Wikipedia:Teahouse

Finnusertop, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

How to upload this picture

Hi there i wanted to ask how could i upload this Picture Ali Jinnah Inspecting Guard Honour Baloch regiment, which i wanted to use in the article. How can i upload this on Wikicommons without any copyright? Rahim231 (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. That likely depends on copyright law regarding images in Pakistan, depending on when an image enters the public domain. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

See c:Com:Pakistan. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I read the page and in Copyright tags it said (all photographs enter the public domain fifty years after they were published, and all non-photographic works enter the public domain fifty years after the death of the creator). so i think the Picture which i want to upload is obviously above 50 years, which was taken in 1948. So i can freely upload this Muhammad Ali Jinnah Inspecting Guard Honour Baloch regiment Picture or the person who uploaded on the web also counts as 50 year limit? Rahim231 (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Mass changes needed for retirement of Drug Information Portal

The National Library of Medicine's Drug Information Portal has been retired, with all information moved to the Library's PubChem database. I think all the links to the Drug Information Portal should be updated to the corresponding article in PubChem. I suspect that someone can set up a bot to do this, but I don't know how. Perhaps someone can point me to instructions to do this or turn this over to someone who already knows how? — HowardBGolden (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@HowardBGolden: You can ask at WP:BOTREQ. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears that this has been changed by WP:MED (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#druginfo.nlm.nih.gov_is_dead). Thanks to all who have attended to this! — HowardBGolden (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Book sourcing / ISBN?

Hello! I was looking to edit Ryō Ramiya's page, since I have physical copies of two of her books, Lunarium and Artemis, and I've now noticed that the publishing dates on her page are incorrect. Lunarium was first published in 1992, and Artemis in 1990, while her page says 1993 for both of them. However, I'm extremely confused at how ISBN works... The ISBN numbers on my copies are different to the ones on the page, however those ones look correct too since the scans online for Lunarium has the same ISBN. From what little information I can gather it seems like they're different for different editions, however nothing between the editions of the book is different aside from publishing date/ISBN. I think my copy of Artemis is a first edition, however as I don't speak Japanese and had to use online translation, I can't be 100% sure. I haven't seen a first edition of Lunarium online, and the one listed seems to be a second edition. Should I just edit the dates, and leave the ISBNs alone? Or should I edit those as well? Any answers or even just a simple explanation of how ISBN works would be greatly appreciated!! Illudens (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

For a simple explanation of how ISBN works ... you might try the article ISBN. In particular, for every 10-digit ISBN there is a 13-digit ISBN; and although I'm too lazy to reread the article now, I think that for every 13-digit ISBN there may still be a 10-digit ISBN (until recently, there certainly was). It's rare but possible that two "editions" (impressions, printings), differing only in publishing date, have different ISBNs: after all, if a publisher pays for an additional ISBN that you or I might think unnecessary, they get it. However, this ISBN matter is minor. I know nothing about Ramiya (or indeed about manga), and for all I know she may be very notable; but as the article stands, it utterly fails to demonstrate notability. What has been said about her or her work in reliable sources? -- Hoary (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I read the article but was still a bit confused. I wonder if maybe the older date + the fact it was published in Japan has something to do with it. The reason I ask about ISBN is because I'd specifically like to correct the false publishing dates, and currently on the page it shows the ISBN beside each book, so I was unsure if the ISBNs would also need to be corrected alongside the dates. Even if she isn't that notable I still think that the page should have correct info, and since I have reliable sources, physical copies of her books with the original publishing date noted in them, I wanted to contribute and fix up the page. However I will be looking into more sources about her as well, its unfortunately a little hard due to the language barrier. I currently don't have sources on hand for her work but there should be a link on her page, its a bit hard to navigate and its in Japanese but as far as I know it has a list of almost everything. Illudens (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Illudens, for a Japanese book I'd normally click on the ISBN link and, at the ISBN page, click on the CiNii option provided for Japanese libraries. I tried this for a couple of the ISBNs provided, whether accurately or not, in the stub on Ramiya. CiNii, Webcat and NDL each had nothing. For one book, I also clicked on the amazon.co.jp link. I arrived (via a question asking me to confirm that I wasn't a minor) at this sales page. It's a book marketed as softcore porn. (Like the Wikipedia stub, Amazon titles it スパ-クリング・チェリ- even though (i) this looks bizarre, and (ii) its cover clearly says スパークリング・チェリー, with conventional chōonpu.) The kinds of library that participate in CiNii are unlikely to use their funds to buy or shelve softcore porn manga; but this genre clearly has been a major industry, so I imagine that there'd be a certain "reliable-source" literature about it. You might ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga; and perhaps Nihonjoe (who created the stub in virtually the same form as that it's in now) would have some ideas. -- Hoary (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, I did try that but as you mentioned not much came up with the ISBNs themselves. My biggest confusion is just what the sources would be as I have sources on the stuff she's made, including mentions of it on old magazines, various sites that have info on it, etc. However, there's not many, if any, sources about her personally (due to language barrier again, or due to her being a private person, I'm unsure) and I wasn't quite sure if you were referring to adding sources about her or the stuff she's made. Either way thanks for the suggestion! I'll ask at the wikiproject you mentioned.

Aside from that I would like an answer to the main question I had put forth; Would the ISBNs need to be corrected or changed alongside the publishing date? Or can those just stay the same as they are the same book, and I just edit the publishing date? Illudens (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Illudens, is it possible that, despite your efforts, you're misunderstanding what you're reading in the respective colophons? If you don't read Japanese, perhaps leave the ISBN/year matter to somebody who does read it. But if you understand the material you've gathered about her works, and if this material is from reliable sources, then why not add it? -- Hoary (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

That is fair, however in the physical copies of the books I own, the years are printed in the book (Specifically, 1990 for Artemis and 1992 for Lunarium.) Also worth noting that the Japanese version of her page shows those years for those books. I know for sure those were the years published and I was planning on fixing that part either way. Again, my main issue is that I am unsure if the ISBN would need to be changed alongside the year, considering both ISBNs are for the same book, just published at different dates. Illudens (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't even remember creating the page, though since it's been 16 years, that's not surprising. It's likely they are two editions of the same book. Are both books from the same publisher, or did the publisher change, too? There are any number of reasons why a new edition might have a different ISBN. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like they're both different editions, yeah! My copy of Lunarium says that its a fourth edition, while my copy of Artemis is a first edition. Both editions have the same publisher though, so that doesn't seem to be the case. I also checked for differences between two different copies of Lunarium (Mine, vs an online scan) and aside from the edition number and the date that specific edition was published, I saw no differences at all.

My main source of confusion is just on if it's important to include both ISBNs in the page or not. I'm thinking it might be a good idea, so if anyone wants to search up the book using the ISBN, more results would show up if both the ISBNs are there, but at the same time I feel like it might clutter up the page a bit too much. Illudens (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Common names

Do I need a specific source to add common names to some animal pages? Like European marten and Iranian leopard. Firekong1 (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Why ever not? -- Hoary (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You should stop edit warring and instead provide reliable sources for your assertions. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Firekong1: Yes. See WP:V. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

A quick Google search shows there are sources for the names you are trying to edit the article to include, so maybe try actually incorporating them instead of engaging in a frivolous edit war. Brusquedandelion (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Brusquedandelion My view is this vague name is not needed in the lede as it is not a name used (except in relatively poorly-researched sources), and simply serves to confuse the introductory statement, wherein 'pine marten' should be the second-listed name, as that's what's used by non-biologists needing to differentiate this taxon from others, whilst European pine marten is used in the literature. Whilst clearly made in good faith, I have reverted @Firekong1's edit, and am happy to defend that situation on the article talk page if required. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nick MoyesThank you kindly, I was not attempting to start a conflict, I was simply acting in good faith. But now that you left a proper explanation in your removal, I understand the issue better now. However, if the rules for adding common names changes on Wikipedia, please let me know. Firekong1 (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You have a very long history of being an active editor on many topics, but within last day or so got into a tiff about animal names. The disagreements have not progressed to the levle of edit warring, and for the pine marten, have been properly taken up on the article's Talk page. Carry on. David notMD (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@David notMD I believe I found a few sources, I will try sharing them with you, so please let me know if they are allowed to be sourced on Wikipedia.

@Brusquedandelion @Shantavira As for the animal name issue, I was not edit warring, I was adding them back because they are justified in having those common names on their respective pages. Firekong1 (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I see that you and BhagyaMani had a discussion back in 2021 at the Talk page of Panthera pardus tulliana on whether a common name "Iranian leopard" could be added to the list shown in the Lead. Perhaps start fresh on the Talk page? Or abandon the effort if reverted again. David notMD (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course, I’d like that. Unlike European marten, Iranian leopard could be used as a suitable common name due to the specifics of the name and not being redundant like “European marten”. Firekong1 (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Firekong1 Just to explain that my concern only related to the Pine Marten, not any other taxon. Obviously, species have many names in many languages, so it's important not to drown out significant names by a plethora of obscure and rarely used names that might have been scraped off general sites which haven't even addressed the issue of the main names properly. Discussion is always good, of course. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Thank you for clarifying. However, if the page for Panthera pardus tulliana has its changes reverted, what course of action do you suggest I take? Firekong1 (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Firekong1 The very best course of action is to understand the other person's perspective, just as they might like to better understand yours. So, drop by the reverting editor's page and say something like:

"Hi there, I saw you reverted my edit to X (insert diff). I wonder if you could explain your reasoning for removing it/reinserting it etc? I added/removed it for the following reason (insert reason here) and wondered if that helps to understand why I made it. It would help if I could understand why you thought it was wrong, please, and whether you'd be happy for me to reinsert it with a clearer edit summary this time, etc?

