Wikipedia:Teahouse

A lad insane, 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

Always Declined

I published three articles but non of these approved by Editors. The articles was :

• Draft:Namak Haram
• Draft: Fairy Tale 2
• Draft:Aena Khan

No article was accepted above. Please Help me to improve these articles to approved. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnn edits (talk • contribs) 20:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nnn edits All three have moved beyond "declined" to reach "rejected". There is a big stop notice on each, so please do just that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think nuclide symbols are overused on Wikipedia. They hurt readability IMHO. I wonder what I should do?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nuclear_weapon_design#235U_versus_uranium-235. is a link to a discussion I had about this which, as I see it, was concluded without much rebuttal of my arguments, but rather a refusal to discuss the matter. So I am wondering whether I am really right about this, and also, what I should do, if anything. Polar Apposite (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it U₃O₈ or triuranium octoxide? H₂O or dihydrogen oxide? Personally, I prefer Arabic digits to Greek prefixes. Maproom (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

"Is it U₃O₈ or triuranium octoxide?"

For the nonscientific layman, the latter is plain English while the former is a formula, IMHO.

Literacy on the part of the reader of an encyclopedia article about chemistry can be assumed, I think, but numeracy cannot. For us numerate guys it is hard to keep in mind just how innumerate a lot of people are, including university graduates. I once saw a cartoon showing an office with "Principal" on the door, and a man behind a desk who was obviously the principal. Another man faced him across the desk, saying, "A new study shows that fifty-one percent of educators have not mastered basic math concepts." The principal's speech bubble contains the text, "My God. That's almost half."

"Dihydrogen oxide"? You have got to be kidding me.

Anyway, my question is not about familiar, *relatively* easily pronounced, and understood, but nuclide symbols which are on a whole other level of unfamiliarity, and even when the reader is familiar with them, disrupt reading to a very great degree, mainly because they are essentially pronounced backwards, that is to say, they are read from right to left in some sense. Polar Apposite (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

What should I do when I forget to include an edit summary?

Or if I accidentally hit a key and publish an edit before writing the edit summary? Like I did just now. Polar Apposite (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite: You can make a dummy edit (put an extra space somewhere on the page) and leave your edit summary there. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 22:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I did it. Do you have any other tips about edit summaries. Polar Apposite (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Polar Apposite Go to "Preferences" (top line of the page) "Editing" and check the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box - this will remind you if you try to publish without an edit summary - Arjayay (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I did it. Thanks. How about another edit summary tip? Polar Apposite (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Polar Apposite, an edit summary should clearly and concisely describe the purpose of your edit. Do not debate or argue with other editors or be negative or sarcastic. Detailed discussion belongs on talk pages, not in edit summaries. Cullen328 (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I always Edit summary for article content, but never for Teahouse or editors' Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That's been my policy up to now, too. Polar Apposite (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If the edit summary of a revert of someone elses's edit included, "Take your concerns to talk", would that normally be understood to mean, to reverter's talk page, or to the article talk page, or something else? Polar Apposite (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Polar Apposite, I would usually prefer the article talk so that everyone would more easily be able to find the previous discussion before starting a new one about the same topic. Justiyaya 22:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense. But I was asking about the meaning. Polar Apposite (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

How do I create a new article? I’m so new, and I’m nervous about it.

Hello there. I am just basically new at Wikipedia and I wanted to create a new article. How? I’m on mobile! I’m nervous! 🥺 The Industrial Me 1563 (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

1 hour, no replies. Can someone help?

The Industrial Me 1563 (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello @The Industrial Me 1563:. You can take a look at WP:YFA which also has a link to the Article Wizard. Knitsey (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, The Industrial Me, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia.

In my experience, people who try to create an article before they have spent a significant amount of time learning how Wikipedia works usually have a frustrating and disappointing time. Imagine buying a violin and immediately going busking on the streets - it's probably not money that people are going to throw at you.

My advice (as usual to new editors) is to spend a few weeks or months learning how it works by making smaller edits before you even try it. Start with Help:Introduction if you haven't already read that, and then pick up some tasks that interest you from the "Help out" section of the Community portal. Start with the tasks on the first row, but make sure you've done some of the "Check and add references" before you try your own article: references are the foundation of any Wikipedia article, and if you don't understand them, you cannot create a satisfactory article.

The other thing to note is that creating a new article is not the only way to improve or add value to Wikipedia. I remember when I started how much I wanted to "make my mark" by adding new articles. But now I know that bringing existing articles up to scratch is often of more value. I have only every created a dozen articles. ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Does that only apply to mobile or is it for Chromebooks too? Are there any other devices? OddyAwesome (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@The Industrial Me 1563 Maybe use the Article Wizard. Babysharkboss2 was here!! 00:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see! Thanks! The Industrial Me 1563 (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Assistance

This Draft got decline https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tupocracy and I am confused because It has some book reviews see [1] and quite a good number of Reliable/ independent reference.Calyx2s (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Calyx2s, I read that "The term 'tupocracy' was coined by Dr. Godwin Akpan Amaowoh": a credible claim. And yes, this coining has been celebrated, but I sense something fishy about the celebration. Consider this cited example, which says: "Nigeria is about to make another strong impact on the global stage with the discovery of a new political theory which may become a major political theory that will be adopted by countries." Which is mere wishful thinking. (Perhaps published on a slow news day?) But you may object that no, this is a serious statement in a serious publication. If so, then we can expect the concept/word to make a "strong impact on the global stage". Well then, let's wait for the impact to occur, and for moral philosophers, political scientists or whoever to verifiably adopt the concept in their analyses. In the meantime, WP:CRYSTAL rules out an article on "tupocracy". -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hoary Thank you for the insight,but do you mean if not on global stage it not notable considering it already been adopted in university especially in Nigeria. Would also kindly like to ask what kind of reference should I look at in order to develop it? And there are some book reviews, unfortunately I don't know how to references them on the article. Please kindly guide, if I can help to still see how I can develop it more.Calyx2s (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Calyx2s, the draft cites quite a lot of sources. I picked two.

First, "Akwa Ibom govt adopts tupocracy as governance model". This says:

Akwa Ibom State [...] has adopted the newly propounded system of [Government] Tupocracy as the system that will run the state [...]. Tupocracy is Leadership by example [...]. When leaders lead by example, they set a standard of behavior that others can look up to and emulate.

Secondly, "Tupocracy established in Enugu, spreads across Nigeria and Africa", which says:

Tupocracy is gaining more grounds in Nigeria as Enugu State has adopted the political principle as a guiding principle. Leadership by example refers to a leadership style in which leaders demonstrate their values, work ethic, and behavior through their actions, setting a positive example for others to follow.

(Incidentally, clicking within the text of that second source in order to copy some of it triggers an additional browser window -- which looked sleazy and which I killed before it could show me anything.)

I infer that tupocracy means government by decent people who aren't hypocrites.

I find it hard to imagine a government that would openly reject this: "No, we are not going to lead by example. Do as we say, not as we do." If leadership by example becomes a talking point, then of course the government will pay lip-service to it. Now, image-making and "spin" can themselves become notable, and certainly there's real content in your draft (so I'm not suggesting that you should give up); but I'd like to see evidence that the concept has actually influenced government policy or that it has been taken up by scholars other than (and independent of) Amaowoh, or some more substance to either the concept or its influence. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary:I found the below two sources and it already existed on the body on the article. Hope it meet your expectations?

https://tribuneonlineng.com/akwa-ibom-govt-adopts-tupocracy-as-governance-model/

Akwa Ibom State under the leadership of Governor Udom Gabriel Emmanuel has adopted the newly propounded system of Govermmennt Tupocracy as the system that will run the state.

https://tribuneonlineng.com/unn-elated-as-scholar-akpan-invents-new-political-concept-tupocracy/

The board of Examiners chaired by an External Examiner Prof. Vincent Nyoyoko from the University of Port Harcourt adopted the dissertation and as well recommended that it should be globally accepted as a Political Doctrine that may be adopted by countries or further studied.Calyx2s (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary:It is also on Urban Dictionary https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=TUPOCRACY Calyx2s (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Calyx2s We have an extensive article on leadership, with several forks for different types. Some of your sources might be suitable for inclusion in one of these. The word "tupocracy" sounds to me as of limited use at present but might be suitable for Wiktionary. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Calyx2s, as you say, both of these tribuneonlineng.com sources are already cited. (Indeed, I've already commented on one.) They may have some value. As you can see in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, the Urban Dictionary does not. Yes, as Mike Turnbull suggests, you might start by creating "tupocracy" in Wiktionary. -- Hoary (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary: I have actually created it "tupocracy" in Wiktionary but I seems lost in the coding of it, Can you please kindly assist @Michael D. Turnbull:Calyx2s (talk) 06:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Calyx2s, you have created an encyclopedia entry for the word tupocracy, and have placed it in a dictionary. But a dictionary is not an encyclopedia. Please examine the entries for bureaucracy, autocracy, gerontocracy, etc to see how dictionary entries should be written. -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

HoaryThank you for the assistance, I have actually created it but as times goes on I will develop it or someone experience can aswell assist and on the draft as you advised there are some substance in it; I will find time to search for more sources to establish it notability.Calyx2s (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Halocene Band article

I have been trying for over a year to show that the band halocene is noteworthy enough to merit an article. I keep getting shut down despite meeting everything I can see. I need help figuring out what I need to do get this article published. Draft:Halocene Brian.butt (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's be more precise, . On 26 April, Anarchyte rejected the draft, fixing a conspicuous "STOP" sign to it. But you didn't stop, and on 11 May CNMall41 rejected it again. Since then, some IP in Washington state has continued to fiddle with it (without doing anything to make the subject look more noteworthy). Regardless of their skills, originality, etc, most bands simply aren't notable (as notability is defined hereabouts). Please stop. -- Hoary (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Hi, Brian! In case you haven't already done so, have a thorough read of Wikipedia:Notability (music), and ask yourself as objectively as possible "Has this band met the required criteria yet?" and "Does the draft demonstrate this with citations to 3 or more substantial, independent Reliable sources?"

