Wikipedia:Teahouse

Finnusertop, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

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.

Help Wikipedia

Bare URLS

Hi Wikipedia,

I would like to help chip away at this list by converting bare URLS. Here is an example of what I converted. Did I do this correctly? Is this enough to remove the "Bare URL" notice from the top of the article? Or should this remain on the aritcle for any reason? I want to make sure I'm doing this correctly before diving in. Thank you in advance for sparing a few moments of your time. B8dreamlife (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@B8dreamlife yes, you did it right. But only remove the bare URL notice if all of the bare refs in the article are removed. Rlink2 (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate your reply, thanks. B8dreamlife (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources for page about a scientist - what if the newspaper articles are really inaccurate?

Hello! I'm not sure where to put this so I put it here. If there's a more useful place, by all means point it out or move this.

There's a bit of a difficulty about the Royal Rife page - the section about his life and work, not the section about the various alternative health devices that claim to be based on his work.

The story goes back to the 1920s and 1930s, and there's a shortage of reliable sources. Some of the sources available are:

• Large archives of original documents at https://rife.de/ , https://rife.org/ and https://www.rifevideos.com/ - very extensive and providing lots of information about the nature of the research and who did what to whom when, but they're possibly disqualified as primary sources.
• Write-ups based on these documents on the same websites. Secondary sources, but possibly disqualified as self-published, and rife.de and rifevideos.com are possibly also disqualified as having conflicts of interest because their authors fund the websites by selling modern "Rife machines" and/or accessories for them.
• One lousy journal article (the man seems to have hated publishing anything properly!) - a primary source, but already on the page, for want of anything else. There are also a few other bits and pieces including a letter in Science from the then head of the Mayo Clinic, published in the 26 August 1932 issue https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.76.1965.192 .
• Contemporary newspaper articles, from sources including the San Diego Evening Tribune, the San Diego Union, the New York Times and Popular Science magazine.

By normal Wikipedia rules it seems that the newspaper articles should be preferred over the documents or the websites, as they're secondary sources and apparently reputable. However, in some places, they seem to be just plain garbled. As journalists sometimes do when faced with science that's above their pay grade, they seem to have got a lot of things mixed up. For instance, the Popular Science article https://books.google.com/books?id=9CcDAAAAMBAJ&q=Germs . Comparing it to the archive documents shows that the supposedly newly discovered and mysterious "green ray" described at the end of the article is actually a very confused description of Rife's usual method of using an inert gas discharge tube (this one filled with krypton possibly, by the colour) as an antenna to transmit ordinary radio waves.

What do you usually do if the secondary sources are really inaccurate? Do they still have to be used in preference to primary sources? Wombat140 (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Wombat140. The current version of the article makes it clear that Rife was a fringe theorist and so Wikipedia:Fringe theories is the guideline that should shape the article. Anything published by Rife and his followers should be treated with extreme caution and used in a very limited way. As for Popular Science, I used to read it for fun as an adolescent in the 1960s, but it never has been a high quality source for citing in an encyclopedia, especially regarding fringe theories. How many times have they predicted that flying cars and personal submarines would soon be commonplace? Far better to have a brief, properly referenced article about a figure like Rife, than a longer article that is poorly referenced. Quality is much more important than quantity in cases like this. Cullen328 (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. That doesn't really seem to get me anywhere, though. What kind of "quality" sources would you recommend? As I say, Wikipedia: Independent sources suggests that newspaper reports normally rank higher than some of the sources available, but in this case, many of the newspaper reports appear to be demonstrably not as reliable as some things that would be lower down the food chain. (The San Diego Union and San Diego Evening Tribune ones seem not to have as many provable factual errors, but they seem to have adopted him as a local hero somewhat and don't look very NPOV).

As I say, it seems to be difficult just to get references for basic details of who did what to whom and when. The outline of what happened seems to be that Rife and his team committed the basic scientific offence of rushing into production - with an alleged cure for cancer, of all explosive things - based only on animal studies and one informal 16-patient pilot study that was so badly documented that it couldn't be published, and the AMA understandably came down on it like a ton of bricks. But I can't even find references for that, other than the various archive websites! It's ridiculous - Rife and his research seem to be notable enough, discussed at length all over the Internet and providing the excuse for a large and profitable branch of alternative medicine, but people editing the page had difficulty finding reliable sources for so much as when he was born or where he studied.

The archive websites include internal correspondence, lab notes, etc. from Rife's lab and interviews with various people who knew him and/or worked with him, by the way, not just things that were released to the press. Wombat140 (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Wombat140, as Wikipedia editors, we simply do not care about and are obligated to ignore what unreliable sources "all over the internet" say about the topic. Like separating wheat from chaff, you must separate the reliable sources from those that aren't. Summarize the reliable ones and if the article seems less complete to you as a result, that is an illusion. Cullen328 (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328, I'm referring to how notable it is, not to using the discussions "all over the Internet" as sources. However, on checking the "Notability" page again, I see that Wikipedia doesn't seem to use the word "notable" the same way it usually seems to be used in English - rather than "well-known", it seems to mean "well-documented". And Rife is well-known, but not well-documented. Still left with this puzzle of whether to prioritise inaccurate secondary sources over apparently more accurate primary ones! Wikipedia seems to work on a basis of documenting what other people are saying - but does that extend to even if the other people are saying things that demonstrably aren't true? (Example that doesn't rely on those archives: the Popular Science article currently used as a reference shows a micrograph of a hookworm hatching, taken by Rife, labelled "12,000x". Looking up the size of a hookworm egg shows that they meant 1,200x).

