially, such as a File:, a Category: or another-language Wikipedia, the colon says to treat it as an ordinary wikilink). ColinFine (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Username

I observed that most of the Usernames that I have seen so far does not indicate or relate to the owner. I s it advisable not to use family name as username in Wikipedia? Just asking. OdilaG (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "owner" meaning what? Usernames can be whatever you want within reason and certain restrictions. There are no "owners" on Wikipedia. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am assuming that by 'owner', you mean yourself. Using your real name is not prohibited, but should be considered carefully, as it may have the potential for harrassment. See WP:REALNAME. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I use my IRL name since that's what I've done whenever I've published anything else and I like the idea that after I'm long gone people will still be able to see my contributions to Wikipedia. However, as Kpddg said, there are valid reasons for not doing so. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, OdilaG! I don't use a name connected to me for privacy reasons, as I personally try to be pretty careful about what information there is about me on the internet. Others do use names connected with them; it's really up to you as long as you follow the username policy. Perfect4th (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On an entirely different point, I suspect that what you have created at User:OdilaG/sandbox is a copyright violation, as it appears to be a verbatim copy. If true, delete all copied content and insteat paraphrase the information in your own words, using the source as a properly formatted reference. David notMD (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who wrote original article

I'm trying to find out who wrote the original article about Carlo Roselli. How do I do that? I'm not an editor, just an interested reader. Mhmillerr (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhmillerr: At the top of any article page (if you are on a desktop browser) there is a "History" tab. Click on that and you will see a list of every edit ever made to the article. Scroll to the bottom to see the oldest edit. If there is a link to see the "Previous 100" or "Oldest" at the bottom of that list, then the list of edits is too long to fit on one page and you must click that link to see earlier edits. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: I'm fairly sure by default it's "Older 50" and not "Older 100" but it's the same thing. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mhmillerr Often the best and fastest thing to do is to go to the "view history" tab and then click on the "Page statistics" link, which gives this output. That saves faffing around in multiple edits and provides an overview that includes the name of the first editor and the one who has made the largest contribution. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf: For me it's "over 500". I recall that's a user account setting. It's been at least a decade since I looked at it. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mhmillerr. There is no article Carlo Roselli. If you meant Carlo Rosselli instead, that article was started on September 15, 2006 by editor T L Miles, who last edited in February, 2022. Cullen328 (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that's what I assumed the OP meant when I provided the link in my response above Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University no longer exists, has merged with Partnership to End Addiction

Good afternoon, I work for Partnership to End Addiction. A few years ago The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University was subsumed by Partnership to End Addiction as the result of a merger with another similar nonprofit called (most recently) Partnership for Drug-Free Kids.

While the page for Partnership to End Addiction does make reference to Partnership for Drug-Free Kids becoming Partnership to End Addiction, that page makes no reference to the subsumption of The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University by Partnership to End Addiction.

Similarly, the page for The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University makes no reference to the fact that (a) Center on Addiction is defunct, and (b) has, along with all of its staff and platforms become part of Partnership to End Addiction.

I think that it would be considered not appropriate for me or someone else from my org to edit these pages, even just to add basic facts to them to make them more accurate, as this could be construed as self-promotion and this is the wrong space for that sort of thing.

That being said, I am right now trying to determine who, if anyone, might be compelled, if they learned about the need for these edits, to uphold them. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Best regards, Zblockattoendaddictiondotorg (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zblockattoendaddictiondotorg: you are correct that it is not appropriate to edit pages directly if you have a Conflict of Interest, as you do here with Partnership to End Addiction. However, you can essentially draft what changes you would make, give a detailed edit request on the talk page of the affected article (e.g. Talk:Partnership to End Addiction) and someone should come along and respond (whether quickly or eventually... there is often a backlog). In an edit request, you can't be too specific: say things like "replace this sentence [sentence here] with this one [sentence here], adding the following sources". Everything you say must be attributable to a published, reliable source and not just information you know from your professional work.