My own judgement, having read the draft, would be No to both. It may be just WP:Too soon in terms of their career and the consequent independent coverage of them – remember the old showbiz adage: "It takes 20 years to become an overnight sensation." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 46.65.231.103 (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The band is not notable, Brian.butt. I strongly recommend that you abandon the draft and move on. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Brian.butt@Cullen328@Hoary They're definitely notable, for point 1 alone, which is all that's needed for a music article.

They just need someone to add all the references.

They have nearly 196 million views on their own Youtube channel, from a total of 633 videos, so an average of 310,000 view per video, not to mention other Youtube channels they've appeared on with many more millions.

There's 30 stories which mention them on the news section of Google, albeit roughly 10 of them are talking about the same Masked Singer Australia story.

And there's many more news stories on the main Google page, but it'll take a while scrolling down to find them all, now that Google has got rid of page results.

I know nothing about them, but with that many views I suspect they've charted in at least one country, have been certified Gold or higher, and/or have won awards.

There's countless people from my city who get between 10,000 and 250,000 views per video on average, sometimes creeping up to a million or more, who have also had multiple articles written about them, and who are also eligible for a Wikipedia article but don't have one yet, so this band definitely are. Danstarr69 (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Suspicion that they have charted/won awards/hit Gold is not evidence that they have indeed done so. What are the sources that establish that this band meets point one of the notability criteria? 331dot (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the charts do not look at streaming numbers. When I asked for help I did not expect to just be told stop trying. That is not help. Brian.butt (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The honest opinion of the majority of responders above is that you should stop trying, and they are trying to help you to stop wasting your time. The fact is that streaming numbers on YouTube, Spotify, etc., even if impressive (and I don't find those quoted by Dannstarr69 above particularly impressive) are not in themselves a criterion that Wikipedia takes notice of in assessing a band's Notability. They might count if an unconnected third party had written about those numbers at some length in a publication considered to be a Reliable source.

Even if the numbers were considered a prima facie proof of Notability, there would still be the problem that a Wikipedia article would have to be mostly a summary of the contents of several (usually 3 or more) different, substantial-length, cited pieces or passages primarily about the band (not about a competition the band has been in), written independently of it, and published in Reliable sources, without inserting any WP:Personal knowledge, Original research or Synthesis. If too few such pieces are available, then there is insufficient basis for an article, and so far three different reviewers have decided that your draft indeed has insufficient basis, even after nearly 2 years of effort by yourself and others. Dannstarr69 has asserted that there are such pieces, but has not linked them – it would be helpful if they and/or yourself would do so on the draft's talk page so that they could be assessed, but be aware that a flurry of passing mentions will not be useful. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.5.208 (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Fine I will give up. Even though I think they meet the notability requirements. Brian.butt (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Article on a non-profit without many reliable sources yet

Hello! I drafted an article on a new non-profit. It was rejected because of a lack of reliable resources. Because it's new (founded 2021), it hasn't yet been referenced in any mainstreams news agencies, journals, etc. It has been referenced in several local newspapers where it is active. Aside from waiting until it's referenced somewhere more traditionally seen as reliable, is there anyway to get the article published? Thank you!

Draft:Lumen Accreditation ITCE CUA (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

ITCE CUA Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If a topic does not receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. That doesn't mean forever, but it appears to be too soon for an article about this organization.

I see you declared a COI; if you work for this organization, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, 331dot! I'll make the stricter paid editing disclosure and otherwise will wait until there is more significant coverage in independent reliable sources. ITCE CUA (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, ITCE CUE. Note that it makes absolutely no difference to Wikipedia whether an organisation is non-profit or not. All that matters is whether adequate sources exist. ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense, thank you! CatholicEdDC (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@ITCE CUA, @CatholicEdDC, you may wish to continue harvesting secondary refs- a couple popped up on a simple search and have been added to the draft- HTH, Yadsalohcin (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Yadsalohcin! I'll keep looking and adding. CatholicEdDC (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

A bit of help on notability of people, please

Being interested in the history of the British Isles, among other places, lots of articles in the English Wikipedia are about people whose contribution to their times or to posterity is either not evident or is clearly non-existent.

Where this is particularly prevalent is with (a) owners of lands or titles whose only apparent achievement in life is to have lived long enough to inherit, (b) spouses of such people, and (c) children of such people. In some cases this is just due to the idleness or ignorance of the article creator and a bit of research could reveal evidences for notability. For married women this may be tough, however, since law and practice in past centuries tended to see them mainly as baby-producing adjuncts to their husbands.

To get to my question. If I've got no personal interest in or aptitude for improving the article, is it considered helpful or hostile to tag it for deletion or merge? Belle Fast (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely do not tag it for deletion or merging without a WP:BEFORE. It is preferred to improve articles rather than delete them, so if you have no personal interest, don't edit them. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Hello, Belle Fast: I think it might be regarded as hostile. In Wikipedia jargon, Notability has nothing whatever to do with how meritorious someone was/is, or whether they have "contributed to their times or to posterity." It is only about how well documented they are/have been in Reliable sources that are independent of them. In other words, it's not that they "are notable" (in general terms), it's that they "have been noted."

With regard to people who have had places in lines of inheritance of titles and/or significant lands, the title/lands are themselves considered notable (because they are both significant and have been well documented) and the individuals concerned are necessarily part of that.

We have a principle that "Notability is not inherited", which means someone who isn't significantly documented except as a spouse or (non-inheriting) child would not qualify for an independent article, but I think most editors would regard the lineage-holders themselves as notable.

Of course, this may be seen as inherently unfair because past and present social attitudes to e.g. women mean that sources themselves are biased, but Wikipedia cannot help that: it is explicitly not intended to Right great wrongs, which would verge on Original research; rather it only summarises (reliable) sources.

I hope this (my personal perspective) helps. Doubtless others may wish to comment, and may well differ in their interpretations. {The poster formerly knowwn as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.5.208 (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It would not be helpful. Your pitch that "in some cases this is just due to the idleness or ignorance of the article creator" is offensive and suggests you do not think that WP:AGF applies to you; and those are both problematic. As others have pointed out, above, you do not seem to undertstand wikipedia notability, and so your judgements may well just be plain wrong. We're probably all best off if you do not touch articles in which you have no interest or aptitude. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for all advice, which is certainly noted, and I'm sorry if my language was careless.

In saying that some subjects of biographical articles do not seem significant, I meant that they do not appear to left a trail of valid references about their lives which would satisfy general scholarly and specifically Wikipedia criteria, which can often be the case with married women.

And I should never have criticised article creators who lack the time or the skills to develop the text further, for which I apologise. Belle Fast (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Historical downplaying of women's lives and achievements in available sources is indeed a problem for Wikipedia, but we cannot afford to relax our established strictures for this or other underrepresented groups, or 'mere anarchy will be loosed upon the world' (to paraphrase Yeats). Many Wikipedians work hard to try to overcome the inherent biases in many sources: are you familiar with the Women in Red project? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.5.208 (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Automated citation template filling

Dear fellow Wikipedians, all too often I find an article with a reference or two in a simple citation style, eg <ref>authorname, [URL title_string] various things like dates, website names etc </ref> which it would be nice to convert into tidily formatted refs using one or another of the {{cite... templates, thus: <ref> {{cite web |author=author_name |url=URL |title=title_string |work/date/access-date/etc=various things like dates, website names etc}} </ref> - I habitually do this manually, but it's fiddly and time consuming, so I wondered whether there's a tool that would do it automatically?

I've looked in a number of places starting with Help:Citation tools, but can't see the sort of thing I have in mind... Is there a tool that would automate this process? Thanks in advance, Yadsalohcin (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Yadsalohcin: is Wikipedia:Citation expander and the Wikipedia citation bot anything like what you're looking for? Install via Preferences > Gadgets, and access via the tools menu. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Yadsalohcin: for citations, what I use (simpler) is from the edit toolbar, click Cite then Web for example; then paste in the URL and to the right click on the little Hourglass icon, so it looksup and fills in the Title and Website name. A good time-saver. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi JoeNMLC, Thanks for this, I'll give it a go... Yadsalohcin (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @JoeNMLC, it sounds perfect. One of those bits of clutter on the page that actually should(!) be rather useful. Except that when I click the 'Autofill' symbol I get no response, either on my mobile screen or on the laptop... is there something else I need to enable? Yadsalohcin (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Yadsalohcin, Perhaps that URL has some special/unusual characters? It does need to be Exact to the webpage going into the citation. I use that search icon a lot, especially for association football biographies (from reliable source websites) and it works better than 90-percent of the time. JoeNMLC (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi again again @JoeNMLC, there must be something odd along those lines, 'cos I've just had one case of it autofilling several fields even tho' it didn't show in the preview or the boxes in the interface window, and a second case where it didn't do any autofilling. But it's a definite step forward, thanks! Yadsalohcin (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi DoubleGrazing, thanks for the suggestions, I've tried these and found them both a bit intermittent / less than reliable in their response- sometimes some pre-processing (breaking a previously ok citation) will force the issue but that feels rather a cumbersome approach... Yadsalohcin (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yadsalohcin, there is not a tool that will automatically turn manually formatted citations into correctly filled out citation templates. There previously was a tool that did something similar to this, but its error rate was extremely high, and it ended up breaking as many citations as it "fixed". Links to various discussions about this script from earlier this year can be found at the top of the first (of a projected four) cleanup page for examining and repairing the damage caused by this script.