How does that sound? If you feel you still have a valid reason for proceeding, you could, once your discussion has ended with no progress, raise the issue on the article's talk page to gain a consensus for addition/removal. That takes some time, so don't rush to assert your viewpoint by reinstating the edit, lest you get into an WP:EDITWAR, which helps no one. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes I do view other’s perspectives, but in the case of users such as bhagyamani, they don’t seem to allow compromise, usually they don’t even answer.

But your tactic sounds good, I have been using that tactic ever since I first began editing on Wikipedia, and this helped me settle editing issues with many users. Firekong1 (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes I added a serial comma to panther pardus tuliana, but it was removed without explanation by Chidgk1 and Bhagyamani. Firekong1 (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Firekong1 That's what's called a Serial comma, and is not something I would use. I believe it's an American habitat, and one that grates on me. It might have been nice for the reverter to have explained why it wasn't necessary there, though, as its usage was not helping to avoid any ambiguity. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Apologies, it’s not meant to irritate you. Sometimes grammatical typings can depend on the Wikipedian based on their country. However, I am glad you agree that the editor should have left an explanation. The only reason they gave was “last best”. Firekong1 (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems my edit was reverted, I left a question on the talk page and am awaiting an answer. Should I go ahead and add it back if I am allowed? Firekong1 (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Article topic

Hello. I have been a Wikipedia reader and donator for several years, and I love Wikipedia. I am writing to see if a new article needs to be created or perhaps you could direct me regarding the topic I am about to discuss. In my recent past I started sending more text based communication to various entities over the internet. These include government organizations and other various corporate organizations. Over the course of several years I was attempting to communicate with the FBI via their tip website. I never received a single return correspondence from them. I want to try and make sure that all the time I spent writing to then doesn't gonun-noticed. I started writing to them after I got arrested for the first time in Allen, TX. I was arrested for disorderly conduct. I felt taken advantage of because of that situation. APD has been the subject of investigation for killing a man named Edgar Veras close to where I used to live, and I identified with that families frustration with the police department. I had all sorts of police contact when I lived in Allen, and I don't think a single person that dialed 911 had a valid reason for what they did. I have written to governments all over the world mainly about tobacco sales,but also regarding psychiatric medication. I scored a 4.0 in behavioral neuroscience at UTD, and I think that large numbers of people need to know and would benefit from, what I am discussing. Shifting topics...I have a grievance with The UTD Mercury regarding their online behavior as well. Thank you!!! Richard George Ashton II Rickytexan1 (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing you can do on Wikipedia with this. You need to use your own blog or website. Theroadislong (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I simply disagree with you. I don't have a problem with the idea of having my own blog or website,I simply don't think I have the financial resources available for that right now. I searched for a page on Wikipedia solely about the Allen Police Department,and it doesn't exist. Are you trying to say that Wikipedia shouldn't have articles about local police forces? What about pages about people like Edgar Veras who died under suspicious circumstances? I felt negatively reinforced by your reply, but that doesn't mean I didn't learn from it. I will try my best to respect Wikipedia's guidelines, and I would never do anything on here to intentionally cause an any type of disturbance. I just think the exact opposite of you. Rickytexan1 (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs. It seems that you have a conflict of interest as well. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Rickytexan1 There are a large number of places where you can create blogs for free and say whatever you want for example https://www.wix.com/start/blog but there are restrictions on what you can do on Wikipedia. and as above Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs. Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Minor edits

What exactly qualifies (or doessn't) as a "minor edit" when editing an article? For example, if just one or two sentences are replaced in order to eliminate an unsourced conjecture, or a single citation is inserted to support an existing text, is that major or minor?

This arises because Wikipedia asks whether an edit is "minor". I don't know how this designation is used, or how crucial it is. Johsebb (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Johsebb WP:Minor edits would be a helpful page for you to look at. To sum it up, it's generally used for small changes such as typo correction, table fixes, or simple formatting. Edits to not be marked as a minor edit would be adding or removing content, or adding and removing templates. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 21:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Many editors never mark edits as minor unless they're semi-automated. Frankly, for other editors invested in an article, it's much more desirable to skim through 30 tiny edits they don't care about than miss one they did because it was marked as minor. Remsense诉 22:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Should have looked at that WP page in the first place! Johsebb (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I have been mis-labeling edits as "minor". I see from Help:Minor_edit#Things_to_remember that I can ameliorate this by making a dummy edit. But since I've done this repeatedly, is there a way to make a single dummy edit to cover all the edits that should not have been so labeled? Or would I need to make a separate dummy edit for each instance? And what are the consequences of failing to make any corrections? Johsebb (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I really wouldn't worry about it that much. If it's too much trouble, you will be fine if you don't mark edits as minor—as I said above, people would be more concerned with false positives than false negatives. Remsense诉 17:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! At least, now I know, going forward. Johsebb (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Random question

What are your pet peeves on Wikipedia? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 05:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula: I could be facaetious and reply "people who ask silly questions" - but I won't. ;-) You will get a different answer from each person, and even for me it changes from day to day depending on what I am dealing with at the time. Today, it is the frustration of trying to find reliable public sources about scientists and medical researchers. There is truck-loads of media coverage about athletes and entertainers, but traditionally it was frowned on for a scientist to get their name in the paper (unless they won a Nobel prize; then a brief mention was considered to be acceptable). So many people have done amazing work that we just can't cover due to lack of sources. Anyway, that is my answer for today - tomorrow it will probably be something different.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

New editors who as their first effort try to create an article, either about themselves or a company they work for. David notMD (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

American editors who "correct" the spelling of articles written in, say, British English or Australian English, on topics obviously relating to those countries, to American English, both in defiance of Edit notes about the language to be used, and in seeming ignorance that different versions of English even exist. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I see it happening both ways, including people who don't know that alternative spellings are acceptable in more than one variety of English. But my real peeve is with people who say they will never donate to Wikipedia again because they were blocked or reverted or some other grievance. Doug Weller talk 12:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Uncited WP:DOB:s of living people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

For me, people who announce they donate to Wikipedia as if they expect it will give them special privileges.

Or unnecessary use of "would" in the past tense. For example "in June 1980 he would move to Canada. He would release his first album in 1981. In 1982, he would form a new band." MarchOfTheGreyhounds 11:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

MarchOfThe - You may appreciate WP:INTOTHEWOULDS, and the entire article around that link. That strange tense seems to inexplicably arise a lot in articles about Australian football clubs. And by that, I mean Australian rules football, not soccer. HiLo48 (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Their usage is common in soccer articles too, no idea why. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 12:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The silliness of some of the pet peeves of other editors. -- Hoary (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

the only correct pet peeve is people who use "it's" as the possessive form of "it"

they deserve a lifetime supply of used velcro and slightly molten sliced cheese cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 03:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone help with the inclusion of a different photographic technique?

RE: 'Light Painting' or 'Projection Photography' Can anyone help introduce a different form of 'Light Painting'?

Ref: A World First in the 1960's

This technique enabled the creaation of 'Spirit of Spring' the first transparency, consisting of both a colour positive and negative image, on the same Kodachrome emulsion. The portrait is blended with a negative of a red tulip.  All created before digital images! This was just one of many created 'special effect' images that are so different from those described. To learn more see [https://www.jncohen.net/Projection-Photography/index.htm Projection Photography Special Effects - The Magic Lantern]

National Science and Media Museum Bradford, West Yorkshire BD1 1NQ NSMM Research Library Book database. Reference: 770.05.COH

Author: Cohen, John Neville Title: Painting With Light By Projection Photography: Pure Photography Using Light & Film Self Published,

Description: Essay and references to the pioneering technique developed by John Neville Cohen, which enabled the creation of ‘Spirit of Spring’, the first ever Kodachrome transparency that had both a portrait and a negative image of a tulip, on the same emulsion. John Neville Cohen (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If you think that something should be added to an article (eg to Light painting, the article's talk page is the best place to suggest it. Note, however, that in order to include Cohen's work, you should be citing and summarising secondary sources: independent publications about Cohen or his work. Citing his own publications is not enough: why should Wikipedia take note of them if they haven't been written about? ColinFine (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@John Neville Cohen A better way to contribute to Wikipedia might be to upload some of your photographs to Wikimedia Commons with Creative Commons licenses. That way, editors here without your obvious conflict of interest could use them in articles along with appropriate references. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear Michael Turnbull, thank you for your reply, but I am concerned about my copyright, My pictures are available as limited edition prints (only 8 of each study). I was hoping some reference could be included on the page about 'Light Painting' or perhaps there could be one for 'Projection Photography'. My technique is totally different to those described and I think it merits a mention. Can you help? John Neville Cohen (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@John Neville Cohen: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or techniques. The article can state only what reliable sources that are independent of you say about your technique. If there are no such sources, then it cannot be included in an article.