By the way, would you call this a primary or a secondary source? It's somebody else (head of the Mayo Clinic) reporting on Rife's microscope work, but it's only one person. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.76.1965.192 Wombat140 (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Wombat140, you say that Rife is well-known, but not well-documented but that seems like a strange formulation to me. Well-known to who? I am a 70 year old American, fairly well-read, have a university degree and pretty wide ranging interests. I have 43,000 Wikipedia pages on my watchlist, have been an active editor for over 13 years, and I had never heard of this person before you posted here about him. I have been reading about Royal Robbins since the 1970s but not this guy. I see that the New York Times has only discussed him once, and that was in an article published 91 years ago, and the article was primarily about his microscope, not about him. Similarly, the 1932 Science article that you linked to above seems to be much more about his microscope than about Rife as a person. You are much more familiar with the source material than I am, but I cannot help noticing that the current version of the article says, Little reliable published information exists describing Rife's life and work. If that is accurate, then perhaps the best solution is to have an article about his controversial microscope rather than an article about Royal Rife as a person. Worth noting is that Wikipedia has very stringent requirements for referencing any biomedical claims, which can be found at WP:MEDRS. Cullen328 (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, the notion that the best sources for things that happened 90 years ago are newspaper articles published back then is incorrect. Recent books published by university presses or academic publishers are far better. Recent peer-reviewed articles published in respected academic journals are far better. There have been outstanding scholarly books published in recent years about the history of microscopes. Here is an example. What do 21st century experts say about Rife's instruments? Cullen328 (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there a shortened footnote with a linked title?

I'm searching for a citation like {{sfn}} that shows not the author(s), but the title. Does it exist? Gyalu22 (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Gyalu22: Have you read Template:Sfn#No author name in citation template? Does it answer your question? Deor (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, {{harvid}} is what I'm searching for, thanks! Gyalu22 (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the list of links currently?

I noticed that the list of links in and out of articles on the English wikipedia currently has many links that are not actualy in the article. As an example: the article Polar bear is reported to have about 800 (!) links. Try this API link: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/api.php?action=parse&page=Polar%20bear&prop=links%7Cimages%7Cdisplaytitle&format=json&origin=*. Many of these links seem to be other mammals that are not mentioned in the article, like for example African Wild Dog. The African Wild Dog article also mentions Polar Bear under "What links here". What is going on? Known bug? Something related to categories?

I noticed the same sort of issue for all articles about clothing. Like Raincoat supposedly links to Jeans, while it doesn't.

Teunduynstee (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Teunduynstee This is an artefact of the use of {{Clothing}} template, for example, in the Raincoat article and the Carnivora one on the Polar bear article. That's where all the links are contained that aren't in the main article's text. There is a search you can use to find "real" links but I forget the technicalities. I'm sure someone else will reply in a bit.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I remember now. Go to the "what links here" page for the article and tick "hide transclusions". Then the links that are left are the article-to-article links only. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC) No, that's not the correct way to do it!

I see. So it is intentional. All articles using one of those templates link to all others. I don't quite see the value of that compared to using a Category, but maybe I just don't understand the use case. But is there a way to get only the direct links from the API? Teunduynstee (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

These are the sorts of questions that PrimeHunter normally answers in a flash. Hopefully, he'll do so now. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Teunduynstee: You may try searching for a specific wikilink code in the article body with a regular expression:

insource:/\[\[[Pp]olar bear/

→ https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%2F%5C%5B%5C%5B%5BPp%5Dolar+bear%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1

Be aware regex search may be time-consuming, so you may need to wait for a result, or even not get it at all due to HTTP timeout.

--CiaPan (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Teunduynstee Ah! Yes, now I remember it properly. You can prevent the timeout by combining the regex search with a conventional one. For example in this case the articles that link to Polar bear will have the word "bear" so insource:"bear" insource:/\[\[[Pp]olar bear/ should always be fast. In fact it gives 182 hits Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Your search link (not the displayed search text) includes </code> so there are too few hits. @Teunduynstee: User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js makes the link Source links under "Tools" on Polar bear. I think you also have to make a search to find source links with the API. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Duh. Trust me to give the wrong right answer! 1,245 hits it is, then. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

My script uses linksto: to efficiently narrow the search space from the start. Without this, the search may time out and give no or too few results. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

That is awesome, this should be enough for me to solve my issue. Thanks all! Teunduynstee (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

IS this identity request a spoof?

HI, I just got this email. I can easily provide identification, but this just seems off to me. Was this really sent by wikipedia? And yes, I do have an article in wikipedia, but that is because I love my field and I have been active in it for over 35 years. I do not and will not edit my own article. I am leading a group to help clarify and extend the articles in my field. Thanks for your verification on this.

