Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cullen328, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Title

Hi, dear people. If you translated an article from the German wikipedia, which is on an Art collection - but is only named "Collection of XY(=Name of the Collector)" - would you as an English title use "Art collection of XY" instead? I saw that there is a category on the English wikipedia "Art collection" and i find this title more appropriate than just "Collection of XY". Naomi Hennig (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It really depends, but when trying to title something, we try to remain consistent between titles on similar subjects (WP:CONSISTENT). Since there are quite a few articles styled like "Art collection of XY", I think it would be best to title the translated article likewise The Night Watch (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

These are usually "so-and-so Collection" in English. Can you give a specific example? -- asilvering (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Art collection of Adolf Hitler, Art collection of Fondazione Cariplo, Art collection of Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Lucca, Art collection of Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Fano are a few examples The Night Watch (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm asking Naomi for the specific examples she's translating. -- asilvering (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

For example, there's one in userspace as "Art Collection Peter C. Ruppert" presumably pending the answer to this question. That one should definitely be "The Peter C. Ruppert Collection", not "Art collection of Peter C. Ruppert". -- asilvering (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah I understand. Though I think it should be "Peter C. Rupert Collection" (drop the definite article) because of the conventions at WP:THE. The Night Watch (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not as complicated as it seems. There is actually a rule. If the collection is a collection that has acquired its own notability, by being written about by critics, newspapers etc., then we use the name that the critics and newspapers give it, which will generally be the name that the institution now housing it has decided to use. Most museums select a name like "The Smith collection" to indicate that Dr Smith bequeathed or donated to them. If the collection is primarily notable because of who amassed it, and is written about in those terms (e.g. a dictator's personal collection pillaged or bought with his ill-earned gains) then it is "The art collection of Smith", emphasising that this is a spin-out article from the article on Smith himself, dealing with one aspect of his life and reign. Elemimele (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, dear people, unfortunately wikipedia didn't inform me on your answers, although i have bookmarked the site with notifications. So, i'm sorry that i do react so late. Thank you all for your info, it helps a lot. Kind regards, --Naomi Hennig (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Reliable references

Hey everyone, my draft got declined a few days ago as reliable sources were not strong enough. I added now a bunch of additional public references I could find and would be happy if someone could double-check them before I press the resubmit button. I'm not always sure btw when to use Cite news and when it is Cite web – hard to say as media outlets are often only online available these days. So would appreciate some feedback here as well.

Cheers! Omarquardt (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Omarquardt: When in doubt, Cite web. I do that, at least. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

thanks will do that! Omarquardt (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me; good luck. I'm not sure if the iOS app store and Google Play store references (17 and 18) will be counted (mught be considered original research), but other than that, the sources all look good and the article looks great. :) Spaceeditor123 (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Notability

Hello, I am a first time wiki editor. I am trying to get a page posted for the company I work for. I have declared this. About a year ago someone else at the company tried to get our page established but it was denied because it was not "notable." I have added sources since then but still do not know what makes a topic notable as the criteria is very subjective. I would appreciate it someone could look at my draft and let me know what needs to change in order to ensure it is considered notable. Klange2000 (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

My draft. Klange2000 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Klange2000. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and be aware that it is enforced quite strictly. Cullen328 (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Klange2000, your references look pretty solid. The only fault I can find is that almost all of them are from the Phoenix area, with the exception of the Eat This, Not That source, which is a listicle with just three sentences of coverage. If you can find significant coverage outside of Arizona, that would strengthen the case for notability. Cullen328 (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! That little audit was exactly what I was looking for. Klange2000 (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

How do I get a category name changed on Wikimedia Commons

I recently found this category https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Idolatrous_procession on Wikimedia Commons. While I'm not sure what it's name should be, I think this name is definitely not a good one. The word "idolatrous" has far too many negative connotations to be used in a category like this. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Immanuelle. Changes to things like Commons categories need to be done on Commons. Try taking a look at c:Commons:Categories and c:Commons:Rename a category for details. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle Uou state it as fact that the word has negative connotations, but I disagree. To me, the word is mostly religious. I added my opinion to the (short) discussion. David10244 (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

new article on publicly traded corporation

 Courtesy link: Draft:Parade Technologies

I have submitted a new article on a publicly traded company, a mid-size technology chip manufacturer. The article was rejected by articles for creation.

I disclosed my status as a paid editor in my profile. The article itself includes corporate history and short outline of products. It has citations throughout. It is very similar to many other articles about other corporate entities that can be seen on wikipedia.

Any advice on improving this article to satisfy wikipedia editors? SVtrustee (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@SVtrustee: Being "similar" to other articles that may be substandard is not a reason to accept more of the same. I see numerous problems. It looks like a corporate brochure. It fails to adhere to the layout of an encyclopedia article. It is clear that the draft exists solely for publicity purposes, and Wikipedia is the wrong venue for that. The overwhelmingly large number of citations looks like an attempt to disguise a lack of notability. There are far too many citations to press releases, the company's own web site, or entities that don't provide significant independent coverage as required by WP:CORP. See Wikipedia:Golden Rule for an overview of what is expected. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The company is notable, and several citations confirm that fact from 3rd party sources. It is not a household name, but notable within its industry.

I have removed citations from press releases, and removed language that could be considered promotional. It is a 100% fact-based recitation of company history, affiliations and product offerings. SVtrustee (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, SVTrustee, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is not enough to assert that "the company is notable": an article must demonstrate that its subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of notable. Which three of your citations each meets the three separate criteria listed in the link that Anachronist gave you? (Hint: none of the first ten do).

"100% fact-based" is also not enough: we need "100% reported in reliable sources", and nearly all - say 95% - reported in independent sources.

Basically, you're making the mistake that most inexperienced editors do when they first try to create an article: they write what they know, rather than what the independent sources say. ColinFine (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

The following citations identify the company as notable (again not famous or a household name, but well-known within a specific industry or environment):

[6] https://www.forbes.com/lists/asia200/

[7] https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171208005001/en/Global-Semiconductor-Alliance-Announces-2017-Award-Recipients

[8] https://www.gsaglobal.org/2020-global-semiconductor-alliance-award-nominees-announced/

Several citations are from independent 3rd party market research firms that list the company as an important product vendor (worthy of analysis and coverage) within a specific market segment:

[9] https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220330005730/en/Taiwan-ICT-Industry-Outlook-Report-2021-and-Beyond---ResearchAndMarkets.com

[10] https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190404005301/en/Global-DisplayPorts-Market-Analysis-Trends-and-Forecasts-2016-2019-2024---Expanding-Market-for-AR-VR-Devices-Unfurl-New-Opportunities---ResearchAndMarkets.com

[11] https://www.motorsportbayern.de/2023/03/16/retimer-redriver-markt-2023-globale-einblicke-und-geschaeftsszenario-astera-labs-parade-technologies-texas-instruments-intel-analogix/

In what way are the sources cited "not-reliable"? They are not the NY Times, but they are indeed reliable sources within the technology industry.

I appreciate your honest feedback. SVtrustee (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources you cite above (numbered from 6 t0 11) has any discussion of Parade Technologies, let alone the "in-depth discussion" that is needed to help establish notability. Please click on that blue link, and read what you find. Maproom (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand your response Taproom. Every single one of the citations listed explicitly includes mention of Parade Technologies. How can you claim there isn't "any" discussion? Are we looking at the same links? SVtrustee (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@SVtrustee: What reviewers look for, in addition to sources that are secondary and independent, is whether or not there has been significant coverage of the subject. The sources you've given mention the company, but just that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I am truly trying to understand the criteria that reviewers are employing.

This article TouchWave is cited by wikipedia as a Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society. The citations for this article are a combination of company press releases and citations in obscure technology journals (each one with but a single mention of the subject of the article). Indeed many of the citation links are broken.