Furthermore, because you have a conflict of interest about yourself and your work (as everyone does about themselves) any change you would want to make to an article that references your work should be proposed on the article's talk page, and not made directly by you in the article itself. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

National Science and Media Museum Bradford, West Yorkshire BD1 1NQ

NSMM Research Library Book database. Reference: 770.05.COH

Author: Cohen, John Neville Title: Painting With Light By Projection Photography: Pure Photography Using Light & Film Self Published,

Description: Essay and references to the pioneering technique developed by John Neville Cohen, which enabled the creation of ‘Spirit of Spring’, the first ever Kodachrome transparency that had both a portrait and a negative image of a tulip, on the same emulsion. John Neville Cohen (talk) 06:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear Anochronist, I did provide independant sources, but they were from the 1960's, such as 'The Times' newspaper, also there is the Kodak Press Release. But the National Science and Media Museum is more recent added last year. John Neville Cohen (talk) 06:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems that the National Science and Media Museum piece was written by yourself, so it is not independent. An independent source is one that is not written by you, and not based on anything that you have said (for example, a press release written by you or an interview with you). CodeTalker (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

New Article or Subsection?

I have an idea for creating a new article about China-Russia-Iran relations since they are currently holding naval drills [1] together in the Gulf of Oman. The relations of these three countries have also been warming up to each other over the years. The problem is that is in the article Axis of Evil this dynamic between the three countries is mentioned with quotes from Senate Minority Mitch McConnell, Danielle Pletka describing a New Axis of Evil. I was wondering if I should make a subsection in the Axis of Evil about this topic, or if it warrants it's own separate article? Seisachtheia (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Seisachtheia I think that your first question should be whether you can find enough reliable sources that describe specifically the relations between these three countries as a group. Wikipedia forbids original research, so it is not appropriate for you to cherry-pick, for example, sources which discuss bilateral relations and somehow synthesize them into an account of trilateral relations. On the other hand, the very term "Axis of Evil" is clearly not neutral and it would be perfectly acceptable to have a separate article if the sources exist. Note that there is a large article on China-Russia relations where some material could go and it has a template at the foot showing multilateral relations with articles that could give you ideas. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Other than a few scattered mentions of alleged trilateral relations among mostly unreliable news sources there has neither been an official declaration of trilateral relations, nor a body of reliable resources describing such a pact between the three countries. It think this will maybe change with time, but currently it is hard to argue that it reaches Wikipedia's notability standards. Thank you for advice! Seisachtheia (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

reliable sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Igal_Stulbach.   << declined because not supported by reliable source...I think it includes several known and reliable sources What should I do to approve the page? IgalSX (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@IgalSX You should read the reliable sources page mentioned in the decline reason and try to find sources more like that. There is also comments from reviewers that you should take into consideration. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 20:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. IgalSX (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Note that reliability is just one of the criteria for evaluating sources. Another one is independence: Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. . Ideally, each source will meet all the criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@IgalSX: See the short essay Wikipedia:Golden Rule to get an idea of what kind of sources are needed. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

All the sources cited there are independent, many of them well known in the field. Thats why I don"t understand the decline. IgalSX (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@IgalSX, I had a look at the first few sources in your draft to see if I could give you any clues. Here's what I would say:

1) is a gallery of Stulbach's work, which cannot be used for information about the artist as there is no information;

2) is more of Stulbach's work;

3) has a short statement Stulbach has made about themselves, which might be usable for basic biographical information (name, age, place of birth, etc) but does not count as a reliable source;

4) is the same as 3;

5) tells us Stulbach has won an award, which is a good start! Unfortunately I am not sure how notable this award is and would have to defer to more experienced editors to help decide whether having won this is something that helps show notability;

6) is much the same as 5;

7) is also much the same as 5;

8) is a single sentence stating that one of Stulbach's works was shown.

In short, I do not think any of these can be used. What you are looking for are things like newspaper/magazine articles written about your subject, or books, or other longer documents that tell us about your subject and why they are notable. You need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and unfortunately I do not think any of the sources I looked at meet those requirements. This is not what you want to hear, and I am sorry. The good news is that the sources don't need to be in English (if the English sources don't meet the requirements, you can definitely try other languages!) and they don't have to be online - but we do need to be able to track them down, so make sure your citations are good and the sources can be found.

It's also possible that there just aren't any reliable sources available yet, and that it's WP:TOOSOON (too soon) for this article to be written. That's often the case with younger artists; they haven't been noticed yet, so no one's written about them. All you can do then is wait for them to become notable. I hope all of that helps, and happy editing. StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

inconsistency between two articles factual astronomy

Am I correct that Cygnus X1 is said to be 20 solar radii and SAG A* is reported about the same size ? Is the Schwartzchild radius dependent on mass ? Would this imply the tail wagging the dog ? If an error occurs , how does it get corrected ? Seeker314159 (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Seeker314159: Your question is unclear to me. If you have a suggestion to improve a Wikipedia article, you can discuss it on the article's talk page. If you have an astronomy question, try the reference desk at WP:RDS RudolfRed (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello {{U|Seeker314159}, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question is also unclear to me, but yes, the Schwarzchild radius certainly does depend on the mass. --ColinFine (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Seeker314159, as I made a mistake doing so in my reply. ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

sent clarification to volunteer e-mail

info-en-o@wikimedia.org

summary radius disagreed with radius in article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1

I can copy you into that e-mail if you like with snips from webpage .

Shall I assume they will address the inconsistency ? Seeker314159 (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Article’s function is advocacy

The entry on Raheem J. Brennerman is not an encyclopedia article. It purports to be a factual account of Brennerman’s legal problems, which in truth seems intended to garner public support for his various appeals, complaints, suits and counter-suits. Not incompetent, but an exercise in rhetoric. What to do? Drsharps53 (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks like there's been a ton of content added by one person from what looks like a very biased source ("Free Raheem Brennerman"). This may be a subject more for the Biographies of Living People noticeboard, since the article itself has very few people watching it. Reconrabbit 02:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed some uncited material and rewritten the legal section to focus on content from secondary sources. I'd welcome someone else looking over it given the nature of the material. Shaws username . talk . 05:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Advice: Nominate this page for deletion?

Hello, I am still new to editing Wikipedia, and I have a article: Wheaton Youth Center, which mostly talks about a rumor that Led Zeppelin performing in the Wheaton youth center, but the sources are either not working or talking about the, and there seems to be no notability to this page besides the rumor, and the section where it lists the artists who performed was either deleted, and was never archived. I want to redirect the information to the page about the city as a whole: Wheaton,Maryland But I'm not sure I have enough proof to nominate this page at all. Thank you. Wikihelper910 (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I have trouble imagining that both the articles Wheaton Youth Center and Led Zeppelin Played Here are merited. Indeed, I'm not sure that even one of them is. But then I must plead complete ignorance of "the emerging suburban Maryland concert scene". Incidentally, the list of bands that played there is (via the reference currently numbered 1) attributed to a web page that's disappeared but is archived here; it presents no evidence that any of the bands played there or even any supporting detail, and anyway is written by unspecified people hoping to produce, or otherwise related to, Led Zeppelin Played Here. Perhaps some tea-housed Marylanders would care to comment. -- Hoary (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

If anything, merging would be preferred over deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject New South Wales

When are projects euthanized? Wikipedia:WikiProject New South Wales has seen little discussion on the talk page for a couple of years and some of the sub pages are decades old (eg: Wikipedia:WikiProject New South Wales/Missing topics, Wikipedia:WikiProject New South Wales/To-do, Wikipedia:WikiProject New South Wales/Cleanup listing) 76.14.122.5 (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no hard-and-fast rule. I suggest you raise this on the talk page of the next-wider ("parent") project, in this case WT:WikiProject Australia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

HELP

Hello. I am running into problems with admins when it comes to getting my article approved. Can someone help me understand what could help? LivingWellat50 (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess this is about Draft:Una Nation. Your problem is not with admins, it's with reviewers who have declined your draft, giving their reasons in the notes they've left at the top. You need to establish that the subject is notable, in Wikipedia's idiosyncratic sense. Which three of the sources cited in the draft do most, in your opinion, to establish that Una Nation is notable? Maproom (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

If this is about Draft:Sharon (odd title), Wikipedia does not do future events. Tag the draft for deletion. David notMD (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

If they meet WP:GNG, WP absolutely does future events, some examples at 2026 United States elections. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought wikipedia did future event. I knew I couldn't be wrong about THAT. lol LivingWellat50 (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Heat death of the universe, another example. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

WELL... THEY DENIED TH ARTICLE AGAIN! They said "too soon" LivingWellat50 (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

So it seems it didn't meet WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)\

@LivingWellat50: As I have already explained in response to your query over at the AfC help desk earlier this week, the references you have provided in Draft:Sharon (actually about the 2026 Oregon gubenatorial election) do not concern the 2026 election. We can absolutely cover future events, if and only if those future events have been properly covered by reliable sources. Without these sources, there is no basis for an encyclopedia article on the subject at this time, even knowing full well that such sourcing will come later. In the meantime, the collection of references to the 2022 election which you have provided in the draft do not by themselves constitute a sufficient base for an article on the 2026 election. That's what we mean by too soon. --Finngall ^talk 18:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I see! Thank you for your explanation! It actually was very helpful. Thank you again! :D LivingWellat50 (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not know why it put my name as the title. Alas, it is. I need it changed. How do I change the title of an article?LivingWellat50 (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I see you found it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Help

Hi, i am extended confirmed user still not able to edit some extended confirm protected articles. Why? Whois360 (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Whois360, you are not extended confirmed. You will be soon. Just wait. You will probably get a notification. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you hit the 30 day mark today. This isn't instantaneous, it probably happens during a nightly bot being run. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding map pointing feature

Hello there,

I was thinking on editing the wikipedia page Naya Sanwara and was thinking if a map showing its location in india and rajasthan would be available and how to add it, can anyone help by explaining me what is this and how can it be used.