Here is the email I got. As your user page claims the identity of someone who has an article, please verify your identity by sending proof to Info-en@wikipedia.org This is to prevent impersonation, so please take care of this in a timely manner. Slywriter (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC) LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter: Pinging Sly since they are mentioned. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a legitimate message, but Slywriter, this is only usually an issue if they attempt to edit about themselves and/or have their name as their username. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

331dot, review the wikiproject they have created which includes in the list their article and is how I noticed. So, while they can say they will never edit their article, the wikiproject is directly related to their former profession and includes themselves in the scope. Also don't think we should be leaving user pages as a backdoor to claiming an identity of a notable person without verification, though if policy disagree there then so be it. Slywriter (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I am still in my field. I have wanted to update wikipedia for years, as my field is sorely underrepresented in wikipedia. We have about 15 folks in our field who are busy collating references, etc. Finally, I retired from my full time, 60 hour a week paying job, and now I have time to devote to this project (as well as writing my next book). I have been working with senior wikipedians, who have been extremely helpful and kind, to develop a project page where many people can help edit articles in my field.

What proof would you require for who I am and how would I provide that to the Powers That Be without providing any private information on a public channel?

Thank you LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@LoveElectronicLiterature, such information, if required, should go to WP:VRT (via email), not over any public channel. But it's not required from you at present by any of our policies. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

THank you. I did respond via email and I did put a conflict of interest statement on my user page, noting that I am not paid or compensated in any way, but I have been in the field for over 30 years. LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

LoveElectronicLiterature, sorry to have alarmed you. The message was posted to your user talk page, not an email (though I assume Wikipedia sent email notification about the posting). There may be a difference of opinion on whether verification is actually needed but I'd still take the position it is better to establish now, rather than have it questioned down the line when someone takes issue with an edit and sees a gotcha moment. Slywriter (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

You might want to use less authoritative-sounding phrasing when there could be a difference of opinion involved. I found this Talk message extremely creepy, and it wasn't even directed at me! I've received obvious phishing emails that raised fewer alarm bells. -- asilvering (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Um, is this directed at me or at Slywriter? I can use a less authoritative sounding message as well... I do want to be a respected member of wikipedia and follow all guidelines. Thank you for any advice you can give me to help our project succeed. LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Asilvering LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@LoveElectronicLiterature: Hello. I believe Asilvering's comment was direct at Slywriter :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Writer

How can I find an experienced writer to create a page for me? 2601:14A:8201:47E0:8C30:3265:3867:F2A1 (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. We prefer the term "article" instead of page- this is a subtle but important distinction. If you are referring to off-wiki efforts, we can't help you there other than to say anyone who edits about you/for you would need to declare a conflict of interest and, if you compensate them in any manner, declare as a paid editor. On-wiki, you can make a request at Requested Articles, but the backlog there is severe to the point of uselessness. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm guessing that "a page for me" means "an article about me or about something I do". If so, please note that

1. An article about you or about an activity of yours is possible only if the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability: roughly, that several people wholly unconnected with you, and not prompted or fed information on your behalf, have chosen to publish with significant coverage of you or your activity.
2. If you or your subject meets those criteria then an article is possible. You, or somebody on your behalf, are permitted to write it, but discouraged from doing so, because your conflict of interest is likely to make it hard to write in the required neutral manner.
3. An article about you or your endeavours will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, and may end up containing very different material from what you would like it to contain; it should be almost entirely based on what those independent sources say, not on what you or your associates say or want to say. Please see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.
4. There are plenty of people offering to write Wikipedia articles for payment (you probably won't find any of them via this page). None of them are in any way endorsed by Wikipedia: paid editing is tolerated, as long as they follow the proper procedures. Some of them no doubt are responsible, and will tell you that they cannot guarantee that an article they write will be accepted, or that it will stay in a form acceptable to you; many of them are scam-merchants.

ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

If you now decide to attempt article creation yourself, common advice is to register an account, and then put in time improving existing articles. This serves to educate you on Wikipedia practices. Then, see WP:YFA for a guide on how to create and submit a draft. David notMD (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Reference help

I've tried creating a page - Draft:2022 Memphis 901 FC season

I got a response back from a reviewer saying that "This draft has no references. Notability cannot be established without references." but I have references? I'm confused as to what I am missing. Tivo15 (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:2022 Memphis 901 FC season is the link to the draft. Karenthewriter (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I think this might have been automatic, based on the "unreferenced" tag. I've removed it. -- asilvering (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Asilvering @Tivo15 None of the current references are independent, all are published by the subject itself or close associates, thus they are of no use at all to prove the notability of the subject. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The references might be poor, but they're not entirely absent, which is what the "unreferenced" tag means and what the reviewer comment said. -- asilvering (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Does Ireland have post towns?

I've just been looking for a list of post towns in Ireland yet I can't find one.

All I've been able to find is this Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland where I have no idea what it's talking about.

The article Post town claims that Ireland has post towns in the opening sentence, however I suspect that is incorrect.

