Wikipedia:Teahouse

jmcgnh, 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
1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243

Extended confirmed pages

I've almost edited 300 pages so far with my account! After I reach the 500 mark will I instantly be able to edit level 3 security extended confirmed articles or is there more to activating that privilege? Hgh1985 (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, once you reach 500 edits and have had your account for 30 days, you will gain extended confirmed user rights allowing them to edit those articles. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 01:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hgh1985, accuracy is really important here on Wikipedia. You have 240 edits, not almost 300 edits. Plus, you have been vandalizing in recent days. If you do not stop vandalizing forever right now, you will never receive extended confirmed status. I hope you take this warning seriously. Cullen328 (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will stop the "test" edits right now, but with all due respect I still feel like this is a threat, the way you wrote this message. Hgh1985 (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hgh1985, you can try to call your vandalism "tests" all you want but that does not change the fact that you repeatedly tried to damage the encyclopedia, just for the fun of it. Similarly, you can call my entirely legitimate warnings "threats" all you want. None of that changes the fact that I am an administrator, that you have been engaging in disruption, and that I will block you if I see any more bad behavior from you. Is that clear? Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Jim, if I stop the disruptive editing permanently and immediately, can you forgive me on a personal level as well? Yes or no Hgh1985 (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Time will tell. Cullen328 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hgh1985 Why were you making disruptive edits? What was the purpose? David10244 (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hgh1985 You admit the edits were disruptive here. On your Talk page, you dismissed them as accidental (you "could've swore" you undid each of them). Sonething doesn't add up. David10244 (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:David10244 - In view of the fact that this thread is about obtaining extended confirmed status, they were probably making the disruptive edits in order to game extended confirmed status. It does add up, because they are trying to get their edits to add up to 500. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon True... David10244 (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wow, nice constructive way to engage someone, sable rattling threats on blocks, and parading your administrator badge @Cullen328, sadly finding this attitude more and more often on wikipedia nice way to welcome newcomers, in the end this trend will wind up into 10-20 guys controlling the whole project Juanriveranava (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Juanriveranava. I guess that you think that an administrator should just refrain from commenting when an editor with a very recent history of overt vandalism asks about advanced permissions. Despite your speculative observations, Wikipedia remains a top ten website worldwide, because of its clearly productive policies and guidelines. Also, there are about 450 active administrators, not 10 to 20. And there are far more active, highly productive editors than that who provide input on issues like this. If we turn Wikipedia over to vandals, it will rapidly devolve into a steaming pile of crap. I will then resign, and you can become an administrator of garbage. Cullen328 (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Juanriveranava - Some editors read the guideline not to bite the new editors a little too expansively, and that appears to be what you have done. It means not to bite new good-faith editors, but User:Cullen328 was biting a new editor who had made some bad-faith edits. I am aware that reasonable editors can disagree as to how severely editors who engage in irresponsible play should be warned. I thought that the warning was appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cullen328 - I think that you lost your temper in biting a newbie, but I mean User:Juanriveranava. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 Don't even hint that actions like theirs would leave them in charge, and you not here...

I wish they would respond to my "why" question but I suppose there is no way to explain that. I believe @Robert McClenon is right, but I wanted to hear something from Hgh1985. He or she hasn't posted since their question at your Talk page (Cullen) on the 28th. Maybe they left. David10244 (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:David10244 - They have probably abandoned that account and are trying to game extended-confirmed status with a different account. Maybe they have already been working three or four accounts. When you say that there may be no way to explain it, you mean that there may be no good-faith explanation. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon Yes, that's what I meant. David10244 (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit this was just a question my bad, I didn't realize I would cause such a huge controversy Hgh1985 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No @Cullen328, sorry but now you're overstating me, and making speculative observations (speaking of) , what I meant is if you're so upset with said editor behaviour or because you spilled your coffee on the way back home does not grant you the right to mistreat anybody like that even if you co-founded the project or own the servers, being such a seasoned productive administrator I would expect more restraint and a didactic and assistance focused response, but thank you for showing me what kind of things to expect from the more veteran editors like you, I'll glady preside over crap if that means being able to engage in constructive dialogue, @Robert McClenon, I understand the guideline, but I tend to believe vandals usually don't ask for permission or guidance from administrators, if that doesn't shows a hint of good faith, then well I can have nothing else to say. @Cullen328 response wasn't called for, but hey you're free to excercise your almighty banning powers on me if that makes you feel better. 240 edits for non retirees, people like me with a day job that doesn't have much time to spare shows a little commitment at least, what's the whole point of allowing anyone to participate on editions if not, that response is counterintuitive to said policies and guidlines, and the defensive stance is counter productive. Juanriveranava (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Juanriveranava - You wrote: I understand the guideline, but I tend to believe vandals usually don't ask for permission or guidance from administrators, if that doesn't shows a hint of good faith, then well I can have nothing else to say. There are various types of vandals. If they ask for guidance from administrators, it may be because they are acting like good-faith editors in order to be mistaken for good-faith editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you @Robert McClenon I understand and appreciate the pointer, I'll try to balance what you said with this part of the policy; Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious might be from ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you are 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good Internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they are not. Remember that the apparent test editors have the potential to be tomorrow's editors. By giving a polite, honest and noncondemning answer to newcomers, you have the opportunity to teach them Wikipedia policy. By being calm, interested, and respectful, you do credit to your dignity, and to our project. cheers. Juanriveranava (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning an editor who has been vandalizing is not mistreatment. I have no reason to block you, Juanriveranava. Feel free to insult me all you want. I have thick skin. I do not block people to feel better. I block people only to protect the encyclopedia from disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if you feel insulted by my comment, just think how yours seem to a newcomer entering the teahouse. there might be 1 or 2 things you might need to work on yourself Jim, one of them is resilience to critique, now you're showing a non productive behaviour and I won't engage in this with you anymore, I made my point clear. have a nice day. Juanriveranava (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe those that want to tally up contributions for higher qualifications can limit those edits to things such as spelling or date styles? That way certain reflections can be avoided and we all can get back to editing in earnest instead of making things personal and petty.2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I was responsible for this entire sections dramatic controversy Hgh1985 (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious Quesions

I have known that when an editor asks about when an article that they have created will show up on Google searches, they are almost certainly a conflict of interest editor who is trying to game the system of reviewing and indexing and New Page Patrol. I think that we have identified another area of questions that should be cause for concern, that if a new editor asks about extended-confirmed status, they are likely to be trying to game extended-confirmed status. I think that experienced editors should be aware that we do not need to assume good faith in these cases. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to make the links vanish in the final.

I have to quote a lot of hyper links, I give the links, it appears on the page with an icon which when clicked gives the image. I need only the icon. The link can vanish. For that what to do? Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Regarding the draft in your sandbox, you should not be including hyperlinks to images. Before you do anything else please read and understand WP:COI, WP:RS, and Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons which tells you how to embed a Wikimedia Commons image into an article. I also strongly suggest you remove the picture of your identiy card from your talk page. It proves absolutely nothing and enables anyone in the world to use it for their own purpose. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pinging @Sreejit TK Ramchand, you should REMOVE the image of your identity card from your Talk page as Shantavira recommends. Should one of us editors do that for safety? David10244 (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do it for me. Thanks a lot. I am an old fellow aged 91. I have my own limitations. Further I do not know how to remove it. thanks. Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I request some one to come forward to create the article BHARATHI, The New Script. I am not boasting myself. It is a real fact that BHARATHI is a ery good script. Once you go through its details you will understand it. What I want to see is that it should not be lost to the world. It is for that I am trying to create this article. My age 91 is not permitting me to toil too much for that. Will kindly someone come forward to take up the job. I shall supply all the details and all the images. The images are already uploaded to Wikimedia. I shall give all the links too. Kindly contact me who can do the job. Thanking you in anticipation. Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you were told when you asked this question last week, There has been a Wikipedia article about the script since October this year. It is at Bharati Script and of course you can add information there provided you can cite reliable sources for it. ColinFine (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved that article to Bharati script, and added it to the disambiguation page Bharati. ColinFine (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MR. Colin,

That one Bharati Script is entirely different. The one I am indulged is Bharathi Script. Kindly notice the Difference in spelling. There is proof for the fact that Bharathi script was there in 1995. But Bharati script was created only in 2017. Bharati is a constructed script in their words. But, Bharathi Script in an invented script.

Thanking you:

Sincerely yours,

Ramchand Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sreejit TK Ramchand It seems that I was confused because of the similarity of names and purposes of these scripts. You want to describe Bharathi script and have started a draft about it at User:Sreejit TK Ramchand/sandbox, declaring on your User page that you have a conflict of interest since you invented the script. I have to point out that Wikipedia cannot be used to describe things that have not already been featured in reliable sources and as far as I can ascertain there is no published material on your script except what you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. IF you can provide references to externally published descriptions of the script and independent commentary about it then there could perhaps be an article written based on those sources. Otherwise you are wasting your time as Wikipedia cannot host such material. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My Dear Mike Turnbull,

Thank you for writing. I am not interested saying anything about me. Even I shall avoid my name coming anywhere in the article. My aim is only to save the script from extinction. I am not boasting myself when I say it is a very good script, with a lot of unique features. Once you go through it you will be convinced. I am just trying to do something to save it, so that the world may not loss such a good script. It is in detail available at more than nine sites including Internet archive. You kindly go through its features you will be convinced. I aged 91 is toiling to save it. You kindly help me in whatever ways you can to save it. The script and Font are free for all. Thanking you very much for taking the pain to write to me. Ramchand. Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sreejit TK Ramchand At your request, I have removed the image of your ID card from your Talk page. Wikipedia editors are allowed to remain anonymous if they wish. Even if you use your real name, which is fine to do, you should not post a phone number, your email address, your home address, or any forms of ID here. I know it takes a while to learn all of WP's policies, but this is for your own safety. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ID card is now removed altogether from commons. DMacks (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @DMacks. David10244 (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding pictures and links

Sorry, but I really want to know how to add pictures because when I try it always just says the name of the pictures link but never shows it.

Also how do I add links as when I do even if it's a real page that exists it says do you want to make a draft on it or not a real page yet. Thanks. Imadethis123 (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Imadethis123! Welcome to The Teahouse. You sound like you have a number of questions. I think taking the tutorial will answer most of them. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Imadethis123 (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Imadethis123 Almost all of your edits to date have been reverted because they do not follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have just reverted this example where you marked as a "minor" edit an addition of your personal views on history. All Wikipedia content must be cited to a published reliable source. Please take time to read the linked pages here and on your User Page about what it is acceptable to add. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Imadethis123 Your edit that Mike T linked above also made a very large number of changes to spacing around double vertical bars or || symbols. I don't see any "textual" reason for those dozens of changes. If you perhaps did any global search and replace, there is rarely any reason to do that. Mike Turnbull's revert has put all of those changes back to the way they were before your edit. Your intentions were good, judging from your edit summary, but the linked guidelines in the other replies will help. Good luck. David10244 (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Imadethis123 (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244, the diff you linked says "visual edit" in the Special:Tags. That means that the editor never even saw those double vertical bars or the spaces around them. The visual editor normalizes the wikitext in the "nodes" that the editor is changing. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Whatamidoing (WMF) It seemed like a lot of changes. Does that mean the editor edited each of those sections, and the visual editor normalized the spaces (by making it look asymmetrical -- no space before || but one space after)? Either way, thanks for the information, and I will keep this in mind -- I wasn't aware of this, so I'm glad you pointed it out. David10244 (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244, the visual editor treats each table as a single object. If you change any part of it, it checks the formatting on all of it. Given how many tables have ended up with improper wikitext over the years, this particular check resolves a lot of high-priority Special:LintErrors; the downside is that it can make for long diffs.

It does the same thing for templates, references (the whole ref tag, not just the citation template inside it), or any other "thing". This is why, for example, if you change a single line in an infobox template, it will "fix" the whitespace formatting on the whole thing. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Teahouse!

Someone can revert me like I said last time, but I just wanted to tell all of you that 2022 (in UTC) has officially passed, and we have entered the fresh new year of 2023! Thank you for your contributions; all of you!
Happy New Year! — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 00:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@3PPYB6 Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm so excited to best wishes to you and everyone with a new 2023 is very happy. I hope this 2023 to see with everything of your fantastic work this fourthcoming year and you making an Wikipedian.
Happy New Year! 2402:800:63B0:81F6:BD40:A76:26A7:55BA (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This brings to mind my recent block for wishing a 'Happy New Year' to so many, so quickly. I'd like to continue if I can get support for that. See my post below, and the context here. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Same to you allCwater1 (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi

What if you see a mistake in a writing but do not know how to edit it? I have tried and tried to find a guide to see but I cannot find one. IGotHacked12 (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IGotHacked12, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's hard to answer when you don't tell us the specific article and what the problem is. You should be able to edit most articles, but if there's one you can't edit, you can usually put an edit request on the article's talk page. ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IGotHacked12 You can edit almost all articles by clicking the "edit" button at the top. If there are no "edit button", it means that it is only editable by editors with more edits. If that happens, you can put a edit request like ColinFine told you to. Carpimaps (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ty guys sorry as i have forgot the name but it was a place in south west mexico i was browsing IGotHacked12 (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have FOUND IT! its Apatzingán IGotHacked12 (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IGotHacked12, you can edit Apatzingán like any other article. If you want, you can click on this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatzingán?veaction=edit

Just in case it's relevant, please note that "millimetres" is the correct British spelling. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh lol that is not what i meant. I mean the weather box. IGotHacked12 (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saving a Draft Article

I created a long draft article over several hours, then needed to stop. I looked for a save draft button but did not find one. Now I came back to continue editing, and the draft article has zero content. Empty. Did I lose those hours of work? How do I save a draft before it's ready to publish? BlueChippy (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BlueChippy, to save a draft that's not ready to publish (in the sentence of "make into an article"), you click "Publish changes". This confusing label on the button is recommended by our lawyers, as anything you save in Wikipedia, including drafts and sandboxes, is legally published. You are not the first, nor the thousandth, person to have been misled by this. Maproom (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response! I did lose the article so had to restart, but lots of learning! Agree, it is not obvious that hitting "publish" creates a draft. Now I know! It has now been submitted for review. BlueChippy (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BlueChippy (talk)! You can save an article you are working on creating by copying it & pasting into a notepad (do make sure to then save the notepad contents). As long as you are not using the Visual Editor at the time of copying your text, you'll be able to copy the wiki markup included in your article. With the wiki markup intact, when you paste the text back into Wikipedia things like inline citations & other coded features will be retained. You can use "Show Preview" button to see how the article is working without the need to prematurely publish. I just recently created an article & used this method to ensure I could get everything right before posting & also safely take breaks without fear of losing everything. I actually do this for anything of any length I write on a computer. Copy/pasting frequently to a text document in this way protects against crashes or power cuts which always have a habit of happening at the most inconvenient times, like when a draft is almost complete. Hope this is of help to you! Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I did have to recreate it from my Word draft - most of the rework was re-inserting 40 citations! I learned that I must Publish (this is not obvious) and do repeatedly for changes within each section. The article has now been submitted for review. BlueChippy (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the visual editor will store an open editing session for a maximum of 24 hours. If you want to save an offline copy, you can switch from visual to wikitext modes (the pencil button, next to the big blue "Publish page" button). Then cut and paste the wikitext to your local computer. When you come back, you can paste the wikitext into either the wikitext or visual editor. The visual editor "understands" wikitext (though it might take a couple of minutes, if you're adding 40 citations in one go!). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity on reliability issues before re-submitting

Hey there ! Last year I tried to transfer a biographical article from the German-language Wiki to the English one – and I learned that self-referencing is not appropriate and some sources were not viewed as reliable. Now, I want to learn how to get it right. First, I will shorten the article to basics and make it about facts mostly. Still, some questions popped up. May I ask where the right place or who the right person/group is to ask them? Thank you and have a good start into the year, Jens JensOhle PS I read already the relevant help pages and have three more specific questions. (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JensOhle Guten Rutsch! welcome to Teahouse! This is the right place to ask general/policy questions, as you did. If your questions are super specific to German articles, e.g conventions for citing German legislation/area names, you can also ask on WP:GERMANY. Happy editing/translating! I'm editing from Berlin myself by the way ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply and greetings from Sweden ;-) ... no, not specific to DE ... may be I just ask them here and we look what will/can resolve?