On your talk page, I've left a generic (if not wholly applicable in your case) welcome message about dealing with conflicts of interest and beginning to work within Wikipedia. Thanks for your question! — Bilorv (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just clarify: By "In an edit request, you can't be too specific" Bilorv means that in an edit request you must be as specific as you can, not that you must not (it's possible to read this advice as the exact reverse of what Bilorv meant). Whoever responds to the request won't want to do a lot of thinking: they'll want to know exactly what you would like to write, and to see evidence that the new text is correct. 149.155.219.44 (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the about us link on the The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University article redirects to [Partnership to End Addiction drugfree.org], suggesting this is reliable info. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with simple editing, and receiving daunting messages. I don't want to get banned from editing. Any assistance would be appreciated!

U.S. Route 62 in Ohio

I'm just trying to expand the route description. I was trying to cite my source using a template for citing a website, and I'm getting all kinds of crazy messages. So, I'm getting frustrated. I'm just a novice editor so please don't roast me too bad. Thanks for helping me learn! C2 J45driver16 (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I know typically word press is advised against. It said to discuss it in the forums first. The information seems to be reliable enough to use THAT specific blog about the source I'm attempting to cite. I triple checked the accuracy of the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C2 J45driver16 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, C2 J45driver16. The Bridgehunter's Chronicles in a one person blog operated by Jason D. Smith, with occasional articles contributed by other writers. That is pretty much a textbook example of a Self-published source that is not permitted for use on Wikipedia. The only exception would be if Smith is a widely acknowledged expert on bridges whose writing on bridges has previously been published in indisputably reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, C2 J45driver16, triple checking the source on your own is of no value. That is a form of Original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Do not worry about getting "banned" for such a minor unintentional mistake. Consider it a learning experience instead. Cullen328 (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber

What is cyber Danish KUTE (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Wiktionary. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Klima

Moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science § Climate

Your vote for keeping an article

Hello to all Wikipedians, members of the TeaHouse! I need your professional support and guidance about the article Mikhail Lomtadze It is a second nomination for the delition. I would be grateful for your advises and best of all your recommendations on the talk page or even improvements. And of course for your honest position and vote on the AfD page. Thank you in advance! Deviloper (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This subbmission is contrary to the purpose of WIKI

Hello, Could please anyone help me with this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bianca_Dragusanu

Are many things i have to add but this is why its draft. Thanks Customweb01 (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Customweb01 Draft:Bianca Dragusanu rejected on 18 August. Not in English and no references. David notMD (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO, 'your' text is a copy of the image description. David notMD (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Declined article / request for more feedback

Hello! My first article has been recently reviewed and declined because "it appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." I'd be happy to make the appropriate edits. It would be most helpful, though, if somebody could help me identify the parts that could have raised a concern. Is it more about the phrasing of specific paragraphs or the external sources I used? If so, which? I would appreciate any details so that I can prepare the article for resubmission. Thank you!

Here's the article in question: Draft:SUBTLE – The Subtitlers' Association Nyjja (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nyjja, for one thing, its "Aims and activities". Most organizations have praiseworthy goals. They're often written up in "mission statements" and the like, and are reliably soporific. Wikipedia isn't interested in this stuff (unless it is so awful, accidentally amusing, parodic, etc, that it gets in the news). What we need are disinterested, reliable accounts of what the organization does and in particular what it has achieved. Language aside, I suspect that you're going to have great trouble satisfying one or other of the criteria for notability. -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend the essays Wikipedia:Identifying PR and Wikipedia:Identifying blatant advertising. The opening sentence "SUBTLE – the Subtitlers' Association is an association that brings together professional audiovisual translators from around the world" is pure marketing speech, and it doesn't get much better after that. —Wasell^(T) 🌻 09:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to add my Company on Wikipedia

My article is deleted from wikipedia. Wanted to know that How can I add my company on wikipedia? 3dpower.nitin (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3dpower.nitin Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The short answer is- you don't. Wikipedia is not a directory of companies where mere existence warrants inclusion, nor is it a place for companies to tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called notability. For companies, that is written at WP:ORG. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wishes to say about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with the company choose on their own to say about it, with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add status item