The UK goes Neighbourhood/Village > Post Town/City > County

Whereas Ireland seems to go Neighbourhood/Village/Town/City > County Danstarr69 (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Danstarr69. You'd do better posting this question at the Reference desk: the Teahouse is for questions about editing Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

authority file

May I ask a question about {{Authority control}}? In the source editing, "{{Authority control}}" is all that I find, but I don't yet understand how Wikipedia then finds the right information. Is it not necessary to provide more information like norm data (LC numbers and the like)? I also seek to understand how to provide the quick summary that shows up when you hover over a linked article name, like Al Jolson being "a Lithuanian-American Jewish singer, comedian, actor, and vaudevillian." Maybe you can help. --Melchior2006 (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Melchior2006, welcome to the Teahouse. I tweaked your post to make "{{Authority control}}" display. See Template:Authority control for documentation. It automatically pulls data from the Wikidata item for the article. Click "Wikidata item" under "Tools" in the left pane of the desktop site to see it. The text "Al Jolson was a Lithuanian-American Jewish singer, comedian, actor, and vaudevillian." is automatically picked from the start of Al Jolson by mw:Page Previews. The feature may skip some things like text in parentheses. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of Article

There's an article called Global Recognition that has poor writing, the sources are bad news articles and blog posts, and it's an orphan article. I read through the guidelines for content deletion but I'm not sure if these criteria are sufficient. Pseudnaxalbari (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@pseudnaxalbari: not sure what you're talking about. searching for "Global Recognition" gives these results. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 14:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Lettherebedarklight I believe @Pseudnaxalbari is referring to Global regionalization instead. Jolly1253 (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

yes I am talking about Global regionalization. Sorry! Pseudnaxalbari (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@pseudnaxalbari: yes. global regionalization is definitely a candidate for deletion. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 15:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Should we flag it as such, then? In the template message? Pseudnaxalbari (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@pseudnaxalbari: there are quite a few steps to nominating a page for deletion, see WP:AFDHOWTO. or do you want me to do it? lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 05:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

No I'll try to do it myself Pseudnaxalbari (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

do FEC Filings count as running for (re)election?

Hi, I have an issue regarding This page.

It says that Senator-elect Fetterman has had his intent for running for reelection unknown.

HOWEVER, according to FEC Filings, he has already filed to run for reelection in the 2028 pennsylvania senate race (see: https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/S6PA00274/1661811)

Does filing an FEC notice count as a message of intent of running for election? Littlepagers (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You might want to ask on the talk page of the article itself, but I would say no, as anyone can file something with the FEC saying they are running(countless people do so to run for President). It's standard procedure to make that filing so it's out of the way, they usually decide later. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Help to Address NOV, COI and Notability Notifications

Hi Teahouse! I am writing for feedback on the draft article at Draft:Penelope McPhee. I got the following notifications that the neutrality is disputed, there may be a close connection to the subject and it may not meet notability guidelines. However, no specific reasons or sections of the article were given. Can you please provide actionable feedback or updates to improve the article to publish?

Updates have been made to try to address any neutrality disputes. I have not received money to write the article and do not have a personal relationship to the subject. In addition, it seems like the subject's work and awards as an author and television producer, and contributions to art, should meet the notability guidelines.

Thank you.

OmarLetson (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with my redirect?

I'm at a bit of a loss here. On Meridian CU, #REDIRECT is being interpreted as a list and is not creating a redirect. The wikitext here is no different from any other redirect I've looked at. Can anyone figure this out?

--Frogging101 (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

You used a non-breaking space instead of a normal one. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh. I copied from WP:REDIRECT and the non-breaking space was preserved. I edited that page to remove the non-breaking spaces to prevent future mistakes. Frogging101 (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

How to cite a PDF

Please, what template do I use in citing a PDF? Thanks. — Python Drink (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC) Python Drink (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not the format that matters, it's what it's a PDF of. If it's a PDF of an article in a journal, user {{Cite journal}}; if it's a PDF of a book, use {{Cite book}}; etc. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

And note that, unless the PDF is the only place that this is published, you are not "citing the PDF": you are citing the article, book, chapter or whatever, with the important information like title, date, author, publisher. As a non-essential convenience, you are also providing a link to where the text can be found online. ColinFine (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

How do you want the chronologies?

Is there a template I should be using for lists of works and essays? Should this be in reverse chronological order? In bullets? I have seen many different formats. Is there a prescribed way we should follow? If so, I'll fix everything I come across to that format. I would argue for reverse chronological, as that is much easier to read and update. Thank you LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@LoveElectronicLiterature, see WP:CHRONO. They should be in chronological order in an encyclopedia. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@LoveElectronicLiterature Whilst @StarryGrandma has correctly pointed you to guidance on how we order events (from earliest to latest) in an article, it might also be worth me pointing you to the last sub-section of this advice about Single article bibliographies from the WikiProject on Bibliographies. Bulleted lists are recommended. Tables could be used but, to be frank, they are a lot harder to edit and to update. You could choose either alphabetical or chronological order. Your choice may depend what your are trying to achieve by including that list of works. I don't recommend reverse chronological order - stick to earliest significant work first, then later significant works after that. Adding new works to the end is a simple task, and doing it that way best shows the subject's development of their publishing/writing achievements. Putting their latest work first is not a good idea, in my opinion. Don't include everything; a select list of carefully chosen bibliographic works is far better than a CV-type list of every little thing that they've ever done. Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. As I edit articles, I will reorder for the chronological order, first works first. I will also try to use bullets--I agree that tables are hard to edit. Are there specific templates for punctuation? I have seen many forms. Is this correct:

• Title, YEAR, any other information

@Nick Moyes LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

That format is quite common, yes. You could use citation templates, for example {{Cite book}}, {{Citation}}, or {{Vcite book}}. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Participate in more AfD's

I'd like to participate in AfD's and help out there if possible (as part of a pre-req too for NPP rights). Can anyone tell me where I would find a list of AfD's that I could participate in those discussions? TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

All of today's AfDs can be seen at WP:AFD/T, from where you can also click your way to other days' logs. There are also a great many deletion sorting lists at WP:DS. WikiProjects often maintain article alert systems as well. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Moops: Or you can go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, in which the "Current discussions" subsection contains links to each day's log of open AfD's and the "Old discussions (open)" subsection contains links to more-than-seven-day-old discussions that haven't been closed yet (often because the consensus is unclear and no admin has yet been willing to make a determination). Deor (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Citing a novel in its own page

Hello, im currently writing up a wiki page for a graphic novel, Susanna Moodie: Roughing it in the Bush (not to be confused with Roughing it in the Bush by Susanna Moodie), and want to use an authors note at the end in the page. the co-author of the book, Patrick Crowe, states his reasons for continuing the work after Carol Shields (the other authors) Death, as well as how the graphic novel came into being. Would it be appropriate to cite this in the article, or should i move on.

There is also a website made specifically for the book, and im unsure as to wether i can cite this either, ive added a link to it here HistVa (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @HistVa. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for your rather challenging question. I can't see from your contributions where you have been working on this wiki page. I assume you've done this offline?

My understanding from your question (and from some quick browser searches) is that you want to write an Wikipedia article about a novel inspired by the life of Susanna Moodie. If so, do you think the novel meets our 'notability criteria for books' which you can find at WP:NBOOKS? If it doesn't, then there is no point continuing. If it does, then it might be appropriate to cite an author's reason. But it very much depends on the context, and I simply can't determine that from what you've written here. We often find that new editors come here in order to promote their favourite subject (or book they've written) and it's important to remember that this is an encyclopedia of notable things, simply collating what people unconnected with the subject have authoritatively written about that subject. Anything else tends to be puffery. If there is a website created for the book, that link could go in External Links section. It will have been written/produced by the authors and thus overtly promotional, and not appropriate for citing directly. Just a link should suffice. Does that make any sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I realise my first post was a little brief so ill explain in a bit more detail.

I want to write a wiki article on a graphic novel by Carol Shields and Patrick Crowe. the graphic novel is titled "Susanna Moodie: Roughing it in the Bush", and is based on the life story of Susanna Moodie, focusing mainly on the part of her life covered by her own traditional novel, which is also called "Roughing it in the Bush" (It is a quite confusing naming scheme). They are two seperate works by seperate authors, and it is a fully published and printed graphic novel. I feel it meets notability criteria, as Carol Shields is a pulitzer prize winning author. the remaining authors reason for publishing the book is quite important, as it was actually released some time after Carol Shields death and was in part written in memorium of her. The only place i can find this described is within the book itself, in an Authors Note at the end HistVa (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

HistVa, one of the authors winning a Pulitzer prize (Carol Shields) isn't one of the notability criteria. Remember you will need to meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Basically, two or three reliable sources. More details at WP:GNG about what sources meet that standard.Sungodtemple (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

thanks, will look around some more HistVa (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

WHY WAS MY FACTUAL CORRECTION REJECTED?

I made a correction based on fact to the bio of Sergei Bortkiewicz which was rejected because the mediator considered it "unconstructive".The extract I corrected was From 1904 until 1914, Bortkiewicz continued to live in Berlin but spent his summers visiting his family in Ukraine. Since Ukraine did not exist until 1917, this is historically totally incorrect. Why therefore was my edit rejected ? 79.143.132.145 (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

ukraine, geographically. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 05:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for wanting to help improve Wikipedia. Your edit was unconstructive because it inserted an editorial comment into the article Sergei Bortkiewicz. Whether your point is valid or not (and how to refer to geographical locations whose affinities and names have changed is a perennial issue), leaving a comment that says "this is an error because ..." does not help a reader. The best thing to do is either to boldly change the text to what you think it should read, or to open a discussion on the article's talk page (in this case Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz). Please see WP:BRD for how this works. ColinFine (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

how about "in what is now Ukraine"? DS (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That sounds much better. David10244 (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

What's the criteria for someone being from a city?