A) Birthdate – I assume that there is no totally reliable source for that, e.g. nobody checked on Robert de Niro’s driver license or passport. It’s just believed when he stated it to an editor at some point. In my case, when the birthdate of “my” person is known to me by announcements on social media or direct involvement (e.g. having been at a birthday party) and it is stated on de.wikipedia.org for 12 months and not disputed, can I use it then?

B) Facts in artist/band website – After reading through the Wiki article on Reliable Sources, I understood that the primary artist's website contain information about and from "themselves" and are viewed most likely as self-published and questionable sources. My question: When a post is about factual information (a fact that can be verified easily), can it be used? E.g. in my case, the artist becomes part of the band (again).

C) Factual statements by the artist – Same type of question: If an artist states that s/he uses equipment A and B in an interview or podcast, can this be used?

Some part of the rejection last year was around the source for the catalogue of work and I found a confirming source under “WikiProject Albums/Sources”. With clarity on the above, I’d be comfortable to submit a re-newed and shorter article quickly. Thank you. JensOhle (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JensOhle, as far as your first question goes, an announcement on a verified social media account is usually sufficient; direct involvement is not, and appearing on de.wiki is not (see WP:SOCIALMEDIA). Your other questions involve using self-published or primary sources. These are generally fine for uncontroversial statements of fact, but articles should not start to rely on them for their information. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) JensOhle (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Years Greetings

I would like to send out several hundred more 'Happy New Years' greetings. I planned on making this a once a year tradition, as I have only had my account since February of 2022 or so, but have made 13,000+ edits, mostly reverting vandalism. I found this activity to be helpful in getting to see other editors talk pages, as well as spreading joy and love to the most productive editors (by edit count) on the encyclopedia. These people work tirelessly to improve the encyclopedia and thus deserve some thanks in my view. That said, I was recently blocked for doing this by user RoySmith and then promptly unblocked. As you can see, many editors see this as a harmless and helpful activity. I would like to see about gaining WP:Consensus though BEFORE continuing to send any more 'Happy New Years' messages of love, so that I do not violate the terms of my (very brief) block. See the details on the block and block discussion here, and if this is NOT the place to try and seek feedback on this block, or more appropriately, the consensus on terms that would allow for me to proceed with sending holiday love, then please just direct me to where best to send this message. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at AN as well, but what I'll say to the question here is that the best way to send out these messages is to send them to editors with whom you've already interacted in the course of day-to-day editing, and not on the basis of being in the top number of edits-by-account. Think of it as quality rather than quantity. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have never interacted with Moops before, and I appreciated his New Year Wishes on my Talk page. In my opinion, it wasn't disruptive, but made my day brighter. — hike395 (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see any problem with sending a bit of New Year cheer. You're not spamming it indiscrimately, but choosing people you think deserve it (and seeing as I got one, your judgment is obviously good ;-). I might suggest slowing down a bit, though, in case any other trigger-happy bot hunters are lying in wait. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moops @Hike395 @Boing! said Zebedee This is a related focus of WP:WikiProject Editor Retention, which Teahouse is closely part of. While Wikipedia is WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA, it is nice to acknowledge the humans (and dogs) behind the screens. Full encouragement from my end too! Thank you! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "only people you interact with", may I suggest that Moops can give New Year's wishes on User Talk pages that don't already have New Year's wishes? I can see adding a second (or subsequent) New Years greeting could be annoying and considered spam, but the first one seemed nice (to me, at least). — hike395 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, these two criteria are not mutually exclusive (by which I mean "in addition to", rather than "instead of"). These things are matters of subjective judgment, rather than an algorithm. I just don't think that everyone-with-more-than-a-certain-number-of-edits is a good way to choose recipients, especially when Moops is being careful not to attract unwelcome attention. But I think you make a good point about avoiding people who already have a similar message. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make another suggestion. If you are going to do this, make a user subpage or something explaining what you're doing, and include a link to it in the edit comment. Then the next time some admin comes along and thinks they're looking at an unauthorized bot, they'll be able to figure out what's going on. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great suggestion RoySmith, but I have never created one before. Can you help with that please? And then I might reword it or edit it to suit what I am trying to do? I am sure you can agree that this misunderstanding (of me looking like a bot) caused a lot of wasted time and unnecessary distress for those involved. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 23:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know what a "user sub-page" really is, to be clear of my ask. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 23:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moops is your User page, while a subpage would be something like User:Moops/New Years Eve Greetings. I have some example subpages like User:Shushugah/Mistakes. You can read more at WP:SUBPAGES ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shushugah, Does this look right for what I am trying to do? User:Moops/New Years Eve Greetings. I just tried making one. How is this @RoySmith:. I will be careful and I do NOT want to incur another block EVER again! TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moops Yup it does! I took liberty of editing your template to link to it, and also simplified {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} using Template:Tls a close sibling of {{tl}} ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 03:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Teamwork, it does indeed seem, makes the dream work! TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That principle - avoiding those who already have a similar message - will be especially valuable if a dozen editors follow Moops's example next year. NebY (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair and entirely valid point NebY. TY for sharing your input. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith, Shushugah, Tryptofish, hike395 Well then if no one else objects... I am about to start back up again, though with a bit slowed pace and with more care for various factors, also, I now will try and include the subpage in my edit summary as suggested by RoySmith (which I think is a good suggestion, and something had I known about it up front, might have stopped this calamity from taking place and absorbing many hours of effort today from me instead of just sending these out).

Unless there are any further objections, in which case, please voice them now. I may not really kick this off until tomorrow anyway—I am exhausted! I really appreciate all the input of everyone on this so that I may learn and not step on any admin toes going forward. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the subpage link if anyone would like to anything or take anything away, or if anyone thinks my wording is dishonest, inaccurate, or otherwise incomplete or omits anything. User:Moops/New Years Eve Greetings. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, do not want my WP user page to be cluttered up with New Year Greetings. Just forget about it. Do not do it. --Bduke (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will be careful to ensure you do not receive one from me. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bduke. Sorry to sound like a wet blanket but this is not social media. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will also ensure that you go un-greeted into the new year. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moops: although some will like receiving your New Year messages, some will not. Even a small percentage of thousands can equate to many editors who are not pleased, may even be annoyed, and may think of you as a spammer. Also, as others have noted, your messages clutter up the watchlists of everyone who has many high-volume editors on their list (bot edits can be excluded from watchlists but yours can't). Sure, you have received some thanks but I would guess that the vast majority of your recipients haven't thanked you. After all, it's one thing to receive a greeting from people with whom we've conversed and directly collaborated, quite another to receive a mass-mailing from a stranger who's been sending multiple messages a minute. Rather than simply removing objectors from your list as if it's something we have to opt out of, why not take their objections on board, accept anyway that the time for saying Happy New Year in 2023 has passed, and consider carefully whether it might be inappropriate to repeat the exercise in 2024? NebY (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing this on the first, but then a kerfuffle emerged. See my talk page. Also, I'd say that upwards of 80% thank in some way. See my talk page for more at a glance. Also, isn't it January 3rd today? — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As in still very much near the new year (all my greetings would have been on the 1st and second FYI if it weren't for yesterdays mess). :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moops, it will be the New Year until January 1st of next year, but I agree with the above that it's a bit late at this point to continue, and that you should probably keep WP:NOTSOCIAL a little more in mind. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see the spamming has started up again, including at least one user who has not made an edit in five years due to being blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, re-raising the issue on WP:AN or at WP:ANI seems to be the way forward if someone wants to press the issue. An unofficial RfC here at the Teahouse is not really appropriate. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it normal that an IP address associated with the U.S. Navy is responding to this thread? I have not seen that before. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite normal - in fact I've replied to several of your questions here over the past months. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning of the U.S. Navy having an IP address? Which questions were those? — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As my talk page says, the IP is registered to the US Navy and may be shared by multiple users of a government agency or facility. You can ask further questions on my talk page if you like, and I'll dig out a list of my responses to you if you really want one. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moops: 1, 2, 3, 4 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I remember now. Those were all incredibly helpful. TY very much for all of your past help. Are you mostly just on the Teahouse then? — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, though I also do gnomish work and hang out on Discord using an Actual Real Account Thingy. Again, feel free to continue on my talk. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've received about 130 thanks plus some posts on your talk page and some direct responses on the editors' talk pages, as well as some reverts - but mostly your posting's the most recent on the page. That's a lot but it's a minority of the 1,000+ people you've messaged, not 80%. NebY (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot fairly include more recent 'Happy New Years' greetings, as it often takes a user at least 24 hours (or more) to respond to something. I think given what we have seen (and more thanks by the hour), it is fair to say that my estimate is not all that far off. Again, who else is complaining about actually receiving these? Please feel free to refer to this here. I have greatly slowed the rate at which I am sending these too by the way, and take offense to the offhand statement, "...the spamming has started up again...". For the sake of all that is good, what is harmed here? — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, everyone would do well to be a bit more kindly in commenting about this. Moops, to answer your last question, people can see a lot of these messages showing up on their watchlists, and when it looks like such a large number of posts it can seem like a minor nuisance to have one after another pop up on one's watchlist. In the grand scheme of things, this is really no big deal, and there certainly has never been any harm intended, but I think that's one way to understand what some people are reacting negatively to. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. No one seems to take the time to explain such things. Is that because they are all having each other on each others watchlists? I think I am still missing something? TY for your continued kindness and patience Tryptofish. I love it! — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a lot of experienced editors watchlist the talk pages of multiple other editors. I have over 1,000 pages total on my watchlist at any given time. I don't know how many of them are user talk pages, but it's quite a few. So I was able to see your HNY messages appearing on quite a few of those talk pages, and that's how I saw one person revert your message. As for taking the time to explain things, you are very, very welcome. Actually, I wish more editors would do that. By the way, please always feel free to stop by my own talk page if you ever have any questions for me about anything else. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Love it! TY so very kindly Tryptofish. In the meantime, I wish we'd take this conversation above and look at the complaints versus the likes/thanks as well. The reality is, that other than RoySmith, I have yet to have a complaint from a single other user, and even Roy and me seem to be 'friendly' at this stage. Or at least it seems that way to me. Roy just thought I was using a bot at first, but in reality the bot is just my autism/asbergers paired with my fingers.... :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moops, this isn't really part of my job, but has anybody mentioned Special:MassMessage to you? It can deliver a thousand messages in a couple of minutes. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TY. No one has mentioned that, but I fear that misses what might be appropriate. Any sort of true "mass mailer" has been deemed to be entirely inappropriate by the community I would say, but I like to send maybe 2,000 messages (and don't mind sending them individually) each year or appropriate holiday. Though next time I will put even more thought into whom receives such notes from me. I think by and large people are very receptive to the message, the only complaints have come from those that don't like the concept itself, or that did not receive a note, or both. However, among recipients, I have literally only ever had one person say anything other than some iteration of 'Thank you!' :)

TY for your feedback though. I like to know about all the various tools available to us editors, even if I did not use them. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 14:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you were interested in doing this regularly, then I imagine that Wikipedia:Mass message senders would be useful to read. I believe the usual process is to have set up an opt-out system, and then have a discussion to achieve consensus on the general idea.

This sort of thing might be handled by a WikiProject. You might decide that a message from a group feels too impersonal, but it's also possible for each person in a group to take up a small percentage of the list for personal delivery. It should be possible, though perhaps difficult, to divide the list up so that you're likely to receive the message from someone you've previously interacted with. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a recollection, with little comment on the specific topic discussed. In the very early days of the Internet somebody innocently sent a crude Christmas tree graphic out. In this case it was designed to send itself on to addresses in the recipient's address book, the first true worm. This gesture, intended to be kind, overwhelmed the Internet. One (or a very few) people sending greetings to several random others, as happened now, is not a problem, indeed a nice gesture. But if it catches on ... Happy (nearly) New Year, Pol098 (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pol098, that is a really important little story to share, and I had not heard about the first ever computer worm! I had heard of the 'ILOVEYOU' one that followed this one, but the one you mentioned I had not heard of. TY for sharing. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 14:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of us interact with hundreds of colleagues per year, some with thousands, and if we got automated greetings from a tenth of them it would be a nuisance. So, I figure sending one per year to the dozen we care most about, who haven't already had robogreetings from others in the past month or two, then it's all right. If it's just robocalls to a list of a hundred, then there's no point. And if it's a waste of time to think about each one separately, then again there's no point and it's similarly a waste of time to receive them. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I've talked to editors about their general experience, the lack of positive/friendly/encouraging messages from other editors has come up repeatedly. "Robogreetings" might well be welcome by many, especially those who are less well connected.

Doc James delivered thanks to hundreds of editors who edited articles within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine several years in a row. I don't recall anyone complaining that it was a waste of time to have their efforts recognized. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there were concerns raised on EN WP. And thus I have stopped here. The last award was sent out for 2019 to 128 EN WP editors.[1] Work life also became much busier. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clean My Talk Pages

can i just for clean delete my all talk pages? or, something else. Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajrun Amir'za-da Hello, talk pages are usually not deleted as discussions are really important and are usually kept for reference. If you want to clean your talk page, you can always blank it, I would be happy to do that for you if you don’t know how to. Blanchey (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajrun Amir'za-da Do you want your talk page content to disappear completely? It is still visible under the "view history" tab. If you want the talk page history completely "rev-deleted", you'll need to ask if that is possible. David10244 (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure i would be happy if you do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk • contribs)

That’s done for you. If any other editor has an issue with me doing this, feel free to revert me. Blanchey (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajrun Amir'za-da @Blanchey Welcome to Teahouse! In most cases, you're allowed to blank your own User Talk page. See WP:BLANKING for further clarifications. Happy editing and blanking! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shushugah Hi, thanks for clarifying, and pointing out that essay. Happy editing!