Automatically generating a correct and complete citation template is a science still in its infancy. Pages with complete structured metadata (like journal articles) generally produce good citation templates. Many to most websites don't work to any significant degree, and an attempt to "improve" manually formatted citations to websites by use of automated tools typically results in disimprovement and lost information.

These are known issues, and some of the root sources of the problems are outside Wikipedia's purview in the Zotero community. Some are a bit closer to home, in the Wikimedia Foundation's Citoid library, which has one active maintainer.

There's not currently a shortcut to correct and complete citations. It's a manual process that requires source checking, reading, and typing. Folly Mox (talk) 05:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Folly Mox, many thanks for this- maybe my hours of doing it manually haven't been wasted, then! Yadsalohcin (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yadsalohcin, not wasted at all! Thanks for your efforts in improving citations! They're a mess Folly Mox (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Seeking input on a company merger

Six Flags and Cedar Fair are merging, and the combined company will be called Six Flags. Both articles have extensive histories. Merging both articles would be difficult to do. Need some ideas on how to best proceed once the merger is complete in 2024. Please see Talk:Six Flags#Merge with Cedar Fair. Thank you! --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably keep the Cedar Fair as a standalone article about the pre-merger company, as was done with Compaq, for example. I wouldn't worry about it much until the merger actually happens. RudolfRed (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

RudolfRed, thanks for weighing in. You're right, we may be getting ahead of ourselves a bit, but I was hoping to get a sense of how a merger of this magnitude would be typically handled. The problem with just adding to the Six Flags article after the merger is that the extensive history of Cedar Fair would only exist in a separate article, whereas the Six Flags history would be completely retained in the same article. Technically, Cedar Fair shareholders will get a bigger stake through the merger (51.2% vs 48.8%), though the merger itself is being described as a "merger of equals". I was thinking something along the lines of Sirius XM, where the history of each former company is briefly summarized, but a hatnote links to separate articles that discusses each former company in more depth.

For anyone else looking to chime in, please do, but perhaps weigh in at that linked discussion above so the discussion is in one place. Thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Question

Hello I need some help editing Wikipedia's articles, from a editor because the templates are hard. Words too. Too complicated but why? For me Wikipedia's too hard, Yes i've joined SO MANY WIKIPROJECTS. But you need to edit Wikipedia, But why? The to-do list says so! Thats why i need help. An○~t@○~m○ (talk) 4:03 1 November 2023 (UTC)

NOTE: I am 'bumping' this question from a few days ago as it was accidentally inserted into the bottom of another thread, and we all missed it. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC))

@Anotaomo: The templates are a hot mess, but you don't have to understand them all at once. The best way to learn is to hop in and experiment. Have you found any pages that you want to work on yet? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Rjjiii (ii) ( No, thank you. And thanks for telling me that "The best way to learn is to hop in and experiment." An○~t@○~m○ (talk)

@Anotaomo: can you please fix your signature, it's turned the subsequent text orange! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Im sorry. I deleted the color. An○~t@○~m○ (talk)

@Anotaomo: I'm going to have to ask you to change your signature once again, please. The standard blue text is unreadable against a dark green background. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Anotaomo, you have a few wikiprojects that you've expressed an interest in; do you know how to find the "stub" articles within a project to expand? Or if you're less interested in expanding articles that are also maintenance categories to browse. Let me know if you want help with either, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Im SO sorry

An○~t@○~m○ (talk)

To your question. No I dont know how to find stub article within a project to expand. I need help with editing articles. --Anotaomo (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

RVIA and top tech challenge

I appreciate and respect the COI issue. I was hoping you could, or you know someone who could create and edit a post about the RVIA and their Top Tech Challenge. At best I would hope to provide some first-hand knowledge to the creator, editor, or publisher. I so much enjoy being a part of the RV industry and community that I am hoping to generate more appreciation for it. It seams like a great idea to get it posted on Wikipedia. There are many articles about the competition and the participants. What the tasks were that made up the competition. I thought it would be a worthwhile addition to the culture of the knowledge base of this community. By no means did I intend to write, edit, or publish this myself. I do not see myself as a writer. I am looking for some guidance on how to get such a historical record into the Wikipedia database. Are you able to point me in the right direction, or assist in some way? Thank you for your help, I am sure together we can make the difference. Brandon as Top Tech (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Brandon as Top Tech: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you're looking for someone to create a new article, try posting your request at the appropriate subpage of Wikipedia:Requested articles with the best three independent published sources you have. If you're looking for assistance with an existing article, then I suggest posting on the article's talk page. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

To be blunt, the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) is an obscure organization, and it having a contest for technicians to diagnose and fix RV problems (the Top Tech Challenge) is also obscure. Your COI - you having won the Top Tech Challenge - does complicate your intent, but not impossible. The larger problem is your statement that you do not plan to attempt creating an article about the topic. Is there anyone else in the RVIA who might be willing to take up the task? As for how to approach this, an article about the RVIA, with a section about the Top Tech Challenge would be more likely to succeed than a submitted draft about just the challenge. David notMD (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, David, for your bluntness and great information. I appreciate straight talk very much. RVIA being obscure is true, there are those who know of it and those who do not. I hope you can have a wonderful day! 64.178.233.44 (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

So very helpful. Thank you for taking the time to lay that out for me. Have a great day. 64.178.233.44 (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft's notability

I submitted the draft for a historical textile company and it was twice rejected as the sources didn't show notability. I'd like just to hear more details why the sources in the draft are not good:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Croscill

In short, some of the sources are copied from other notable encyclopedias (including encyclopedia.com) from the Pre-Internet era. Other sources are more easily verifiable in the references. This is my final request and in case I get the same feedback supporting questionable notability, I'm ready to abandon this project. Otherwise, please, advise. Bormenthalchik82 (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think there must be some doubt about whether sources like hometextilestoday and bizjournals are reliable sources, or are reprinters of company PR. There is an ecosystem of print publications and websites which give the appearance of being journalism, but which are in effect marketing companies. Taking the latter, for instance, the article you linked to is a couple of clicks away from their claims that "The Business Journals Content Studio has partnered with hundreds of clients since 2016 to publish more than 15,000 pieces of client content across more than 18 industry verticals." Wikipedia should not be a venue for company promotion, and the use of sites like these to provide citations supporting articles about otherwise unremarkable commercial enterprises can be seen as an attempt to co-opt wikipedia into being a marketing platform rather than an encyclopedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed response. I agree with you on that. Do you have any information on how to identify those promotional sources? Bormenthalchik82 (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft Timeline

Hey everyone! I just submitted my first article draft for review, woop woop! Since articles are reviewed in no particular order (I know it says about 3 months), I was wondering how long typically drafts take to be reviewed and if it would be worth me plugging it here or asking the live chat. Sorry if this is a redundant question, I know there's a million tools available for help and I'm still getting around to them.

Thank you all so much in advance for your help and time! :) Dannycool3000 (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@dannycool3000: it can take anywhere from two weeks to six months, honestly. and don't ask anyone to review it, it's not allowed here. ltbdl (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, got it! Thank you so much! Fingers crossed it's more on the 2-week spectrum of things, haha. Dannycool3000 (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I reviewed it. I don't suppose you'll like the result much :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dannycool3000: I've also marked the page for speedy deletion. The website of the subject happens to contain the same string as the username of the author - Dannycool3000. Amateur mistake. Please don't try to use wikipedia for self-promotion; it's not what it is here for and it is actually offensive. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Attempts at autobiography almost always fail (see WP:AUTO for reasons). I hope you find other paths for contributing to Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

 Note: The draft has been deleted under the G11 criterion: unambiguous advertising or promotion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Date formatting

The latest revision of Swissport changes all the dates in the body of the article from MDY (e.g. October 30, 2023) to DMY (e.g. 30 October 2023).

Since this is the only set of changes that was made, and this nominally violates MOS:DATERET, can/should the edit be reverted? Echohawkdown (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

As an aside - asking because I wanna unify the date format of all the refs in the article to YMD (like ISO 8601) & want to have the article standardize on a single date format for the article body. Echohawkdown (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

fwiw, I think DMY works well. MDY would also work, I guess. YMD, in my view, would not work at all well. "In 2018 June 30 blah blah blah" just is not done. I don;t suppose I can convince you to leave it as it is? --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine w/ leaving the article body dates formatted as is, in its current DMY state if that means one less edit in the edit history, considering that it doesn't really impact the legibility of the article.

I suppose I'm just asking because I find that changing the date formats in the article body (which seems to be a thing that Priory ties's edit history seems to confirm) just to conform w/ the user's own date formatting preferences is grating as it doesn't really improve the quality of the article.