I'm looking at the page for a city and some of the notable people listed were not born there and they didn't grow up there. Is it anyone who was notable and lived in the city for a certain amount of time? Thank you for your help, Tovanish (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Tovanish Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, those sections of articles about cities are for anyone associated with the city, be it being born there or some other type of connection. If you feel a person shouldn't be listed in such a section, please discuss it on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree this gets silly for professional athletes. Shaquille O'Neal played one season with the Boston Celtics, and Sudbury, Massachusetts (a Boston suburb) claims him as a notable resident for the year he lived there. David notMD (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I request to remove Draft:Sari Katha Article on Mainspace

It is a Tribe Draft Article. This is main purpose of We, the Santals are one of the largest homogeneous tribal communities of India, counting more than 10 million people. Apart from India, Santals live in the neighbouring countries, in Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan. Despite this geographical distance, Santals share the same language, cultural tradition and values. Santals’ social and religious system is very complex and complete in itself. Each village has five representatives who are selected by the village community through consensus to run the village. They are ‘Manjhi baba’ the headman, ‘Jog Manhi’ the assistant-headman, Naike, the priest, Paranik the youth guide, and Godet, the convener. All kinds of disputes, including any family and personal problems, are discussed in the village meetings and are settled through common consent. Golmala (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You need to submit your draft for review. Theroadislong (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

It appears you mean move your draft to mainspace, not remove your draft to mainspace. As Theroadislong advised, the proper path is to submit your draft to the reviewing process. David notMD (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Golmala What the draft is about is confusing. Is it about a Youtube channel? If yes, then all the content about the Santal people does not belong in the article. David notMD (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Golmala There is already an article about the Santal people in the encyclopaedia. Whatever topic you intend your draft to cover, you will need to show it is notable enough to merit a separate article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Golmala Encyclopedia articles should not use the word "we". Also, curly quotes. David10244 (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

User-created artwork on Hindu theology articles

Recently some fellow by the name of Chronikhiles has been making edits to several Hindu religion pages, adding artwork of various mythic figures; see Tarakamaya War,Rukmavati,Diti and several others. These images appear to be AI generated original artwork created by the user themself. I do not believe this is allowed, but I want to make sure before I start trying to revert the affected pages. Additionally, if such a thing is not admissible, I humbly request that someone with moderation powers talk to this user so that they stop making such edits. 174.45.253.17 (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

They are AI generated, yes, and released differently, according to the policies of the AI generator websites that were used to generate them. These pictures were generated by the Deep AI website and the Neural love website, and have been released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license according to this license the and policies of the first website, and under the CC0 license - public domain - as authorised by the second website. I do not believe that I am in violation of WP:IUP, but if I am, I am willing to comply with the removal of these images. Chronikhiles (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe you that the relevant images are admissible under copyright. However, your images appear to violate Wikipedia:No original research on the basis of "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments." As most of your artwork depicts mythological figures which have no likeness in historical artwork, they do not fall under the image policy and are thus subject to removal. StatersCollegeTagers (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

As editors, we have a natural pride in our work, whether it's writing, photography, or image-making. But the needs of our readers, and the importance of producing an accurate, well-balanced article must come first. Illustrations should follow the same rules as the text: they are there to inform the reader about the subject. It is appropriate to put pictures of historical artifacts, locations, important figures, pre-existing representations of deities, etc. in articles. This isn't really a copyright issue, it's a matter of which illustration serves the reader best. I'm afraid I feel strongly that these replacements weaken the article. Elemimele (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yup. Images like at Tara (Hindu goddess) can be used, but editor's own depictions are not WP-good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming that image is an "actual" statue and not something specifically designed for the giftshop. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Apparently there are more of these on en-WP. @Theroadislong, other interested, any thoughts on how to proceed? Chronikhiles, fwiw, I don't think there's anything wrong with you putting these on Commons, assuming they are your own work like you stated there and not someone elses. Commons have uses outside WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Noted. If this is indeed the consensus, I will remove the images from Wikipedia articles, retaining them in Commons. I find that some of the images I had included have already been removed, so if other editors also wish to take them down yourselves, you're welcome to do so. Chronikhiles (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I think would be good if you removed them yourself. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The AI generated images have been removed. Chronikhiles (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

And the ones like Bhoothath Alvar? The same reasoning applies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The pictures I've included in the Alvars articles do not fall under this same reasoning, so I must ask you to hear me out. For one, these are historical figures, not mythological. These are images clicked from a modern copy of an actual religious text, whose content revolves around the works of these poet-saints; They are not my depictions, and are published in print according to the author's rendering of these figures. The illustrations are faithful, as they inform the reader regarding the attributes these poet-saints are associated with, as well some of their religious legends. I believe they are as valid as the image of Tara that you mentioned. Chronikhiles (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