Since people generally reply very slow on talk pages, I'm asking it here: would it make sense to add "rejected" to the list of possible statuses in Template:Infobox EU legislation? PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, PhotographyEdits. This is really a bit too obscure for the Teahouse, and it's hard to know which notable rejected legislation you might have in mind. But surely current/proposed/repealed refer to statuses of legislation that either are, once were, or might soon be actively operating. But if legislation is 'rejected', surely it's then just not valid legislation, and therefore is irrelevant and of little interest. I'd have thought it unnecessary. But this isn't a field I know much about.

I don't see you having actually asked the question at the Templates own talk page yet. That's always the first thing you should do. Then you can go to other places and flag up your post by including a link back to it. That way you keep all discussion in one place (and the most relevant place, too, I might add). One place you could then raise it and link to it would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European Union. You could always check the View History tab of both the template and its talk page and look for any recently active editors and attempt to ping them, lest they're interested in commenting. Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes Yes, that helps, thanks! The article I had in mind was the Proposed directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PhotographyEdits Ok, thanks, that helps to understand how you might use it. Is that a one-off, or a common thing, I wonder? I would certainly include a link in any discussion to an article where the template is used 'normally' and this one where it's use would be valid if only that status option were there. Sorry I can't offer much more than that. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes I decided to be WP:BOLD and add it myself :) There also seems to be the Draft Fifth Company Law Directive, but it's not very common to be both notable and rejected I guess. But since there are at least multiple, I would say having the attribute is worthwhile. Thanks for your comments anyway! PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism on Warwick Valley High School

there seems to be vandalism, please check it, im noob. jindam, vani (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted all the section blanking, but that article needs some serious work, it's basically an advertisement and I think it fails the notability test for schools. - X201 (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like @Wasell: has cleaned up the advertising. - X201 (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out — there was a lot of unsourced, non-notable WP:NOTCATALOG-voilating stuff. I have now removed it. —Wasell^(T) 🌻 10:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are these reliable sources?

Hello, I'm working on Draft:Mallu Traveler. Let me know Gulf Times, Indian Express, Manorama, The News Minutes, are these reliable sources? By the way, he is a YouTuber. Imperfect Boy (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Imperfect Boy and welcome to the Teahouse! indian express is generally reliable, although not much discussion has been present for the other three sites as far as I could find in the reliable sources noticeboard. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 10:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Imperfect Boy. Melecie referred to, but didn't direct you to, the Reliable sources noticeboard, which is the best place for such questions. Note that reliability is not always all or nothing: some sources are generally reliable and some are generally unreliable, but many are reliable for some kinds of information but not for other kinds, so it depends what you want to cite them for. ColinFine (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source misunderstanding

An editor I have been at cross purposes with, just removed material from Capital punishment for homosexuality because the source supporting it was unreliable. Its citation was from Reuters. In restoring, I linked to RS noticeboard, but the restoration has been reverted with ES in reply: [10] "[Reuters] bad source parroting from other articles and reuter did a poll discussed in another discussion that had poor sampling" Similar edits at LGBT rights in Sudan, too.

In both cases, the removal of Reuters cites has justified returning outdated and inaccurate information. Because we have disagreed a lot, the editor will not take my word for it. Two great, experienced, non-involved editors, Mathglot and Firefangledfeathers have earlier tried to restore peace by getting us to concentrate on content, but I have little hope that the editor would respond to any explanation from me. Can anyone gently suggest to the editor, they have misread the WP discussion: It's not about Reuter, but uses a Reuter Foundation report cite to talk about a wholly different source organisation as potentially unreliable?

This is not really the place, I know. I can't go to any noticeboard, I just can't. Any help appreciated. AukusRuckus (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Updated. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AukusRuckus, welcome to the Teahouse. This is, indeed, really not the place; it's a board for newcomers to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, not a content/policy discussion or behavior correction forum. I assume you've read the dispute resolution page. If a noticeboard is your only option left, then that's where you should go. 97.126.103.107 (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, I'll just leave it with the overturned, pre-2020 law in, then.