Thanks in advance

Yamantakks (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

And I was also looking for citable resources like websites and the only I got were following

1. Village Info.in, i could not link it because it is blacklisted
2. Census 2011 . Co. In or simply "Population Census"
3. Local Body Data.com*

• This website only offers the details of the municipality or that things

Kindly tell if these are reliable enough to be used as citations ir should I nominate the article for deletion as it does not offers notable citations.

Regards

Yamantakks (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Yamantakks: Try adding Template:Infobox settlement to the article. Ask here again if you still need help, after reading its documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, before spending my time to improve the article, I was thinking of finding citations and as I mentioned later, I am seeing a problem in notability of the article, so, can you see and tell me if it is eligible for being nominated for deleting or can I get any other to help.

With warm regards

Yamantakks (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Yamantakks: A settlement recognised in a government document such as a census is generally considered notable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Article

i wrote article in georgian wikipedia (my native language) about politician person biography and this is publish. i wanted translate this article and try write in enwiki and it didn't published because there is problem what can i do? i wrote person of enwiki but i also can't published ნინი ყალაბეგაშვილი (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@ნინი ყალაბეგაშვილი Some guidance at Help:Translation. Your article has to meet the en-WP requirements of WP:N. If it doesn't/can't, it will not be accepted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ნინი ყალაბეგაშვილი, thank you for your interest in translating an article. It appears that you have submitted the article to WP:AFC but it has been rejected. This is because your draft article does not contain adequate reliable sources. You should try to back up all statements with a reliable source (see WP:RS), and you must do this for statements which could be challenged, and when you are writing contentious material about a living person. WP:MINREF has some useful information which might help you.

If you cannot find enough sources to back up the statements in the article, this may be an indication that the article subject is not notable and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia page about them (see WP:N).

Additionally, in your draft, there are a few things you will want to fix. For instance, you have linked dates, which you should not do. You have also linked a heading ("Political activity"), which you do not need to do.

You can continue to work on the draft and resubmit to AFC once you think the issues have been fixed. Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 13:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Declined, not rejected! Important difference. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

My apologies! Thank you for the correction. Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 16:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

Hi there! I've found some issues in the Andrea Saltelli article: 1) A potential conflict of interest between the initial editor and Saltelli from prior collaborations. 2) The tone seems promotional. 3) The biography section lacks citations. After flagging the article for maintenance over a week ago, I'm unsure whether to remove this unreferenced section or wait longer. Tips on the appropriate "grace period" for addressing unreferenced content for both BLPs and general articles would be really appreciated. HerBauhaus (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@HerBauhaus: Unless there are egregious attacks, I would wait longer. You may also ask for input at WP:BLPN. Also, if you mention other editors in circumstances like these, you should notify them on their talk page (I will do that now) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, thanks for checking out the article and consolidating the editing requests. Your approach makes sense, and I appreciate the tidy-up. Regarding the COI being tidied-away as well, could there be a specific reason for that too? HerBauhaus (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@HerBauhaus:As I said in my edit summary: "see template documentation". Documentation for {{COI}} says (formatting per original):

Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning.

[...]

Do not apply this tag simply because you suspect COI editing, or because there is or was a COI editor.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Gary J. Pielak article

Regarding the Draft:Gary J. Pielak article, I have removed all outside links.

In reference to User:Afyaniuhai comment, would any of these qualify as outside sources for Professor Pielak?

• https://mcbblog.nsfbio.com/tag/dr-gary-pielak/
• https://research.com/u/gary-j-pielak
• https://www.molecularcloud.org/cloud-scientist/Gary-Pielak/1710.html
• https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=TJ0hb48AAAAJ
• https://www.biophysics.org/news-room/biophysical-society-announces-2024-society-fellows

-- Larssahl (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

in addition to these UNC references...

https://chem.unc.edu/faculty/pielak-gary/

https://pielakgroup.web.unc.edu

https://unclineberger.org/directory/gary-pielak/

https://www.med.unc.edu/biochem/directory/pielak/ Larssahl (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Larssahl and welcome to the Teahouse. Pielak is a professor, so the requirements for an article are meeting one of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. The only "outside" sources needed are the ones that confirm meeting those requirements. Among other things he meets criteria #2 since he has just been elected a Fellow of the Biophysical Society "for his biophysical studies on protein structure and dynamics, both in vitro and inside cells, with a particular emphasis on crowding." Everything in the article must come from a reference for how to show this. See Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

request an article

i know theres AfD, where you request deletion of an article, but is there AfC? i noticed that the game Hot Dogs, Horseshoes & Hand Grenades doesnt have its own page despite being covered in a few secondary sources 216.100.95.82 (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. The Articles for Creation process (using the Article Wizard) is available for you to create and submit a draft for review. If you just want to suggest an article, that is Requested Articles, but the backlog there is severe and any request you make may not be acted on for some time, if ever. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

There's also Wikipedia:Requested articles. You can add to that list. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This page does not exist. The deletion, protection, and move log for

This page does not exist. The deletion, protection, and move log for.my user and page name is same. Alomgir Hossain Connect. It is my age name Alomgir Hossain Connect (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Based on the reasoning and your username I'd assume that your userpage was advertising for either you or the company you own/work for. If that is the case, it cannot be posted on your user page. Wikipedia is not a web host, you cannot use your userpage for advertising, nor can you use Wikipedia for advertising purposes.

Please read the deletion reasons on that page, it will fully explain why your userpage was deleted. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 17:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

E/C  ::Your user page was deleted as a misuse of Wikipedia as a web host, you can create articles at WP:AFC. Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Alomgir Hossain Connect. The reason given for deleting User:Alomgir Hossain Connect was Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. As an adminstrator, I can read deleted content. The purpose of your userpage is promarily to tell your fellow editors about your accomplishments and plans as a Wikipedia editor. It is not to be used as a means to promote yourself to the world. You are a student and are not a notable person. Please be aware that trying to write an autobiography is highly discouraged. Cullen328 (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding an usurped web reference

Hi! This question references this article.

I recently requested that a spamlist URL be unblocked for a reference and it was approved here, since it was a usurped URL and the old version through internet archive was relevant.

In the request, they are advising me to add the ||url-status=usurped template to the reference. When I edit the reference, where do I add this? Or would I have to create a brand new reference and delete the old ones? Citation [37] is an example of a citation I need to add an usurped link web template to.

I don't mind doing it with either visual or source editing on desktop, I'm just not sure how to do it! Thank you! ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 17:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Lefthandedlion. Use Template:Cite web to format the reference. It has a url-status field, as well as the archive url field. See Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 for how to do this in Visual Editor. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I successfully added the sources! ← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 04:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Lefthandedlion, to the best of my knowledge, a link that leads to a 404 page is not usurped/unfit. This is the case at least for the Citation 37 example you used. Are the rest like that? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Election infoboxes broken or is it me?

Election infoboxes looks like this idk what to describe Number 69420 18:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh its fixed now Number 69420 18:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

How do we make a suggestion for improvements to Wikipedia?

I have a request for a suggested improvement to Wikipedia that I've always wanted to know if possible to make, but I've never seen exactly where one can submit these ideas for usability and accessibility enhancements.

Does anyone know where one can properly suggest this, so I don't get yelled at for doing it in the wrong place? I really wish I had known about this *friendly* place years ago.

Thank you! Skippingrock (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Skippingrock, thank you for your interest in improving Wikipedia! You are probably looking for the Wikipedia:Village pump, where you can search for, propose and discuss ideas. Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 19:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

thank you so much! Skippingrock (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Skippingrock. It's not clear from your question whether you mean improvements to particular articles, or to the way in which Wikipedia some aspect of Wikipedia works. If the latter, Unexpectedlydian's advice is right. But if it is about particular articles, those articles' talk pages is the place to bring it up. ColinFine (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Getting a new page approved

I am an intern for a nonprofit organization and I am trying to create a wikipedia page for it. I have read all the criteria and I have all contents needed. However, my company does not have anyone with editing experience on wikipedia to bring it out the sandbox. Is there a way to get around this? 71.187.82.229 (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the answer is almost certainly No, there is no way to get around this.

I would advise the following actions:

1. Read BOSS, and show it to your boss.
2. If, despite this, you wish to continue, read WP:NCORP and WP:42 very carefully, and make sure that you can find the reliable independent sources which talk at some length about your organization - remember that absolutely nothing written, published or commissioned by the organization or its associates will help, and nor will anything based on an interview, or a press release.
3. If you can find such sources, then (and only then) there can be an article about it. Ideally you would not write it, as you have a conflict of interest, but it's not very likely that somebody else will do so if they haven't already. (Whatever you do, do not pay anybody to do this: most of those offering such a service are scammers - see WP:SCAM, and any honest ones will admit up front that they cannot guarantee that an article will be accepted, or that it will say what you want it to).
4. If you are going ahead, I will give you the advice I always give new editors: don't even think about creating a new article until you have spent a few months learning about Wikipedia by making improvements to existing articles. I appreciate that this advice is unlikely to be welcome to you; but the likely alternative is that you will spend those same months in a frustrating and disappointing attempt to do something that you have not yet acquired the necessarily skills to do.
5. Whenever you decide to go ahead with creating this article, you must first make the mandatory declaration of your status as a paid editor (even if you are an unpaid intern, Wikipedia regards you as a paid editor).
6. Then read and follow WP:YFA.
7. You will maximise your chances of creating an acceptable article if at this point you forget absolutely everything you know about the organization, and write a summary of what the independent reliable sources say.