I am having difficulty understanding how this exemplary article is qualitatively different from my submission on Parade Technologies. Any and all guidance is appreciated. SVtrustee (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@SVtrustee, that article was promoted to GA in 2009, when standards were dramatically different. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You're free to help clean up articles that no longer meet our standards, but most editors have little interest in such work, so they remain. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@SVtrustee: It apears that you failed to comprehend my first reply to you, or at least you failed to read the extremely relevant links I provided. I am providing them to you again:

• Wikipedia is the wrong venue for publicity.
• WP:CORP gives requiremens that a company must meet before it merits an article here. Your sources are what provides evidence of notability, and your sources so far have not.
• Wikipedia:Golden Rule provides an overview of what is expected of your sources. Most of your sources must mee all three criteria simultaneously. Those you have given don't make the grade.

The disucssion above suggests you have not understood any of those three things. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you User:Anachronist for your continued interest in this topic. Your assessment of my comprehension skills above is the very model of civility and decorum.

In fact I have incorporated many of your original comments into the latest draft of my proposed article. Specifically, I have eliminated almost all citations that link to the company website and company press releases, and eliminated any language that could possibly be construed as lacking in neutrality. These changes, however, are not reflected in the "discussion above" that you refer to; they were made to the original article draft.

Allow me to respectfully address your bullet points above:

1) The proposed article contains no advocacy, propaganda or recruitment as defined in the WP link you provided. The proposed article only contains a simple recitation of facts. I challenge you to specifically identify any advertising or self-promotion in the proposed text. Where reference is made to award nominations, it is backed up directly by citations of public statements made by the independent 3rd party organization that made the award nomination.

2) The talk page of the draft submission now identifies multiple citations from reliable secondary sources, including articles by media outlets that cover the global technology industry (e.g. Digitimes Asia, eeNews Europe). Granted these media sources are not as widely known as The NY Times, but they are well-known within the technology industry. The full text of some of these articles must be accessed behind a paywall, just like copyrighted content from the NY Times, Washington Post and most major media organizations. However the explicit inclusion of the subject company by name in the headlines of these independently-sourced, editor-vetted articles is clear indication that the full article devotes significant space to a discussion of the subject named in their headline.

If your true objection rests on the fact that there is no coverage of the proposed subject in popular mass market magazines or daily media, then it is true that my submission cannot meet that criteria. However if such a standard were uniformly applied across wikipedia, then it would prevent any articles on obscure, specialty or niche topics, rendering wikipedia a rather limited and sterile place. I do not think that is the goal of WP. SVtrustee (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@SVtrustee: Yes, I see you did some cleanup before I posted that comment, thanks. You left the first paragraph in the History section without any citations. It is OK to cite company sources for verification of mundate facts. There are some sentences that seem to have redundant citations (one short phrase has five citations); these could be pared down. A reviewer is going to be looking for WP:Golden Rule references, and they are harder to find among a soup of citations that provide only mentions. I suggest fixing those issues and resubmitting for review. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Help to create kits

Hi, does anyone know how to create kits? It's for the Egyptian Premier league teams. I have a source providing them all but I have no idea how to upload them here. Sakiv (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sakiv Welcome to Teahouse! Check out the documentation for {{Infobox football club}} and look at an existing example like Real Madrid CF to see how they included the code. Happy tinkering with WP:TEMPLATE ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Shushugah: Thank you for replying. What is image editor? Sakiv (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sakiv no image editor is needed. For example of parameters for first kit, you'd provide Hexadecimal color values for the following params

| pattern_la1   = _alb0810_2
| pattern_b1    = _alb0810_2
| pattern_ra1   = _alb0810_2
| leftarm1      = FFD700
| body1         = FFD700
| rightarm1     = FFD700
| shorts1       = 6495ED
| socks1        = 000000
| kit_alt2      = Black and white thin stripes with cornflower sleeves and socks and black shorts

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but what you are proposing is very generic, the kits should at least include the sportswear brands. [1] See here.--Sakiv (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

If I am learning about a Football club, what exact logos are on their uniforms feels like a case of Wikipedia:Too much detail, unless you have/want to extensively document in the article text about the sponsors who are notable for some reason. Otherwise, your kit database seems like the right place for collecting higher resolution photos of every kit. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Dispute, from the sideline

The article sapeh seems to be in constant flux, between people with a racial/ethnic bias towards one another. It's fairly ugly and the refs I have on hand will not work to sort out whether one side is right. I don't know what to do at this point. Hoping an administrator can step in. We need an expert for this one. Jacqke (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

That sort of nationalist back and forth is unfortunately quite common in that region, and it's not something the community has been able to tackle. First time I've seen "Malaya-occupied state of Sarawak" in the wild though. CMD (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Jacqke. I'm not sure what you mean by expert, but generally disagreements over article content are expected to be resolved in accordance with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Edit warring is never considered acceptable no matter how right one believes they are, and almost always ends up with one or more accounts being blocked. I'm not very familiar with the subject matter, but in cases like this one option is to revert back to the last stable version of the article (i.e. the version prior to when the edit warring began) and then seek a consenus via talk page discussion. If this is done and one of more users continue edit warring, then seeking administrator assistance via WP:AN3 or WP:RPP is often the next step. Perhaps this is a case where both sides might be somewhat right and only through discussion can they find a solution which might not give each side everything it wants but will turn out the be the best for Wikipedia. If you think you've got a way to bring the two sides together, try proposing it on the article's talk page. You can then notify relevant WikiProjects and each of the individual users involved in the dispute about the discussion. Maybe this will get things going and lead to the end of the disruption. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate. I'll see if I can begin a conversation. By expert, I meant an ethnomusicologist or anthropologist, someone who is likely to not get involved (wishful thinking). Thank you, Jacqke (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there someone I can hire to help me publish a page.

I feel like a bumble head trying to publish a page. Is there someone I can hire to help me? Mountainbliss8 (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Tell us more. What is the page about? --Bduke (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mountainbliss8 welcome to Wikipedia. Most paid editing is a scam, because they cannot guarantee you that an article will remain or not, or there are even more elaborate scams where THEY request to delete an article, unless you cough up money. In short, Wikipedia is worsened by WP:PAID EDITING. Hire a quid-quo-pro puff journalist if you want paid promo. They will write exactly what you want, whereas on Wikipedia we don't care to publish what any one individual wants. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The question appears to relate to this draft. Before doing any more on that draft I suggest you read Wikipedia:Your first article. We also have a place for Wikipedia:Requested articles. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Mountainbliss8, in my abundant experience, a large majority of paid Wikipedia editing services that you can find online are unethical liars and scammers who are just out to take as much of your money as you are prepared to let them take away from you. The small percentage of ethical paid Wikipedia editing services are quite expensive and work mostly for large corporate clients. Be very careful. Cullen328 (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mountainbliss8 You don't need to hire anyone, just seek collaborators from more experienced editors who are members of Projects likely to be interested in the topic. Your Draft:Amigo Bob Cantisano has plenty of content but needs converting into a neutral account written in Wikipedia's standard format for a biography. You could seek interested volunteers at WP:DRINK, WP:FARM and/or WP:ENV. Good luck! Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Moumtainbliss8, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't want to be rude, but if you are even considering paying money to get an article added to the encyclopaedia, it is almost certain that your purpose is promotion, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. You probably don't think of it as promotional, but the fact that you are willing to pay suggests that you have a strong wish to tell the world about this subject. But Wikipedia only summarises information which has already been published, so this has a chance of success only if the world has already been told about the subject, ie if sufficient independent reliably published sources discuss the subject in some detail. The Wikipedia jargon for this criterion is that the subject is notable.