It's not really a content or conduct dispute, per se; more a misunderstanding. In reading the Wikipedia discussion of reliable sources the editor has, I think, looked at a citation for a "bad source" as the bad source itself. I just thought it'd be a quick short circuit to give them a heads-up in an acceptable way (to them). I am too wary to try again with the editor, and too timid to appear at a noticeboard.

Someone else may correct it in time; many regular editors and readers would understand that Reuters is unlikely to be considered an unreliable source. And I guess a few days or weeks saying Sudan still has capital punishment when Reuters said in 2020 it doesn't, won't matter in the scheme of things. (Although, these topic pages are not as well-trafficked as I thought they'd be). Thanks for your reply, and sorry to trouble you. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and yes, I did wonder if I could still be considered "new", but I sure do still feel new! If it was unacceptable to ask here, I'm sorry, but I see sometimes people are just given a little pointer or two, here, and I thought, "I can ask": Seems an unscary place! Cheers. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AukusRuckus, we do try to keep this an "unscary" place, and we try our best to give pointers to folks who come and ask questions (which is why I linked to the DR page) - but taking requests to go off and give pointers to other folks who haven't come and asked anything is a bit outside scope. I don't think anyone here wants to become the Teahouse Police Force.

Sometimes you'll run into editors who apparently can't be reasoned with; that's just the nature of the project, and you have to decide for yourself how far you're willing to push things before you just let it go. You're not the only one who'd rather drop an issue than venture into noticeboard land. 199.208.172.35 (a.k.a. 97.126.103.107) (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I quite understand. That's fair. I didn't want a police force, though. More a casual "Oh. I see where you may be a mixed up." "Reuters? Unreliable you say? Hmm, that's surprising ..."

It was more along the lines of alerting any interested parties to a rather large and easily-resolved inaccuracy, one that I do not feel up to tackling, newly introduced by a mildly-confused editor. An editor who may well be amenable to taking a second look at the WP:RS noticeboard, if asked by someone other than me. A little orientation guide to understanding a WP discussion was what I hoped for, not for anyone to step into a dispute. It is what I would do myself, if they did not think I was horrible. I suppose I was asking for a sub!

I am going to try a very gentle query one more time, and leave it there. Thanks for your replies. (Not sure if you're one or two users) AukusRuckus (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just one user under many different numbers, @AukusRuckus. This sounds like a situation you could try resolving with WP:3O (assuming you've already attempted a discussion on one or more of the talk pages). It's quicker and more informal than other methods, and it's sort of what you were hoping for in terms of calling in a sub. It's possible the sub may not end up agreeing with you, but at least they'll be an experienced editor who can give an opinion based on policies and guidelines. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were one and the same. Thank you, they're very good ideas, but I'm not sure even the relatively low-key 3O is the right venue to get someone to take another look at their misreading of WP:RS Noticeboard.

I appreciate you bearing with my massive externalised thought process, though. Maybe I'll come back to it another day, or someone else may have edited it by then. Cheers, AukusRuckus (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AukusRuckus We certainly don't limit ourselves to only answering question from "newcomers", though that does tend to be our main focus. Anyone can ask an editing-related question here at any time, and I have done so myself when stuck at times. And you are always welcome to do that, too. It's more that your question is a bit off-topic, as the IP suggested.

Sometimes (assuming you don't want to go down WP:THIRD or WP:DRN routes) it can be best to leave things to cool down, and maybe even wait for other evidence to emerge. One saying that I use at home a lot is "you didn't hear me thinking". I've not checked, but it helps to ensure the logic of any argument you want to make is laid out clearly for all to see, rather than making assumptions that someone else understands something. Taking it step by step, you might be able to win your argument. I assume that in all other respects, the other person is behaving acceptably? It's certainly worth trying to keep out of WP:ANI unless you feel strongly about an issue of behaviour. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick, I think I'm wasting so many good people's time way more than I meant to. It was only a mistake on the other editor's part. We're not in a dispute, although we've been in plenty before.