If this sounds discouraging: I'm afraid that, in a way, it is meant to be. I would discourage anybody from attempting to create a Wikipedia article before they have spent the time learning the policies that Wikipedia works on; and I would discourage anybody at all from creating an article about themselves or their organization. --ColinFine (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

how to get a new page approved

I am an intern for a nonprofit organization and I am trying to create a wikipedia page for it. I have read all the criteria and I have all contents needed. However, my company does not have anyone with editing experience on wikipedia to bring it out the sandbox. Is there a way to get around this? Maggie Curole (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Maggie Curole, welcome to Wikipedia! If you wish to create a Wikipedia page for an organization you're a part of, that is called a conflict of interest. In short, we ask that editors avoid editing or creating articles about their organization. Please see your talk page for more information and the relevant guidance here: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Please also see the COI FAQs and the heading "Can I start an article about myself or my company?" Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 21:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Maggie, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm guessing that you are the person who posted the previous entry without logging in: please see my lengthy answer to that. ColinFine (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Copy editing

Is there any useful scripts that help with copy editing? Platnieuem (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Platnieuem: There are some listed in the tools sections of the Guild of Copy Editors project page: WP:GCE. For things like typos, WP:AWB can be useful but I've never tried it (see WP:TYPO) RudolfRed (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Converting Inflation template citation into SFN

I am currently working on expanding the article on The Texas Chain Saw Massacre in another userspace, I have been citing everything in an "sfn" format to simplify things. I recently used the inflation template for the box-office sub section, which gives a citation, however it is not in "sfn" and I am at a loss at how to have that citation converted into that format. Is there a way I can do that without breaking the inflation template? Paleface Jack (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: The current ref is produced by the template {{inflation-fn}}. It appears to me that you could just create a citation for the relevant (1800–present) portion of that ref in the "Web publications" portion of your "Sources" section and then replace each instance of {{inflation-fn|US}} with an sfn citation. Deor (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The 1800-Present fits with the "Journals" portion, but I think you are right. I might do that suggestion. Thanks! Paleface Jack (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Paleface Jack, not that I can see, but I don't know much about the technical side of templates. You could presumably check the reference used in the template and input it manually into the article, with a hidden comment reminding editors to update it if the template starts generating values for a year other than 2022. Or you could ask this question at the talk page of the template.
Have you been doing this a lot, making revisions in your userspace? What do you do after you are done, copy-paste it over the article? Why not just edit the article directly? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I do it a lot yeah. Usually it allows me to make edits and whatnot and add things at my convenience. It helps when I am tinkering around with things and then, when I am done, I can add it to the main userspace gradually. This article in particular, a separate userspace is needed because the citation style is outdated and also a lot of information I have to double check on, so the large scope of this article i can do that at a reasonable pace. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Paleface Jack, I asked because I see two potential problems. First, someone could object to your changes when you try to overwrite the article if there's someone else cares very much about the article. But it's a risk you can choose to take. Second, it's preferable to have the history of the development of the article with the article. In your approach, it gets left behind in your userspace. Again, breaks no rules, but I'd prefer otherwise. Technically, an admin could merge the history of that userpage with that of the article when it's time, but I do not know if any admin would be so accommodating. Anyway, there's no rule against it, so as long as it works for you, good luck! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I am taking that into account. Unfortionately, the outdated citation style of the article might force me to do more substantial transfers of information, as the whole thing is in need of an update and revision. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I will try to confer with the major editors of that article for assistance when the time is right. For now, I have been on my own expanding a Level 5 vital article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

My main issue right now is, when I use that inflation template, it cites the source in a regular manner rather than the sfn format I have been doing things on. I dont know how to fix that.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Paleface Jack, you are using two different templates, one for the year and the other for the reference: {{inflation-year|US-GDP}} {{inflation-fn|US}}. You could use the template for the year only, the first one, and input the reference manually. As I said above, you could leave a hidden note reminding editors to update the reference when the year gets updated by the template. To find a better solution, if there is one at all, you could to ask at the template's talk page (Template talk:Inflation/fn). — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I converted the reference to an sfn without using the inflation footnote. Now its on to the other portions of this significant article. After all that is expanded, then its whittling it down into a reasonable FA quality with the potential to split section into their own article. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my expertise doesn't go far beyond basic formatting and core content policies. Once an article gets anywhere near FA quality, all I can do is stand a safe distance and marvel. I think I am going to watchlist this one too. Again, good luck! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking for moderator for Dispute Resolution noticeboard

The trap-neuter-return (TNR) page had a positive tone until about 2021 and over the past 3 years, it has been injected with anti-TNR talking points and now currently serves mainly to discredit TNR. I have a positive view of the practice and would like to make the page more neutral and informative. I'm also an inexperienced editor and a subject matter expert. From a recommendation on the Talk page, I opened a Dispute Resolution noticeboard ticket: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#trap-neuter-return. I also approached an active mediator on the page beforehand to confirm that this is the right next step. The editor who is responsible for negative bias on the page at first said he may not participage on the Dispute Resolution page. Then they went to my Talk page and said that I was making personal attacks against them. They then disputed the neutrality of the moderator after seeing that I had looked for advice before opening the ticket and that moderator had replied with humor that the editor objected to. Essentially, there are two editors on opposite sides and it looks like the Dispute Resolution ticket will need more than one moderator. Nylnoj (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion is to refrain from anything that could be construed as a personal attack and focus on content not contributors. The quotes on your user talk page do not look good for you. Please assume good faith of other editors. It is required. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Nylnoj. Cullen328 (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand the optics. And that's why I'm trying to present the background of the conflicts on this page in a neutral way, including anything that paints me in a negative light. Trying to keep moving forward so this page can become tone-neutral and informational.

Curious about whether you saw the Talk page of TNR where the quotes are pulled from in their full context and still view as a personal attack. Nylnoj (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The final paragraph of trap-neuter-return does not mention TNR. It's about the rights and wrongs of killing feral cats. I think it should be deleted as irrelevant to the subject. Maproom (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The entire page needs review. I was trying to start at the beginning and work down. Starting at the end and working backwards would certainly work as well. The problem is that any edits are not reaching consensus and the page is now on the Dispute Resolition noticeboard in need of an extra moderator since the available mod has been deemed unacceptable by one of the editors. Nylnoj (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nylnoj: in the interest of "optics" and portraying everything in the proper light, as you're saying above, you've never said anything about the last paragraph. What you've been trying to do, as shown in these diffs, [2], [3] is to mass delete all science-based criticism of TNR, and then state in Wikivoice that it is "humane", which is a contested opinion. You've also asked to remove "controversial" from the Lead. I don't think this is possible due to the NPOV policy. Geogene (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

We aren't likely to get the article fixed (either improved or neutered) by discussion here. I concur with the Original Poster in asking whether an editor in this forum is ready to conduct moderated discussion at DRN. If no moderator is found, the dispute will be archived without action by a bot, and the article will continue to be contentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit Article or Talk page first?

When an edit needs to be done on both the Article and Talk page, which one should be edited first? OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello! What kind of edits are you talking about? It would be helpful if you could link the specific page your question is about, if any. Cheers! Remsense诉 00:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Jason Dharmaraj (bishop) (Revert with notice)

International cricket in 2019-2020 (Stub rating removal) OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh! It really doesn't matter, Wikipedia doesn't move that fast even on the most-watched articles at their most watched. Remsense诉 00:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Cheers, and happy editing! :) Remsense诉 00:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to copy and paste statements from the website of a company?

The Boring Company has statements regarding the safety features that they have in place. I copied and pasted this information for the article. Someone removed this, stating that it was not factual. I am confused, as the company has published this on their website. Why can the edit be removed? JKNZ99 (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Because that's copyright infringement. Moreover, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, that means we synthesize information in primary sources, not simply repeat it. Remsense诉 00:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

i think you mean we're focused on information from secondary sources (article on it), not primary ones? true, there are reasons to use primary sources, but most still should come from secondary ones. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 01:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, my bad! I was thinking in the context of a direct quote from a primary source, which should generally be interpreted in the context of secondary sources, and not leaned on in itself. Thank you. Remsense诉 01:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, JKN99. Generally speaking, Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. There are exceptions, but that is a good place to start. ColinFine (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Help with formatting Awards and Honours

I've been editing Ticket to Ride (board game), and I need advice on how to proceed with the "Awards and Honours" section within this article. I was thinking of making it into a table, but I'm afraid of the table taking up too much space. I could leave it as it is, but I feel that it looks too disorganized to do that. I've been using Wingspan (board game) as a reference, but this article has a lot less awards, so the length of the section wouldn't really be an issue. I've brought up the idea of making this section into a table in the Talk page, but I haven't received any responses. What should I do to improve this section? TwistedInThreads (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest asking in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games, from looking, they seem to be pretty active over there and seeing what they say. I'd love to be able to give you a better answer, but I agree with you that a table might take up too much space and it looks a bit disorganized how it is at the moment, although you could try making one to see how it would look. Shaws username . talk . 06:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll do that. Thank you! TwistedInThreads (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Are we allowed to draftify a recently accepted AfC?