Blanchey (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi. You can create archives. See Help:Archiving a talk page.Cwater1 (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting vs publishing

At what point does an article get published? I began an article in my sandbox, to make sure I really understood what I was doing. At some point all of a sudden it was apparently visible to all and got deleted because it was considered to have violated copyright. I wanted to keep correcting the content but couldn't because it had been removed. How to keep an article in the sandbox until it is really ready? Km4water (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as you save content anywhere on Wikipedia it is published and is viewable by anybody. Your draft was an unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/water-overview/protecting-freshwater/canada-water-agency-stakeholder-public-engagement-what-we-heard.html, https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2021/0812/Canada-gets-serious-about-water-woes.-Will-Indigenous-voices-be-heard, and other sources, so was speedy deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My question is: does the content created in the Sandbox get shared right away? If not, at what point? Km4water (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Km4water. While the draft you started in your sandbox was moved to what is called "draftspace", that had no bearing on its visibility or deletion. Every page on Wikipedia is visible to other editors/readers as soon as it's saved. Sandbox pages need to comply with copyright rules as much as "published" articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All edits to every page and article on Wikipedia appear in the Recent Changes feed, which is usually monitored by many editors, even if the page itself is not otherwise highly visible. If you don't want people to see what you are doing, don't put it on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK so it is safer to draft offline and then upload it. I know that the whole point is to allow editing right away so that content gets improved, but there is a big risk of discouraging would-be editors if everything they have worked on is quickly deleted. Copyright infringement is serious but perhaps the best way of dealing with it is with an edit of the offending section. That way the originator learns what is OK and can go about replacing what has been deleted with something better. Currently, the experience feels more like a thuggish 'seek and punish' operation rather than a collaboration. Km4water (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Km4water You are welcome to write a draft here if it is not a copyright violation. We must take those seriously as they potentially put this project in legal jeopardy if they are allowed. Preferably, an article should be original content that summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Km4water: Unfortunately, every revision is public when changes are saved and published, so even if you tweak the content, the original infringing material is still viewable from the article's history until an admin scrubs it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- that is useful to know. Wikipedia says that the sandbox is a "testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article". Somewhat misleading, as one assumes that only published encyclopedia articles are available to view.

If someone other than the originator goes in to edit a published article and infringes copyright, will the entire article be deleted or just the edited section? Km4water (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally if an earlier revision exists where copyright isn't infringed, changes get rolled back to that one and all the offending diffs become inaccessible from the article's history. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense -- thank you. Km4water (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Km4water I've only created 2 articles (as far as I remember. It's possible I've created a few more that I've forgotten about), while the rest of my edits have been to improve existing articles.

However what I would do if I was you, would be to do what I've done with an article I started years ago, but haven't touched in years so isn't published yet...

What did I do? I saved it on one of my private Blogger blogs, just like I do with practically every piece of useful information I find, or list that I write, so that I can update/share/publish it at a later date. Danstarr69 (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that tip. It is easy to see how uncertainty/fear prevents more engagement with this resource. I am thinking that the best approach, if you think something is important enough to include in Wikipedia, may be to create a stub, wait for edits, and then slowly add in more content. Km4water (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The BEST approach is not to copy and paste anything on Wkipedia, it's quite simple. Theroadislong (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is clear. I wonder what impact the use of AI summarizers will have. Km4water (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Km4water I think AI writing tools are going to become a nightmare for many people, and internet at large. I was involved in testing some unreleased AI software tools for blog-writing recently. My feedback to them included my views that I find the idea of half-writing a blog post and letting the software finish the job by searching for other content on the internet and then creating new sub-topics and sections, all artificially, to be utterly horrendous in the extreme. Not only does it take away creativity and fact-checking, it will mean that, eventually, a vast amount of content on the web will be written by AI, based predominantly on other AI-written content which, in turn, was partly written by other AI tools. I don't mind tools offering to rewrite a sentence or paragraph, but to vomit out AI blog posts in this way will fill the internet with more and more banal mush. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you mean by, "Thanks for that tip." 98.97.116.80 (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP editor - I have joined your question into the thread above, as it clearly related to it. "Thanks for that tip" is another way of saying "thank you for making a good suggestion" - namely, to save certain content away from Wikipedia on a private website or personal computer file until you're ready to share it on Wikipedia. Hope that clears things up for you if English isn't your primary language. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 71.17.29.195 (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia.com has an entry for Nolan Davis 1942

Is he eligible for a Wikipedia page? https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/davis-nolan-1942 2600:8802:3A12:E700:65F6:ED00:6F05:B184 (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user, the mere existence of an Encyclopedia.com entry does not connote notability, nor verifiability in secondary sources, because Encyclopedia.com (like Wikipedia) is a WP:TERTIARY source. Sometimes it cites notable WP:SECONDARY sources and sometimes it doesn't. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_279#Encyclopedia.com for discussion on the Publisher. Regarding David Nolan specifically, can you find 2-3 secondary and independent WP:SIGCOV sources? Happy editing and citation researching! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information

https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/davis-nolan-1942

https://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n85301213/

https://bbip.ku.edu/1970-1972

Ebony

https://books.google.com/books?id=YHZ2VMzAqpkC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=nolan+davis+six+black+horses&source=bl&ots=RvdiZQhUz6&sig=ACfU3U1VY_-3TuntUPTc3AE4FfdT1qOv_g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwizib2k_Kn8AhWAEEQIHWNjDlc4HhDoAXoECAIQAw#v=onepage&q=nolan%20davis%20six%20black%20horses&f=false

Newsweek

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Newsweek/JvHjAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=nolan+davis+six+black+horses&dq=nolan+davis+six+black+horses&printsec=frontcover

And on Newspaper.com I found three write-ups on his book. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:CCA3:3F83:6AF5:C0F1 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.newspapers.com/image/7569120/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/385576226/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/99105353/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/438045088/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/359907814/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/625439292/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/675979185/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/853540502/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/816460432/?terms=six%20black%20horses%20nolan&match=1 2600:8802:3A12:E700:CCA3:3F83:6AF5:C0F1 (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that Encyclopedia.com is a kind of aggregator site. The actual publisher in this case seems to be "Contemporary Black Biography". I see no glaring reason why this shouldn't count towards WP:N. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you allow newspaper.com links? 2600:8802:3A12:E700:CCA3:3F83:6AF5:C0F1 (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! They're even promoted and provided for free in the WP:Wikipedia Library subscription for eligible users. Newspaper.com is a publisher, while The Olathe News is the publication in some of your linked examples. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea Encyclopedia.com was so poorly thought of. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:CCA3:3F83:6AF5:C0F1 (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing! I encourage you to start a draft at Draft:Nolan Davis ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 2600:8802:3A12:E700:CCA3:3F83:6AF5:C0F1 (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's poorly thought of but should be used correctly. Compare WP:BRITANNICA and perhaps WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Yahoo_News. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent articles have not been appearing in search engine.

What's good y'all.

I've noticed that since my article on Émile Reutlinger, some of the article's I have created have not been showing up in seach results (unless you type in its exact name). This also applies to the articles for Johann Eustach von Westernach, Johann Kaspar von Stadion, and Death and funeral of Pope Benedict XVI. All of them are articles that I have made that fail to appear in search results even when linking to them in other articles. There doesn't seem to be an corelary between any of them, besides that I made them and all of them, with the exception of the article on Johann Eustach von Westernach, had the under construction template on them. Is this a known issue and what can I do to combat this? Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Knightoftheswords281 Do you mean they're not showing up in Wikipedia's search results, or not appearing on Google (other browsers exist) results pages? All the links you gave are to incredibly new articles, so I am wondering if your expectations are greater than the reality of indexing. I've found similar issues with new articles I've written. Maybe patience is all that's needed? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Knightoftheswords281. A new article is not indexed by search engines unless one of two things happens: Either the article has been reviewed by a New pages patroller, or the article is more than 90 days old. Please read Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing for more information. Cullen328 (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Nick Moyes and @Cullen328. I actually just realized that I should of specified (after reading this section). I mean that they don't appear on Wikipedia. I've known since my first article that it takes time to index pages on search engines. What I mean is that they aren't appearing on Wikipedia's internal search engine. Ironically enough they all appear on search engines like Google. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Knightoftheswords281: They all show up in my searches. Are you using the normal search box on pages here at en.wikipedia.org? What are your search terms? Always be specific when you report an issue. Does the search results page say "(Article)" at "Search in:"? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does say (article) and I used every type of search box (the one at wikipedia.org, the one at the top of every article, and the dedicated search page).

Interestingly enough however, I checked on my phone to see if the articles would show up, and they did. It seems to be an issue with my computer (I searched incognito and it didn't appear either). Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Knightoftheswords281 I can confirm I'm finding the same as you using the Edge browser on my PC. Using the standard Wikipedia search box at the top of the page here I can start typing e m i l e... (without the spaces, obviously, just put in to imply I'm looking out for the titles offered below the search box). Once I get to "emile reutl" all that is offered is Emile Reuter. However, if I continue and type the whole "emile reutlinger" followed by a carriage-return, I go straight to the article Émile Reutlinger (without being notified of any redirect). At first I assumed this was an issue about the article title having a leading e-acute but exactly the same is true for Johann Eustach von Westernach. By the time I've typed "johann eustac", there are no suggestions left below the search box, yet continuing to the full title as "johann eustach von westernach" followed by carriage-return gets me right to Johann Eustach von Westernach. It seems that the searching tool has something against your authorship! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you all using Edge? Do other browsers suffer from the same problem? My impression is that every time Edge actually gets something right, Microsoft quickly release a very large windows update to get things back to normal. Elemimele (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull I remember having a similar problem with an accented 'E' when I created Émile Rey. I got around it by making a WP:REDIRECT from Emile Rey, which does show up as you type their name in Wikipedia's search box. (Knightoftheswords281 could do the same by making a redirect from Emile Reutlinger. But that doesn't actually address the root cause of the problem being reported here. I guess it comes down to not very advanced search algorithms being deployed here on Wikipedia, or something technical like that that I'm never going to fully comprehend.

I note one can search for 'emile reutlinge' (with the last letter intentionally left off) and Google offers me your article on Émile Reutlinger as its second option (see here). Meanwhile Wikipedia fails to show anything remotely close, offering instead nearest matches to 'emily reutlingen' (see here). Searching for 'emile reut*' does get your article offered in a list of search results. The asterisk was the old way of saying 'any character or characters from this point on'. So perhaps Google has made us come to expect too much from search algorithms. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting National Military Appreciation Month from a C to a B

I have done extensive work on the article I have created and I think it deserves a B review now, well sourced and has a lot of information. Is there a place where I can request it? Thanks! `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 01:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HelpingWorld Welcome to Teahouse! The WP:MILHIST WikiProject currently rates it C level. You can learn about their review process at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment. Most other WikiProjects are much less formal, and you can directly change the assessments yourself following Wikipedia:Content assessment. Have fun improving Wikipedia! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah, I read the criteria for B level, and it meets all of it. Can I change it myself and how would I do that?`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 02:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HelpingWorld Any individual (including author) can change for B ratings and below. For WP:GA there is the WP:GAN process. For your case, you can change it directly at Talk:National Military Appreciation Month. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HelpingWorld, I recommend against promoting to B class. The article says with the president commemorating the observance with a ceremonial speech and proclamation but that assertion is not verified by the reference that follows. The date format is not consistent, with both month-day-year formats being used alongside day-month-year formats. The article should be checked over carefully. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cullen328, could you elobarate in the date format is not consistent, with both month-day-year formats being used alongside day-month-year formats? I can fix the first one but the second one has no issue.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 06:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HelpingWorld, look at the "History" section. At one point it says February 9, 1999 and at another point it says 30 May 1999. Those are incompatible date formats. Date formatting should be standardized within each individual article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328, one says February 9, 1999 and the other says may 30,1999 should I format it like 30 May 1999 and 9 February 1999 ? Most articles do it the way I did.

HelpingWorld, you need to take a very careful look at every single date in that article. The second sentence of the "History " section uses a date format inconsistent with the first sentence of the same section. The lead section says 1st day of May to the 31st of May, which not anything close to standard date formatting. Please check all of your dates, and standardize them. Added at 06:53, 3 January 2023 by Cullen328

HelpingWorld, the article is about a subject that's specific to the US. So Wikipedia practice, backed up by a MoS page that I can't be bothered to look for right now, is to write primarily for readers expecting American practice. This includes "American" spelling, antique units of measurement, and a date format that changes direction in the middle. Thus "May 30, 1999" and similar. -- Hoary (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 and Hoary. I fixed the format, Now it says May 1st and may 31st.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 07:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HelpingWorld, I am sorry but you have not yet fixed the date problems. WP:MOSDATES says Do not use ordinals (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) and yet you are using ordinals in the lead section. Plus, the first sentence of the "History" section still has date formatting incompatible with the date formatting in the second sentence. You have multiple date formats mixed together in one article. Please standardize the dates. Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was so confused what you meant but I forgot to check the 2nd sentence. I finally finished correcting it, I would of never known, thanks!`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 07:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HelpingWorld The first two sentences of the "History" section say the same thing, I think. And the first sentence would be much better as two sentences; it is almost a run-on sentence. David10244 (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The observance was designated by the US Congress, but it's "not a nationally recognized month". How is this possible? (Or what does "designation" mean?) Also I'd never call May a "date". And that's just in the one-paragraph "History" section, which is so convoluted that I had trouble following it. (Tip: Try reading it out loud.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to edit the article myself and just insert the picture into the article. Would that be okay?

Hi, I'm a paid contributor but I am only a beginner here in wikipedia so I submitted a draft of a politician's biography for review and it was already assessed thanks to the editors who helped me improve the article. Since there was an issue with the picture when I submitted the article for review... it was removed while I was trying to settle the issue. Now that it is resolved and is back in wkicommons, I wanted to edit the article myself and just insert the picture into the article. Would that be okay? I'm just scared of violating the policies. Madona Jace (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Madona Jace Welcomne to Teahouse and thank you for asking instead of doing it first. No, you should make an edit request using Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard.

Courtesy link: Anthony Golez ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 03:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Madona Jace (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Madona Jace I've added back the image, since the licensing on Commons is now correct and it is an appropriate picture. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Madona Jace (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I need to upload a biography of someone in Science, can you please help me?

We can't upload our own biography since it's discourages by wikipedia. Someone else has to do it. Scarbajo (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scarbajo. When you write We can't upload our own biography, you seem to be saying that this is an autobiography of several people or that your account is controlled by several people. This is potentially a major problem. Each Wikipedia account is for one person and one person only. Please clarify. Added by Cullen328 at 06:41, 3 January 2023

Alternatively, Scarbajo, perhaps you meant to say "We individuals who want to upload our respective autobiographies". You can write a draft, if you really want to. If, for example, you're a physicist named Jo Bloggs, you can do it at Draft:Jo Bloggs (physicist). Make sure that everything in is backed up by specific reliable sources. But my advice is not to bother. If, unlike the huge majority of people, you're genuinely notable, then skilled and experienced Wikipedia editors will want to create an article about you, without any need of nudging by you. While they slave away at your article, you can devote your valuable time to the pursuit of whatever it is that makes you notable. -- Hoary (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse hosts are here to provide advice, but not to be authors or co-authors of articles. The guideline WP:YFA explains how to create and submit a draft. The guideline Wikipedia:Notability (academics) explains how to determine if an academic scientist could be considered notable. The careers of the great majority of scientists do not qualify. David notMD (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and deleted Draft:Jo Bloggs (physicist), which was actually about Sergio Carbajo, as a pure copyright violation. @Scarbajo: pleaes think carefully about the advice you were given, and how what you did not go along with it. Are you actually writing about someone named "Jo Bloggs"? Now please go read our your first article guidance and our specific information about creating articles about yourself. DMacks (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual behavior of Infobox in Santali Wikipedia

Hi, for more than 3 months I have seen something unusual with the infobox in Santali Wikipedia. Compare infobox in English - Narendra Modi (Normal info) and Santali - ᱱᱚᱨᱮᱱᱫᱽᱨᱚ ᱢᱳᱫᱤ (infobox widened in desktop mode). But, it seems to work normal in mobile minerva theme (mobile view). Can anyone point me to the solution to this problem. It would be a great help. Rocky 734 (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rocky 734: Hi. I haven't clicked on the links you provided, but from what you've described, it seems to be a technical issue for Santali Wikipedia, which is beyond the scope/understanding/user privileges of English Wikipedia, and their users. The best venue for you to get your answer is meta:Tech. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link @Usernamekiran . I'm going to ask there. Rocky 734 (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rocky 734: my pleasure :-) 13:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainer Notability Understanding

Hello, I am trying to understand guideline Wikipedia:NACTOR. If an actor has a significant role in a TV Based notable show, buy that show was super hit and then again they create the 2nd season of it. Then that actor will be consider notable or not? As now he is acting in multiple shows but the show is same, just a new season. Will we consider it as multiple show or one?