However, I would still like to switch all the date formats for the references to YMD to unify the date refs, since they're split between DMY & YMD at the moment. Echohawkdown (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

That works for me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrarily changing date formats is disruptive, and there is no prohibition on reverting. That said, this is a Swiss company that uses dmy on its website, so there is an argument for leaving it. You could put the references in a different format to the body, but be aware there are a couple of in-article maintenance templates that shift all citation template references to dmy or mdy. CMD (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a Swiss company, so in my opinion, the date formatting most commonly used in Switzerland should be used, which is DMY. I say that as an American who uses the MDY format in my daily life. Cullen328 (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still getting used to contributing to Wikipedia, so could you clarify which in-article maintenance templates switch dates to DMY or YMD by default? Because I wasn't aware that there's a difference between the date format rendering in the different Citation/Cite web/Cite X templates. Echohawkdown (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Echohawkdown: {{Use mdy dates}} and {{Use dmy dates}} will change how dates in citation templates are displayed, but not dates in the article text. GoingBatty (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - I ended up going with {{Use dmy dates}} w/ the cs1-dates=ly param per documentation to fix the formatting.

Ended up having to go through the article (Swissport) to convert all the refs to use cs1 templates but I think it was well worth the effort. Echohawkdown (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Konstantin Kedrov

 Courtesy link: Draft:Konstantin Kedrov

Please help me to finalize the article Konstantin Kedrov, sincerely Ivanaivanova (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I improved the grammar, but draft needs more work. David notMD (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

My notification is gone! :-d

I was so excited :-( So my notification is..... GONE! when i click the arrow (pointing left) on the top left i had a 1 notification then i clicked the arrow then... BOOM! 0 Notifications. Can you fix this? An○~t@○~m○ (talk)

Anotaomo try checking Special:Notifications. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 11:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Cant see it. Anotaomo (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Anotaomo - Sungodtemple is suggesting you click on that link - Special:Notifications - you don't need to find it - Arjayay (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I did :-| --Anotaomo (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Anotaomo, at the top of Special: Notifications, tap "Filter notifications", then select "All". This will allow you to review notifications that have been dismissed.

If you browse using multiple tabs, the initial notification dot you saw may have been carried over from opening a new tab when you had an unread notification. They won't update after loading a page, even if you've already dismissed them in another tab. Folly Mox (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

biology

why do girls require less energy per day than boys 41.210.165.14 (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This page is for asking for help with editing or using Wikipedia. You may have more luck if you ask at the reference desk, but I think your premise may be flawed. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the premise is correct. Muscle has a higher caloric requirement than fat. For equal body weight at average activity level, i.e., not trained athletes, girls have a higher percent body fat and a lower percent body muscle, so daily calorie needs are lower. Later in adolescence, boys are taller and heavier than girls, so size also factors into a higher calorie needs, activity levels being equal. David notMD (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Adopt me missionedit!

Missionedit is not adopting me! I dont know why! --Anotaomo (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Anotaomo. Missionedit's user page states they are busy with real life and they have not edited Wikipedia in a year. I would suggest they are currently an inactive editor, and therefore have not seen your adoption request. I would recommend finding an editor who is more active. Qcne (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Qcne! :-D --Anotaomo (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Anyone suggest a Adoptee for me? --Anotaomo (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Anotaomo You may have already been assigned a mentor, what does Special:Homepage say? Does it have a tab that says 'Your mentor'? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Anotaomo Please read the introductory information at WP:ADOPT to appreciate that 'Adoption' is intended for relatively new users who already have some basic knowledge of editing, but who want to gain an in-depth understanding of the more complexities of how Wikipedia works. To be frank, it is not best suited to users who claim to be totally new to Wikipedia. If you have specific questions, do please ask them here.

Adoption takes a lot of investment of time and effort on both sides. At the moment the account you are using has not attempted to edit one single mainspace article. As such, I doubt anyone would consider investing their time to train you in Wikipedia editing until you have demonstrated a degree of commitment and willingness to 'have a go' yourself. That is not intended to be rude -simply the reality that this Teahouse can meet your needs more effectively should you genuinely need help.

TBH: We do expect new users to 'have a go' and you are evidently competent enough to create and add Userboxes and join lots of WikiProjects, and I have already left some helpful links and advice on your talk page. Please work through some of them, and feel free to ask questions again once you've had a go and encountered a real practical problem that you are unable to resolve by reading our help pages. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Cant see it homepage is always loading. --Anotaomo (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

You have had a Wikipedia account since October 8th, have made between 150 and 200 edits, none of which have been to improving existing articles. Editors who are not here to work on the encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE) can be indefinitely blocked from editing. David notMD (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Deleting a draft article

So My draft about the Diplomatic Relations between Bhutan and Indonesia was not accepted due to lack of references, which is a result of not much involvement of Bhutan in Indonesia's diplomatic outreach. Because of this, I had to decline all the things that I've typed on the article. Meanwhile, User:EmeraldRange told me "Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing" so how do I delete said draft? Underdwarf58 (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Underdwarf58: If you were the sole contributor to the draft, just add {{Db-author}} at the top of it, and an administrator will delete it. Deor (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Can anybody help me with making page for my player

Need help with editing thanks Wickedjourno (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Marvin Oshaba

@Wickedjourno: Welcome to the Teahouse! You'll need to gather multiple independent sources (i.e. not published by the league or club) that provide significant coverage of his career, and then write your draft based on what they say. Help:Your first article has a lot more great information. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Can anybody help me with making an article

Hello, here is my sandbox which i need help with User:MrBeastRapper/sandbox

Im trying to write out an article, but I usually just do minor edits, so I am not used to writing entire articles. can somebody who is experienced at writing give help or tips that will help with the creation of this articles. MrBeastRapper (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@MrBeastRapper: Welcome to the Teahouse! Take a look at List of Internet phenomena, and you'll see that each meme has a reference to a published reliable source that provides significant coverage of the meme. In order for your sandbox to become an article, you'll need to gather multiple published reliable sources about the topic, and then write your draft based on what the sources say. Help:Your first article has a lot more great information. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Need help with learning how to archive

Hi, My talk page is filling up and I want to archive it, but I do not know how, can anyone help me? -- Grapefanatic (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Help:Archiving (plain and simple) explains the easy way to do it; WP:ARCHIVE goes into the gory technical details Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Publishing an edit

I'm trying to publish an edit to a page after I moved it to a new name (after the subject got renamed), but it says that there is no stashed content found. Mseingth2133444 (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mseingth2133444 welcome to the Teahouse. I can't be certain, but after a bit of Google searching (see here and here), this sounds like a browser issue where you've had the editing page open for a very long time (possibly more than 24 hours, and/or in Visual Editor) and the edits that are stored locally on your machine failed to get found or converted back into a form that becomes the next edit to the source code of the article you were woking on. Making very long, unsaved edits can result in this issue at times, I believe. So, in future, don't leave an unsaved edit window open for too long, change the location name of the page you're working on in another browser, or hibernate your computer whilst editing. I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

new page

hello I have just entered an entry and there seems to be no reference to "surrationalism". here there are some: https://philarchive.org/archive/SIMSAB-7 http://www.autodidactproject.org/quote/bachsur1.html https://philpapers.org/rec/RISBEV https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11016-017-0238-2 https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/AMonline/article/view/2417 Dedonau (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Surrationalism

@Dedonau: Welcome to the Teahouse! You'll need to add those references to your draft - see WP:EASYREFBEGIN. Help:Your first article has a lot more great information. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Essays

I won't be surprised to know this has been exhaustively discussed in the past, but has there been a proposal to give essays a prefix other than "WP"? I really think there should be a distinction, as I keep seeing essays (e.g. WP:NOTTVTROPES, WP:FANCRUFT and WP:CUENOT invoked in discussions as if they are policies, and it's only by clicking through and reading the notice that an editor can see that they aren't policies or guidelines. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose Sorry you've had to wait such a long time for a reply. As nobody else has attempted to respond to your question, I thought I ought at least to have a stab at it for you!

I don't actually know the answer to your question (!), but the place to look would be to search the archives of WP:VPP (see results).

You may find further background in this help page (Wikipedia essays) and in the section on Essays in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines which explains their status. There is also an explanatory essay on Essays at Wikipedia:Essays. Taken together, you will see that essays that contradict our policies should remain in Userspace (or may be moved back there if deemed inappropriate... or even deleted).

Unless you are proposing a brand new Namespace, then the WP: namespace is definitely the right place for essays which are not actual policy or a formal guideline, but which nevertheless still serve to explain - on behalf of a number of editors - certain areas of our work which are thought to be useful to users. Essays can ve worked on by not just its creator (unless it's in the creator's userspace, of course)

As you know, each page has a heading template to explain its status, and many editors find essays extremely useful as they nevertheless mostly tend to reflect the consensus of advice and interpretation of policies and guidelines from a range of editors, despite not being adopted as actual policies or guidelines. One example of an extremely useful essay explaining our policies in what people can and cannot do here is WP:NOTHERE, which links to a subsection of a larger essay. It gives examples of the types of activity which are and are not permitted here. Having each unacceptable behaviour type laid out in an actual policy would not necessarily be helpful, yet the essay serves a very useful function in expanding and demonstrating how our community interprets and acts upon those behavioural policies and guidelines. I hope this reply makes at least a modicum of sense! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick Moyes, that's helpful. I hadn't realised that WP:NOTHERE was an essay, as I'd never clicked through to it despite seeing it cited many times. I'll look through the past discussions you pointed to, and probably lose the will to follow up, other than writing my own egregious essay with a shorcut along the lines of WP:IGNOREALLESSAYSEXCEPTTHISONE. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose I'm afraid someone has already beaten you to it by 12 years! See Wikipedia:Ignore all essays. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Help to build page

Any one want to help me and i.will help them 95.145.104.243 (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,. IP editor. Folk here at the Teahouse offer help and advice to people having difficulty doing specific tasks on Wikipedia. However, you're unlikely to find anyone to collaborate with you (presumably on creating a new article?). But, as you didn't actually specify, we're all rather left in the dark as to what you're actually referring to.