Genuinely curious Comintell (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, a brand new article in mainspace can generally only be draftified one time, and one time only. If it gets moved back into mainspace after this occurs, then it means that the initial draftification was controversial, and needs to go through the proper steps to agree on an outcome for the page. Now if an AfC draft is recently accepted, that means that an AfC reviewer thought it was suitable for mainspace. Moving it back to draftspace would therefore be controversial and should not be done unilaterally without discussing it first. There's likely other venues for dealing with such pages, such as Articles for Deletion.

I see that you recently had an accepted draft through AfC though. If THAT'S the article you'd like to draftify, that seems to probably be fine, given that you're the primary author. But it probably depends on exactly what you're hoping to draftify. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

It was draftified by an admin the same day it was approved. I was confused. I believe it is worthy of mainspace. I contacted them and let them know, because they didn't notify me. Thanks for the heads up Comintell (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, an article that was accepted via AFC should only be draftified under very unusual circumstances, because if another reviewer disagrees with the reviewer who accepted the article, they should nominate the article for deletion and obtain the consensus of the community. Draftification should be for articles that were created in article space or moved to article space before they are ready for article space. If a reviewer has made the judgment that the article is ready for article space, and another reviewer thinks that it is not ready for article space, they should normally move it back to draft space unilaterally. Some reviewers move contentious articles to draft space rather than nominating them for AFD because an AFD nomination is work, at least if the before AFD work is done. That is, draftifying is the easy way, but sometimes the easy way is the lazy way. There are exceptions, but I think that if another reviewer disagrees with the acceptance, the better approach is AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Page deletion

I just found that any pages created by sock puppets will be deleted unless there are significant contributions from other users to the page. That sounds too harsh to me since plenty of the articles made by sock puppets meet the requirements (notability, references, and citation) and are written in Wikipedia's standard style. Those articles contribute to the encyclopedia. Why do the administrators do that? Faldi00 (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Faldi00, administrators do that to deter sockpuppetry which is a serious form of ongoing disruption on Wikipedia. Blocked editors are not allowed to edit Wikipedia in any way, shape or form while blocked, except to discuss their blocks with adminstrators and to appeal their blocks. Period. Blocked editors are free to appeal their blocks unless their disruption was deep, profound and intense. So, blocked editors, other than the worst of the worst, should appeal their blocks and only then return to productive editing. They should never evade their blocks, because that makes matters much worse. I have answered your question, and now I have a question for you: What, precisely, is the basis for your assertion that plenty of the articles made by sock puppets meet the requirements (notability, references, and citation) and are written in Wikipedia's standard style? Can you please provide specific convincing evidence for that claim? As an administrator, I might restore some of these excellent deleted articles that you allude to without mentioning any one of them. If what you say is true, then I will take responsibility for them. Name at least a few of them. Cullen328 (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, Thanks for the reply. Here are the deleted pages created by sock puppet account that have to be restored:

1). Keo people

2). Ngada people

3). 2022 Haruku Island riot

4). Bajo Wuring people

5). Tenun Nagekeo

6). Aluk Todolo

Hope you restored it. Faldi00 (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Faldi00. I do not have the ability to deeply understand and evaluate the reliability of sources written in Indonesian languages. Google Translate is not good enough. What is your connection to blocked editors such as Jeff van Timor and Jellywings19? Also, please clarify your comment have to be restored.Why the urgency?Cullen328 (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Why was 2022 Haruku Island riot restored? The sockmaster is banned and globally locked. WP:BMB is policy. ✗plicit 10:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

??Appears that 2022 Haruku Island riot was tagged for Speedy deletion in 2023 but never acted on?? David notMD (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Explicit, it was a misclick when I was examining the deleted articles. Another administrator corrected my error. Cullen328 (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Frankly, I do not have any connections and never interact with Jeff van Timor and Jellywings19. I just like that user because he wrote pages about ethnicity and languages in Indonesia which can enrich the Indonesia-related topics in Wikipedia English.

Regarding the urgency, those are not too urgent. But I hope you can restore it. Faldi00 (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Violating Wikimedia trademark?

Does this non-wikipedia webpage violate trademark by using the Wikipedia name and logo? Jim.henderson (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jim.henderson: Almost certainly yes. You can report it as described here, if you wish. Tollens (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Should incident like musicians having memory lapse in concerts be added to controversy section of their biographies? And seeking for GA Nominee Advice

I am currently working on this classical pianist's biography, hoping to improve the vital article to GA status. I just noticed a two times debates/discussions on its discussion page on whether him having memory lapse in a 2015 concert should be added to the controversy section. In the first discussion in 2016, the two editors (according to edit history) seemed to have reached agreement that the inclusion may violated WP:BLP trivial/gossip and it was not kept at last. In the second discussion in 2021, the other two editors didn't reach an agreement on the matter. So now, I am confused and want to know whether the memory lapse incident should be added to controversy section or not, and I want to get it resolved to one step forward meeting GA standard.

I have read some other musicians' biographies concerning memory lapse as references. I notice that although having memory lapse is a usual mistake in classical concerts, only a few musicians having long term (yearly) memory lapse were included in their career/personal life section, not controversy section e.g. Vladimir Horowitz, Anton Rubinstein. It makes me doubt that whether a one-time concert memory lapse is necessary to be included in controversy section, and whether this may violates WP:BLP. Can experienced editors provide me some advice? Thanks a lot.

Also, I would like some additional advice/feedback to improve Li Yundi, allowing it to meet GA status. Thank you so much, once again. EleniXDD※Talk 09:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:PROPORTION seems relevant here. Since I haven't looked at the articles in question, I have no idea what trying to apply would result in. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, got it. I have looked at the past history of the paragraph, it seems not being in proportion and maybe one of the reason considered why it was considered as possible violation WP:BLP and removed in the first time.

Currently, the article does not have that section, maybe I will inform the editor who proposed in the second discussion and tried to add this every few months, about proportion, if he/she tries to readd this in the future. EleniXDD※Talk 11:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@EleniXDD Even if such a memory lapse warranted a mention: which it might if it were discussed in reliable sources, why would it go in a "controversy" section? A controversy is a public dispute concerning conflicting opinions which sometimes lead to a legal dispute. None of that is relevant to a memory lapse. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@EleniXDD: Articles should ideally not have "Controversy" sections. See WP:Criticism § "Controversy" section. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bazza 7

Got it, thanks a lot.

Any idea how can I know whether the whole section is necessary to be added or not. EleniXDD※Talk 11:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mike, thanks for offering me help once again XD.

To be honest, I have no idea why it was added as controversy. The editor (second discussion, they had no agreement) who proposed and added the section, stated the reasoning in the discussion page as “That's because I only checked his page and realized such a big incident, almost world embarrassment, was not part of his Controversy section which should have been. I like Yundi and owns several albums of his, but I'm a neutral Wikipedia editor…”

”And like said, if you know classical music then you know how it's almost unheard of to commit such a mistake in a live performance. The fact that this happened in the past doesn't change anything. If someone caused a controversy it'll forever be on a person's profile, just like how years in the future people will still talk about how Yundi allegedly hired prostitutes. He may be a great pianist, but his attitude and reckless lifestyle caused others to raise eyebrows.”

In fact, I doubt a one time memory lapse worths a mention after checking other musicians’ biographies. Seems like only memory lapse in concerts lasted for years were added as description, but not a one-time concert.

Currently, the article does not have this controversy section (deleted by another experienced editor). But deduced from edit history, this editor, who added the section, is likely to add it back in the future (he considered removing this section is sanitising the musician and may result in conflict of interest ) and I am not sure if whether the whole memory lapse incident is necessarily worth mentioning.

Any further advice for me? Or should I just ignore this matter unless it is brought up again in the future, or should I leave a message in the discussion, defining controversy? EleniXDD※Talk 11:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you can ignore it for now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Bazza 7 have given relevant guidance if it arises again. Even Joe Biden's memory loss, which is much in the news now, hardly gets a mention in articles: see Public image of Joe Biden#Age and health concerns for the only case I can find. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I will focus on improving the article then. EleniXDD※Talk 12:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I am pinging Gerda Arendt who is one of our most experienced classical music editors, and a very helpful person. Perhaps she can offer an opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd improve the article and ignore an incidence if it was not something mentioned several times in reliable sources. For GA advice: I wrote several articles about singers that are GA but no pianist yet. Perhaps read similar articles to get ideas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind advice. Sure, I will take other articles as examples and references (so I see similar long-term incidents are one sentence description in similar biographies, maybe I will include it if it becomes long-term) EleniXDD※Talk 01:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Declined Article For Babatunde Apalowo

I recently submitted an article for review but was declined because it was supposed to be a duplicate article of this - Babatunde Apalowo -- waiting for review. On clicking this, I saw that it was already reviewed but rejected by several editors. I would reject the article myself as it is very scanty and not up to task unlike my article, which is much more detailed and provided relevant citations.