I am not going to do more. Someone will pick it up at some stage. Because the editor now believes the WP:RS noticeboard has decided Reuters is a " bad source" and has removed article material accordingly, I thought it an easy, low-labour, fix for someone to say to said editor "Are you sure that's what it says?", before they start removing dozens, or hundreds, of claims sourced to Reuters. I know they will not take a gentle hint from me.

Your observation about "thinking" at someone is spot-on. Great saying, I think I'll pinch it! It raised a smile for me, both in amusement and recognition.

In this case, the only argument that really needs to be made is whether WP:RS Noticeboard has actually declared Reuters a bad source or not. An easily-established point, but not one that can be demonstrated by me to that editor, in any way. Hence, my hope that someone not anathema to the editor could point out what the the noticeboard actually says re Reuters. There is nothing else at issue. Confused editor believes Reuters-sourced material is deprecated, those with a little more savvy in navigating the RS noticeboard know what the RSN actually says: "a generally reliable source".

It would make me laugh, if I were crying less! Thanks for listening, and for the saying I am stealing for use at my house. You always give such nice responses. Cheers, AukusRuckus (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AukusRuckus, please be aware that the Thomson Reuters Foundation is a charitable organization that is different from the commercial Reuters news agency. Material published by the foundation should be attributed to the foundation, not to the news agency. Cullen328 (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget

Is there a gadget that can see the revisions and the creator of the article (aside from the history section)? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For details like the creator, you can click on the page information link, which is located on the left-hand menu under tools. But I am not aware of any other gadget. Kpddg ^(talk) 12:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SeanJ 2007, and welcome to the Teahouse. Further to Kpddg's suggestion, you should go to View History tab and use the Page Statistics link to an xtools link. Thus for Mont Blanc massif you'd only get just this with the Page Information link in the left-side Tools bar, but you'd get this much better report thith the Page Statistics link. It shows you the most active editors, how many each one made, plus a chronological breakdown of when edits were made and the changes in page views per year. In additoin the header of the report shows you when and who the first and latest edits were made by, the article's status, the total number of views over the last 60 days, plus the number of other articles that link to it. All in all, pretty useful. Was there anything missing from that that you wanted? Nick Moyes (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing this; I had thought that xtools only had information about a user! Kpddg ^(talk) 13:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SeanJ 2007, you might also find the mediawiki browser extension Who Wrote That useful. It adds a "who wrote that" item to the left menu on article pages. After you click it, you can select any text in the article to get a pop-up that tells you which editor added that text and when, while also highlighting all other text by that editor in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SeanJ 2007: if you want the creator and creator revision there is a gadget that does that. Go to Preferences > Gadgets > Appearance and scroll down to the last entry, entitled 'XTools: dynamically show statistics about a page's history under the page heading' check it and Save. It also provides other stats; here's an example:

3,101 revisions since 2002-07-17 (+4 hours), 1,185 editors, 335 watchers, 40,875 pageviews (30 days), created by: ExampleUser (11,197) · See full page statistics

with pretty much everything linked. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nation Creditworthiness?

what's the rationale to keeping GDP and other measurements as a sole indicator to identify creditworthiness for countries to avail external loan? is there any justice to applying this principle on least developed nations seeking funds because obviously their GDP's and other socio-economic indicators would be below global average? how do world banks or other foreign financiers fund them based on? Grotesquetruth (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Grotesquetruth, welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? If you just want general information about economic principles, a better place to ask would be one of the reference desks. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Check | url=value"

Hello Teahouse!

Apologies in advance for my newbie question, I'm attempting to cite the author page on a bookseller's website (Samtalent: Brutes) to add "writer" to the article: Bill Whitten, and keep getting a "Check | url=value" error. Should I change my formatting in the external links section? I'm currently using brackets around the url: [ http://example.com website: title]

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bill_Whitten&action=edit&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bill_Whitten&action=edit&section=4&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bill_Whitten&action=edit&section=5&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro

Thanks for your time!