If you need specific guidance, do please explain clearly and precisely what help you need, and we'll be happy to point you to the relevant explanatory pages. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

IP editor: It will be much easier for you to collaborate if you create an account. There are other advantages, too, explained at WP:ACCOUNT Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

How do I change the subject head of an article?

The title of this film has changed to OUT OF DARKNESS. I haven't been able to figure out how to update the top headline part, only a couple things in the body and nothing seems to be saving?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_(film) 74.72.170.112 (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source and reach a consensus on the talk page, then you may "move" the article to the correct title. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Article Submission

Draft:M. Urooj Rabbani Turkshahnawaz (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Turkshahnawaz did you bother to read my decline notice? Articles about living people require in-line citations. Do not re-submit without fixing that. Qcne (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Advice on my first article

I'm working on my first ever article, and I'd just like to ask about my phrasing and citations! (As a lesser side note, I'd also love to know how to make a fancy signature!) Thank you in advance :) Dialupnetwork (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Dialupnetwork and welcome to Wikipedia! Writing acceptable articles is quite a difficult task and we normally recommend that new editors learn by editing existing articles first. The problem is that you need to show your topic is notable as Wikipedia defines this word and your current sources (Youtube and X) don't do that. You need about three sources meeting these criteria: read that link carefully! As to signatures, these are a bit of fun but not really important to improving the encyclopaedia. See WP:SIGNATURE for full details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I actually feel a bit more intimidated by editing existing articles, but I'll definitely work on that some more. Thank you very much!! Dialupnetwork (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Dialupnetwork, and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. I suggest you start with small edits - have a look at the "Help out" section of the community portal for ideas. As you gain confidence, you can work deeper - in particular, moving to finding and supplying references, which is a (literally) indispensible part of creating a new article: until you have found some suitable sources for an article, there is essentially nothing at all that you can validly write in the article. ColinFine (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

What does reflist do?

Hi, someone added "reflist" to an article I wrote, Mosque crawlers, but I can't see any difference before and after they added it. What does it do? Thanks Ironic sensibilities (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ironic sensibilities It instructs the software to draw together all the references in the source code between <ref> and </ref> tags to one place at the end, which is the standard way Wikipedia does citations. See WP:CITE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess it's just confusing because it looked like it did that anyway before the reflist was added? Do I need to always put this in articles? Maybe it doesn't show up right for some people if I don't? Ironic sensibilities (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

You are correct that the software will place the references at the end even without the reflist. However, some articles have sections like External links and Bibliography which by convention go after the references. Hence the "reflist" template is needed in those cases to do the placing where needed. On Talk Pages, you need {{talkref}} to keep references within the section to which they refer, rather than move to the very bottom of the page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. I'm looking back at some other articles, and I see "references" in what looks like an html tag. I didn't put it there. Maybe it was put in by the visual editor. Does that do the same thing? Ironic sensibilities (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they serve the same purpose. The template {{Reflist}}, as documented there, is a wrapper around the <References /> tag with some extra optional features. In many cases they're effectively the same but some articles on English Wikipedia use the extra features the Reflist template provides. Starting a new article, in general you should go ahead and have with a References section in the correct spot (see MOS:SECTIONORDER) with a Reflist template in it. There are lots of articles either because they predate Reflist or the editor otherwise picked the HTML tag that have that instead. (You can visit meta:Help:Template if you want to read a high-level description of templates on MediaWiki wikis.) Skynxnex (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Ironic sensibilities (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

How to upload a photo to Commons considering copyright issues

Hello, I am writing a draft about an actress (Link). I would like to add a photo of her. I have learned the hard way (speedy deletion) how not to do it. There are a lot of photos of her over the internet and I also have contact with a person related to this actress.

I wonder if you can recommend me a path how to get a photo to add it to my draft with minimum effort for the persons involved and the eventual result of a problem-free useable photo for my draft. Thanks in advance! Bernhard.rulla (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bernhard.rulla Your first task is to get the draft accepted: the presence or absence of a photo won't matter since the hurdle is to show that she is notable. Later, you can either 1) ask the person you know to take a picture and upload it to Commons (Wikipedia does not allow WP:NONFREE photos for living people) or 2) use the email processes outlined at c:Commons:Email_templates to upload a photo on behalf of the copyright holder and then get them to confirm they did release it under a suitable CC license. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Thank you very much! Yes, I will proceed with the draft first! :) Bernhard.rulla (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

What should I do when my question gets no response?

At least one of my questions at the Tearoom has no responses, likewise on my talk page when I clicked on the "ask for help/ask a question button". What should I do, and when? Polar Apposite (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see an unanswered section on your Talk Page and I'm not going to hunt for the relevant question here, since you have several in total. Please link both sections (here in this section!) and someone will attempt to assist you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not sure I'd be able to find them, and I could be wrong, anyway. I mean, I can't be sure they weren't answered. Maybe I should start making edit summaries for my Teahouse questions, at least for the ones that seem not to have answers, so that I can find them. Polar Apposite (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It's always wise to be judicious in raising points for discussion. Asserting that "At least one of my questions at the Tearoom has no responses, likewise on my talk page" and then conceding that "I mean, I can't be sure they weren't answered" could be construed as disrespectful of the time of anyone who took your original question seriously & investigated the never-found unanswered question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I'll be more careful next time.

On the other hand, my actual question was not "why haven't my all my questions been answered" and there was no need for anyone to search for the (possibly) never answered question. My question was should I do *when* that happens (or "if" as I should have said)?

(By the way, if I reply to an answer with a further question, for clarification, say, and that reply gets no answer, does that count as a never answered question?) Polar Apposite (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Polar Apposite, if you go to Special:Preferences → Editing → Discussion pages, and toggle on "Enable topic subscription" and "Automatically subscribe to topics", you'll get notifications whenever there's a new message in a thread you've started (or manually subscribed to) so you won't miss any answers, even if you're not pinged in the reply.

To answer your actual concern here, you can try to find a more specific venue for your question in a talk namespace. Finding the right venue can be challenging, especially for newer editors or newly returning editors. You can use the {{Help me}} template on your own usertalk page to draw attention to your question. That template puts the page it's called from into a maintenance category that's pretty well patrolled. Folly Mox (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Oops I should have opened the thread below this one, where the same advice was already given. Folly Mox (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Could you delete what you added to this thread, please, if it was intended for the thread below? Polar Apposite (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

What is the difference between asking a question by clicking the button on my talk page vs. asking a question at the Tearoom?

And how to choose between the two options? Polar Apposite (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi there Polar Apposite, Template:Helpme will be answered by volunteers that will post an answer on your talk page, the teahouse will be answered here and by a slightly different set of volunteers. There really isn't that much of a difference between the two, but I'd say that the teahouse is probably a bit friendlier. Justiyaya 22:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there any other difference? Polar Apposite (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The main difference that may matter to you is that questions here at the Teahouse are very visible since many people read this page, whereas your own Talk Page is not on the watchlist of many editors. Hence, if you think that the answer may be of interest to many beginners, it would be better to ask here. The downside is that the thread here will soon be archived. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

What happens when it is archived? Why do they get archived? Can people still reply to it? Polar Apposite (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The archived thread is added to an archive page, where it can be viewed. See the list of archive pages at the bottom of the index at the top of this page. Threads are archived so that this page does not get overlong. People should not reply to archived questions; in general, the idea is to answer questions on this page, preserve answers on archive pages, but not modify archive pages. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I asked a long (about a page long) question on someone's talk page. What it I want to ask it here?