Should I simply re-edit the previous declined article (Can I even do that?) Or, what can I do in this situation. Apologies if this is a noob question, because, I am actually new. Thank you. Judeylive (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you should edit the existing draft. Drafts do not belong to the editors that create them. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Judeylive I just read the rejected draft, and was thinking:

"He sounds like a mature Nigerian graduate I stumbled across recently, who was a crew member (DOP if I remember correctly) on a relatively recent Bournemouth based short film, by people from Bournemouth University, the University of South Wales, and 1 or 2 other universities, which I added to IMDB. He had apparently been in the industry for over 30 years, had worked on various films and TV shows from multiple countries mainly in Nigeria, and had won multiple African awards from various African countries... Yet his filmography was practically empty, and most of the Nigerian TV shows he had apparently directed as director or assistant director were missing, plus I wouldn't know where to find them."

Then I noticed that Babatunde Apalowo attended the University down the road from me, and looks familiar to me as I'm fairly sure I've seen him in some type of promo video for the city of Bradford, so I'll probably be adding any of his missing films in the future, if they haven't been deleted or made private, like most student films are by most students within 5 years or leaving university. Even if they have, there's usually 1 or 2 cast/crew members who still have them public, so they're forced to add any earlier release dates, once I've added them to IMDB. Danstarr69 (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Nominations for deletion draft, bot

Hi everyone; I wanted to know the username of the bot that does nominations for deletion old draft. Does this bot delete drafts automatically? Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   10:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The bot doesn't delete them, but it does tag it for admin attention. (I don't know its name, though.) 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The bot that notifies the user who created the draft about inactivity on draft is FireflyBot (not sure if only). For the one who nominates them, I may need to check. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 13:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Translation error

Hi,

I translated the page of Albert Bockstael from Dutch to English.

But I cannot publish it...

An error occurs telling me I cannot upload a new page.

I put so much work in it.. What causes this error?

Thank you so much in advance!

PAGE:

Draft:Albert Bockstael

Lamaisondanslinfini (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Lamaisondanslinfini: Currently, only autoconfirmed users (and beyond) have the permission to create main space articles. But you can submit the article for review! ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 13:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Lamaisondanslinfini You'll also have to fix all of the citation errors, it seems most of them are date and archive date related. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand what the boxed quote says, and if it were helpful, I'd recommend adding it to the article in English, and leaving the French for an explanatory note in the Appendix. But it is not helpful at all, imho; I would simply remove it. Mathglot (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Interest vs CoI

Most people edit Wikipedia's those articles in which they have interest. Does the CoI come into play here, as if it is yes, then it will stop people from editing as we(most) do it for fun. (Ignoring the wp:ignore here, otherwise it is obvious). ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I can have an interest in Taylor Swift, but it would only be COI/personal if I was more than a just a fan, for example a family member or friend. David notMD (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

You have an interest, but you don't have a conflict. Therefore, COI does not apply. Mathglot (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Confusing representation of the U.S. government's annual loss minting pennies

Penny debate in the United States

How does the scientific notation work when representing the U.S goverment's annual loss minting pennies? This is clearly not just simple multiplication, as multiplying 7,596,400,000 by -0.76 will yield about 577 million instead of 58 million (Note: this text has been changed to 13 million, which is even more confusing). Is this just an error? It may not be, though, because when editing the template, I see the multiplication sign within a field called "Uncertainty" and the second number in a field called "Asymmetric uncertainty", both of which I do not understand. And if it is an error, where did the "-0.76" come from? The loss of minting one penny would be $1.72 using the data from 2022, so the -0.76 must be something different. Hill sawyer (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Cost loss per minting each penny is stated as 1.72 cents, not $1.72 i.e., dollars. No comment on the rest of the article's math. David notMD (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Grammar question/Commas with Nonessential Elements

Hello,

We have a grammar question about using commas in a sentence. We are currently editing the Israel page and have questions about comma use in regards to the below proposed sentence:

"Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate, and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted."

I think the two commas in the above sentence are structurally offsetting a “nonessential clause” [4][5][6]. I think that this means a nonessential clause is something that can be removed without changing the core meaning of a sentence. Since two commas are placed around the British Mandate portion, and since that portion is grammatically removable, I think that portion is grammatically a nonessential clause. Removing the non-restrictive portion, the sentence becomes

“Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948 and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted.”

I think this is problematic because I think it gives the impression that Israel declared establishment, and the war immediately broke out. The war actually broke out the next day from an attack.

So I recommended changing to list format to avoid using nonessential elements:

“On 14 May 1948, the British terminated the Mandate, and Israel declared its establishment.”

@Makeandtoss thinks that I may be overthinking the grammar and interpretation, so this is why I am seeking clarification about the grammar and whether or not the British terminating the Mandate is being used as a nonessential element in the sentence: "Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate, and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted."

If it is being used non essentially, are there any suggestions on how we can improve the sentence grammar?

Thank you! Wafflefrites (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wafflefrites, if it were me I would just rewrite the sentence. I suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors since they have more expertise in this kind of thing. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I have asked them there! Wafflefrites (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Upload a Picture

Hi there i have been facing this problem of state banned Wikicommons website, due to which i am unable to my work on wikicommons. When i use a Vpn to access it does not let me upload either. what can i do in order to upload stuff on Wikicommons. Rahim231 (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rahim231: I am not certain the problem is with VPN. You have triggered an edit filter designed to stop copyright violations. Under no circumstances will you be allowed to upload an image where the source is "google" and the author is "unknown". If you do think the problem is with VPN then you could make a post in c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and request for c:Commons:IP block exemption but I am not certain it would be granted as your account is still quite new. MKFI (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Rahim231, leaving aside your access issues, no one is allowed to upload any images to Wikimedia Commons unless one of two conditions is met: Either the image is indisputably in the public domain, and you can prove it. Or, the image has an Commons acceptable free license issued by the copyright holder, and you can prove it. These requirements are strictly enforced. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I actually meant Wikicommons website is not accessible here normally and blocked but when i use a Vpn to access the website, it does not let me upload. It says the Vpn Ip is a blocked range. Also i was gonna upload Some maps which i made myself. Rahim231 (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

My username

Hey folks, Sorry for this weird question, but does anyone here think my username sounds misogynism? Should I change it? Thanks, with warm regards! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Nahh. To me, it doesn't sound like it has any ill meaning ("not that deep" as they say). Feel free to start a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names though. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 20:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks you @ObserveOwl!! Cheers and happy editing. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Name, Rank, and Allegiance

Writing about the American Civil War, one often has many officers that are mentioned with their full name and rank in an Opposing forces section. Many officers will appear later in a Battle section. Traditionally, the second time the person is mentioned, it is without their rank, first name, and allegiance (Union or Confederate). I recall a discussion a while back where it was decided that it was OK to mention the officer's rank a second time, and even their allegiance, if it happened in a different section. I think this would be helpful for readers who are not familiar with the subject (American Civil War). Is that true about the second mention, and is it in the MOS somewhere? TwoScars (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

TwoScars, MOS:BIO likely has everything that's in the MOS on this subject. There's MOS:MIL but it does not talk about the particular issue. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why, but apparently I'll be reported.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I had a conflict with a user editing an article, and I thought it was a strange edit, so I undo the edit, but it was done again. I told the other party on the article's talk page that the editing was strange, and then undone the edit again, but the other party called me a making disruptive edits and said that they would report me. I have already posted it on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, what should I do? Minchuchui (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's make it a little clearer, you obsessively edited just one article over and over again. You did not agree to reach agreements on the talk page. You spoke in an unpleasant language. You repeated the same edit over and over several times in one day which is not allowed. 北京555 (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

You made edits before reaching an agreement. It can't be a destructive edit since I just undoed it to the previous version which is what it should be. Minchuchui (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

You both seem to complaining about one another with fervent passion. If it's at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, then follow guidance there. AND STOP EDIT WARRING, BOTH OF YOU!🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Significant Coverage

Everytime i think i gain an understanding of SIGCOV i am proven wrong. So i will like to ask

1. In simple terms what does Wikipedia mean by SIGCOV?
2. 2. Explain SIGCOV on the premises of the following a. Quality of the source (news portal, research portal (example research gate etc) and b. Quality of cited material (length, level of details or description of claim you want to make). For example if i want to say that a movie was nominated for an award, and i find an article that lists all nominated movies in all categories for that award, why is that not enough to be used as a Citation.
3. The thing line between SIGCOV and passing mentions when in the example above, there is no available stand alone article or Citation for this.
4. Does the sourcing of an official website (sourcing the Oscars official website for list of winners) violate the concept of secondary and independent sources even though it is notable and the most credible.
5. How do you determine if a citation (independent, secondary and verifiable qualifies for a citation), if the claim you are citing is in just one paragraph.
6. Finally how long should the content of a source be to qualify it for use as a reliable source?