If they are not your depictions, why does [1] state "own work"? You can not upload other people's work on Commons as your own. If they are not released under a proper license, or in the public domain, they can't be there. And if they are, "own work" must be corrected. (Ping to @Marchjuly if you feel like commenting.) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's much more that I can add here. If the images are 100% the uploader's c:COM:Own work and they want to upload them to Commons under one of the free licenses that Commons accepts per c:COM:L, then they can. Further verification of copyright ownership may be needed per c:COM:VRT#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?, but that's about it. On the other hand, if the images aren't 100% the uploader's "own work", then they're going to need the c:COM:CONSENT of whoever created them per c:COM:VRT#If you are NOT the copyright holder. Any concerns over the copyright status of the images should take place on Commons per c:COM:D and c:COM:PCP since there's not much that can be done to resolve them here at the Teahouse. Now, let's assume that all of the images in question are uploaded to Commons and all the required consents are verified, there's still no guarantee that the images will ever be used in any Wikipedia articles. Commons is really only concerned with the copyright status of the files it hosts, whereas Wikipedia is also concerned with how images are being used. So, like text content, a WP:CONSENSUS may need to be established through article talk page discussion if one or more editors feels that the addition of the images to a Wikipedia article is not an improvement and removes them after they've been added. Any concerns about the contextual relevance of the images and their use in a Wikipedia article should take place on that article's talk page or possibly at WP:FFD since there's not much that can be done to resolve them here at the Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate placement

educated low road high stream to mid over e equals MC squared unmetered web portal firewall not found occupied resident. Future direction would be?.. 174.214.50.120 (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

If you have a question about using Wikipedia, feel free to ask it. -- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi there,

I made my first article some weeks ago and I started a page on a local person who died not long ago but my sandbox has a "re-direct" message. Can I delete this? what is it? https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:B%27art_homme/sandbox&redirect=no

Thank you

Barthomme

b'art homme 15:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B'art homme (talk • contribs)

I just removed it. When you moved your sandbox to article space last time, it left a redirect that you didn't remove when starting this draft. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Redirect page already exists

Hello, so I'm currently working on an article for Roblox Studio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Slo44/Roblox_Studio). There is already an existent redirect which goes to Roblox#Roblox_Studio.

I am planning on submitting my article to AfC later today, but what would happen if it gets accepted? Would this override the redirect page?

Also any feedback on my article would be appreciated, thanks! slo double 4 (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Assuming it was accepted as opposed to declined as redundant with the article on Roblox itself, it would overwrite the redirect. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 17:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. slo double 4 (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Password

Hi, I was using wikipedia a long time ago but forgot my password. could you please help me for this. I requested email to change password, but didn't receive any. 2001:1970:47DE:B700:0:0:0:DC57 (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Nobody on Wikipedia's end has access to your account password. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

How can I reset my password? 2001:1970:47DE:B700:0:0:0:DC57 (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

My username is: Rigolettoopera 2001:1970:47DE:B700:0:0:0:DC57 (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Rigolettoopera has not stored a password mail address in the account (this is optional). If you don't remember the password then you have to create a new account. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You mean email address? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

 AuthoritarianismRules56 (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @AuthoritarianismRules56, Welcome to Wikipedia! echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

AuthoritarianismRules56, an alarmingly high percentage of your edits have been reverted. Authoritarianism doesn't rule here; but even if an edit seems (or is) well-intentioned, if it seems to damage an article, it will be reverted. -- Hoary (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

what is a humming bird

humming bird 119.18.29.116 (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the teahouse! With questions like these, please use google, the wikipedia page for them or (for more compicated questions that you can't find the answer to) you can ask the reference desk. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Is my source assesment table wrong if so can someone provide me with an improved one

I made a wikipedia draft for the articles Draft:901 (PTV Bus) and Draft:903 (PTV Bus) after checking the sources on both articles I deemed both as notable as per the source assesment tables in Draft talk:901 (PTV Bus) and Draft talk:903 (PTV Bus) however both got declined just 2 days after submission.

I also do not understand how Draft:903 (PTV Bus) recieved "This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:ONEEVENT for more information." even through both articles were about two of melbourne's most used bus routes.

It would be great if anyone can help.

NotOrrio (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is about (x). You may be looking for (y)

What is the name of this template? Something better, what's the name of all templates like this? Oixyplanet (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Oixyplanet: Hello. It is generally called as hatnote. There are quite a few variations, you can find detailed information at Wikipedia:Hatnote. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, maybe Template:About. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:GA old articles

Has anybody noticed that the recent promotions section at WP:GA have been updated with decades-old GANs? Although there are many more, some I remember is White Dog (1982 film), promoted in 2009. It currently displays Stephen Lynch (politician) in recently listed good articles, which was promoted in 2011. Why is this? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 08:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Advices for a new page and a question about the Redirect page

I'm working on a new page that is in the Draft Space (Draft:Ghella). I'm searching for advices to improve the work and submit the final article.

I also ask you some info regarding the system of the Redirect page. The new article is about a company, but it has the same name of a cyclist (Mario Ghella). How can it works in this case? I think that the system consider the new page connected to Mario Ghella, but they have just the name in common.

Thank you! Ddanielff (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

If your draft is accepted for publication, the reviewer should resolve any ambiguity, either by using a disambiguation page or by hatnotes. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Phil Foden

Can I literally just change one word at the moment in the piece - the wording is wrong, I'm convinced. Should be appearances 'off the bench' not 'on the bench' surely? I did have an interest in this article because of his involvement in the FIFA World Cup. I just want to check first before I touch anything because he is quite a high profile player? PeachyBum07 (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I actually think technically it's right after all, reading through it again Phil Foden - Wikipedia PeachyBum07 (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Can I use "America" when referring to the United States outside of quotes?