Thanks Lordofhunter (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lordofhunter. Special notability guidelines like WP:NACTOR function as a quick assessment tool and do not guarantee that an article will be accepted. In other words, it might be reasonable to assume that an actor who has a significant role (what precisely does "significant" mean?) is likely to be notable. But what really counts is whether or not the actor has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are entirely independent of the actor, his management, his PR team and the PR teams of any production he has been a part of. The presumption is that an actor with a "significant role" in what you call a "super hit" (how do you quantify that?) will have received such coverage. So, you need to furnish the evidence of such coverage in the form of references. Cullen328 (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 I guess, you are referring to WP:GNG, but what I believe is as per point 1 of WP:NACTOR it clearly says if a person had significant roles in multiple television shows, he is considered as notable. This guideline has nothing to do with PR material here etc because he/she has shown credibility and merit. That's why I asked if a person who is an actor in 2 series, can he or she consider notable.

Cullen328 I am just reading old random AFd to understand notability. In this AFD also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franklin Prestage once people got reliable sources then he was considered as notable instead of finding significant coverage and checking if it is independent or not etc. Lordofhunter (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lordofhunter. You are missing the import of the paragraph "Additional criteria" further up the page, which says People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.. ColinFine (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lordofhunter: To answer what I think was your original question, I don't think having a role in two seasons of a single TV show counts as having roles in multiple shows. Deor (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Cullen328, Deor for your valuable time. Lordofhunter (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why my edits are reverted back ?

User:RPSkokie, have reverted my edits from Divya Gokulnath. If (ASU + GSV Summit 2019 Power of Women Award) is non notable, then why it is here on Cindy Mi's wiki article? and why RPSkokie has removed this. Please note i am not an employee of Byju's, not a paid editor or not a family of Divya Gokulnath. I'm just trying to understand out whether Wikipedia's policy is not same for all entries.Gaargi Puri (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaargi Puri Hello, and welcome! The reason for the change was explained in the summary, the source you used was not reliable and possibly promotional. I also see that the editor suspected you were being paid, although if you claim that you are not, I don’t see any reason why you wouldn’t be believed. Blanchey (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blanchey, I am still trying to understand whether Wikipedia's policy is not same for adding the same entry on different articles. i have no complaint from removing my edits but i didn't get the answer of my question. Gaargi Puri (talk) 09:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gaarga Puri, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is that Wikipedia's policy is the same, but it has not historically always been applied. We have many thousands of articles which were created before we were as careful as we are today, and which would not be accepted if they were submitted today. Unfortunately, as this is a volunteer endeavour, it is nobody's "job" to go through those thousands and thousands of articles improving or deleting them, so it doesn't happen very much. If you find an article which is not up to today's standards, you are quite welcome to work on it, to improve it if possible, or to nominate it for deletion if the subject is not notable or the article of such low quality that it cannot be saved. Please see Other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my conversation on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RPSkokie#You_removed_an_award . Gaargi Puri (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaargi Puri when you say entry I take it you mean source? If so, no, I don’t think so, although an experienced Wikipedian might want to explain this better. What I think you should do going forward is to make sure that all additions to the article are backed up by reliable sources and if you are unsure about anything, take it to the talk page and see what other editors think, to stop any possible disruption to the article. I hope this helps. Blanchey (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- It depends if the statement was sourced or if it meets stands. Cwater1 (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuccessful article change

I have recently re-written a Wikipedia article that contained inaccuracies and missed many crucial pieces of information. Having made the changes and clicked 'publish' I checked and confirmed that the new entry was online. But I now find that the old article has re-appeared and my new one is nowhere to be seen. Is there a delay between re-submitting a new article or should it be instantly available and the old one superceded? Hayneman (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hayneman Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not clear on which article you are referring to; your recent edits to Harry Pitch to add an image were removed, I think because you are claiming the image as your own work, though it seems professionally taken and Mr. Pitch is deceased. Did you take the image? 331dot (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know my late father bought the rights to the photo. But I could remove it if it's still a problem. Otherwise all the information is correct and far more detailed than the earlier anonymous version. Also, are all new submissions peer-reviewed before final permanent addition to Wikipedia? Hayneman (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you also removed a "[circa]" and as well as removing the category tags from the article. Your edits were reverted. UtherSRG (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hayneman, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm guessing that you made some edits to Harry Pitch as an unregistered user, and then created your account in case that was why they were undone, yes?

It is perfectly acceptable to edit without an account, but it is helpful for communication to have an account and use it, so thank you for creating your account.

It looks to me as if your edits were quite substantial, and at least some of them were not constructive, in that you removed cited information, and added unsourced information. It is a core policy of Wikipedia that all information in articles be sourced from published sources: unpublished information is never acceptable.

It is usually best to make multiple small edits rather than one huge one, so that if somebody thinks some of your work is not appropriate, they can revert that part without reverting the whole lot. If you look at the history of the article, you can see who the editors were who reverted your changes, and what their edit summaries were.

The best approach for you now is to follow WP:BRD and open discussions on the article's talk page Talk:Harry Pitch. ColinFine (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions Colin. It's difficult to make 'many small changes to the original' text because it is one continuous chunk of writing and I think my new version tells a much better story by breaking my father's career into separate, more logical sections. If I keep all the original references and remove the photo, do yuou think that my new version will be acceptable? Hayneman (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hayneman As made clear on your Talk page, Harry Pitch being your father is absolutely a conflict of interest in the Wikipedia use of the term (see WP:COI). As such declare that connection on your User page if you have not already. Wat you know to be true cannot be included unless verified by reliable source references. Also, and this will be annoying, because of the COI, you are prohibited from directly editing the article. Instead, you are limited to proposing changes on the Talk page, so that a not-connected editor can decide to incorporate or not. David notMD (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another option: User:Ghmyrtle created the article in December, and also reverted your rewrite. You could contact Ghmyrtle on that editor's Talk page, describe what is not correct and what can be added, in all instances providing properly formated references to reliable sources in support of your proposed changes. G, as an editor without COI, can edit the article directly. David notMD (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having this discussion. The article I put together drew on a number of published sources, and obviously some may have contained inaccuracies of which I was not aware, and the process of rewriting may have introduced more inaccuracies. If any were of my doing, I apologise - it's of course also possible that any errors were in the original sources. What concerned me more, however, when I saw Hayneman's edits, was that a great deal - it may have been the entire text, I'm not sure - seemed to be a blatant copyright infringement, by lifting whole sections (and the image) directly from the Daily Telegraph obituary here. Obviously that cannot be allowed. There was also a good deal of peacock wording, promoting a person's uniqueness, etc., which may be appropriate for an obituary but not for a purely factual encyclopedia article. What Hayneman needs to do - as I've already suggested - is to explain on the article talk page exactly what the errors are. If they can be corrected without diverging too much from what the sources say, they can and will be corrected. But, it is inappropriate for a family member (or friend) to edit the article themselves - conflict of interest. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Rahemur Rahman

Hello everyone! I just submitted my first wikipedia article yesturday and would love some feedback for its next review. Any feedback is much appreciated. Sustainablequeen (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainablequeen Hello and welcome. You have already submitted the draft for a review; when it is reviewed, the reviewer will give you feedback. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, thank you. If you do have any feedback on the draft, I'd love to hear and amend before it it reviewed again. Sustainablequeen (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainablequeen, there's a lot of "Rahman said [such and such]" in your draft. But Wikipedia isn't much interested in what the subjects of articles have said about themselves. What have sources independent of Rahman said about him or his work? -- Hoary (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thank you - I shall amend these. Sustainablequeen (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sustainablequeen, and welcome to the Teahouse. Reviewers choose which drafts they look at in their own time (which is why we cannot predict how long a review will take). But I am reasonably confident that the long list of bare URLs in the reference section of your draft will be a turn-off for a reviewer. Please look at referencing for beginners, and work on making your references more informative. The important part of a reference is to see the author, publisher, title, date: this enables a reviewer to make a quick initial assessment of how valuable a resource it is likely to be. For example, it is important to know whether a source is independent of the subject: if it originates from the subject, or from their associates, employers, agents, or producers, it contributes nothing towards establishing notability, and is limited in what information it may be used to support. ColinFine (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Colin,

This is great advice, thank you so much. I'll read through and make the references more informative. Sustainablequeen (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PROBLEMS IN LAYOUT-ING

Hello again! Hope you're fine, I have a problem with WP:LAYOUT especially a statement, Infobox goes before the introduction. One of the editor had to come and recorrect all of the articles I created and I really feel bad to burden him/her/them/it.

The editor puts infobox (which I alway place after introduction) right after description/on top then introduction follows but when an article is reviewed/saved, an introduction starts then infobox follows, when I tried to put infobox before the introduction on the new draft I'm working on Draft:Meddy (singer), infobox remains on top introduction lays low when reviewed/saved. Is there any additional stuff?

ANU^writes 13:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

afyaniuhai, I don't know how an article such as this benefits from an infobox. In your place, I wouldn't have created an infobox; but its position looks OK to me. What's a lot more important is that the draft has unsourced personal information about the man, e.g. the name of his wife. In view of this, I for one would decline the draft. -- Hoary (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hoary for a reply, I though submitted drafts/articles can be declined as not enough for an article since the editor submitted them as completed but that's still in maintainance, but it's alright. I only had the problem with Infobox (I've also cited all those regions with 5 refs, And I'll add them up to 10, I'll kindly notify you to see the article when finished. ANU^writes 13:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help with notice

Why was this notice about copyediting put on the article? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 14:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vortex3427. I think the answer lies int he fact that you have made a lot of detailed edits to this article since November, and another editor has not unreasonably highlighted that the style or writing could be made to fit in better with Wikipedi's encyclopaedic voice. There are some quite long sentences full of clauses, and a fair bit of trivia. They felt that the article would benefit from being trimmed back with some relatively minor editing to make it more readable - hence the notice.

Here's one example the editor might have been a bit thinking about: "As a child, Stovall had severe asthma and visited Hendrick Medical Center over a dozen times, although it has since grown milder with age. He also spent three months at the National Jewish Hospital. A large hospital, it had an onsite kindergarten and field trips. Stovall first visited an arcade on one such field trip and played Night Driver (1976). He lived in Abilene, Texas, where he attended Alta Vista Elementary School and Cooper High School." It's rather full of trivia, and the subjects of the sentences do jump around a bit, nor is it in the most logical order. So, some copy editing would be welcome to polish it a bit further. But I also know from experience that, having worked hard on researching and writing a whole load of text over many weeks, it can often be easier for a fresh pair of eyes to do that final work. Don't be offended by this - it actually a way of saying this is interesting, but it could be made to flow better with a little more work. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I'd say, Ask the editor who added the tag. In this case, I see it was an IP editor, and that was their only edit from that IP address. You could still put a question on that IP user's talk page, but there's no guarantee they would see it.

If you consider the text carefully, and decide that the tag is not appropriate, you can remove it - make sure you explain in the edit summary what you're doing. If the IP user (or anybody else) disagrees, they can open a discussion. ColinFine (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that it is understood that some people have no control over what IP is given them when they come onto the site so basing a decision on the number of times edits appear under an IP can be irrelevant.2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Unless you look at contributions made across the /64 range of an IP address (like this), one has no idea of the totality of edits made from that individual IPv6 address. Even then, it doesn't mean that is all the edits someone has made. A very experienced editor may well simply fail to log on one day, be using a mobile phone, or using a machine at work without logging on, lest their password is recorded and seen by someone else. Thus, we must avoid being biased against edits made by a single IP address. Judge them on their quality, not their quantity. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manfred_Doss Draft publish

Hi there. I've written an Article for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Manfred_Doss . Unfortunately i cannot publish it or move it to the namespace due to the missing "more"-Button? What am I doing wrong? Username: User:AnnaZwei

AnnaZwei (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, AnnaZwei. Another editor (and one experienced in article reviewing) has now added a 'submit for review' button to your draft. (Brand new users here cannot move drafts into mainspace until they have a few more edits than you do).

That editor (Theroadislong) has left a note on the draft, which needs addressing before you submit it again. In essence, there's an awful lot of factual statements, but none are directly supported by inline citations. You need to address this, linking each statement to a source. Just a link to a website at the end is not sufficient. If you are connected with the person (i.e. you worked with him or knew him), you should declare any such connection on your userpage. See WP:COI for guidance on that. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving talk page

I am LordVoldemort728 and I am here to know that how to archive my talk page in different archive numbers? I am able to archive my talk page at User talk:LordVoldemort728/Archive 1 but I want to archive 5 messages to User talk:LordVoldemort728/Archive 2, 5 messages to User talk:LordVoldemort728/Archive 3, 5 messages to User talk:LordVoldemort728/Archive 4 ....... But I don't know how to do like this pattern via a user script so can anyone tell me that how to archive messages of talk page to different archive page numbers. Thanks. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, once the archive 1 reaches a certain size, lowercase sigmabot will automatically start archiving to archive 2, then 3 and so on. The reason for this is so that they are in chronological order. Hope this helps. Blanchey (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blanchey Can I change the certain size. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LordVoldemort728: Hi. In the archive settings at the top of your talkpage, there is parameter maxarchivesize, currently it is set in raw format as 100000, this works. But you can set it as 100k as well. 100000 is the standard, and recommended value for the size of archive page. 80k would be very small, and that value will generate a lot of archive pages. I recommend you to stick to your current settings. When the current page (User talk:LordVoldemort728/Archive 1) gets to the size of 100k, the bot will automatically create /Archive 2. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@LordVoldemort728: oh I just understood your question. Having only 5 threads/messages per archive page will also spawn a lot of pages. You can try 75k as the size, but you shouldn't go any lower than that. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LordVoldemort728 In addition to advising you to keep your archives reasonably lengthy (or else it will be hard to find stuff again), I would also suggest your current setting of having just a 24 hour period before allowing the archive bot to archive the oldest of your four threads is also extremely unwise and unhelpful to everyone who engages with you. It will constantly be clearing out what you've told it are old messages, yet 24 hours or more is quite often the length of time between receiving replies to a thread.

Unless you have things you want hidden away from view and put immediately into an archive (and that tends to make people like me somewhat suspicious) my advice would be to keep at least the last 30 days of discussions (and at least the latest 10 to 20 threads) visible on your user talk page, and keep the archive files pretty large so you don't end up with myriads of them. Expecting someone who wants to engage with you to hunt through old archives after you've tidied them away is not really that helpful. You will also find it easier to keep track of recent interactions with others.