Can I just copy paste it with some small changes into the question box here at the Tearoom? Polar Apposite (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

If it is very long, you could just give a link here to the talk page. Bduke (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Plantsurfer#Fungi. Here's a link to it. Polar Apposite (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure whether it's "very long". What do you think? Polar Apposite (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Polar Apposite One of the issues with long questions is what we call WP:TLDR. Please be as concise as possible in your question, or post a WP:LINK to your previous discussion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

To my eye, Plantsurfer's edit in respect of the singular / plural issue improved the article. Your quoting huge chunks of Strunk and White is not very helpful. I get that you have a preference in the matter, but first you note "I'm not saying you are wrong", and then you go on & on in support of your personal preference. No-one has time for this. It's useful to accept, gracefully, that there are other legitimate forms of expression. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean that you do not have time to discuss this with me? Polar Apposite (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean that there comes a point where your wish to argue a point is a waste of everyone's time. It's always wise to be judicious in raising points for discussion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

But we haven't even started discussing it. I mean, you haven't. Polar Apposite (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Polar Apposite: if you can't make your point without a long boring block of text that no-one will read, it's probably not worth making. Maproom (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was interesting. Polar Apposite (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, I never said I needed to use a long block of text, and indeed, I made the point very succinctly on Plantsurfer's talk page. The block of text, as you put it, was just an update. It takes a minute to read, and was the only relevant stuff I could find during about four hours of Googling. A one minute distillation of four hours of hard work doesn't seem to be a lot. Polar Apposite (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You see, the thing is, a user made an unobjectionable edit to a page. In response, you decided to edit the user's talk page 7 times over the course of about 4 hours. In general, people do not want their lives disrupted in this fashion. WP users should be able to go about their business largely uninterrupted, and certainly not be harrassed by multiple new message notifications because your personal preference differs from their choice. This is very basic stuff, Polar Apposite, very basic indeed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I will be more careful next time. I had no idea that a few purely friendly updates on the results of my googling (or rather, lack of results) could be construed as harassment. Polar Apposite (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Polar Apposite, there is no reason to take The Elements of Style seriously. -- Hoary (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Why not? Polar Apposite (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Because, as the article Hoary links to demonstrates, it is bone-headed, inconsistent, and ill-informed personal prejudice that has somehow bizarrely acquired a sheen of authority. ColinFine (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that the link contains an article *about* the The Elements of Style. I had not noticed that. Polar Apposite (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I've started reading the article. The author shoots himself in the foot by saying at the outset, "The book's style advice, largely vapid and obvious ("Do not overwrite"; "Be clear"), may do little damage; but the numerous statements about grammatical correctness are actually harmful." It makes him look unkind, and perhaps even not to be trusted, to any reader, such as myself, who thinks that the quoted advice certainly does a great deal of good.

On the other hand, I agree with the first specific ( albeit marred by overwriting) nitpick, which is that the TES is egregiously wrong to favor "None of us is perfect" over "None of us is perfect".r Polar Apposite (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed that Pullum shoots himself in the foot *again* (so soon!), making himself look very unkind by speculating that TES is guilty of "breathtaking" arrogance, without presenting any strong evidence. Here's the section:

"The sentence None of us are perfect is given as an example of incorrect grammar; None of us is perfect is claimed to be the correction.

The arrogance here is breathtaking. None of us are perfect is a line from literature. It is uttered by Canon Chasuble in the second act of Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest (1895), possibly the greatest of all stage comedies in English. It is absurd to suggest that Wilde didn't know the rule of verb agreement, and surely false that he wanted to depict the learned Dr. Chasuble as unable to speak Standard English.

People say, "None of is perfect", "No one is perfect", "None of us are perfect", "No one's perfect", and so on quite a lot. It's a common idea. So maybe one or both of the authors of the TES heard it, or heard someone say it is right or wrong, and started thinking about it in that way. How does Pullum know that they knew that that phrase is in Wilde's work? Pullum says nothing to back this claim up. He just takes it upon himself to accuse the TES of arrogance (stating it as a fact) quite casually, quite arbitrarily, rather boldly, rather self-assuredly, rather... (what would be the best word here, I wonder?) Polar Apposite (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• speak Standard English"

Polar Apposite (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

This page is a place where users can ask for help about wikipedia. It is not a forum for your opinions on The Elements of Style. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

May I suggest that you read the whole thread? You may wish, having done that, to revise your position. Polar Apposite (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

For your information Polar Apposite, Geoffrey K. Pullum is an internationally renowned Professor of Linguistics who has written prestigious textbooks on these matters. I happen to think he is a little too hard on the now-very-dated (originally 1918) guidebook The Elements of Style – it may serve to make very poor writers' work a little more comprehensible – but it was always intended as a compilation of hints and suggestions (perhaps over-emphatically stated), not an iron-clad rulebook. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.5.208 (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That is hilarious. I thought he was a blogger. That does *not* reflect well on internationally renowned Professors of Linguistics who have written prestigious books on these matters.

Regarding TEoS, I know next to nothing about it, and consequently have no opinion on whether it is good or bad. All I know is it is wrong about "None of us are perfect", and doesn't say anything about my, possibly original, rule of thumb that you should use the singular form whenever you reasonably can, as it leads to greater clarity. Like I said, this is possibly an idea I came up with on my own, and AFAIK no book, not even Pinker's awesome Sense of Style mentions it, so this is not a criticism of TEoS in particular.

My rule of thumb says that "When men and women get married they usually produce children." is not as clear as, and therefore not as good as, "When a man and a woman get married they usually produce a child." or ""When a man and a woman get married they usually produce children.". Which of the last two you use would depend what your intended meaning is.

My failure to find any trace of this of this idea anywhere, despite half a day of my best googlefu, is matched only by my inability to find anyone who will say that it is a good rule of thumb:) Polar Apposite (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• matched only by my failure to find

Polar Apposite (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Teahouse Mobile

There seem to be some issues with the formatting at the top of this page on mobile view. I don't think I would be able/allowed to edit it; can someone with the proper authorization get this fixed? And if this is the wrong place to ask about it, where would the correct place be? Brack3t Redacted (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Brack3tRedacted, I'm not able to see the problem on my end; could you please post a screenshot? Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Is this image from Flickr alright to upload?

This image would be great to use in an article I am editing. I can't make much sense of the guidelines Wikipedia has for this. It seems to suggest contacting the photographer, but I don't want to bother them. I did want to confirm here though, is it unwise to upload it? Thank you in advance. Slamforeman (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The licence under which the photographer has released it is NOT compatible with wikipedia ... the non-commercial part is a deal-breaker. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Shame. Thanks anyways though. Slamforeman (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Slamforeman In he past, I have had some success by directly approaching a photographer on Flickr to explain my wish to use their image and to ask them to consider changing their licensing to a CC-BY-SA commercial licence. There's no guarantee of success, but some photographers may think the use of one of their images in an article on this platform is worthwhile. It can do no harm to try, though there's no guarantee the person is even still active on Flickr nowadays. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Mika Muramatsu and Draft:Heikichi Yamamoto

I've completed them with all reliable sources that I can find. Can you create their own pages? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.239.125.208 (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Eventually somebody will review them. Please be patient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.33.56.248 (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. 95.239.125.208 (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

For Mika Muramatsu, can you help me to find other info and reliable sources? Thank you. 193.207.220.238 (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Teahouse Hosts are here to advise, but not co-author or find references. David notMD (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

What is a sandbox?

I got asked a question involving one and I wasn't (and still am not) sure of what one is. Can you perhaps explain it to me?

Thanks, from OddyAwesome OddyAwesome (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Forget it. Instead, dare to make a constructive, intelligent change to an existing article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.33.56.248 (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I will! Thanks! :) OddyAwesome (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@OddyAwesome See H:SANDBOX. Every account-holder is able to create a personal sandbox in which they can practice editing or develop part-articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@1.33.56.248 No, before you adding something unsure whether it will make a mess to the article, the better place for it is in Sandbox, not to article directly. This is specific for some test edits, or using/changing templates you are not familiar with. -Lemonaka‎ 12:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Within H:SANDBOX there is mention of Wikipedia:Sandbox. That is a place everyone can use to practice stuff. It is periodically blanked. Your personal sandbox(es) is/are places for you to practice or store content. Not periodically blanked. Common examples of use of your own Sandbox are to copy a section of an existing article, edit it to your satisfaction, then paste it back into the article. Another is to format references in your Sandbox, and only when correct, paste into article. David notMD (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay! Where are 'personal sandboxes', though? OddyAwesome (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The page you have already been directed to at H:SANDBOX explains all that. Mine is at User:Michael_D._Turnbull/sandbox for example. Yours would have your Username instead. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Your personal sandbox is User:OddyAwesome/Sandbox, or you can see the right up corner of your page. -Lemonaka‎ 13:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Posting new articles

I notice certain articles on Wikipedia comprising 1 or 2 sentences are published, albeit with notices requiring e.g., citations etc. Nonetheless, they are published.

An article that I have published (my first on Wikipedia), had been rejected and marked for potential deletion. I have posted references to books, papers and symposia.

I find this difference in content approval to be erratic and even discriminatory. I have been pointed to tips on references, reliability etc while these links are generic.

Can anyone care to explain what I may be missing? Francisdsilva (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Francisdsilva Hello, welcome to the teahouse, there are two ways of publishing articles, one is publishing them directly in mainspace, another is WP:AFCH process, we are encouraging the second process which will help you improve your article before publishing, however, some articles are just published in mainspace, without being noticed and patrolled. Can you specific the previous article you talk about? -Lemonaka‎ 12:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be about Draft:Gigamapping. David notMD (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I created this in response to a conference discussion where there was an engaged exchange on more knowledge on gigamapping as a diagramming "language". Francisdsilva (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Lemonaka, for the clarification on the two spaces. The short articles that I am referring to are most likely the unpatrolled area. Francisdsilva (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, where people do what they can when they can, and where standards have changed over time. As such, there are likely tens of thousands of articles that should not exist, but we need help in identifying and removing them. This does not justify more inappropriate articles being added, see other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I appreciate volunteerism and its use in Wikipedia (I joined Wikipedia about 18 years ago with the intent of contributing more than I actually did).