If your subject is indeed notable in Wikipedia's sense, then there could be an article about it. The preference would be that the article would be written by somebody without a conflict of interest; but you or an editor paid by you would be allowed to create a draft and submit it for review. But if your subject does not meet the criteria for notability (i.e. has not already been written about sufficiently in independent reliable sources), then no article is possible, and you or anybody you paid would be wasting their time. ColinFine (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank You for Your Support on SVF

Hi All,

Thank You for your support on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shree Venkatesh Films. We need few more keep votes to save this notable OTT platform. 103.170.182.2 (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Please do not canvass for support. Please also read WP:NOTAVOTE. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The topic is likely notable, but the article is a mess, likely having been polluted by undisclosed paid editors. There are single-purpose editors participating in the AFD also. I say blow it up and start over. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Page Curation

im still somewhat new to wikipedia and one detail has confused me : do you need new page patrol rights to properly use page curation? if not can someone help me out with activating it in my account? im not really a knowledgeble person when it comes to code and tech so if anyone can lend me a helping hand i would appreciate it. cheers. Gurther (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse @Gurther! Yes, New page patroller rights are required to use the page curation tool. You do currently meet all of the requirements, so good luck as I have seen you have already applied! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up I really appreciate it. Cheers. Gurther (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

AfC vs "formal" review process

When I submitted a new article for wikipedia consideration, I received a response that new articles were in a queue that might take as long as 4 months to review. And yet the same day I received feedback on the article from AfC editors / reviewers.

Are these separate processes or tracks toward final review (acceptance or rejection) of a new submitted article? If they are part of the same process or track, how are they related?

TIA for guidance. SVtrustee (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @SVtrustee. They are not separate tracks. Anyone is free to leave feedback on articles that have been submitted, usually in hopes that the submitter will read the comments and address the issues, thus improving the draft during the time it sits in the queue (and perhaps improving the chances it will be approved, while saving the ultimate reviewer a bit of time and effort). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you this was helpful.

Feedback from an AfC reviewer says "submission declined" indicting not just commentary but a determination of suitability. SVtrustee (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@SVtrustee, yes, a reviewer both commented on your draft and declined it. Some reviewers will just leave comments and not decline a draft, leaving that to someone else. Some will do both. Some non-reviewers may also leave comments. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

so reviewers do have the power to decline drafts?

Is it possible to communicate with the reviewer that declined my draft, to solicit explicit feedback or communicate additional information / context?

TIA SVtrustee (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@SVtrustee, yes, that is the role of a reviewer (which is a role folks have to apply for - not just anyone can review drafts). The person who reviewed your draft was AngusWOOF; their talk page is at User talk:AngusWOOF. Note that reviewers are not required to respond to inquiries, though many do. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually if a reviewer makes a habit of not responding to inquiries about their reviews they could lose their reviewer rights. However, I have full confidence that AngusWOOF would respond appropriately. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

AngusWOOF has in fact responded and provided many helpful suggestions. SVtrustee (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, newly submitted articles with obvious issues tend to get reviewed - with a decline - more quickly, because they're easy to deal with. It's the middling cases that take a long time; very good and very bad drafts are the ones which get "fast-tracked". 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@SVtrustee: this may sound like nit-picking, but the AfC 'queue' isn't a queue, it's more of a pool. Meaning, drafts aren't reviewed in any particular order, reviewers pick up whatever they want to review, or whatever they randomly come across. Therefore, sometimes you get a draft sitting there for weeks or months, sometimes one is reviewed within minutes of being submitted.

Note also that comments are just that, messages posted by reviewers and others on the draft. Only actual reviews are reviews, and result in either decline, rejection or acceptance, for which you will receive a notification on your user talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I will add that you can address the reason why a Reviewer declined the draft, and then the next Reviewer may have different reasons. David notMD (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

thank you for that distinction David.

How should I understand the difference between reviewers who comment on my draft in Teahouse vs. the single reviewer (so far) that initially declined my draft article? SVtrustee (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@SVtrustee, I'm not sure what you mean - some folks who answer questions at the Teahouse are AfC reviewers, but not everyone is. Dodger67, for instance, is a reviewer (and an admin), whereas I'm an IP editor with no special roles whatsoever. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

While I have received feedback from multiple reviewers in Teahouse. only a single reviewer rejected my initial draft (we have since communicated about improving the draft).

Is this because the Teahouse reviewers did not have authority to reject the draft? Was the single reviewer that rejected the draft 'assigned' to my application, so they were the only one authorized to make a binding determination? SVtrustee (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@SVtrustee, the Teahouse is a place to ask questions about using Wikipedia. Since reviewers have expertise in certain aspects of using Wikipedia, they may draw on that expertise when answering questions here. They are not acting in their "official capacity", so to speak. They could have reviewed and declined your draft if they wanted to (assuming it hadn't already been declined), but they did not want to. No one is assigned to review drafts - reviewers review what they want, whenever they want. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

thank you for this further clarification! SVtrustee (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

How to Get to a WikiProject Page

Hello. If anyone is available, I have a question. How exactly do you get to a WikiProject page? I'm trying to get to the military history WikiProject page and just realized that I don't know how to get there without someone else linking it. Lol. Faith15 14:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Faithful15! For the military history Wikiproject, it's Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history! To search other WikiProjects, you can go to the search bar in Wikipedia:WikiProject and find the WikiProject topic that way! Hope this helps! Tails Wx 14:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Faithful15. Here's another handy tip: in the search bar at the top of the page, type in "WP:Wikiproject military", and check out the list of results. You can search many different namespaces this way (Wikipedia, Template, Talk, etc.). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Gotcha. Do you have an account name, IP code person? I mean an account name on Wikipedia. Faith15 14:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, @Tails Wx. Really appreciate it. Faith15 14:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I made one long ago, @Faithful15, but lost access to it. There's a little FAQ at the top of "my" talk page if you want deets. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

There are also shortcuts to it WP:MILHIST will get you there with less typing, change WP to WT if you want to go directly to the talk page. - X201 (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks, everyone! Faith15 14:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

BTW IP user, the guy that recommended the FAQ page? I actually know him. Not irl but still. He helped me a bit last year. Faith15 15:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I've had several encounters with the Wolf as well, @Faithful15. We can continue this on my talk page if you like (assuming it remains vaguely Wikipedia-related). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

K. Faith15 15:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Company Site with Award Info

If a company has an annual award and lists past winners, can tbe company site describing tbe award s as d listing the winners be used as a reference indicating that the award exists? FSeg500 (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@FSeg500: Welcome to the Teahouse! While the company website could be used as a primary source, the website would not help with determining notability. GoingBatty (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Signing up

Do you have any good reasons to sign up to Wikipedia? I would love to hear them 2603:8080:200:5519:197D:77E9:6927:5DFD (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a good summary of reasons at WP:ACCOUNT. You get your own sandbox and no-one except a checkuser can know where you are from using your IP address, among other benefits. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I "signed up" with a Wikipedia account so I can keep track of the referenced edits I make to articles that interest me. When I check an article's edit history and see my user name I know what I've contributed.

Karenthewriter (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I signed up because that lets you participate in blitzes (it lets you show what you've done and receive barnstars accordingly). It also shows you what edits you've done so you can know how you've contributed. If you sign up, it will give you a page that shows you what's to be done on Wikipedia (you put what topics you're interested in and what you're willing to do - editing, adding references, etc. and then it shows you what articles you could work on). Spaceeditor123 (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Dumb question alert: alphabetising fictional characters whose names could be interpreted as titles

I just want to check something before I potentially do anything dumb... if a fictional character has an alias that 'sounds' like a name, you alphabetise by the first letter, yes? So Mr. Incredible from The Incredibles goes under "M" for "Mister" rather than "I" for "Incredible" because it's not like it's a family name (well it kinda is but it was the closest thing I could find to a non-alliterative unconfusing example!), right? So a character whose fictional supervillain identity is "Doctor Synne" would go under D for doctor when being referred to under that fictional identity? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, see Doctor Syn. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Tidy! Thanks =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@BoomboxTestarossa I don’t think that’s a dumb question. It’s a quite good question actually. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 16:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

First article on Banking CEO rejected, please advise

I recently wrote a draft article on the President and CEO of one of the largest and last African American owned banks in America. My article was first declined for not being written in a formal or encyclopedic enough language and being too much about the company and not the executive himself (which I understand why and accepted). I went back to edit it to adhere to the feedback I was given, but it was declined a second time for apparently reading like a resume. I want to follow Wikipedia's guidelines but am lost with next steps.