I admit that I could be seen as taking things to extremes, but I like to keep my own talk messages visible for about 6 months, and to have fewer, reasonably lengthy archives, too. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LordVoldemort728: I hadn't realised the 24 hours setting. I mistook it for 24 days. I agree with Nick. I strongly recommend at least a week, and the longest for a month. 14 to 20 days is a good amount. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LordVoldemort728: You can also look at what others do. For example, I archive my talk pages by year, not by size threshold, and I keep six months (180d) of history on my talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty Switching From Source To Visual Editor

Sometimes when I'm in the source editor the button to switch to the visual editor is not visible or not apparent. I have observed this on different computers with different browsers. Is there something I'm missing? What's the simplest, most consistent and reliable way to switch from the source to the visual editor? Iguana0000 (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Iguana0000, welcome to the Teahouse. There may be a bug, or you may simply be noticing that the Visual Editor is (by design) not available in some places on the site, such as talk pages. You can go into your personal preferences and check the box titled something like "Always use VE when available" - more detailed instructions are at top left of WP:VE, under the heading Enable VisualEditor. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, after becoming comfortable with the source editor, why anybody would want to switch to the visual editor? I never use the visual editor myself. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I barely ever use visual editor, but there are some things it is useful for – if you want to swap columns about in a table, for instance, editing the wikitext directly is a giant pain. You can do it – if the wikitext is laid out nicely and your text editor supports column selection it might not be too bad – but for the everyday user it's no fun at all. And just parsing the wikitext for complicated tables, even to make simple edits, is pretty high-overhead unless you are very used to it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I primarily use the visual editor because I copyedit. I don't need to see every single template and citation expanded into code when I'm adjusting for grammar and flow. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Teahouse Hosts could benefit from being familiar with both. Increasingly, new users are starting with Visual Editor, and we do need to know how things work so we can help them. I've been trying to force myself to use it more - especially as it's usually the de facto editor offered in formal training at many editathons. As well as working with tables, and avoiding all the code when copy editing, I also find it quite good for modifying existing references once I've used Source Editor to enter a 'ref name' (which WP:VE, frustratingly, still doesn't permit). Nick Moyes (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The visual editor allows citations to be reused, albeit with no option to choose a customised ref name. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Source editor also permits re-use of a 'Named Reference', though it's less obvious in the tools menu. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's only true if you have the 2017 editing toolbar enabled, which I think is still in beta? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's only "in beta" because nobody's bothered to move it into regular preferences. You should assume that it's stable software in practice. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading a logo for my organization

Hello! Happy new year and thank you for the invite. I am currently making a page for the Indycar team I work for, Steinbrenner Racing. This is part of my job, I have photos and logos that they have asked me to use. I am having trouble uploading the logo without it being deleted. How should I go about it as far as selecting the correct license(s) for the logo and our other photos? They are all ours and I have been told to use them so there is no issue there. Thank you! Ajusc21 (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajusc21 The logo won't make any difference to the review of your draft when you submit it to WP:AFC, so I'd not worry about it at present. Once the article is accepted (if it is) then please read WP:LOGO for the process. I doubt that your racing team really want the logo to be available for anyone to use for any purpose whatsoever, so it won't be appropriate for Commons but can go (at low resolution) here on the English Wikipedia, as explained at the page I linked. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are these good sources to show notability ?

Brittanica WorldCat works entry Pulse News in Nigeria Google book paragraph about the person seeking a Wikipedia page. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:246A:5770:5E30:1A69 (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to give a useful answer if you could be more specific about what sources you wanted to use and who you wanted to write an article about, but as a general idea:

An Encyclopedia Britannica article about a topic almost certainly counts towards establishing notability.
A WorldCat works entry probably doesn't, but if you can find reviews of those works that might help establish notability via WP:NAUTHOR
A book paragraph may or may not count, depending on whether the book is independent of the subject and considered a reliable source

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRITANNICA has disputed reliability and may or may not count. Pulse News likely counts, but it cannot be an interview or press release, as they are not independent. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. So it's better if a publication writes about you without an interview? What if it's a blend of both? 2600:8802:3A12:E700:246A:5770:5E30:1A69 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An interview can be a reliable source, but it isn't independent of the subject; establishing notability requires sources that are both independent and reliable. I'm unsure of what you mean by "a blend of both": it is much easier for us to answer this question with concrete examples rather than having to guess what exactly you mean, but in the end it would come down to whether editors were persuaded that the source was sufficiently independent of the subject. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When does a user page violate WP:NOTWEBHOST ?

Hi everyone, I mainly edit Motorsport pages and lately noticed a user cluttering his Userpage with fantasy championship entry lists and championship tables. As I rarely interact with other users apart from warning IP vandals here and there, I'm not too familiar if this behavior violates Wikipedia:NOTWEBHOST (because the user page I'm talking about is now almost 300k bytes large)?

And if it does, is there an automated system to notify admins of very large user pages, or does someone have to expicitly notify an admin of this? And at which noticeboard would one do this?

Thanks, and happy new year everyone! H4MCHTR (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

H4MCHTR the amount of storage is negligible. Any uploaded photo (such as on my User page) will instantly be more than that. If they have some decoration/personality on their profile, who cares as long as they are making constructive edits. Examples of blatant hosting violations include copyrighted content, treating user page as drafting space for articles, social media/blog posts unrelated to English Wikipedia etc… ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thank you! How would you handle a user using his page as drafting space for articles? Maybe you could take a look at their page, the user is called RxxingAddict, and tell me your opinion? H4MCHTR (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@H4MCHTR I had a look and would not suggest any actions. I also re-read up on WP:User page and this line stood out to me Work in progress or material that you may come back to in future (usually on subpages) meaning that User page can also be used for work in progress, so what I previously said was not correct. Thank you for giving me chance to correct myself. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your help on this matter! All the best, H4MCHTR (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@H4MCHTR, @Shushugah I would say that "fantasy championship entry lists" don't have any potential use in the encyclopedia and shouldn't be on a user page. But I don't feel too strongly either way. David10244 (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the Attitude of Administrators and Seasoned Editors

Lately it has come to my attention the rude and unwelcoming manners of a certain number of administrators and seasoned editors, either in the teahouse or in the interactions on talk pages on different articles, even though I understand that disruptive/vandalizing behaviour is harmful for the project and must be addressed swiftly and that the administrator positions entails certain rights and prerogatives, i extend a cordial invitation on everyone here to adjust the attitude to reflect the expectations of welcoming, politeness and patience and even more keenly to those who have spent more time and effort on wikipedia to follow the guidelines and policies that they're so eager to enforce, lets continue building a better and more inclusive and welcoming project. Juanriveranava (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Juanriveranava, welcome to the Teahouse. If you have specific behavioral complaints, you can bring them up on the talk pages of the specific users or at WP:ANI. A general complaint is, unfortunately, not likely to get far, especially since the Teahouse is not set up to address such things. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, before pointing fingers I want to address to the whole editor community, but appreciate the pointer though.Juanriveranava (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Juanriveranava, a post at the Teahouse is not likely to be seen by a large portion of the editing community; mostly it will be seen by the few editors who answer questions here, since those asking the questions rarely read further than their own section. If you have a solution to propose to this problem, Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) might be a place to offer it. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

once again, thank you!, I'll repost it there. Juanriveranava (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those aspiring to become Teahouse hosts are already charged with being friendly and informative to newcomers. See Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/Expectations. David notMD (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without specifics, your general reminder is useless wherever it is posted. As someone who reads teahouse regularly including already answered questions, I rarely see any of the behavior you describe. More problematic are newish editors who find the teahouse and decide to stick around to answer questions they have limited knowledge on and cause issues that experienced editors need to clean up.Slywriter (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

isn't it the whole purpose of the teahouse? to ask questions?, I've been just the recipient of said behaviour, but maybe I'm an anomaly of the system and my observations and experiences are a complete delusion on my part, thank you anyways for pointing the uselessness of my participations, I'll take it in consideration for future exchanges. Juanriveranava (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slywriter the complete opposite of IMDB then apparently, where the admins know less about their own rules and policies than the regular users, and answered/solved much less questions/problems than the regular users too.

On their community/help pages from 2022 and earlier they would have just 1 admin answering questions/solving problems on a daily basis.

However she would only ever answer/solve 3 or 4 a day.

Occasionally another 1 or 2 admins would come on and answer/solve a few questions/problems in a row, before disappearing again for months, or even years.

The rest of the questions/problems were left to helpful people like me.

So after getting frustrated by their uselessness one day, I pointed out:

The lack of admins and the ratio of the number of questions/problems they've answered/solved over the months/years
The fact that admins rarely know their own policies/guidelines
The fact that their answer for most questions/problems is to paste a link for a section of the guidelines which they clearly haven't read or understood themselves, even though the user has usually already been there, and/or it's a problem which needs admin assistance.
The fact that around 5 to 10 specific contribution types get declined repeatedly, even when they contain references as proof in the explanation box. What types? I've forgotten most of them, however birth dates, death dates and movie connections were 3 of them. In the last month, things like profile merges have started to get declined repeatedly too, even though I find countless duplicates every single time I check and update the credits on a production, or I'm looking for someone who has a common name.
The 20 or 30+ posts of mine which had been ignored for months by putting them into a single post along with the dates they were posted or last interacted with by an admin.

I was then blocked from the community around a year ago after writing that post by IMDB's founder Col Needham, for pointing out those facts, and he's blocked another two of my emails once he realised it was me, even though at the time of the last block I had just helped them find a film which a woman falsely claimed had nothing to do with her co-director and co-star, and was trying to get his credits removed from films they made together. He was credited in the film. He appeared in the film. Plus he was in the cast and crew photos, yet she still tried to deny he worked on the film.

I had previously helped them find countless early productions starring people who wanted to hide their work from early in their career, most likely because they were embarrassed about the poor quality of their early stuff.

Since then, I now use the contact form instead, however the admins there aren't much better.

There's 2, at a push 3 admins who actually solve problems most of the time.

The rest, predicably paste a link to the guidelines, for things which can't be solved with the guidelines, and which I already know about as 1 of the Top 100 IMDB Contributors in the world (without any helpful programs to cheat the system like the Top 15 Contributors have).

However, even with IMDB's incompetent admin problems, I still prefer IMDB to Wikipedia.

Why? Because even though there's a lot of stuff missing, once it's added, it is never removed, unless it's completely false obviously, and can be proven by something like posting the entire credits of a production.

Whereas on Wikipedia there's a lot of admins who remove information like references because they claim there's "too many references" or because of the fact they're on the "unreliable" or "deprecated" references list no matter what the context of the reference.

There's also admins who remove information in general, to make an article "look less cluttered."

If they replaced the references with better references that contain the same information, then fair enough, however the large majority don't. There's certain admins who clearly spend most of their editing time, going around removing useful information on a daily basis without even reading it, as you can see by looking at their "Contribution" History. Danstarr69 (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I inferred, but I perceived and experience another thing, thus my now (I reckon) very unwelcome comment. Juanriveranava (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected article for Reliable sources

All the resources I was able to find look reliable to me. I am not sure how I can improve Reliable sources when I found all of them third party and reliable. Ddujmovic (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Ned Krtolica (I assume this is the subject of the inquiry) - 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to list the article link

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:Ned_Krtolica&oldid=1123126098 Ddujmovic (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ddjumovic, and welcome to the Teahouse. We often say "reliable sources", but in fact there are three separate criteria that are required for each source that is to be used to establish notability. reliability is one, but the others are independence from the subject, and containing significant coverage of the subject.

Looking at your list of citations, it doesn't look to me as if a single one meets those criteria. Listings are useless. Items written or published by the subject may sometimes be cited, but cannot contribute to notability. Press releases are useless.

Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. With that in mind, have you got any sources which qualify? (They don't have to be in English). ColinFine (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya User:Ddujmovic and welcome to The Teahouse! The first thing you can do is compare the references you used against this list or perennial sources to see which are good and which are not. UtherSRG (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, you need to remove all external links from the body of the article. Those should be in the External Links section. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland's protection level

What is Auckland's protection level on Wikipedia? 64.114.207.63 (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP! Welcome to The Teahouse. What do you mean by this question? Also, please create a new section when you are asking a new question. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland is currently subject to Pending changes protection due to disruption. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor: you can find out what the various protection levels are just by clicking on the padlock that appears at the top right of the article you are interested in: it behaves like a wikilink. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Hi that doesn't work on mobile devices. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

Can you please help me properly format my nomination of the 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election to ITN? Joesom333 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joesom333: I believe Fuzheado fixed this here, as Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Speaker Election (US) looks properly formatted at time of writing. From your edit here, it looks to me like there were two issues:

The {{ITN candidate}} template should go after the section header (i.e. after the closing equal symbols, ====).
The template needed two curly brackets at the start (one was missing).

Hope this helps! — Bilorv (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!Joesom333 (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages and personal opinions

Advice, please: user Роман Сергеевич Сидоров seems to be developing his Talk page as a personal website for himself, though I have advised him several times not to do this. He has also developed some sort of grievance against me, in spite of my efforts to answer questions he has sent me, and has been sending me confrontational messages on my Talk page (posting on the topic 'Voiced retroflex consonant in RP' is the most recent example). I am not sure what to do about this, but I find it disturbing to have these messages sent to me on WP. RoachPeter (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RoachPeter Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This isn't the forum to report user conduct issues- such issues should be reported to WP:ANI. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Editing Question

How do i move images up and down in visual editing mode?

Thanks. Klad 2 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Klad 2 Welcome to Teahouse! You can copy/paste an image, which will copy its wiki code and then paste it before/after a different section of text on the Article. If you want to use advanced settings like float left/float right, read HELP:IMAGES. The visual editor has many options (including floating), but not all of them work as well as source editor. Happy tinkering! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah, I'm popping in to say that the correct link is actually Help:Pictures. DecafPotato (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Klad 2 (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can also drag and drop images to the correct location. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

67th and 77th Armored Regiments Structure

Hey, uh, if you look in these two articles, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/77th_Armor_Regiment#Commanders_of_the_753rd,_Co_A_77th_Tank_Bn,_77th_Armor_Regiment and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/67th_Armored_Regiment, there is nothing about its current structure, and I don't have access to external links that would tell me. Can someone please help? Faithful15 (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Faithful15 Welcome to Teahouse. You can ask on their respective talk pages Talk:77th Armor Regiment and Talk:67th Armor Regiment. Also read WP:LINKING to learn how to properly wikilink while on Wikipedia. Additionally, WP:MILHIST may be a good place to ask. Happy learning! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delores Cannon

Its weird, ive never looked someone up to find wikipedia refusing them a spot. I wanted to learn more about her, it woukd seem based on her authorship alone she would be deserving? Could someone please explain? 97.115.136.1 (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP. read Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing! Additionally I recommend WP:NAUTHOR to understand which authors may be notable by Wikipedia bureaucratic standards and which ones not. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The name is "Dolores". Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dolores Cannon was a debate that took place nine years ago. Cullen328 (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "ive never looked someone up to find wikipedia refusing them a spot": count yourself lucky! Some of us (patrolling drafts and new articles) see cases everyday of someone writing about themselves or their goldfish or their brother-in-law's cousin (one of his Soundcloud songs has nearly 10,000 listens!). We have minimum "notability" policies to limit our scope and stop people from using Wikipedia to promote themselves. This means we can also ensure that there is something to say in every article, some verifiable information from reliable sources independent of the subject that exists. — Bilorv (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that no one has attempted to create an article about her since the article deletion in 2013. David notMD (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tools for importing citations

Hi! Is there some easy way to convert citations from bibtex format to the format used in wikipedia? Vuniu (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vuniu, why do you want to do that?