- DN DemocratizeInfoNow23 (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DemocratizeInfoNow23: Which citation template are you attempting to use? Typically URL parameters just take the bare/naked URL and surrounding it in straight brackets with custom display text would be expected to produce an error. Could you please clarify how you're doing it? Feel free to use < nowiki></ nowiki> tags (without the spaces) to put full markup of the citation/reference in so we can see what's going on. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've fixed the faulty url in your top citation by simply removing the double curly brackets around that url within the reference template. As you've used it in the lead, it's generally not OK to include it in the External links section as well, so I have removed the second use of it. I didn't fully understand the website you linked to - doesn't look much like a bookseller to me. It may be that the citation is not needed in the lead (it certainly doesn't support him being a musician), and that you return it to the WP:EL section. If the bookseller isn't also the publisher, then it's probably not appropriate to include it there anyway. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the link, Nick Moyes. I appreciate it and I appreciate hearing that it's not sufficient, I'll find a better better one. I know he's been publishing prose for several years but is better known for his music career. I'll do some more research. DemocratizeInfoNow23 (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DemocratizeInfoNow2, and welcome to the Teahouse. You're right that the way to write an external link is the URL in brackets, with (optionally) a space and then a title. But that is for a bare URL link: if you're using a citation template, then the 'url' parameter takes just the URL, not a title or brackets.

However, I am a little concerned at what you are trying to do. Frankly, the fact that he has a written a book that is available on a mate's website is not enough for Wikipedia to call him a "writer" (since anybody can do this). Unless you can find a reliable independent source that refers to him as a writer, I think that description should go. ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the quick replies! It's been a while since I've edited and I'm still learning, obviously. Good to hear that that link isn't sufficient to establish him as a writer. As far as I know he's published short stories for about a decade and I was citing his first book there. I'll do some more research, and find a better link. I'll use that independent source article as my guide. DemocratizeInfoNow23 (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colin, yes, all of the replies I've gotten agree with you, I'll do more research and find a better representation of his writing career. DemocratizeInfoNow23 (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to improve article to demonstrate significant coverage

I drafted a Wikipedia on the Zefania XML Bible markup language ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zefania_XML ). There is already a German-language article on this topic ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zefania_XML ). My initial submission was rejected due to it not having "significant coverage." I've subsequently added further sources referring to it. While it may not be referenced extensively on Wikipedia, there are hundreds of Bible translations and several applications that are in or that use this format (most are not in English and are intended for a German-language audience and/or for underrepresented groups that have limited Bible resources in their languages), which is no longer publicly documented (the associated domains have expired and I had to use Archive.org and study XML examples to learn the knowledge presented in this article). This article will help preserve this information and serve as a resource to consult for those who wish to learn more about this format which is actively used to distribute Bible translations globally. What else can I do to improve this article (if anything)?

QoheletIO (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@QoheletIO: Have you clicked the link behind "significant coverage"? It would have told you that what matters is if there are reliable, independent sources that describe the subject at length. The fact that there are hundreds of Bible translations [using it] does not matter one bit, and Wikipedia does not care that this article will help preserve this information and serve as a resource to consult - use another site for that. Conversely, the fact that said sources are hard-to-find / defunct, or not in English, is not a problem. (Plenty of good sources are print-only, for instance.)

I have not checked your sources carefully, but I am not optimistic those will suffice. Please note that documentation produced by the developers of the language would fail the "independent" prong of the test for sources that support notability.