Could someone review my draft and give me tips on how to improve my article? TIA!

Link to my draft - Draft:Michael T. Pugh CWADEC (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@CWADEC the pronouns part is really not in line with the tone we have here. I’m removing it because I think this person is likely notable. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 16:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello CWADEC. I agree that it reads like a CV or profile.

To take just one example: In 2012, Pugh joined Carver Bancorp as Chief Revenue Officer, focusing on redesigning its business strategy, management structure and related processes, cited to BlackEnterpreneurProfile.com. Without a strong indication to the contrary, any such collection of "profiles" will have been written by the subject, or by their employers. It is therefore not indepedent, and should be used only in the limited ways listed in WP:ABOUTSELF. That might justify a short statement "in 2012 Pugh was appointed Chief Revenue Officer of Carver Bancorp" (though an independent source would be preferable) but certainly does not justify the rest of the sentence.

What I would suggest is to remove every citation that is not reliable (eg Linked in) or is not independent (anything written or published by Pugh or his associates, or based on an interview or press release) or does not have significant coverage of Pugh himself; and remove all text that is now uncited. Then see if you still have an article. If so, you may add a small number of non-independent sources where basic uncontroversial factual data can be added to round out the article (eg dates and places) - but not to add any substantial information. ColinFine (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Image upload

Can someone please advise? The images i posted to my wiki page I was given by The picture desk at the scottish sun newspaper and I expressed it was for my wikipedia page and was told i can use.

This is what i recieved on e-mail from the picture dest at the Scottish sun newspaper

Hi Paul, I can confirm that all the pictures that were sent to you are copyright of The Scottish Sun and can be used by yourself  on  Wiki page and  that you can use.

David Henderson

Picture Desk

The Scottish Sun

Can someone please advise.....

WBOCHAMPx2 (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @WBOCHAMPx2, welcome to the Teahouse. In order to release images for use on Wikipedia, the copyright holder must email Wikipedia. See WP:Donating copyrighted materials for details. You will need to contact the newspaper again and ask them to send a consent form; an example form and the email address to use is here. Be sure to tell them that any pictures they release will become available for anyone to use for any purpose, including commercial ones. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Information been sent to the Scottish Sun Newspaper WBOCHAMPx2 (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure what the conflict is

I was editing the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Fort_Lauderdale_floods page when I had an issue where there was conflict edit and I am new to this wiki so not sure where conflict was if anyone can help. Picture for anyone how want's to see the edit: https://imgur.com/9II8eT4 Zwphyr (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Zwphyr, welcome to the Teahouse. An "edit conflict" means that two people were trying to save changes to the article at the same time. If an article is being edited rapidly (for instance, if the article is about a current event which is attracting much attention), edit conflicts can happen frequently. You just need to check what has been changed and try again. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks I though it was related to the actual content's of my amendment's. I appreciate the help. Zwphyr (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate a neutrality check on AfC article

Hi, I'm in the AfC queue for a technical article about "confidential computing". It's a notable topic in computer security today. At the same time, I have a disclosed conflict of interest since my employer is active in the space.

An editor visited the draft, saw my disclosed COI, and commented that it is virtually impossible for me to create an article with a neutral point of view (though they hadn't had time to read it). I assumed the article would be viewed skeptically, so I took a lot of care to write neutrally including the following steps:

• The article is written using industry-standard definitions, mainstream publications, and well-known, reputable sources including 76 citations. I only included information I could source via quality references, not from my own point-of-view.
• I reviewed and received feedback from dozens of computer security experts, including companies and vendors with differing or competing interests.
• The article includes criticism and vulnerabilities of confidential computing.
• I made a very deliberate effort to describe the pros & cons of confidential computing compared to other privacy-related technologies.

I'd really appreciate if someone checked the article for any neutrality issues. I believe the draft is solid and would be helpful to the Wikipedia community.

Thank you,

HudsonAttests HudsonAttests (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@HudsonAttests: Congratulations on having your draft accepted! GoingBatty (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

HudsonAttests going forward it is probably best to submit suggestions on the article's talk page with the {{request edit}} template and a reliable source as you have a declared conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Redirect a category that doesn't exist: is it possible?

I was looking at the history of the only template (EnzExplorer) that I have created, and saw that there was a tag asking me to add Categories. So I added Category:Enzyme. That seemed OK until I saw that it displayed as a red link. After I changed it to Category:Enzymes it became blue. OK, but I noticed that there are hundreds of articles (not created by me) that display the Category Enzyme as a red link. It will be a lot of work to change all these to Category:Enzymes, so, is there an automatic way to do it, in other words can one do it with a simple redirect? Athel cb (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Athel cb: There are no articles currently in Category:Enzyme. When you added this incorrect category to Template:EnzExplorer, articles with the template were added to this incorrect category. When you changed the template to use Category:Enzymes instead, articles with the template were added to this category. I don't think the template should be categorizing the articles, so I've moved the category inside the <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. GoingBatty (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Athel cb (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

First post on Wikipedia Treehouse

  Hello there, I have my account created recently. I'm new to Wikipedia, even though I have the ability to edit articles on this site. This means I'm a new editor, plus I really need to make more edits in order to become a registered editor in the next few days. Despite I have created my user-page, does that really mean I have the ability to create articles on Wikipedia? Also, can you guide me through a Wikipedia tutorial? I did try editing on sandbox though.

Sincerely, -- ChronicleBooks885 (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ChronicleBooks885, welcome to the Teahouse. Here are links to some hopefully helpful tutorials: Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. By signing up for an account, you have become a registered editor. You have the ability to create draft articles and submit them to Articles for Creation - this is a much better avenue for new editors than trying to create and move a new article yourself (for which you'll need to be autoconfirmed). Creating articles is harder than it looks. If spend a few weeks or months reading and editing existing articles, you'll become much more familiar with how Wikipedia works, and will be better equipped to start writing an article yourself. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

 If I became an auto confirmed user, does that definitely mean that I have the ability to create articles directly on Wikipedia, without creating it as a draft as a submission? May I add a lot of content with sources if I found many of them? Will admins notice me I created an article through recent changes? -- ChronicleBooks885 (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@ChronicleBooks885, you will have the ability to create articles, but your creations will definitely be noticed (by admins and non-admins). If they are poor, they will be moved to draftspace; if they are very poor, they may simply be deleted. Why do you not want to use Articles for Creation?

You're always free to add reliably sourced content, but there are often other considerations beyond sourcing. If you find that your additions are being challenged, you should talk to the other editor(s) involved in order to reach consensus on the content. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

However, explain why would my creations will definitely be noticed (by admins and non-admins), although I add numerous content in these articles if I created it? Does this count drafts and user-pages? -- ChronicleBooks885 (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@ChronicleBooks885, fewer people monitor draftspace and userspace, but there are still eyes (and edit filters) on edits made in those areas. Many more people watch almost everything that happens in mainspace (where articles live). When you edit Wikipedia, you put yourself under a microscope to some extent, and by design. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

All new articles in the encyclopedia are reviewed by New pages patrol, and if you go through AfC (which is preferred) they are also reviewed by Draft reviewers. This ensures that all content is seen by more than one set of eyes. Why do you want to avoid the AfC process? casualdejekyll 18:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ChronicleBooks885. When a new article is created, it goes into a process called New Pages Patrol, in which every single new article is listed for a period of 3 months until one of our patrollers marks it as 'patrolled'. Until either that happens (or 3 months has passed) we do not allow search engines to index that article. Once patrolled, it is released for indexing by outside parties. If you start creating a new article 'from scratch' directly in mainspace, we expect it to meet minimum encyclopaedic standards and be of encyclopaedic quality, even if short. If it's not good enough, it will either be speedily deleted, or turned into a draft for you to work on outside of the 'mainspace' of Wikipedia. For that reason, it's best to start a draft and then to submit it to Articles for Creation to be reviewed and for you to receive critical feedback if things still need doing. You might like to read this article about creating your first article.