I will gladly delete the article if someone can be more specific on what is inappropriate. Francisdsilva (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

FYI: Content on your User page was Speedy deleted, as that was wrong place for article development, etc. See WP:UP for what goes on a User page. Your draft was Declined, not Rejected, nor scheduled for deletion. David notMD (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I just followed the invitation to describe myself. As a big fan of transparency, I wanted to provide a couple of sentences about myself. (I requested a name change, from the system-generated name I was given, with that aim).

Yes, the article is declined and not rejected. The tone of voice indicated a reject (incl a warning of potential deletion).

To be clear:

I created the article as a stub, with the intent to invite a number of academics to refine tbe article. They agreed to write if I could "get the ball rolling". Since it is not published, it cannot be edited. Francisdsilva (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Since you are editing using your own business name, perhaps you would care to disclose your conflict of interest on your user page. Theroadislong (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I am editing using my given name Francis D'Silva (francisdsilva) and not my business name.

Would you please point me to the template to confirm that I am not being paid for this or other contributions? (I understand that the "paid" template can be used to disclose payments.)

Thanks for your patience in responding to questions. Francisdsilva (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Your user page states "Francis is an independent consultant and student of systems-oriented design and how it can accelerate digitalisation of social systems and enterprises.' that would imply that you have a conflict of interest in the draft you are editing. Theroadislong (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Francisdsilva, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia (I see your account has been here for a long time, but you hardly edited until last month, so I'm welcoming you as a new editor!)

I'm afraid that you are in the same position as hundreds of other editors who plunge into trying to create a new article with little understanding of what is required or how to go about it. I liken this to buying an instrument for the first time and immediately going out busking: you're not likely to get much response that is welcome.

An article begins, stands, and falls, with its sources; and not just any sources: they need to be reliable, substantial, and wholly independent of the subject (see Golden rule). If you haven't found several such sources, there is no point in writing so much as a single word of an article, because almost every word you do write should be supported by one or more of those sources.

It doesn't look to me as if any of your current sources is independent (I haven't looked closely, so I might have missed something). Certainly, if the topic was developed by Sevaldson, then nothing written or published by him, his colleagues, or his institutions, will go towards establishing that the subject is notable. ColinFine (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. And the analogy to new instrument owners :-)

You make a fair point on notability. However, your closing comment seems to suggest that I should write an academic paper before it can be published. Currently, I point to peer-reviewed papers and to open conferences where practitioners and academics (not colleagues) discuss the topic. Imo, that should constitute some degree of notability

The article is far from perfect and my intent was to open the door to invite others to refine the content - co-creation - and to engage in discussion in in-person arenas.

Ideally, I would've appreciated an accept/reject deadline, say (10 weeks), by which time I could've gotten other enthusiasts to contribute towards increasing the articles notability. Francisdsilva (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm not sure what you mean about seems to suggest that I should write an academic paper. If you're talking about the WP article, then no, it's very different from most academic papers, in that it must not present any argument, discussion or conclusion, but only summarise what the sources say. If you're talking about you writing an independent paper that then gets peer-reviewed and use that as a source: well yes, that's possible; but citing your own paper is regarded as a conflict of interest - not that you can't do it, but you'd need to be circumspect. In any case notability requires multiple sources.

The first part of writing an article is to assemble adequate sources that establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability: if you can't do that, you know there's no point in continuing.

If you have the sources, then you can start writing the article, preferably as a draft. There it can remain for a long time, if you wish, being gradually developed (it's not customary to edit other people's drafts, but there's no rule against it, and it's certainly acceptable for people to work collaboratively on a draft). As long as it isn't something unacceptable like pure promotion or an attack page, a draft won't get deleted unless it's left untouched for six months. So there's no deadline to getting it up to standard, and you can submit when you think it's ready. (You don't have to get it perfect or complete to submit: just to the level where it establishes that the subject is notable, and has adequate citing and tone. You and others can continue to improve it after submission, and after acceptance.

Papers and conferences where people unconnected with Sevaldson discuss it can establish notability, but nothing by him or his colleagues can do so. ColinFine (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

How to make an article

I joined Wikipedia a couple of hours ago, and I have learnt how to edit. But I'm still not sure of how to make and post articles, can someone help? (Currently on Chromebook) OddyAwesome (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Standard asvice to newbies is learn skills by improving existing articles before attempting to create an article. If you still want to pursue the latter, see WP:YFA. David notMD (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay! I've started that already! OddyAwesome (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, OddyAwesome, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please don't make the mistake of assuming that the only way, or even the main way, of contributing to Wikipedia is by creating new articles! We have over six milion of them, which probably means that we have over five million which are desperately in need of some TLC.

Hundreds of new articles and drafts are deleted every day. In a sense, the work put in by the creators of those articles represents negative value that they have put into Wikipedia - negative, because they have taken the time and attention of experienced editors to determine that they are not suitable and delete them.

I remember when I started, many years ago, how much I wanted to "make my mark" by creating a new article. Actually, in 18 years and 23 000 edits, I've only ever created about a dozen. ColinFine (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Got it! :) OddyAwesome (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@OddyAwesome Hi, for creating an article, you may want to have a try for WP:AFC -Lemonaka‎ 12:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, what is WP:AFC? OddyAwesome (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Article for creation, a process that newcomer can create a draft, then reviewed by Active AFCH reviewers before publishing. -Lemonaka‎ 12:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Nice! OddyAwesome (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Banned or locked steward?

Hello, is there any banned or global locked steward in Wikimedia history? That's a strange question but I'd just want to have acquaintance about such cases if there are. -Lemonaka‎ 12:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The closest I'm aware of is Mardetanha's removal of steward permissions ([2] [3]) that apparently came with a temporary global lock ([4]). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Is it a rule to be friendly at the Teahouse?

Or is it just said to be a friendly place? Polar Apposite (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite Hello, welcome to the teahouse. It is a policy that you should be civil on the whole Wikipedia, for this, please have a read on WP:CIVIL -Lemonaka‎ 13:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

So you think anyone has failed to be civil in any of the threads I have started in the Teahouse during the last twenty-four hours? Polar Apposite (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Do

Polar Apposite (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite What, I cant quite catch you. If you want to report who is failed to be civil, feel free to WP:ANI, not here. -Lemonaka‎ 17:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I just thought you perhaps found civility more interesting than friendliness, so I thought I'd give you a chance to expand on that, while keeping it relevant to the Teahouse. Plus I'm not sure anyone *has* been, it's just a strong suspicion right now. I thought you might be able to clarify that. A lot depends on how you define incivility, and examples of what is what isn't counted as that would be very helpful. So I thought that if you said "This one and that one are both almost but not quite, but the rest are no where near incivil by Wikipedia thinking", say,

Could we get back to my original question, please? Polar Apposite (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• say, that would give me a clearer idea. The last thing I would want to be is incivil.

Polar Apposite (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You have not been uncivil, but your edits at Teahouse and elsewhere have been evaluated and found to be annoying to the point that you are now temporarily blocked, in part for WP:NOTHERE. See your Talk page for details. David notMD (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Does the MoS say anything about when to give an example?

Does the MoS say anything about this? I'm asking not about recommended the form of the example, but rather when to, and in what part of the article, and how many examples should be given, and do on. Polar Apposite (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it doesn't (I've checked). This would be a matter of general writing competence, entirely dependent on specific circumstances, not something that could be prescribed in the MoS to fit all occasions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.5.208 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

combining wikipedia pages

How do i combine my sandbox with other user's to create a full profile on a person? Mee1uh (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mee1uh, and welcome to the Teahouse. Presumably, this is about Draft:Kieran Hickey, (which you apparently started on your user page: please delete the text from there, as you user page is not an appropriate place to draft an article).

I see that your draft is part of an article: I guess the other person is working on the first half of it?

If somebody else is working on a draft about Hickey, then the two of you should agree which one you're going to use, and simply copy the text from one to the other, and then paste {{db-author}} to the top of the one you are not using, asking for it to be deleted. There are restrictions on copying within Wikipedia, because of licensing requirements, but if it's entirely you own work that you are copying, there is no problem.

I'm afraid that I have nominated c:File:Kieran hickeys photo.png for deletion, as it is pretty clearly a copyright violation. Uploading a scan of a copyright picture to Commons and claiming it as "own work" is a pretty serious mistake. It is possible that you may be able to upload the picture to Wikipedia (not to Commons) as a non-free image, but not until the draft has been accepted into the encyclopaedia as an article. You will need to show that the use complies with all the conditions in the non-free content criteria, which include that non-free images may be used only in articles. ColinFine (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You should absolutely not create "profiles". This is not social media or a means of promotion. Edward-Woodrow • talk 17:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Can I ask another editor not to contribute to threads I start at the Tearoom?