If you cannot find sources that demonstrate significant coverage, please read Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability (the title of the page gives away the main message). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, QoheletiO, and welcome to the teahouse. While it sounds as if your purpose is very worthwhile, unfortunately, help preserve this information and serve as a resource to consult for those who wish to learn more about is not part of the purposes of Wikipedia. If it hasn't already been written about in realiabnle independent sources, then Wikipedia will not cover it. ColinFine (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everyone! This was helpful. I've made significant edits to the article to demonstrate significant coverage within the applicable domains and to even incorporate some criticism of the format by a notable individual within the field. I appreciate your assistance. ~ QoheletIO (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Contents Page

I have been trying to make a new contents page in my sandbox. I would like to left-justify the headings and their content so that it looks better. I've tried to do it myself, but I had no luck. I was wondering if you could what lines of code I need to add in order to accomplish this task or find someone that is good with graphic design to do it for me. Interstellarity (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Interstellarity: The template {{Intro to single}} defaults to center alignment. Add |align=left to change it to left alignment. RudolfRed (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,

Done Interstellarity (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Business on wiki

I have recently noticed that a car park business NCP have shot up on the google listings by in large for having a wiki page National Car Parks - Wikipedia, as a competitor a small business running for over 30 years when I set up a wiki page it is deleted as it is advertising a business. This seems unfair as NCP are gaining an advantage which I cannot compete with. How can they set up a page with the history of the business but we cannot? SAPEDI (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse SAPEDI NCP almost certainly didn't set up "a page" we call them articles not pages and they are usually created by people who have no connection with the topic, drawing on what reliable have reported. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business. Please see WP:NCORP for the criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The NCP 'article' is clearly promoting the business, anything with a weblink is a clear promotion of a page talking about services, current operations and locations. SAPEDI (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so then it will need tidying up, but the fact that other poor quality articles exist won't help you promote your business. Theroadislong (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed much of the promotional content atNational Car Parks please let us know if there is more. Theroadislong (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: Apologies for barging in, however taking a look at the article, the lead sounds very promotional. Mainly where it says "with over 150,000 spaces across more than 500 car parks in towns, cities, airports, London Underground and National Rail stations" which just sounds like something you'd hear in a commercial. I attempted to change it however I couldn't figure out how to make it not sound so promotional without just completely axing that part which would just leave the lead with "National Car Parks (NCP) is a private car park operator". ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The " 150,000 spaces across more than 500 car parks" part isn't sourced anywhere so should probably be removed. Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: Alright. The only reason I"m keeping it is because it'll make the lead incredibly short. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb Source

Hi! My draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Val_Galaktionov) got reviewed and was declined for a few reasons. The first reasons I will edit and correct, but I'm not quite understanding the other reason, which claimed that IMDb is considered an unreliable source. However, I saw other Wikipedia articles use IMDb as a source, such as (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behzad_Abdi) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Britten). What should I do? Can I leave the IMDb source? If yes, will my draft be deleted? Jesusgreaterthanall (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jesusgreaterthanall; welcome to the Teahouse. IMDB is not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards because virtually anyone can edit IMDB pages with minimal editorial oversight or fact-checking. Usually IMDB is appropriate for use only in the "External links" section of a given article. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 16:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but then is it alright to leave the sentence mentioning IMDb without citing IMDb in the references? Jesusgreaterthanall (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, I would say no - not only is that still using IMDb as a source, which as has been said is discouraged, but it runs afoul of verifiability issues. Remember that citations are a crucial part of Wikipedia articles. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 16:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the sentence from Behzad Abdi, thanks for the heads up. Theroadislong (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Thank you! Jesusgreaterthanall (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria

Hello!

Currently i am working on a draft of Abbas Haider (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Abbas_Haider_(businessman)) the CEO of Aspetto, it was recently came into speedy deletion, after argumentative discussion i was able to save the page and now its move to draft space. As it was my first draft, i paid intense concentration on Wikipedia community guidelines, the page was backed up by major and neutral resources, Such as Wsj, Forbes, mary washington and others. I really want to know, is forbes 30 under 30 is a notable criteria for wikipedia? As i have seen page of Trishneet aroora, his page is all backed up with notability of forbes 30 under 30. Furthermore, his page was also came into speedy dleetion criteria, but he fought back to make it live. Please guide me!