You edits - and everyone else's - will also appear in a list called Special:RecentChanges where anyone can look for live updates to articles and assess whether or not they were validly made. All these checks and balances help to keep our 6 million+ articles in good state. Hope this helps, and good luck as you start out your editing journey with us. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll @Nick Moyes And also even explain how would a poor encyclopedia article would be moved to draft in order to be worked on, despite being create with introduction and description? -- ChronicleBooks885 (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@ChronicleBooks885, as an encyclopedia we don't have articles about things just because they exist. They need to be already well-known as shown by having been written about in depth in reliably published sources which serve as references in the article. If an article does not show this, or isn't finished enough to show this, it will be removed. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma How do you know that if editors are monitoring pages in order for 6 million+ articles to be in a good state? I knew that 6 million articles are just high in quantity. But how do they make sure the quality of these articles from Wikipedia are prominent and well-made? And that is too many edits being made in each article right now. -- ChronicleBooks885 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@ChronicleBooks885, click [2] and see. This is monitored by automatic programs called "BOTS" as well as by people. Why are you concerned about this? Start your articles in your sandbox, and when they are finished and meet standards move them to article space. The tutorial I put on your talk page will help you do this. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Welp but anyway, that advice was finished, so I would definitely have good luck on my start out of my editing journey with other editors. At that time in the upcoming days, I will become much more familiar with how Wikipedia works and how to edit an article. So, that will change in the near future and thanks for the posts on Wikipedia Teahouse. I would enjoy browsing and reading Wikipedia articles at the same time. -- ChronicleBooks885 (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

How do you give the page number of a page that's between two pages?

I'm translating an article from German, where the subject's dates of baptism and death are taken from a table that is bound between two pages in a book. The German article doesn't use a templated format for its citation, but has helpfully given the page numbers of the pages preceding and following the (presumably un-numbered) table. I think this happens quite commonly in older books, where plates etc. would be printed separately on glossy paper and inserted at suitable points without page numbers. But I have no idea how to do this properly in a cite book reference template! Is there a correct way? At the moment, I've just given pp 16-17 as it's bound between the two. Not sure if this is very "professional" or correct? Elemimele (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Elemimele. In printed references it is usual to say "after p 16" or the like. You can do the same thing with {{Cite book}} by using "|at=" instead of "|page=". StarryGrandma (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Just what I needed! Elemimele (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Citation for articles in edited volumes

I accidentally started contributing to an article that uses citation templates, which means I'm spending about as much time writing citations as I spend on actually writing content. I don't understand how to use {citation}/{cite book} to cite to an article in an edited volume. I can't seem to find any example for that on the help pages that I checked (is there a good one). What I have come up with using the Template:Citation documentation is this:

{{Citation |last1=Wagner |first1=Walter |last2=Willms |first2=Günther |editor-last=Krüger-Nieland |editor-first=Gerda |year=1975 |title=Der 6. Strafsenat – Legende und Wirklichkeit |work=25 Jahre Bundesgerichtshof |publisher=Beck |publication-place=München |pages=265–272 |isbn=3-406-06175-3}}
Wagner, Walter; Willms, Günther (1975), Krüger-Nieland, Gerda (ed.), "Der 6. Strafsenat – Legende und Wirklichkeit", 25 Jahre Bundesgerichtshof, München: Beck, pp. 265–272, ISBN 3-406-06175-3

This arguably looks quite bad, so how do I do this right? I mean, for starters, I suppose the editor of the volume should be somewhere next to the title of the work... I'd really appreciate your help. — Pajz (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pajz You could perhaps use this: Wagner, Walter; Willms, Günther (1975), "Der 6. Strafsenat – Legende und Wirklichkeit", in Krüger-Nieland, Gerda (ed.), 25 Jahre Bundesgerichtshof, München: Beck, pp. 265–272, ISBN 3-406-06175-3. I have simply replaced your |title= and |work= with |chapter= and |title= respectively. Shells-shells (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Shells-shells, oh great, thanks! I think that's exactly what I was looking for. Best, — Pajz (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pajz welcome to Teahouse! I would not worry how it's displayed, it's correct/you get used to it. Rather I would focus on what information may be missing. I would additionally include translated-title (correspond with work) and translated-chapter-title (for the translation of the title). Additionally, do you have any better links to the book itself? I could not find any myself.

Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

1987 Wrestling World Cup

Hello. I have added new references to independent sources. These sources disclose information "Draft:1987 Wrestling World Cup", in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject), These sources is reliable, secondary, independent of the subject.

Also see the new notes "Draft talk:1987 Wrestling World Cup". I hope for a positive decision on the project Tschin As (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:1987 Wrestling World Cup is in review. Please be patient. We are all WP:VOLUNTEERS and Teahouse is not the place to request a speedy review. One advice I would give is, translate the sources from WP:FOREIGNSOURCES to make it easier for English Wiki editors to review them. Happy editing and translating! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tschin As: Building on Shushugah's suggestion, you could add the |trans-title= parameter for the references where the title is not in English. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Tschin As (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Spotted an edit that adds text in an non-encyclopedic tone using an LLM. Opinions?

I have the Wikipedia article WebAssembly(WASM) on my watch list and saw an edit that adds a list of examples of where WASM is used which I don't see any problems with, maybe besides the citation style of raw links. But the text introducing that section has a non-encyclopedic "vibe"/tone as well as some speculation that probably should be replaced to fit into something more encyclopedic. One other thing is that the edit summary says that the list was given by GPT-4 witch is something to take into consideration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=WebAssembly&diff=prev&oldid=1149510377&diffmode=source

Wasm's portability, security, and performance have made it an attractive choice for various use cases and platforms. As a result, its adoption is likely to increase in the future. Here's a list of places where Wasm currently runs:

What do you all think about this? I'm a new editor and would like to get an insight into what more specifically is a non-encyclopedic tone and how to rephrase things to make a non-encyclopedic text into an encyclopedic text, as well as the community's current opinion is on LLMs. CoderThomasB (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@CoderThomasB Welcome to Teahouse. This edit can be reverted. This is WP:OR using primary sources, rather than summarizing secondary sources. Additionally, it is very WP:PROMO and arbitrarily in promoting specific use cases of WASM. For the community opinion on LLM, join the discussion at WP:LLM. Happy editing or learning ;) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@CoderThomasB The passage you quote demonstrates an unencyclopedic tone in a few ways. For one, the line "Wasm's portability, security, and performance have made it an attractive choice" is an example of puffery because it makes subjective proclamations about a subject's importance instead of demonstrating that importance by citing the views of reliable sources. Moreover, the statement "its adoption is likely to increase in the future" improperly makes a prediction in wikivoice, which generally should not be done. If sources have discussed the probable future rise of WebAssembly, then their predictions should be cited and attributed to those sources.