Title. Would "the Vanderbilt family was one of America's richest families" be appropriate? Ricciardo Best (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ricciardo Best Yes, the word is commonly used like that. "William Jefferson Clinton (né Blythe III; born August 19, 1946) is an American politician"/"Robert Hartley was America's first consumer advocate" etc. There are people who consider this use wrong but it's still the way it's commonly used. Context matters and there may be times when other wording works too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

My Article Draft Declined

Hi, My recent Article Draft Declined On Praveen K bangari Indian Cinematographer, Stating that "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners"

can u help me to re edit this article< how to improve it to get approved and get in standards of Wikipedia, Thank You Bangariblue (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I have tidied it up to be more compliant with manual of style. It is also worth reading notability criteria which is currently fails. Someone might come along and give a helping hand, but as we are all volunteers here and there are millions of articles and thousands of drafts, they might not turn up very soon.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bangariblue Please read the guidance at WP:BLP which is the policy on such biographies. Every fact must be referenced by an inline citation to a reliable source (so not including IMDB) that is WP:INDEPENDENT of Bangari and covers him in some depth. It is unlikely that anyone other than you will put in the effort to find such sources and without them the article will never be accepted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

"Twinkle"

Good sirs:

I am seeing that some people are using a tag called "Twinkle" when they undo other people's changes. How do I get this tag? Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ghost of Kiev - WP:TWINKLE is a javascript gadget that you can install. See the link for details. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you good sir. You appear to be logged out. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ghost of Kiev, yes, I am certainly logged out. Please get out of the habit of addressing folks as "sir" by default - I recognize that you're trying to be police polite, but I am not a sir. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry comrade. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Ghost of Kiev for future reference, if you see an IP here that has a Whois relating to the Navy it is this person. They edit as an IP which is their choice. To my knowledge they don't have an account. (on Discord they are known as Tarlonniel(?) tho they may just prefer to be referred to as an IP here) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Folks are welcome to call me that if they like (technically I suppose I am User:Tarlonniel - I created that account years ago, no email attached, never used it and forgot the password), but I'm fine with whatever other designations folks come up with. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Never knew you actually created an account. That would explain the name. I'll probably refer to you as both Tarlonniel and as just "IP" ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this knowledge. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Different data mentioned in different links.

Hello, I made contributions to the page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Nepal_relations#Trade I found two sources that mention different numbers for the amount of electricity that has been authorised to sell. One link mentions 400MW - https://kathmandupost.com/national/2022/11/15/nepal-reduces-power-export-to-india-as-production-dips Another link mentions 364MW - https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/nepal-starts-exporting-364-mw-electricity-to-india/article65516780.ece

What should I do in such a conflict of data? Thank you. ANLgrad (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

If the two sources appear equally reliable, then you should give both numbers, cited to the appropriate source, and leave it to the reader to decide how they want to resolve the conflict. Note that if you round 364MW to 1 significant figure you get 400MW (I have no idea whether that is the issue here). ColinFine (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

How to delete an article

Hello friends,

I copy edited Slow Money, but when reading the article I got the feeling that the company is not all that important. I'm not sure that they should have a Wikipedia page. What is the way to get an article deleted? Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ghost of Kiev, you can find instructions to delete an article at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. It looks like a lot, but really all you have to do is add the deletion template to the article and then click the red link to create a deletion page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this knowledge. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Worldwide Weblog Access

Hello, All: I have metaverse concept sites (#twelve22vr) on LinkedIn and Facebook. I am impressed by the PV (impression) counts on LinkedIn; however, I cannot access Facebook personal profile data. I heavily use links to drive traffic to Wikipedia, worldwide. Is there a way to access and analyze web logs to gather referrer information?

Thank you in advance, Courtney @CourtneySCalhoun (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Should we spell out acronyms?

Hi, I see this in Dene Grigar's article: NEH But it reads as NEH only, and people may not understand that? What is the proper citation form for acronyms? Is there a style sheet I am missing? Thank you LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The relevant part of the Manual of Style is MOS:ACRONYMS, & specifically MOS:ACRO1STUSE. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

What we see in Dene Grigar is "NEH", coloured as a link, so that if a reader doesn't know what it means, they can click on it and find out. That seems fine to me. Maproom (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

why some wrote est in the box-office collections ,is all box-office collections in india are fakes ? especially and specifically in indian movies just like bollywood, telugu, and kannanda

 Sumancranebuddy21q00 (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing this refers to List of highest-grossing films in India, and is about some of the figures being listed as estimates. But the "estimation" was added three years ago in this edit, Somancranebuddy21q00. In any case an estimated figure does not mean it is fake. ColinFine (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I just want to know that is box-office collections in india are all fake ?

Hi Sumancranebuddy21q00, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid your question is very unclear. Who wrote that the box office numbers are fake, and where? Can you provide a link? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Sumancranebuddy21q00, "estimated" is not a synonym for "fake". They are very different concepts. Cullen328 (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Will conflict of interest make it impossible to publish an article of relative?

There is no financial interest. I would like to publish an article on my famous, deceased father in Law. A page for him would be a good fit for Wikipedia. Are there changes and steps to declare my conflict that would allow publication? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Edward_Eaton_Mason ParaDocs (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)