If a particular editor seems to never contribute a constructive comment in any Tearoom thread that I start, but frequently contributes unconstructive ones, can I ask him or her to refrain? Polar Apposite (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You can ask, but they are under no obligation to follow unless you have a wp:IBAN. Most users would probably listen to the request. Also, are their answers so bad/hostile that you don't want to see them? See wp:hound if you think they're intentionally following you. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 18:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You can ask. They may comply, within reason. There may be other views on "seems to never contribute a constructive comment in any Tearoom thread that I start". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course you can ask. Whether they accede to your request is another thing entirely. Then there is the difference between "unconstructive" and "replies that I do not like". You have asked a lot of questions in the last three days, and it seems like you have decided to camp on this page, exclusively; not to the obvious benefit of anyone. You might consider giving it a rest and finding a new game to play? There is a WP concept of NOTHERE and it's my view, fwiw, that it describes your behaviour. It is possible that you have a difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms; but I think it clear that you have a difficuty. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly advise against it, because it will come across as very hostile. I wouldn't necessarily encourage it, but if you must, I would suggest that you instead describe the sort of content you object to, e.g. "I don't want to hear about a rule from The Elements of Style" or "Please don't bother making any suggestions to change between singular and plural". While you might consider these as being too personal, at least I'm not directly objecting to the person who's making the suggestion. Fabrickator (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying I should stop asking questions at the Teahouse (not Tearoom, I got confused). Would that be for all time? If not, for how long? Polar Apposite (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not addressing the question of which is the proper forum or what sort of questions are suitable for the Teahouse, but about your specific proposal to ask somebody not to contribute. Perhaps saying something about the nature of the content you are hoping to hear would be better. I'm not sure. While I can imagine getting tired of hearing from the same person whose suggestions you've found unhelpful in the past, try to describe in positive terms what you think would be helpful. Granted, we should all WP:AGF, but having someone tell you that your input is not desired is kind of asking for a hostile response. Fabrickator (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Polar Apposite temporarily blocked, per notification on Talk page. David notMD (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

block quoting

For a block quote with multiple paragraphs, how should it be formatted? I think there's a better way than to stack multiple single-paragraphed quotes. Thanks rootsmusic (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Rootsmusic, try {{tqb}}! See the link for its documentation. Best, — Frostly (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

(That template is for talk pages. For articles, see {{Blockquote}}.) — Frostly (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Frostly, I've learned that a better way is to insert html elements into the template. rootsmusic (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, rootsmusic. MOS:QUOTE talks about "Brief quotations of copyrighted text" (emphasis added). Of course it will depend on the details, but in general a multiple-paragraph quotation seems unlikely to meet the spirit of that section. ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Why do I already know from other parts of Wikipedia so many of the people commenting in threads I have started in the Tearoom?

There are about a hundred thousand Wikipedia editors, right? But, out of about twenty people who have commented in Tearoom threads that I have started in the last few days, I recognize two of them (I mean their names). And I guess I would only recognize about thirty people's names out of all Wikipedia editors. I get that I, and the people I recognized in the threads I started, are among the more active of the hundred thousand editors, but it still seems remarkable. Polar Apposite (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Polar Apposite, you are certainly among the most loquacious. Could it be time to take a break from asking questions here? (Article improvement is always welcome.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.33.56.248 (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, there are millions of people who have created accounts, but only a very small number who have the requirements and interest and energy in being Teahouse Hosts. David notMD (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite: Hi there! Please note that this is called the Teahouse (not Tearoom). GoingBatty (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

What does "friendly" mean here?

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia#What_%22not_here_to_build_an_encyclopedia%22_is_not it says:

"In a small number of cases this may lead to a friendly block with warnings or even bans in some long term cases." Polar Apposite (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Whatever it means you appear to be getting close to a "friendly block". Theroadislong (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Really, for what? Polar Apposite (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite I would refer you back to a post on your Talk Page entitled "Word to the wise" in which your constant, pedantic nit-picking and sometimes seemingly pointless question-asking is reaching the point in some editors' minds where your activities are liable to be deemed as WP:Disruptive editing.

The kind of 'friendly block' is one that I might be minded to offer someone such as yourself for what we see as disruptive editing and constant question over trivia, but which you seem to see as quite justified and normal behaviour. It would be done without enmity for your own good, as well as to avoid further wasting the time of volunteer editors. Initially it would probably be applied for a relatively short period of time, which might lengthen if that disruptive behaviour continued. (For the sake of clarity, there is no formal definition of a 'friendly block', it was just a term used in an essay, but I would hope you are capable of getting the gist.)

NOTE: As I draft this reply, I see that @Cullen328 has imposed just such a 'friendly block' on you. It seems quite justified to me.

When it expires and you choose to return to editing, you need to have changed your approach to engaging with other editors here, and take time to understand the norms of this community and its editing guidelines and policies so that it doesn't need to be applied again. Some people might call that 'learning to read the room'. We wish you well and hope you will return to constructive editing from now on without such time-wasting over trivia. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Nick Moyes has explained the block so well that I don't need to. Cullen328 (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

"Friendly" in this context means short. i.e., 31 hours. "Unfriendly" would mean an indefinite block, reversible only with a successful appeal to an Administrator. David notMD (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep Passing the Open Windows

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Keep_Passing_the_Open_Windows?searchToken=6vw09vvl3yo8f5p9d7c5m413v Newtatoryd222 (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Newtatoryd222, and welcome to the Teahouse. What is your question about editing Wikipedia? If it is about why Draft:Keep Passing the Open Windows has been declined three times today, it is because it does not have a single independent source. Please review the requirements for notability.

More generally, I would advise that new editors who plunge straight into the challenging task of creating a new article before they have spent a significant amount of time learning how Wikipedia works (by making edits to improve existing articles, starting with superficial ones and passing through the stage of finding and adding suitable sources to articles which lack them) often have a frustrating and miserable time. I liken it to buying an instrument you've never played before and immediately going out busking. I suggest you hang out at the "Help out" section of community portal for a bit. ColinFine (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Newtatoryd222. Your draft was declined for the reasons set out at Draft:Keep Passing the Open Windows. Without more detailed citations, the best you can do is create a WP:REDIRECT to the relevant section in the relevant section of the album. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

How to delete a template?

Hi guys. I found a bogus template, Template:Haiku. This template is present on about one article, and is otherwise entirely a WP:LINKFARM of redirects, which are all WP:FANCRUFT WP:TRIVIA WP:NOTMANUAL and which were all never WP:N, and should never have been created. It looks like the only way to delete a template is Template:Deleted_template, whose docs are typically baffling. It doesn't even have an option for providing a reason for deletion. So am I supposed to simply put {{deleted template}} and a comment containing the reason, at the top of Template:Haiku? Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 21:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

HEllo, Smuckola, and welcome to the Teahouse. Try WP:TFD. ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Adjusting the break-line height to a fraction ratio

Hello dear editors. Can someone explain for me how can I adjust the break-line height which is placed between 2 lines using <br> ? I need to adjust it to 1.5 times a normal line height.

Thank You for your help in advance ! Bezyjoon (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You've asked this also at WP:Help Desk, where it being answered. Please don't ask the same question in two different places. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

First Off, I didn't see any answer until half an hour ago. Secondly this is the first time which I'm seeking help and I was not sure which platform is the best to use. Bezyjoon (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That's OK. The convention here seems to be to ask in just one place: either Teahouse or Help Desk. Generally within a hour or two someone should give at least some sort of response. Feline Hymnic (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Twinkle

I downloaded Twinkle. It is now showing in my Wikipedia's User page and wherever I edit. It is showing as TW in top right corner. Is it downlaoded? How can I warn people and use other tools? Can someone please explain? TheProEditor11 (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

You installed it correctly. Twinkle is abrevieated "TW" for menus. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 03:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@TheProEditor11: Welcome to the Teahouse! See Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc for the documentation. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

You can test a subset of Twinkle functions at User talk:Sandbox for user warnings. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thankyou @Rotideypoc41352.. I was in confusion where to try those stuff. Also Thankyou @GoingBatty and @NightWolf1223. TheProEditor11 (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Redirect discussion

Where is the suitable Wikipedia project to place and discuss a redirect's deletion, I placed a db:nonsense tag on two redirects; Sikiru Alimi and Kadisha Martina, but they were removed by administrators stating that I used a wrong tag. The latter redirect is in fact not related to the main article, it is just like Cristiano Ronaldo being redirected to Real Madrid, they should be on red links until created.Jõsé ^hola 05:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Josedimaria237, see WP:RFD. Best, — Frostly (talk) 05:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Table edit help

I want below table heading of 2 first year column in dark grey. Can somebody help me....

States	Year
	Oct–Dec 2019	Jan–Mar 2020	Apr–Jun 2020	Jul–Sep 2020	Oct–Dec 2020	Jan–Mar 2021
Delhi	2.44	1.53	0.95	1.71	1.56	1.25
Gujarat	0.87	1.72	0.40	15.6	5.23	0.65
Karnataka	2.38	1.90	1.35	2.31	2.71	1.30
Maharashtra	3.13	4.13	1.17	2.45	10.02	2.53
Telangna	0.31	0.37	0.55	0.12	0.19	0.30
Tamil Nadu	0.53	0.48	0.44	0.49	0.74	0.65
West Bengal	0.06	0.13	0.25	-	0.13	-
Source: Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal trade

Table edit help

States<!..>	Year
	Oct–Dec 2019	Jan–Mar 2020	Apr–Jun 2020	Jul–Sep 2020	Oct–Dec 2020	Jan–Mar 2021
Delhi	2.44	1.53	0.95	1.71	1.56	1.25
Gujarat	0.87	1.72	0.40	15.6	5.23	0.65
Karnataka	2.38	1.90	1.35	2.31	2.71	1.30
Maharashtra	3.13	4.13	1.17	2.45	10.02	2.53
Telangna	0.31	0.37	0.55	0.12	0.19	0.30
Tamil Nadu	0.53	0.48	0.44	0.49	0.74	0.65
West Bengal	0.06	0.13	0.25	-	0.13	-
Source: Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal trade

103.241.226.199 (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)