With regard to the reliability of AI chatbots, it is my understanding that those currently available are prone to hallucination; they should not be trusted to produce accurate text. They will actively give wrong answers because there is (to my knowledge) no technology currently able to verify the accuracy of their output. Shells-shells (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Chadoh has posted a comment on my talk page that is relevant to this discussion. I have referred them to this discussion on the tree house, and if you want to, feel free to reply to them on my talk page here with a more specific critique of their edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CoderThomasB#When_is_it_appropriate_to_use_content_initially_generated_by_an_LLM CoderThomasB (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

update that fifth

6 72.174.78.55 (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

6 72.174.78.55 (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Update it that fifth of what, and update it how and why? -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Access to a draft

I have put an article in draftspace Draft:Aliasing_(factorial_experiments). What is the simplest way for a colleague to find it? Is there an easier route than that indicated in Wikipedia:Drafts#Finding_drafts, which I actually had some difficulty using at first. Johsebb (talk) 04:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

If it's a particular colleague, Johsebb, you can of course just link to it, as you would to any web page. If you instead mean people in general who are likely to be interested, then once your draft has been adopted as an article, other articles can link to it and it can be categorized. You've already submitted it for review; please be patient. -- Hoary (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Johsebb: The normal web page link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aliasing_(factorial_experiments), but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aliasing_%28factorial_experiments%29 is safer if you send the url as pure text and not a formatted link. If you only speak to them then you can tell them to write draft:aliasing in Wikipedia's search box. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

my wikipedia

can anyone do my wikipedia page 2001:8F8:1B69:2267:B52B:25EF:EB04:9BBB (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia page is yours, and what do you want done with it? -- Hoary (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Am I insane or are none of these women wearing belly chains

I'm looking at this article Belly chain and although a lot of the women are described as wearing belly chains, only the first one seems to be wearing one over a jewelly belt. Is my idea of a belly chain wrong? The first one was added by me because she's wearing what I imagine as belly chain as looking like Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Immanuelle. This seems to be a vague term without a clear, generally accepted definition. Plus, some of the references are low quality, like the Times of India article. So, who is in strong position to say, "this is not a belly chain"? Nobody, I submit. Cullen328 (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Everyone is wearing a belly chain. In second photo, the child. In third photo, all four women, over their skirts rather than against bare skin. David notMD (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Switching to a new account

Hi. I've been using a registered account for many years and it doesn't have any bans or anything. Unfortunately the username and early edits have some personal details and I'm worried about them getting dredged up. I'd like to continue editing Wikipedia in my areas of interest, but WP:CLEANSTART looks like I wouldn't be allowed to edit the same articles or even topics? Is there any way I can switch to a new account to keep editing? Thanks, 49.184.172.205 (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello. A sincere wish to protect personal privacy going forward is a valid reason to set up a new account. Please read WP:VALIDALT for more details. Go ahead and do it. I recommend that you email the Arbitration Committee explaining your need for privacy. Your email will be kept confidential but will be very useful if you are ever falsely accused of sockpuppetry. The address is arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Be sure to add an informative header so that your email is not deleted as spam. Cullen328 (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Another thing you can do is request that the earlier edits on your account that revealed personal information be oversighted. See WP:OVERSIGHT, which specifically notes that personal information is one of the things that can be removed from past history. That's a route you maybe want to explore. Also, as long as you genuinely abandon the prior account, and don't plan to use it ever again, AND you don't use the new account to do anything untowards (like voting in the same specific discussions, further an edit war, give the illusion of more support for something) you're probably fine. If you're just using your new account to edit the same articles in an innocuous way, you're probably within policy on that, though as Cullen328 notes above, emailing ArbCom explaining the situation is a great idea. They will keep your details fully private, but if you do ever get accused of illegal sockpuppetry, you can refer your accusers to ArbCom, who can use your email to confirm that you're operating fully within policy. --Jayron32 16:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

If you want to keep most of your editing history but hide just a few edits that reveal personal information, the best approach is to go to WP:CHU/Simple to request renaming your account, and then contact an administrator like me in email to identify the edits you want to hide. I can hide them from public view but not from other administrators. If you want them hidden from other administrators, you need to find one with Oversight permission. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Cenozoic dinosaurs

Are there surviving non-avian dinosaurs from the Paleocene? I have heard of trodons, hadrosaurs, surviving microraptors or even small oviraptors that lived long after K-T. BristiBoop78786778 (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, BristiBoop78786778. The Teahouse is a place for asking and answering questions about editing Wikipedia. Your question belongs at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Cullen328 (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Help

Hi This is the page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_and_George_Weasley I would like to add some information but I need some help on how not to seem that I am vandalising. Any help is very much appreciated Thank you 2A00:23C5:7D86:9901:F4CB:FE3C:F212:54BE (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

After posting this question, you made this set of edits to another article. Perhaps you meant well; but if you did, the result was garbled. I have therefore reverted it. What to do? Before you submit an edit, preview it. Read it, slowly. Make sure that nothing is amiss. If it seems OK, read it aloud, slowly. If the edit needs fixing, fix it. If fixing the edit seems complicated, press "Cancel". -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

thank you. I am new to wiki and therefore I am not used to editing pages. I shall do some more research before I do any more edits. Are there any pages that you recommend? Your advice is helpful thank you. 2A00:23C5:7D86:9901:F4CB:FE3C:F212:54BE (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello once again

I have followed your advice and this is the edit I made https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1149765064?diffmode=source

Do you think it is constructive? 2A00:23C5:7D86:9901:F4CB:FE3C:F212:54BE (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry this is the edit I made 2A00:23C5:7D86:9901:F4CB:FE3C:F212:54BE (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Effectively, you're asking whether it's constructive to add within the infobox of the article Ministry of Magic that Lord Voldemort was formerly an enemy of the Ministry of Magic. As I know nothing about the Harry Potter books or their films or other spin-offs, I cannot comment. Perhaps somebody else here will. -- Hoary (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Upload image to Wikidata

Hello, please help me and upload the logo of this organization in Wikidata. (Islamic Republic of Iran Police Intelligence Organization) Like the logo of this network that is available in Wikidata. [3] Thankful CaesarIran (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata, while a "sister project" of Wikipedia, is a separate entity, and the userbase here will not necessarily be able to help with a problem your having there. You can try this page, which seems to be the general help desk/discussion forum at Wikidata. That's probably the best place to ask. --Jayron32 13:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@CaesarIran:  Done, with the following steps:

1. Go to the Islamic Republic of Iran Police Intelligence Organization article
2. Click on the logo in the infobox
3. Click on the "More details" button
4. Copy the URL of the image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IRIPIO.png
5. Go back to the Islamic Republic of Iran Police Intelligence Organization article
6. Click the "Wikidata item" link to go to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q117623167
7. Click "add statement"
8. In the property field, type "logo image"
9. Paste the image URL in the field
10. Click "publish"

Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the explanation, but the editing option does not appear for me to place the photo, please add the current logo of the Iranian Anti-Narcotics Police page to its wikidata, thanks. CaesarIran (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Markup

Hello, Teahouse. I'm a new editor. Usually I stick to Visual Editor, but I want to learn Wiki Markup. Are there any tutorials on it? Thank you. Candylinsky (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

This might be a good starting point. Lectonar (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Candylinsky: Welcome to the Teahouse! You could also try Help:Introduction and use the buttons on the left hand side for the Source Editor. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Candylinsky. Another useful resource is Help:Cheatsheet. Cullen328 (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk page anchors(?)

Is there a way to prevent individual talk page threads from being auto-archived (without them having to be regularly edited)? Sort of like "anchoring" them to the top of the talk page. I've been trying to find a template for this purpose but have not been successful. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Throast: do you mean Template:Pin section? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes! Thanks. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 12:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com

facebook Kuttayiajesh (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a question we can answer? --Jayron32 13:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Just going to point out that they've been adding links like Facebook and Google to other areas, like the Help Desk. Tails Wx 13:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I wish there was some way to figure out what folks who make these posts are doing (or think they're doing), but they never reply.... 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Pink and Magenta: colors or shades?