If you're using the sources to cite content in articles, then the visual editor (which you should be able to see here) has a "Cite" button that will turn a DOI (or an ISBN, most URLs, etc.) into a Wikipedia-style citation template. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This answers my question. Vuniu (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert War. Am I Right on What the Guidelines Say?

It annoys me how every single, British, right leaning source is either listed as:

Generally Unreliable or Deprecated

Whereas every single, British, left leaning source is listed as:

Generally Reliable

Even though I see mistakes from sources like The Guardian and The Independent every single time I read a story from them.

Therefore the left is just as bad as the right, except on Wikipedia it seems, which just like the world of film and TV, is clearly run by liberals, as practically every single Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, Daily Express, The Sun, Daily Star, News of the World, Metro, GB News etc reference I see on Wikipedia or use myself is removed by someone eventually no matter what the context of the reference is.

Earlier last year I created this One Pair of Eyes (TV series).

I used the BBC Programme Index to reference every episode date...

And then I used the few random references I could find which were talking about this long-forgotten show or one of the episodes.

One of those random references was from the deprecated Daily Mail.

It was written by Shirley Conran who presented one of the episodes, and was simply a brief mention that she made the episode.

I noticed yesterday that the reference had been removed, so after double checking the reliable source guidelines which say:

"The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context."

And then reading the linked about self-fashion section here Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves which says:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are published experts in the field, so long as:

1 - The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2 - It does not involve claims about third parties;
3 - It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4 - There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5 - The article is not based primarily on such sources.

Therefore I reverted that incorrect reference removal, and explained what the guidelines said.

Today my reversion has been reverted again, so I've re-added it, and I suspect it will be reverted again.

Why are so many people allowed to remove right-leaning references no matter what the context without being questioned?

As I said at the start, I'm always seeing them being removed when I look through the history of articles, no matter what the context of the reference is.

They also get removed even when there's no other sources available to reference non-controversial information, like with another reference of mine that I noticed got removed last year, which I'm pretty sure was about a farmer appearing in a TV show. How is proving that a farmer appeared in a TV show controversial? It isn't, yet it got removed anyway, despite it being the only article I could find with photographic proof of whoever it was appearing in whatever show it was. Danstarr69 (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people on this website can't think critically so when they see a citation from a no-no site they instantly remove it FishandChipper 🐟🍟 23:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The teahouse can't help with this. You could ask Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you provide evidence and diffs to prove what you're saying. Also, don't editwar. Remember 3RR. echidnaLives - talk - edits 02:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid the excessive bolding, please. But yeah, per EchidnaLives, the Teahouse isn't the place for this. DecafPotato (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not a super experienced editor, I might be able to give an explanation. I just hovered over the magazines for context and when I see Germans declaring war on the pound, I kinda get a bit on edge about the source. While the Guardian seems about as reliable as the New York Times, Washington Post, Atlantic, or the local paper.

If the issue is more an editor making a mistake, then I would bring that up at the articles talk page or their user page. ✶Mitch 199811✶ 03:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with my page but it says "Speedy deletion", can somebody tell me why?

The page is King Gug and it was tagged with "speedy deletion" but I cannot see why it is "irrelevant". Can somebody tell me why? MaxAvery1999 (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was tagged with A7 as it contains no verifiable references to reliable sources (the only source cited is Discogs). per the consensus formed from the discussions listed at WP:RSDISCOGS, Discogs is not a reliable source, as its content is user-generated. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 03:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MaxAvery1999. When you say that you see nothing wrong with your draft, then that indicates that you have not read basic help pages like Your first article and studied it in depth. Your draft completely fails to establish that this person is notable. You need to step up your game if you hope to write Wikipedia articles that will stick. Cullen328 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It now exists at Draft:King Gug. David notMD (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It, and your other attempts at articles, were all converted to drafts due to lack of references. No references = no articles. And if King Gug is not notable, very unlikely that his albums could be notable. David notMD (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number of edits

How do I see the number of edits? Do I simply have to count through the list or is there a shortcut? Mast303 (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate more on what "number of edits" you are trying to see? Number of edits you have made as a user, number of edits made to an article, or something else? - Fuzheado | Talk 04:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The number of edits across all pages since I created my account. 04:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Mast303 (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mast303 for your account, you can view your stats here: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Mast303 – robertsky (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Olympic Committee Names

Could someone direct me to where it is discussed the phrasing style for national Olympic committee names? I do not totally understand all the bits and pieces of WP but i do need to know what is if it has been established how original language titles are phrased in English such as "Comité Olímpico Chile" is the name for the nation of Chile but it is translated into "Chilean Olympic Committee" in an attempt to coincide with English grammar rules when in fact it is a legal title that the translation should be more literal than figurative and at least phrased as "Chile Olympic Committee" instead of "Chilean Comité Olímpico" as what it would be if translated "Chilean Olympic Committee"?2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Wikipedia:COMMONNAME is the relevant guideline. We use common English language article names, not "official" names in any language. Cullen328 (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after the various discussions on National Football Team name phrasing it seems that rule does not apply when grammar seemed to get in the way of literal translation. These are legally recognized names of organizations that are being dealt with and sometimes it seems that what someone believes is correct merely because of a rule of grammar versus a use of the title in the original context, or in the context that the policy noted being COMMON. We dont say Englandan or United Statesian. COMMON is just the beginning of consideration to be refined through a better understanding about what is it that is to be accomplished without offending. If it were only as simple as using COMMON always we would not have as many variants in all the phrasing policies and guidelines.2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete Felix Leong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Felix_Leong

Apart from these 3 TV news coverage 1. https://www.9news.com.au/national/fire-adelaide-king-fu-felis-leong/550e2804-8b91-47f9-8f1a-022c8434ef15 2. https://www.facebook.com/10NewsAdl/videos/2069357169823106/ 3. https://www.facebook.com/grandmaster.leong1/videos/349970479036036

Felix has been published in a national Spanish newspaper https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=5715589521893738&set=a.4444647332321303 He has been in the Latin Australian Times that is out of print but those sources were deleted before the AFD. https://web.archive.org/web/20170217092946im_/http://sifu.maurice.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Sum_Nung.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20170217092858im_/http://sifu.maurice.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/LAT-10-Nov.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20170217093153im_/http://sifu.maurice.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/felix-LAT-402x1024.jpg Advertiser; https://web.archive.org/web/20170217093137im_/http://sifu.maurice.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Felix-Leong-559x1024.jpg

Happy new year! Australianblackbelt (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Australianblackbelt Welcome to the teahouse! If you believe the article now has enough coverage to overcome the issues that were brought up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felix Leong, you can create a new page and submit it for AfC review at WP:Article wizard. It will not be directly undeleted as there was unanimous support for deletion during the discussion. It must be recreated and completely different/fixed, or it will not be accepted. If you directly recreate it in the mainspace, it will be speedily deleted per criteria G4.

Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 06:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, Australianblackbelt. Facebook is not a reliable source so if you start out by putting forward Facebook pages as reliable sources, do not be surprised that reviewers are unwilling to pay much attention to a mediocre submission. If you are willing to put the work into transforming this draft into something much more like an encyclopedia article, then maybe it will be accepted. Otherwise, it is likely to be declined. Read Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand facebook is not a source but the TV news story in mainstream media is there and so if the scanned copy of the notional newspaper. Perhaps I leave the links to facebook till it gets approved then I delete them and leave the reference details. Australianblackbelt (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Australianblackbelt. You should be citing the channel and the newspaper properly, not the facebook link. And while the TV segment looks as if it is the channel's official FB account, the scan of the newspaper is probably a copyright violation, and it is forbidden to link to these anywhere in Wikipedia.

A citation should consist of the information necessary for a reader to evaluate whether it is likely to be worth looking at the source, and enable the reader to obtain the source if they wish to. This means such things as publication, publisher, title, author, date, page number. A link is a convenience for the reader, not (usually) an essential part of the citation. (Sources do not even have to be available on line: as long as they have been published, so that a reader could in principle get them, say through a major library, that is enough). ColinFine (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why my translation does not get published

Hello team, I am not a new user and have already translated a few pages from English. Recently I translated Poverty Bay page but when trying to publish it, I received an error message as:

Automatic edit filters have identified problematic content in your translation. Filter hit: ویرایش و ایجاد مقاله با استفاده از ابزار ترجمه محتو

Reading further in help pages, I notice the requirement for 500 edits for translation from English. Is this a new rule? I never had problems like this before.

Is there any way I can publish this work? Any help will be appreciated. Freshclover (talk) 06:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're translating from English, then you are trying to put it into another Wikipedia (Farsi? I don't know), so you'll need to ask at that Wikipedia. Each language edition of Wikipedia is completely separate. ColinFine (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Freshclover! Welcome to the Teahouse! If you are referring to Integrated Weed Management, that was deemed not ready for the encyclopedia and moved to Draft:Integrated Weed Management. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I am not referring to that draft (integrated ...). I am trying to publish in Farsi but the translation draft does not get published with the error message I gave above. I do not think it is due to Wiki Farsi rules as I have published a few pages there too.

I cannot interpret the error message, As I had no trouble translating from English to Farsi before this, I want to know if there are certain rules. Cheers Freshclover (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Freshclover. The Teahouse is primarily intended for questions about English Wikipedia. Sometimes a host is able to answer a question about what's happening on another Wikimedia Foundation project (e.g. Farsi Wikipedia), but it's almost always better to seek assistance on the help pages of the project where you're having problems. I don't know whether Farsi Wikipedia has its own version of the Teahouse, but it probably has a help desk where you can ask questions. You might also want to try looking for someone who understands Farsi at Wikipedia:Translators available since they might be able to help. Finally, while it's acceptable to translate English Wikipedia articles into other languages, such a thing needs to be done in accordance with WP:TRANSLATEUS; so, if you're not familiar with that page, you might want to take a look at it for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Freshclover Hi! 👋 Admin in Persian Wikipedia here. It seems using CX is disabled in Persian Wikipedia for users who are not extended confirmed (at least 500 edits) (fa:ویژه:پالایهٔ_خرابکاری/258 and fa:ویژه:پیوند دائمی/36008901#فکری به حال ابزار ترجمهٔ محتوا). I'm sorry you can't publish your translations. Maybe try again after some edits? You have already 453 edits. Thanks Ladsgroup^overleg 23:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this seems to be what is the cause of my problem. I read the requirement is 500 in English not over all Wikis. So, I will try another method for translation like using Word and copy it into draft. Cheers. Freshclover (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What redirects used to target Southern Cross Ten?

Hey team, what redirects used to target Southern Cross Ten?

Southern Cross Ten has since been moved to 10 (Southern Cross Austereo), so I am trying to find out what redirects used to target Southern Cross Ten and don't target 10 (Southern Cross Austereo) nowadays. Can you help me please? From Bas. Bassie f (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Ten Capital News used to target to Southern Cross Ten and 10 (Southern Cross Austereo) but Ten Capital News now targets CTC (TV station), so can you please find the rest of these redirects that used to target Southern Cross Ten but don’t target 10 (Southern Cross Austereo) nowadays. Bassie f (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bassie f, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you go to Southern Cross Ten, and pick "(Redirected from Southern Cross Ten)" at the top, it will take you to the redirection page. You can then pick "What links here" from the tools in the sidebar. ColinFine (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The Time Allocated for Running Scripts Has Expired"

Why do I keep seeing that?

Is it a problem on Wikipedia?

Or is it something like a cache/cookies problem? Danstarr69 (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It generally means that the particular page you are trying to read or edit simply has too many template calls. The solution is simplifying or splitting the page. Sometimes this can affect many pages, if a template that is used widely has been changed and either mistakenly includes a load of stuff that it shouldn't, or has actually been significantly expanded. ColinFine (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk page

hello folks, a quick question: how do i create the talk page for an article? this question is apropos of an article i recently created, Bride's Toilet. the article currently lacks a talk page – and i'm not too sure what to add in there. wikiprojects? hope someone can help. Dissoxciate (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dissoxciate Just go to the article and click on the redlinked tab that says "Talk" (in the same place as on any other article's page). Then you'll be able to add new material by editing the page that will open up. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Turnbull thanks for the input mate but i'm not really confused about that part in particular. i am not sure what to add in there. as in, the content of the talk page. i've never created an article's talk page previously, so i am having a hard time figuring this out. Dissoxciate (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dissoxciate I suggest you look at the Talk Page for Talk:Three Girls (painting) which is by the same artist and use the same two templates. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Turnbull that seems to work. thanks for the help, mike! Dissoxciate (talk) 10:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can i edit article in wikipedia

can i edit article in wikipedia :-Coupon Code Amank134 (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Amank134 and welcome to the Teahouse! you may edit articles in Wikipedia, but you may not use it to advertise promotions, schools, or anything else. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 11:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Amank134, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what you're asking. You may edit articles (I see you have been editing Physicswallah). But you may not do any kind of promotion anywhere in Wikipedia. Not only should you not add anything about coupons to that article, but you shoukd remove the blatant WP:promotion which you have put on your user talk page. ColinFine (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

On my notifications bell, it says I have a new message, but when I click on it, there are no new notifications. Is it a notification from another wiki, and if so, is there a place where I can view cross-wiki notifications. Please help. --Justyouraveragelechuga ^talk 12:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justyouraveragelechuga, if you are on mobile, switch to desktop, at bottom of screen, for a moment and see if the notification is visible there. It's worked for me in the past. Slywriter (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slywriter I am on mobile (kindle e-reader) and I always use desktop mode. I tried switching to mobile and it didn't work. --~~

Could this person be notable

Today i edited the page of Alex Beaton. After a few searches on Google, i found out that there was a Producer with the same name that had a Emmy Nomination once. Now i'm not sure if that is enough to count him as notable. He's also already mentioned in a few wikipeda articles.⁽¹⁾ Emmy Nomination Obituary IMDB

My question now is if this person could be notable. Thanks for any help 1AmNobody24 (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1AmNobody24 I don't know what Wikipedia thinks about EMMY's reliability, however I know what I think about it...

Roughly 18 months to 24 months ago I was updating something on IMDB, and was reminded that a former child actor from my city in England, is now a producer in the USA who has produced the sister shows for some of the biggest dramas in the world.

He has a common name, so there's over 300 people on IMDB with his name, and while searching for those profiles looking for duplicates I found that he had at least 5 duplicate profiles.

While I was looking around Google searching for links listing the shows he has produced 100s of episodes for, to see if there were any I don't know about (which is very likely as he barely has an online presence) I found an EMMY Bio with his name, containing a total of 7 awards/nominations.

2 of those 7 awards/nominations are definitely him.

However I'm pretty certain that the other 5 awards/nominations belong to someone else with the same name, as he doesn't seem to have mentioned those credits in any of his online CV's.