Thanks

WforWriter (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Abbas Haider (businessman) Here is the draft link. WforWriter (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WforWriter: You can include it, but since it is all related to his role at Aspetto, I'm not sure it pushes the notability needle. Personally, I look to see if someone is notable for more than just being the CEO of a single company, to meet our notability standards. If the company is huge and gets very much media coverage, along with coverage of the CEO, then that's different. What I see is a decent sized company that meets notability from the shown coverage, but not enough for Haider to have his own article. It's likely WP:TOOSOON. You might consider putting some of his info in a "Founder" section of the Aspetto article, until there's more coverage to do a standalone "fork" article just about him. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google vs Bing search

Hi, two of the entries I created don't appear in google search, but they appear in bing search, and I created them more than 100 days ago and they already been reviewed. I mean Hadar Gad and Noam Omer, How is that ? Tzahy (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tzahy, and welcome to the Teahouse. Hadar Gad was makred as "reviewed" on 2 July. We have no control over what Google (or any other search engine) does thereafter. ColinFine (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ColinFine, I thought that maybe there is a bug in the system that can be fixed ? I'm a technophobe and totally ingnorat in wiki code. I just proud of most of the articles what I edited or co-edited (apologize for my hubris) and wants people to know about them if they search. I created Noam Omer in 18 November 2021. Tzahy (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tzahy I don't know if this changed since you posted, but both appear to me when I google. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, of course I checked just before I asked in the Teahouse (first time here), I wouldn't bother you for nothing, they doesn't appear in my google search, very strange. Tzahy (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tzahy: I get the WP article as the second result (after only the artist's own Web site) for Noam Omer, and the WP article as the fifth result for Hadar Gad. Deor (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Deor. Tzahy (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found the problem and the solution: I'm from Israel and in my Google search definition the prefered language was Hebrew, once I changed it to English I see the entries, I wasn't aware of that; thanks to you all. Tzahy (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tzahy. I have an editing suggestion for you. The lead section of Hadar Gad is way too short and the lead section of Noam Omer is way too long. The lead section should summarize the most important parts of the body of the article, but it should not include any information that is not covered in the body of the article. Please read WP:LEAD for more information. Cullen328 (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cullen328, I will do that, I wrote myself a notice to read it, but I'm not sure if it will be done in the next two weeks. Tzahy (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Concern

Is the MarTech (Marketing Technology) industry notable to write about? BroMonkey54 (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BroMonkey54, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is the same as for any other subject: if (and only if) it meets the criteria in notability - which generally means that there are several reliably published and independent sources which discuss it in some depth. Are there any textbooks on it? If so, are they published by somebody who isn't involved in the industry? Alternatively, are there several academic papers on it (but they would need to be more than somebody writing up what they have done in the field)? ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BroMonkey54. I found a book called Technology and Innovation for Marketing, published by Taylor & Francis, which appears to be a reliable source. There are other similar books that show up in a Google Books search. Cullen328 (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an existing article called Marketing automation. Cullen328 (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded an article 1 year ago and have not heard anything

In June of 2021 I uploaded an article. I was told to wait 6 months for a response. It had been more than a year. How can I check on its progress? Thanks Senyi84 (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This account has no edits anywhere aside from this edit. Also article are not uploaded, but what was the title of said "article"? PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it appears you uploaded a resume to commons. In any case it's not appropriate for Wikipedia or Commons. Please see WP:YFA and WP:42 PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many similar articles describing historically significant Martial Artists (see Li Ziming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ziming). I think it is something readers would find intersting. Senyi84 (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Senyi84: The article you mention has similar issues to your upload; I might have to nominate it for deletion. There certainly are notable martial artists, for example Ip Man. But not every martial artist qualifies for a Wikipedia article – even if they have achieved local fame. Read the links Praxidicae provided above for you, to get an idea. --LordPeterII (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How long do I have to wait for my drafts to be accepted?

I wrote some drafts and immediately they refused it, I added the references, which was what they asked to do, but I never got any answers ANGELA BIDOIA (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]