Hello there Wikipedians. I'm here to ask a question: Why the f*** did my edits about Pink being a shade of red and Magenta being a color get reverted, even tho IT'S TRUE??!! Like, the RGB/CYMK color scheme proves that Magenta is a color and the "category" of colours Pink appears in is in the Tertiary colors, which is basically pushing the line of "Is it a color or a shade" to a whole 'nother level, ESPECIALLY with the Gauter-something and Spring Green... So yeah, I think Pink should be considered a shade of Red and Magenta be considered a different color. Goodbye fellow Wikipedians! 2001:8A0:DF58:401:AD25:4D6B:E599:6BF8 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I meant Chartreuse and Spring Green btw, just searched that up, anyways, bye again! 2001:8A0:DF58:401:AD25:4D6B:E599:6BF8 (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits were reverted because Wikipedia articles are not based on the personal opinions of editors. They are summaries of what is published in reliable sources. If you can produce sources to back up your argument, feel free to start a discussion on the talk page of the article. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Many words, like "color", have several (overlapping) meanings in English. I don't think there is one hard and fast answer as to whether or not "magenta" is a color. It depends on context. But, yes, you need sources to back up your assertions. I predict that there are sources for either answer. David10244 (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Bridget Lancaster, America's Test Kitchen

I'm writing this entry and looking for some feedback before I move it to trash space. I mainly want to make sure that this is viable and I'm not wasting my time👍

User:Geraldine Aino/sandbox

I also would like to do an article for her parter as well...TIA Geraldine Aino (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Geraldine Aino, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sure someone else will come along with more pointers, but I'll give the obvious one: don't cite IMDb. There's an essay about it at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb if you'd like further reading. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

To improve Bridget Lancaster, I added a wikilink and two categories. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@JoeNMLC, you forgot to disable the categories (the article is not in mainspace, it should not be included in categories yet). I've done that. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Geraldine Aino I'm not clear why you want to move the draft to "trash space" but the serious problem with the current version is that it has almost no sources which meet Wikipedia's golden rules. Please read that linked essay. The main issue is that you are mostly basing information on interviews, when to establish notability we require sources that are fully independent of the subject. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the query was about moving from Sandbox to Draft? David notMD (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Photo caption

Hi, I didn't know myself how to get to the editing regime for this photo. The photo link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastropoda#/media/File:Gastropod_collage.jpg --it's the title collage for the Gastropoda article (as I recall). I find 2 problems of detail in the caption: (1) at the beginning, it says "an collage"; (2) within the caption, in the section naming the abalone, the word "abalone" is misspelled "abalore". My email is still <redacted>, i'd welcome communications there, or else reminding me how to use the built-in communications pathways within wikipedia. Sorry to be a dud, age is somewhat clouding my former skills...Jerry Brown Geodejerry (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Geodejerry:  Fixed typos at c:File:Gastropod collage.jpg on Wikimedia Commons. Thanks for letting us know! GoingBatty (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Geodejerry. You can set your preferences to allow folks to email you, but it's best not to post your actual email address in a public forum like this. I've removed that, hope you don't mind. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Redlinks

I only recently discovered a redlink and created an article. I think they are a fantastic idea. My question is: On Wikipedia, is there an easy way to find out what redlinks for a specific subject are awaiting creation? If there are redlinks in chemistry for example it would be a nice challenge for me to write a few articles. GRALISTAIR (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

GRALISTAIR, I'm not aware of any way we could categorize red links in that way. Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles provides a list of the most common red links, for example, but red links do not have any inherent qualifiers that we could determine their subject from. Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, however, does have a list of "open tasks" which includes Chemistry articles requiring clean-up, meaningful expansion, or other things you can help with. I hope this is helpful and wish you good luck editing in the topic area ^u^ — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 15:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@GRALISTAIR: See also Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Chemistry. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@GRALISTAIR: Should you be interested in helping to redress the gender imbalance here on Wikipedia, you might like to consider whether any of the redlinked women at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Chemists could be suitable subjects for you to write about. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Article Request

How do I ask that an article be created? Is there, like a special page for it or...what? Faith15 15:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Faithful15: Welcome to the Teahouse! There's Wikipedia:Requested articles, but there's no guarantee that any of Wikipedia's volunteer editors would choose to write the article. GoingBatty (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Understood. Thanks for the help, @GoingBatty. Faith15 15:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

If you want to write an article yourself, you can use the article wizard to help you. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Publish article about someone

i created and publish an article about someone with any refernce but it was rejected so if any one can help me publish the article it would be very helpfull

Harshin153 (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Harshin153, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, since your draft has been rejected, there is little hope for it. It doesn't seem to contain any sources which meet our standards (outlined at W:42 WP:42) of being secondary, reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. This also seems to be an autobiography. Please read WP:AUTOBIO to understand why attempting to write an autobiography on Wikipedia is generally a very bad idea. Once you become better known, to the point you are notable by Wikipedia's standards, perhaps someone else will create an article about you. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe 199.208.172.35 meant to link to WP:42 Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Fixed. Apologies to galactic hitchhikers everywhere.199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Harshin153, you are not notable as Wikipedia defines that term, therefore you are not eligible for a Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Harshin h was Rejected for good reasons. Your 'references' are not valid references. For example, you wrote you attended a school, the 'reference' confirmed the existence of the school, but did not confirm you going there. The 'ref' to the hospital where you were born does not confirm you were born there. Same for others. At some future time you may become Wikipedia-notable, but now is too soon. I strongly recommned you put DB-author inside double curly brackets {{ }} at the top of the draft. This will request an Administrator to delete the draft. David notMD (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Reverted edits on Pokemon

I got my edit reverted on Gen 3 Pokemon to add some filler in text, yet Diannaa who said to be an administer, reverted it saying it not compatible with Bulbapedia which it thinks i got it from, which i didnt as i have a google docs page of all the Pokedex entries but in my own words. What does that mean and is there a way to revert it? UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Blacephalon, welcome to the Teahouse. Information added to Wikipedia should be summarized from reliable sources. This means both that you can't copy/paste in Wikipedia from your source and that your source must be reliable. Google docs you have created for yourself are not reliable (and neither is Bulbapedia). You should find a reliable source which contains the information you want to add, summarize it in your own words, and cite the source. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm I'm also confused on that. If I go to any website that popular and I cite that, is that a reliable source? What do I look for as a reliable source? What counts/doesn't count as one? UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blacephalon, many popular websites are not reliable. Please read WP:Reliable source carefully. There's a list of commonly discussed sources at WP:RS/PS if you want many examples of good, middling and bad sources, with explanations of how those rankings came about. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blacephalon, you can read Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for a long but incomplete list of source assessments. After glancing at your talk page, it looks like you are trying to mentor new editors. That is unwise if you do not fully understand Wikipedia's core content policies. Cullen328 (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

While that is true I can help people in other ways as well. I know what to do but not how to do it. UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

So if they use Bulbapedia and its a reliable source, can I use it? UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blacephalon, if a reliable source reports some information and then says "We got this information from Bulbapedia", you can summarize the information and cite the reliable source (but not Bulbapedia). Part of what makes a source reliable is that the folks in charge do some checking to make sure what they report is accurate, and retract what they've reported if it isn't. So if they decide this particular piece of information is okay, we can rely on what they say, and cite them as our authority on the information being okay. If they find out later it's not okay, they'll correct themselves and we should then correct Wikipedia. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

So if they do it it's okay. If it's on the list of reliable sources. We should update that too... UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blacephalon, what do you think needs to be updated at WP:RS/PS? Keep in mind that the list doesn't usually include sources that are obviously unreliable, like wikis - it only happens if they've been discussed very frequently (IMDb, for instance, comes up all the time). I only see two past discussions which mention Bulbapedia (here and here). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Well someone did say that the list isnt complete, though I don't know if that's true or not. UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328 said that, @Blacephalon, and it's quite true. But the list isn't meant to be complete. It's mostly a convenience. See this explanation on the page itself. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm I mean I get that more can be added or removing but could it be up to date? UB Blacephalon (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blacephalon, if you think that the status of one of the entries has changed, you can start a discussion at the noticeboard, WP:RSN. See this section of the page. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@UB Blacephalon - to summarize, Bulbapedia is not a reliable source, because anyone can edit it. A source is a reliable source if it is published under editorial oversight with a reputation for fact checking. Wikipedia:Reliable source examples and this reliable sources quiz are examples of pages with more information about this. casualdejekyll 22:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Ahh I should try again with the cites. UB Blacephalon (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blacephalon It's pretty much impossible for a list of sources to be "complete", if that means listing all reliable and non-reliable sources that exist in the world. That list itself is never static. David10244 (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

What does the arrow mean when editing?