I still haven't merged his duplicate profiles or added any missing credits on IMDB yet, as that EMMY Bio containing suspected misinformation put me off slightly, plus there's no doubt many director/producers with similar credits which will take forever to look through in detail. I'll get around to it eventually though. Danstarr69 (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 1AmNobody24, and welcome to the Teahouse. Certainly he could be notable. But notability in Wikipedia's sense isn't (directly) about what a person has said, done or created: it's about what others, unconnected with him, have chosen to publish about him. WP:NCREATIVE suggests some criteria that, if they are met, mean that a person is likely to meet the standard. But there is (literally) no substitute for going and looking for the sources - remembering that each source must be all three of reliable, independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject. If you can find them, he's probably notable. If you can't he's almost certainly not notable. ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing an article from AFC queue

Hi -- I submitted an article via AfC, not really thinking about why I was doing it that way, and since then have posted another article directly in the mainspace. I just saw on the AFC page that it says "Established users in good standing, however, are encouraged to not clutter up the AfC queue with pages that do not need support or guidance from AfC reviewers." I'm inclined to just post the article currently in the queue directly but would like to know the proper procedure for removing it from the queue. Much thanks. Iguana0000 (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Iguana0000, welcome to the Teahouse. As I can see, you have published Robert Paine (anthropologist) directly into mainspace bypassing the AfC, you should be having knowledge about it. If in case, an article is put into AfC queue, one can simply remove the AfC tags from it and the article gets removed from the queue. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can simply revert the submission edit, I believe. UtherSRG (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iguana0000: There is no "queue" at AFC; the wording on that page should be corrected. Any reviewer can choose to review any draft in any order. Sometimes a review can happen the same day a draft is submitted, and sometimes it can take months.

I've published several article directly in main space, but even as an established editor I have used AFC to get comments about drafts I was not quite comfortable with. My article Gameknight999, for example, started out as a biography of the author but the AFC reviewer thought it would be best to re-cast it into an article about the book series. It sat for a year before I finally rewrote it and resubmitted. I didn't consider this to "clutter up" anything, it's a way to get good advice. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, my plan was to post it in main space and request peer review. Curiously enough at the moment I'm getting a rather rarefied sort of review. As I'm reaching out to Robert Paine's colleagues in search of a photo that can be uploaded consistent with WM policies, I'm asking them each for their thoughts on the article currently sitting in AfC (which I'll remove from the pool as per the instructions above). Thanks again. Iguana0000 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iguana. I recommend being cautious about comments from the subject's colleagues. Some of their comments may be valuable for Wikipedia, but it is likely that 1) they are not familiar with the requirements of verifiability and neutrality in Wikipedia, and 2) they have a conflict of interest, so may tend to be biased in his favour. ColinFine (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks aware of that and also let them know re high standard of verifiability. TBH I think they are as likely to be biased against him as for him as Prof. Paine published a number of 'critiques' of his colleagues' works.... in any case thanks and will take your advice to heart. Iguana0000 (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of live performances

Hello, when creating a List of live performances, should we add the date the performance was recorded or aired? Didimilk (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Didimilk: Hi. If the date is verifiable through reliable source, then it is okay to add. It always a good practice to look at other similar articles for reference/ideas. I would recommend the same to you. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I'm not sure I'd made my question clear. I always add the date the performance was aired, but sometimes, not always, there is reliable source as for the actual recording date of that performance. In such case, which date is to be added as the performance date, when it was recorded or when it was aired? Didimilk (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Didimilk: Be careful that your list isn't too broad in nature. Per WP:SALAT: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example, a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.) I'd recommend following the latter advice and limit the scope of your list of live performances. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Didimilk Maybe I'm missing something but if a performance was "live", wasn't its recording date and its (first) airing date the same? Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For example, maybe a TV show itself is live, but the musical section was previously recorded, at that same place, or possibly on a previous date and in a different country. Or the whole show was previously recorded, and aired later on. Should the airing date be added or the recording date? Or even for pre recorded performances in general, the date that should be added is the date on which it was recorded or when it was shown on TV? Sorry if I sound confusing. I suppose the general question is if the date added should be when the performance actually happened, or when it was aired on TV. Didimilk (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing a translation

Hi, I recently saw a page request on the Bulgaria portal with a link to the original page in Bulgarian. I decided to translate it and publish it as a draft (Draft:Census of Bulgaria, 1992). I know newer users can't publish pages, so I was wondering what to do from here to get it published? Sorry if this is a bad question! Thanks in advance. LuweQ (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LuweQ publishing an article is pretty easy. After the article has been moved to draftspace (which it looks like it has because of the Draft: prefix), there should be an option to publish the page. If you're on desktop, in the top right corner wthre should be a "publish pahe" option. Please respond to this if it doesn't work. --Justyouraveragelechuga ^talk 02:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Justyouraveragelechuga For some reason I don't have a publish button (I'm on desktop). There's a template message about submitting it for review, though I would assume it wouldn't be reviewed for a while.. I just thought there was a more direct way to publish the article. LuweQ (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Justyouraveragelechuga: I don't see that option. Do you mean the "move" option to move it out of draft? That is not available to new users. RudolfRed (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LuweQ: Click the blue "submit draft" button, and a reviewer will review your draft. As a new user, you cannot create articles directly. RudolfRed (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LuweQ What Rudolf said, sorry for the confusion.

Justyouraveragelechuga ^talk 02:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using one's own published material as a reference

I wrote my dissertation on "The Palace of the Porphyrogenitus." I successfully defended in 1981. My understanding of Wikipedia editing is that one should be careful to keep in check the temptation to incorporate the writer/editor's own work. I fully understand the reason for caution. However, I would like to see my dissertation included as a reference or further reading item. So far as I know, mine is the only study to have included exhaustive measurements of the fabric of the building, to have documented the fabric in hundreds of photographs and architectural drawings and to have included a reasonably exhaustive list of early traveler account titles as they pertain to the building, along with a bibliography of secondary materials on Tekfur Saray. The study also examined, not exhaustively but systematically, comparative architectural material on palace architecture outside of Istanbul. And so my Teahouse question comes down to this. Is the dissertation a likely appropriate addition to "further reading?" And, if so, would anybody else be willing to insert the item (so that I am not recorded as the contributor? If inclusion is inappropriate that is okay with me. If I decide to include supplemental material to the article, I will do so by reference to the primary or secondary publications where I offer additional or material. I do not have the same hesitancy about including visual resources in the Commons. I hope to hear from you with advice and suggestion.

Inclusion of the unpublished dissertation, available in microform, ALLEN, WILLIAM JULIUS. “TEKFUR SARAY IN ISTANBUL: AN ARCHITECTURAL STUDY.” ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1981. http://astate.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3NS8MwFH_M6UEUVFSmUwneq23SZokgUrdWx0aFfgjzMtqmPXZ-3vzjTbpmToWdPAfCS174va-83wMg-MI0fmECMTOcWU5pEWaK3M4pZTRjvLAKjqWPrnqVB1HPfeTeyHlqwYNujWnUrVGyhm4xy1XW_JIo5nVpzdnN84uhxkipcqueqZE2sxbENSOUrMG6GqutuPXvlt0jHc1v8x5nlGKJ1QTTP7Bc2xp_Bz61WPqTyYLR8ZuV4ieZ4z-eYRe2Bksl-j1oFdU-mLE38pMQRW7oTtAwQMModoPbZHyF3ACpgpNEwH6chO4YKR9zcgDnvhf37w0tz7R5tG_ThTDkENrVrCo6gJy0JKV0GgXOhJ2nQvWT5GlmlzL6zOw0P4Luio2OV652YdPizJonNE6g_f76UZzCxvwyz2pVfQH3Daw3. Will (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Woodpainter, I shan't (yet) answer your question; but I'll say in the meantime that the (extraordinarily long) URL that you provide takes me to a page that asks me to supply my log-in details for "Off-Campus E-Resource Access" to "Dean B. Ellis Library" (which I see is part of Arkansas State U). I have no reason to think that I'd be unusual in lacking an ID and password. You may wish to upload your dissertation somewhere that would be accessible to more people. -- Hoary (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodpainter: Here is a more stable URL with a PDF preview, albeit with the full work still paywalled. I see no reason why this dissertation should not be included in a prospective "Further reading" section (or simply cited in the article body) if it really is a useful source, though I don't have the expertise to judge that. There is a little more guidance available at WP:SELFCITE. Shells-shells (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodpainter: There are multiple questions in there, I will try to unpack all of them.

The first is about whether your dissertation is a source that can be used by Wikipedia. While we require sources to be "published", that means "accessible to a general person from the public", but not necessarily easily accessible. If the only way to access it is to physically travel to Arkansas State university, pay for the library access, and look at the microfilms, that counts as "published" for our purposes. Of course it’s better if there is a PDF available online somewhere (see the above answers).

The second is whether a PhD dissertation is a source that we want to use; that is, is it a WP:SECONDARY source, and is it a reliable source ? I would say, mostly, yes:

We prefer secondary sources because they have some distance from the event, person, etc. we want to write about. A PhD dissertation in history would (usually) be a secondary or even tertiary source. That might be different in other domains. For instance, an experimental PhD would be a mix of a literature review (secondary/tertiary), and original research that is primary (whoever writes the thesis also performed the experiments).
Whether a given source is considered reliable depends on the context. If the PhD is the only source to argue a relatively mundane / undisputed point, it is probably good enough. On the other hand, if the point is extremely controversial, one should carefully check all the available literature before taking a single source (no matter how good) as truth.

The third is how to proceed given that you are the author of the source you wish to use. Just adding the link in the article might indeed be improper citation spamming. I would say:

If you do not wish to spend much time, you should head over to the talk page (Talk:Palace of the Porphyrogenitus) and:
- either make an {{edit request}} to dump the dissertation in a "further reading" section (this will cause an uninvolved editor to look at your proposed addition and decide whether to add the link or not);
- or drop the source on the talk page with a short explanation of what could be found inside. Hopefully someone will look at it and manage to include some material - but that might happen quickly, slowly, or not at all, depending on how many editors are watching the page and/or are willing to go fetch the dissertation.
If you have more time, it would be nice of you to edit the article yourself. If you want to reuse content from your dissertation verbatim or with few modifications, you should follow the procedure outlined at WP:DCM, but that would usually not be needed (a dissertation is much longer than a Wikipedia article should be). The best practice would be to cite the secondary sources directly if that’s what you used (example^[1]), but cite primary sources through your dissertation per WP:SAYWHERE (example^[2]).

^ "The best puns about Porphyrogenitus", van Leeuwenhoek, 1713, The Delft Journal of Things That Sound Like Diseases But Aren’t, p.19
^ "Basileus, that palace is expensive", Nikephoros Moneiztaiton, between 1060 and 1063, fragment ZB150 of the Roman History Collection of the Istanbul museum; cited and translated in "My splendid dissertation", My Name, PhD press, p. 29.

Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help with rejected article

Hi Teahouse! I drafted an article that was rejected and I'm hoping you all might be able to help me get it over the line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pauline_Sherman). The Prof Sherman was a pioneer in hypersonic flow research and the first woman to be appointed to the engineering faculty at the University of Michigan, and she deserves to have a more public profile. However, given that she was a woman in academia in the 1960s, she did not receive a great deal of media attention at the time and the reviewer rejected the article on the grounds of insufficient evidence of notability. There are records of Prof Sherman in the University of Michigan libraries, but these are not available to the larger internet, which I think might be one of the reasons the article was rejected because I can't link to them.

I believe I have provided the same level evidence for notability as some of the other articles on Wikipedia (see a comparison of a similar individual here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Drela), but apparently that wasn't enough. I certainly can add more information from the UMich archives (and was intending to after the article was posted), but I'm concerned I won't be able to meet the reviewer's request for more linkable references to prove notability. Any help would be most appreciated! Aeronautilus12 (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aeronautilus12 Declined (not Rejected) means that the reviewer thought there was potential. Are there any significant honors, awards or memberships in prestigious science organizations that can be added and referenced? David notMD (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aeronautilus12 According to Google scholar (not always entirely reliable) her most cited work was doi:10.2514/3.3386, with 414 listed. You may be able to show that criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC is met by chasing up those citations, especially if you have access to scopus for more accurate stats. Note that your sources can be WP:OFFLINE but they do have to be published. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citing PDF sources?

Hi everyone, I'm an editor active in the motorsports community. More and more events and championships are starting to use an App called "Sportity" to communicate entry lists, race results etc., with those documents then provided directly as a pdf file. How would one go about using those pdf files in a citation, as there is no source link provided with them, only the file itself? Cheers, H4MCHTR (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A source can still be cited in articles even if it's not available on the internet (see WP:OFFLINE) – but the source must still have been published in a manner that meets the reliable sources rule, and I'm not sure that these files will if they're being generated by an app and delivered directly to users on request. Is there any chance of the organisers (or similar official groups, or press firms or magazine publishers, etc) hosting the files on their website? XAM2175 ^(T) 11:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XAM2175 I basically have the same question, although slightly different.

There's certain random links I'll stumble across (which I'm not even looking for) on Google occasionally from universities or organisations like the ONS/BARB/BFI etc which when you click on them, will either open themselves up automatically in my own Google Docs/Sheets/Drive or Microsoft Office which is becoming Microsoft 365 (whatever that is), and/or will automatically download.

I'm fairly sure the only way to get the link is by copying the link on Google, and manually removing all the Google related stuff just like this one which I found a few weeks ago [2]https://www.docs.is.ed.ac.uk/docs/Libraries/Main/E-Resources/Databases/BFI_InView_title_list.xlsx

If I wanted to use a link like this, would it be allowed on Wikipedia?

And are there any better ways to get a link for something like this? Danstarr69 (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are usually fine so long as they meet the reliable sources rules regarding authorship and publication status (the latter point meaning "be sure the files were genuinely made available to the public"). Removing the Google-related stuff is probably the easiest way to get a clean link; if you were accessing these files from the publisher's actual webpages you'd already have a clean link. Avoid linking if you think that the file is being hosted without permission, as this can create copyright problems for us. Finally, remember when citing them to fill out the format parameter so it looks like this |format=XLSX (or whatever other format the document might be). XAM2175 ^(T) 18:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Layout is wrong

in the Temara article (in the Temara#Climate part) there's a Weather box template that looks wrong when I view it, it leaves a lot of empty space because the Template:Infobox settlement is longer and so there's a very large gap without text. I think it looks like that only one the beta wikipedia version, which I am using. Here's[1] how it looks for me:

Here's[2] how it looks when I open it in incognito (without my account settings):

I wonder if I should change the weather box template to have width=auto 3point1415 (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3point1415, there is a recommended way to deal with this. It involves adding a template whose name I can't recall − I hope a more competent host will be along soon and tell you. You should avoid a home-made fix, as it may not work well for all screen widths. Maproom (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3point1415 I wouldn't know how to fix that.

However I've seen that somewhere in the last few weeks.

Although I'm pretty sure when you press publish, it appears normal in read mode. Danstarr69 (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a template {{stack}} which can be used to arrange objects on a page. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 15:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TOERS

TOERS 102.249.1.232 (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Do you have a question? echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can the article CSDs be used in drafts?

I've found a few drafts which I believe could be speedy deleted under A10, but I'm not sure if the criteria in the article group can be applied to drafts. If not, what criteria applies to the drafts linked? MaterialWorks _(talk) 11:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A short answer...the "A" in the criteria stands for "article", so imho can't be used for drafts, as they aren't in article space. Generally, G11 and other G speedy criteria can be used for draft-space. Lectonar (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help with edits

So, I want to edit Wikipedia, but I'm worried my edits will be marked as vandalism. All I really plan to do is spelling, grammar, and punctuation corrections. Would this be marked as GAME attempts? TheBaboonQueen51 (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBaboonQueen51 It is a principle here that we assume good faith with other editors, especially newcomers. WP:Vandalism is rather narrowly defined as something the editor knows will damage rather than improve Wikipedia. Hence I would advise you to be bold and only worry if you find that experienced editors are reverting your contributions. We welcome copy-editing as well as more substantive additions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia. If you don't want your copy-edits reverted I suggest you familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling to understand and thus avoid making spelling changes that will be reverted. David notMD (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done many thousands of edits--the vast majority being reorganizing things on category pages, as well as grammar and spelling fixes (a tiny fraction of my edits have been substantive). I can remember one instance where someone took one of my edits as vandalism--and that was back when I was editing IP, and the misunderstanding was very quickly and graciously sorted out. (Someone misread the word "Pinus"--the genus of pine trees--in some of my edits, and thought it was a bit of adolescent mischief.) One small suggestion: do put down a particular edit summary--even if it's only "grammar fix" or "fixed typo." Uporządnicki (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBaboonQueen51: Welcome to the Teahouse. Aside from the helpful answers others have given you, you may be interested in joining the Guild of Copy Editors, a group of Wikipedia editors that focus on doing what you intend to do (plus a little bit more). We currently have a backlog drive underway for this month, and extra hands on deck are always appreciated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia objects

I would like to create a wikipedia entry for certain objects on Amelia Island, Florida (where I am now a retired professor). As an example, here is a story about the statue of David Yulee, which can be the first object entry I will create: https://fernandinaobserver.com/general/david-levy-yulee-a-man-a-moment-in-time-a-monument/

In my academic research and practice as professor, I used an "object-based" approach in several venues, including U. Texas at Dallas. Often, there are multiple interpretations for an object, including viewing the object through a mathematical lens (or a computing lens). The math educators call these "math walks" or "math trails". I used computer science as the lens for objects on campus.

Has anyone else done this object-centered (multiple interpretations) approach in Wikipedia? I'd also like to tie the object interpretations to educational standards in middle school/high school/university subjects. So, someone looking at the David Yulee statue could thread each interpretation to its corresponding subject/standard. This will be useful for educators seeking new ways of interpreting objects and their interpretations, complementing the traditional teacher on the stage approach to learning. 2600:1700:5A10:6CD0:C000:ADED:51BA:1B8B (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor: we have an article on David Yulee, as you probably already know. Maybe you could start by adding information to that, cited to reliable sources? I'm not sure where the more general "object-centred" approach would fit but perhaps others will have suggestions. We do have object-oriented ontology but that's well beyond my pay grade.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. "Objects" are subject to the same rules as anything else for being the subject of an article in Wikipedia: they must meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, principally that several independent reliable sources have discussed them. I think it unlikely (though not impossible) that there is enough material published to ground an article about a particular approach to an individual object. An article about the approach (rather than the individual objects to which it has been applied) is more likely to succeed; but then I must ask if anybody but you and your close colleagues have used or written about this approach? Citing your own work is regarded as a conflict of interest, and must be done cautiously (see WP:SELFCITE.

I also have a concern that what you are proposing would be original research, which is forbidden in any Wikipedia article; but that may be my lack of understanding of what you are saying. ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Texaco Camaro - wanted to add to Wikipedia on the story and history of the car

Hello - was not sure how to have Wikipedia pick up the Texaco Camaro story. Is this something that I do or other contribute to? 50.237.88.150 (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor: there don't seem to be nearly as many sources for the Texaco Camaro as for the Chevrolet Camaro but you could certainly try to draft an article like that one. Please use the WP:AFC process explained at that link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Covino

Steve Covino There was a listing previously for Steve Covino who is a broadcaster on FOX Sports Radio, Patreon as part of Covino and Rich and Sirius XM on multiple channels and formerly an ESPN host. He has been a voice on GTA and has had a successful career in broadcasting for almost 2 decades. His Wikipedia spot was suddenly taken by a soccer player with the same name. His info has mysteriously disappeared. Can we put him back on using his photo and biography? Www.covinoandrich.com (----) Lisaparaggio (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisaparaggio, our article Steve Covino has been about a soccer player ever since it was created in 2011. Maybe someone with admin powers can look for a deleted article about the other Steve Covino. Maproom (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lisaparaggio, welcome to the Teahouse. The article was deleted per the discussion here. The article on the footballer has existed since 2011; it was simply moved from the title "Steve Covino (soccer)" to "Steve Covino" in 2020, after the deletion discussion I linked earlier. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article about the radio show duo was also deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covino and Rich). David notMD (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please noe

How to edit Ilovehermionegranger (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ilovehermionegranger, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. Please see Help:Tutorial. ColinFine (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ilovehermionegranger If you mean purely the mechanics of how to go in and change things, you did it when you posted this question. But it you do think of doing things to articles, please do follow ConinFine's suggestion. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong species

Commons file File:Paježura attenboroughova.jpg that I've just removed from Sir David's long-beaked echidna is not that species, per that article's talk. Now that I've removed it from that article, I think it should be deleted from Commons, so that it gets pulled from the other language sites. How do I go about doing that? UtherSRG (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG I'm not sure it should be deleted entirely, since it might be of use somewhere but there is a tag commons:Template:Fact_disputed they use on Commons to point out you believe something is wrong with the description. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG: I agree with Mike. Instead of deleting, a "Fact_disputed" template, and then renaming the photo to actual species would be the best option here. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Faboo! Thanks to you both! UtherSRG (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new page

I have not even started and I got alert that someone declared publicly a conflict of interest with my article? What do I do? MWIalliedhealth (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MWIalliedhealth Please explain where and how you received such an alert.
That said, "MWI allied health" appears to be a Bermudan company, so the first problem is your user-name, which is unacceptable, as we do not allow user names to be the same as company names. Secondly it looks like you probably have a WP:Conflict of interest in writing such an article, and finally, assuming you work for the company, or receive any form of compensation, monetary, or not, you are deemed a Paid editor and need to make a Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, before proceeding any further. - I have provided further details on your user talk page i.e. at User talk:MWIalliedhealth - Arjayay (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox help

I'm super new, but I had written an article that had been set for speedy deletion and now I cant create a new sandbox, nor access the old one.

Could someone check it out to see if anything is wrong? Louister41 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Louister41

I can't even link the Sandbox because it doesnt exist... Louister41 (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Louister41, I'll add a link to your deleted sandbox page, since you'd like one to be here: User:Louister41/sandbox. You also have a subpage at User:Louister41/Daniel_Menard, FYI. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it always says "invalid response from the server". Louister41 (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sandbox has been recreated via Premeditated Chaos. The source of the error remains a mystery - possibly a Visual Editor/mobile editing issue. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I blame the day of the week. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darn those supervillains anyway, always ruining things for us poor commonfolk and Wikipedia editors... 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wat is going on? is this friendly banter? Louister41 (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are y'all talking to me? Louister41 (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Louister41: Nah. It's just a little joking around. I was stating that the error is most likely due to an update to Wikipedia which happens every Thursday and can usually end up unintentionally breaking things. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

okay :| Louister41 (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Louister41, yes, it's friendly banter - putting things in small font here on Wikipedia is a way to indicate off-topic, usually humorous commentary. Check out the link Blaze Wolf shared for further explanation of why things often break on Thursdays around here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I get a rewrite of a page reviewed?

Hi, I've been trying to address the issues of the Agenda Europe page on my sandbox, and I'd like to get feedback on my revisions since I've added a bit. I know there's a page for requesting critique on already published pages, as well as pages in the draft namespace, but where do I go for feedback on an article I've written in my sandbox? Should I make my edits and post it to peer review? Can I create drafts for articles that have already been made? 🎜Oktavia Miki🎝_talk 19:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello OktaviaMiki, and welcome to the Teahouse. The first thing I would do is post a thread at Talk:Agenda Europe, explaining your concerns about this article and why you are attempting to rewrite it (rather than simply edit it, as one normally might). Then provide a link for people to look at the version in your sandbox, and invite people to leave comments or concerns on the article's talk page (not in your sandbox). Explain your intention to replace the article content if there are no objections. Then leave it for a week or two for people to have a chance to comment.

The article doesn't have many watchers, so you could benefit greatly by posting a short note at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Europe which invites people to visit Talk:Agenda Europe and read your post about the article. (Don't do it in a way that ends up with discussions being held on three separate talk pages - instead, ensure that it's clear where you want discussion to be held.

If, after a couple of weeks, you get no response, you could WP:BEBOLD and simply replace it with what you believe to be a fairer and better article (ensuring your edit summary makes it clear this is a rewrite from your sandbox. Now, I don't know whether the rewrite was all your own work. But if it was based on a copy/paste of the original article which you then worked on, it's best to include an acknowledgement in that edit summary to the contributions other past editors may have made. You can do that simply by crediting back to all the past editors which are findable at 'View History of the original article).

Please note that my reply just outlines the general approach you should take, irrespective of the topic; I have not taken any but the briefest of glimpses at the content of the two versions under discussion. The one concerning thing I did notice was that you have moved (hidden?) an original sentence with four supporting citations from the lead (which states the organisation "..has been described as anti-feminist, ultra-conservative, far-right, and religious extremist.", and simply left this within the article without any mention in the lead. If there are that many sources supporting that opinion, then the lead should at least make some mention of it. Or are the sources not-reliable? Hoping this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do just that. I decided a rewrite because I thought that would be the better action with a page with issues on neutrality and close paraphrasing, but I have included bits of the original article as well. I'll be sure to credit past contributors if/when I do move the page over, since I was working with the material and (majority) citations they established.

There were a few aspects that I was having difficulty with finding places for, and the passage you mentioned was one of them. I'll amend what I have with your suggestion.

Thank you! 🎜Oktavia Miki🎝_talk 00:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair accusation on County Durham

@Murgatroyd49: has made a false accusation against me with no evidence, I'm not allowed to call them out or remove their accusation and was unfairly treated on my own talk page by another editor who threatened to block me from editing when all my edits have been helpful. I'm upset about this and feel WP:Hounded by these two editors and in the case of Murgatroyd49, WP: Passive aggressive towards me. I'd appreciate advice from other editors in how to deal with false claims made against me DragonofBatley (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reject and resent the accusations of this editor. I particularly resent him spreading his annoyance here as well as my talk page and on the talk page of the article in question. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonofBatley: As this is an issue of user conduct, please bring this to WP:ANI and gather all the evidence you have before making your case there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring vs trying to get it right

Hi, I have a few questions about references. There is a page that I tried to edit (rolfing) because it seemed very biased. This is not a subject I am an expert in, which is what I came to Wikipedia for, but 10 minutes of additional searching made the bias clear. After doing deeper research I added several recent studies on the subject (good ones, 2015, 2016 at Harvard Med & Stanford) which showed strong results of Rolfing for 3 specific things. The original writers deleted all of that and took it back to what was. So here are my questions:

1.) does the reference article have to be readable by the public, i.e., what if it's behind a paywall? I would think in this case at least the Wikipedia editor should have to quote it. Or are we expected to use references which are available to all? (this is about their reference to the term "quackery")

2.) Don't we have a preference for good studies done in the last 10 years over an opinion that was expressed in 2001 which was only reiterating a phrase in a book from 1959? (again, about quackery - and I agree with another person who tried to edit the page who said that this term has a moral connotation, it implies an attempt to be deceitful)

3.) I assume you editors are very busy. So if I stated all the above in a response (to someone, who I presume was an admin editor) does it just take time for them to get back to it? Or should I conclude that the medical luddites won? :-)

Just to be clear: I'm not pro or con any of the 4-5 things which I noticed are now paid for by my medial insurance, but I was curious about all of them as I was surprised that they had become that mainstream. Then I come to my favorite encyclopedia to see that these articles reference very old material.

Thanks - I'm sure there's a lot I don't know yet about editing (before now I was mostly about line editing (non-controversial!)). Cleajames13 (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) No, articles can be paywalled (see WP:PAYWALL). It must be accessible somehow, but if you have to pay (or even take a long trip to a specific library), that is within bounds. It is nice when someone can provide a quote, but it isn't required.

2) This question really isn't answerable without details. WP:MEDRS has a preference for more recent studies, but that is only one factor. We wouldn't use a more recent primary study to overrule an older systematic review.

3) Wikipedia has no deadlines, people can take a while to reply. But in this case it looks like you have received numerous replies on the article talk page.

Re your concerns about bias, you should review WP:FALSEBALANCE. When the medical mainstream has an overwhelming opinion of a practice like rolfing (that it does not work) the Wikipedia article is going to reflect that. MrOllie (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cleajames13, the best place to ask about this is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. They are more knowledgeable about the special requirements for medical articles. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) for the types of references that are needed. Look for review articles rather than articles from individual studies. Once your changes have been reverted at an article, don't try to add them back. Instead start a discussion on the talk page of the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do i delete an image in wikimedia commons?

I would like to delete an image in Wikimedia commons but how do I do that? Fishmen123 (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fishmen123: Hello Fishmen! Your answer depends on the image. Would you mind providing a link to it? You can do so by adding a colon before "File:" in the link which will prevent the image from displaying and instead produce a clickable link. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dani_Profile_picture.jpg Fishmen123 (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fishmen123 Done. In the future, you can use the Commons gadget 'AjaxQuickDelete' (commons:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets), which should be enabled by default, to display a 'nominate for deletion' button on the sidebar. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Templates

I know I'm doing something wrong but I'm not sure how to do it correctly.

For example.

DarklitShadow (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DarklitShadow: You have to use (in the case you cite) the {{cite web}} template between the ref tags and include the |url= and |title= parameters in that, along with any other relevant parameters. See the documentation of the citation template for how to do it. Deor (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request new catagory

Peer Groups. Started with 2 or 3, grew. Ben Franklin's Junto. Samual Johnson's Club. Freud's Vienna Psychoanalytic Society. Etc Etc Good idea? 97.122.250.107 (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your request is opaquely cryptic. Do you mean that you want to request a new category, "Peer groups", which would include, inter alia, Junto (club), and the other two? -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hms Aster

HMS Aster (K188) Hello, I have a warships of WWII book by H.T. Lenton and J.J. Colledge and It contains a few facts about it. There is also a good website, [3] which contains some good information about it. I know this is a trustworthy source through [4]. Just read his blog. This is a big article not yet made and needs to be on wikipeida. Bobfeller54 (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bobfeller54, since you are the one with best knowledge of the subject, you are best equipped to create the article. Create a draft and write an encyclopedic article using information from the book. Guidance to create your first article can be found at WP:YFA. uboat.net is commonly used in warship-related articles and should suffice. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "The best puns about Porphyrogenitus", van Leeuwenhoek, 1713, The Delft Journal of Things That Sound Like Diseases But Aren’t, p.19

[2] "Basileus, that palace is expensive", Nikephoros Moneiztaiton, between 1060 and 1063, fragment ZB150 of the Roman History Collection of the Istanbul museum; cited and translated in "My splendid dissertation", My Name, PhD press, p. 29.

[1]

[2]