This is probably a stupid question but I keep seeing this little arrow when editing and I don't know what it means.

https://imgur.com/a/Z50zi0O Ranicher (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ranicher Welcome to the Teahouse! The carriage return symbol in your screenshot indicates that there is a line break in the wikicode between the words "the" and "Federal". When you are editing an article and see this symbol in the middle of a sentence, you can replace it with a space. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

HOW CAN I ROLL OVER TO A NEW BLANK PAGE?

I am drafting an article about The Seven Stars (1602), an ancient London pub in Holborn. (Incidentally, I see there exists a "stub" for what is probably the same pub, but with a couple of very old photos and the few bits of information are entirely wrong, so I've started over.).

I'm trying to use the Wiki format, but my ignorance of the conventions may overwhelm me. The problem at this moment, after I've drafted six or seven pages in basically Word-type text format, is that the pages haven't rolled forward to a new blank one. I can't figure out how to overcome that, so I'm stuck. I hope I don't lose what I've been saving, and that someone can help me.

Pip pip,

Riggelouto

Rigellouto (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Rigellouto, welcome to the Teahouse. You have no other undeleted edits on this account, so it's difficult to know what the problem is. If you've dealt with the copyright problem which led to your last draft being deleted, please "save" whatever you're working on by clicking Publish. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Seven Stars, Holborn - this is the existing article mentioned. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Rigellouto, when an existing article has shortcomings, the proper course of action is to improve the existing article through the normal editing process. Writing an entirely new article is unfair to the editors who have already worked on the existing article. Cullen328 (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Rigellouto, your draft read like the advertisement that it originally was. And it was completely unreferenced. You're welcome to flesh out the article with what you can learn from disinterested, published works of architectural history, social history, and so forth. Yes, the current article is indeed a mere stub. It was created nine years ago by Edwardx, who's still very much active. If you're wondering about which sources would be usable or similar matters, you might ask on Talk:Seven Stars, Holborn. (You should also explain there how "the few bits of information are entirely wrong".) If there's no response there, try WP:RSN. -- Hoary (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Rigellouto and Hoary. Please do go ahead and expand/correct the existing article. It is on my watchlist, so I will keep an eye on any changes. I will be up that way on 14 May for the next Wikipedia London meet-up in the nearby Penderel's Oak, so will endeavour to take some up-to-date photos. Edwardx (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Edits not showing in either preview or final result in sandbox

Hello! I was editing in my sandbox but I noticed that some of my recent edits were not displaying in the preview nor in the final result. The preview seems to be working fine in the teahouse, though. My edits are maintained in the edit box itself, they simply never affect the final result itself. Has anyone encountered this problem? I am going to restart my computer and see what that does. I will not respond to this post within 5 minutes of posting if restarting does nothing for me. Thank you! Non-pegasus (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Non-pegasus and welcome to the Teahouse.

You asked much the same question with a {{help me}} request on your user talk page User talk:Non-pegasus where I found it first and answered it. In general, it's best not to ask a question in two different places; make your best guess as to the right place and ask there. Only if there's no response after a considerable time would it make sense to try asking in a different way and a different place. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Undo

I do not know why, but I cannot undo my own edit. When I do so, a text appears and says The editor will now load. If you still see this message after a few seconds, please reload the page[,] with reload the page linked in blue. I have done so, but the undo still does not go through. Any solutions? Thanks, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I had this same problem today attempting to undo some vandalism on an article I watch. I had to switch to desktop mode for the edit to publish. I see you also usually edit via mobile, so it may be related. Folly Mox (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

How to use insert fair use license logo og an organization into translated wikipedia page of the same organization

I need to insert fair use license logo of an organization whose page is available in English wikipedia into Hindi translated page. How can I do that? 42.105.76.3 (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

It might be possible, but it isn't easy. Each language edition of Wikipedia is a seperate project; Each Wikimedia Project can only use images which have been uploaded to that specific project or Wikimedia Commons. Since Wikimedia Commons doesn't accept Fair Use, your only chance would be to have the image uploaded locally, if the Hindi Wikipedia allows Fair use. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP user, I searched WP:Non free content and did not find a corresponding Hindi article. There is however hi:विकिपीडिया:Logos (WP:LOGOS) and an example like hi:चित्र:Real Madrid CF svg.png real examples of fair use imagery on popular Hindi articles.

Your questions about Hindi Wikipedia are better asked at the Hindi equivalent of Teahouse hi:विकिपीडिया:चौपाल ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, this is a matter entirely within the purview of the Hindi Wikipedia, and the English Wikipedia has nothing at all to do with it. Some people seem to think that the English Wikipedia is somehow the "boss Wikipedia". This is not the case. Each language version is fully autonomous. Cullen328 (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a dumb question: How exactly do I make an article look less like an ad?

Hello, Wikipedia.

I am a new user, and I randomly stumbled upon Cluster Observatory article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custer_Observatory), winch looks like and adverstiment, because it has too much about the history of it. And yet, history of that observatory can be interesting to some people. So, how exactly in that situation do I make the article less advertising without making the article worse?

Sorry if it's a dumb question,

NuclearFish RealNuclearFish (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The main problem with the article Custer Observatory, RealNuclearFish, is that it's unreferenced. It does read rather like a PR blurb, but I think that this is secondary. I don't think that there's too much history. (And even if there were too much history, I'd be surprised if an excess of history were to make the article seem promotional.) The article badly needs referencing. If you've found good sources about the subject, then match the assertions with the source, and try referencing at least some parts of this article. -- Hoary (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

RealNuclearFish, another serious problem is that the lead section of a well-written Wikipedia article is supposed to summarize the body of the article, and this article has plenty of content in the lead that isn't even mentioned in the body at all. I agree that the lack of references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic is the biggest problem. Cullen328 (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328, thanks to both of you, I understood and I'll try find reliable sources for that article. RealNuclearFish (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@RealNuclearFish Please have a look at WP:BACKWARD. David10244 (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

What to do

What to do with a user who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Around 88% of their edits is to their user space and only 4% to the mainspace. Should I just leave them alone? They don't seem interested in writing, copy editing, wikignoming, creating articles or making any types of edit to the mainspace – I'm unsure of what to do. Dancing Dollar ^{(let's talk)} 07:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

What kind(s) of edits to their user space, Dancing Dollar? -- Hoary (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Dancing Dollar. New editors who fool around in their user pages have four possible trajectories: #1 They continue to goof around in their user pages, doing no harm. #2 They lose interest and go away, causing no harm. #3 They gain confidence and begin contributing positively to the encyclopedia. #4 They begin engaging in vandalism and disruption. Only #4 requires action. Cullen328 (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary: You know, adding and removing userboxes, designing anime characters in their sandbox and adding personal info on their user page. @Cullen328: I don't think this user falls under any of those categories, they seem to love anime and they think Wikipedia is place to design characters or show such imagination in their user page. They are not causing any harm. Dancing Dollar ^{(let's talk)} 08:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Standards in multiple citation

Hi there, I am getting a bit confused while editing and I cannot find a clear answer to this apparently stupid aspects which is bothering me. Does Wikipedia has a standard when mentioning multiple references? E.g. "something something.[1],[2]" or "something something.[1][2]"? Do we use punctuation within refences? Sometimes I see these styles mixed within the same article. Without saying that often people put citation before the punctuation of the main text as "something, something [1][2]." Didiogiorgio (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)