Yes I know these are quite a handful but I do appreciate the time you will spend in breaking this to me. I find it that as an editor I can only look for sources. But we don't have control over the source or information on it. Unfortunately, sources are not creating content with Wikipedia policies in mind. Hence this is my bid to decipher which sources count as cite worthy and which ones don't. Heatrave (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Notability § General_notability_guideline   Maproom (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Heatrave, many of your questions are answered by the link Maproom gave you, so I won't address all of them. You seem to have gotten "significant coverage" jumbled up with "reliable" a bit - there is no requirement that all sources you use are significant coverage. There need to be enough sources with significant coverage for the topic to be notable, but once that is shown, it doesn't matter how long or independent the other sources are. You can of course use the Oscars website for the list of winners - that would be the best possible source for that. -- asilvering (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Heatrave. The first challenge to overcome when writing an acceptable new Wikipedia article is establishing that the topic that you are writing about is notable. That requires providing references to several secondary sources, each of which meet a stringent three part test: First, these sources must be reliable. Second, these sources must be completely independent of your topic. Third, these sources must devote significant coverage to the topic. "Significant coverage" is defined as a source that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. So, if the source says, "Singer A was also on the concert bill, and did a good job performing oldies", then that is a trivial mention (often called a passing mention) that is of no value in establishing notability. On the other hand, if another source goes into significant detail about Singer A, including many facts like where the performer was born, their musical education and influences, the history of their career over time, their genres, unique aspects of their voice, their biggest hits, their upcoming tour and how professional music critics assess their work, then that is significant coverage.

Once you have provided references to several such high quality sources, you have passed the threshold and have established notability. At this point, you can begin using references to other sources that do not meet that three part test. These additional sources still must be reliable, but if used cautiously, they need not be fully independent or devote significant coverage. So, if Singer A's website or verified social media states that they were born in Boston on the bicentennial day of July 4, 1976, you can use that for such uncontested facts despite the source not being independent, unless Singer A has a known reputation for lying. If a reliable source review says "Singer A, who began began their career as the lead singer of well known oldies band B, was also on the concert bill, and did a good job performing oldies as a solo performer", then you can use that source as a reference for their early career and the fact that they are currently performing solo, even though that coverage is not significant enough to establish notability on its own. You have already established that the topic is notable, after all. Cullen328 (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Page re edited

Im not understanding why the Yahuah page keeps redirecting to jehovah, jehovah should not be the redirect for yahuah due to the fact of jehovah and Yahuah is not the same. It appears biased that people would even make that redirect exist and it seems agenda driven. Kaboom Holy (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kaboom Holy, it is meant to be a redirect to Yahweh (disambiguation). People kept trying to turn it into an article or redirecting somewhere else, and that is where it ended up. I've changed it back. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Kaboom Holy, you should start a discussion on the talk page of the redirect or the target of the redirect, and explain why they are not the same thing and what should be done instead. In general, you should always start out with an assumption of good faith. You just wrote "The name of god" in place of the redirect. Have you ever seen an article on Wikipedia that was just four words that didn't even make a sentence? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

What if I request to revert to the version before the editing war?

I caused an editing war due to an editing conflict with a certain person. The article List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita has been edited, undoed, and redoed many times since February 15th. These edits are still being discussed on the discussion page. In order to prevent future editing wars, I think it would be better to revert to the 14:02, 15 February 2024, which was before the editing battle, and then wait for discussion. Who should I ask to revert? Minchuchui (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

No, making yet another revert will not "prevent future editing wars". You strongly overestimate the importance of a specific version being the current version; these are not biographies of living people and the perceived urgency doesn't exist. Keep discussing, and a change can be made when a consensus is found. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what I meant was, could you please do the same thing as the article on List of countries by GDP (nominal)?

Cremastra reverted the article to a previous version due to the same editing war as this article.

I can edit other articles, but I cannot edit the two articles above. Minchuchui (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I personally see no benefit in any specific revision being the "current" one during the discussion. Restoring a stable revision is an optional option an administrator can take when dealing with an edit war (WP:PREFER); when done by others, it's always done with a risk of simply having joined an ongoing edit war instead of stopping it. I understand why Cremastra did this at List of countries by GDP (nominal), but this is not the norm nor a reason for requesting it elsewhere too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand, thank you for your response. Minchuchui (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Needs Help Understanding the Wikipedia:External links

Hello everyone, i have been pondering on how to do the right thing when it comes to Wikipedia:External links policies, as per my understanding and what i have red so far, I do firmly knew that external links shouldn't be treated as reference and thus I have been following this policy so far. Just for example: in my draft project Li Ziting, i happen to use 《Baidu》as an external link just as I did with《上海韶愔音乐娱乐有限公司/SY music Ent. 》 I have never used them to Cite for reference but only for purpose of detailing the Chinese companies profile information that is not on Wikipedia, making it easy for anyone who wishes to learn more about such company rather than leaving just a plained written words. The reason I asked for more clarification on Wikipedia:External links is because the previous decliner of my AFC draft project made mention of that, and thus given the impression point of me using 《Baidu》for references of which wasn't the case. I have firmly known that both Instagram, Weibo, Facebook or Baidu should only be treated as an external links but should not be use to Cite for references, I hope my understanding is right? Thisasia (talk) 06:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Thisasia,

I think you are confusing external links with references or citations. You are thinking that you have to be following the Wikipedia:External Links. We can not cite wikipedia itself on wikipedia so we ONLY cite external links. I went through the website which was all in chinese and searching about Baidu, I found that it is also a wiki, so I feel your article for creation got declined due to the reason of you citing another wiki. If you want to cite, it is also referenced, so you can refer to the citations there and cite them instead of Baidu itself and don't straight away copy it from there but rephrase to avoid palagrism.

If you are facing any other problem, feel free to reply back.

And, I too am not expert, and I would appreciate any corrections.

Yamantakks (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Yamantakks Thanks for your reply. But that's not the case, I'm not using Baidu to Cite for reference rather I only use it to detail about chinese companies that is not on Wikipedia. I probably understood the difference between reference and detailing,

References: must be talking about the person of the artist while

External Links: don't necessarily have to be otherwise, they can detailing about company profile that the person of the article is affiliated with.

But I do appreciate your reply, i definitely will remove all Baidu External links used for detailing if proven wrong Thanks. Thisasia (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Thisasia,

You are saying that you are using Baidu for "detailing". I do not understand what do you mean by "detailing". Are you adding it in the section of "Further Reading" or what? I would be happy to know.

Yamantakks (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Yamantakks Well when I said 'detailing', I simply means providing further information about such company for readers who wish to learn more about the company, just like you may provide a detail information about Wikipedia:Template while we are not even talking about Template here, but we might detail about Template may be because it has some little affiliation with the topic of discussion in general, making it easier for readers who wish to no more about Wikipedia:Template and why they where mentioned on that topic. That's probably not reference but just an External link used only for the purpose of detailing Thisasia (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Thisasia,

Isn't that 'Further Reading'.

Btw, I was seeing you are making it in chinese wikipedia, so, would not it be better to be asking there (No offence).

Yamantakks (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Yamantakks of course that can be also defined as further reading depending how you put it in English. For example: do you know that you may want to detail about (Template) but what if Template has no description page on Wikipedia? You can do so with an External link just like (Template) this does not mean you are using it for references but just for Detailing. You have not used it to Cite for the project you are writing about, but rather for a further information about an affiliated topics which shouldn't be narrated on the page. Thisasia (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

YThis is right: It is a company.

External links

• Official Website

---

---

NThis is wrong: It is a company and this is their website.

---

---

NThis is also wrong: It is a company.

References

🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Link rot

Asking for help on removing a rotted link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacey_Evans#cite_note-Leg_bio-4 404 NOT FOUND

Thanks Blackjackdavee (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Blackjackdavee, the URL is accessible via the Wayback machine. I'd suggest amending the citation to include an archived link. See WP:DEADLINK for more details. Feel free to reply here if you have any further questions. Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 11:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

And I've done that for Blackjackdavee here. Deor (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Difference between revisions

I normally get a clear view of what was changed in a revision with deleted parts highlighted in red and added parts highlighted in green. However this wasn't working today. does anybody know why.

Thanks Tescomealdeal1 (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is that you accidentally switched from visual to source viewing, I've never had that issue with visual editing. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

That worked cheers Tescomealdeal1 (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Removing orphan and encyclopedic tone messages

I have created a new entry which currently has messages at the top about it being an orphan and "tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia". I have added links from other articles and edited two sentences that I thought might need a more formal tone. How do get these checked and the messages removed please? Shockwave cosmology Hewer7 (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hewer7: You apparently refer to Shockwave cosmology. The "orphan" issue is binary, so you may remove the tag as soon as that article is linked from another. I'm short of time, but I'm sure someone will soon advise on the other matter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that I can, in fact, delete both of those messages. Hopefully the edits I made mean that the article now does conform to the encyclopedic style and tone. Hewer7 (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Before you do that, please see MOS:WE. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I assume, Shantavira, that you refer to "our expanding volume of space and matter". I think this means, the volume which includes us and everything we can observe. If I'm right, I don't see MOS:WE as applying. Maproom (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

we are still inside an expanding black hole... Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The MOS does not deprecate the "Author's we" so that one may be kept. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletionpedia seems to be dead

Had to use the site to get back articles, which wasn't notable at time of deletion. Guaka seems to be open to external contributions: https://github.com/guaka/deletionpedia/issues/35

But, seems like no one's going to pick up the gauntlet... Greatder (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

And your question about editing Wikipedia is...? ColinFine (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@ColinFine Oh, I thought this was the Tea house, so any blabbering about Wikipedia was done here. Greatder (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Greatder: Deletionpedia in not related to Wikipedia. We can't help you with any problems you are having with that project. RudolfRed (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

How do i make a Wikipedia page that could be accepted

 Courtesy link: Draft:The XDFilpDaf Channel

 Courtesy link: User:HeyTiSee/sandbox

I tried over and over again, but I think i get it, It needs a good reference, but how could the article be approved HeyTiSee (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

It would be helpful if we knew what page you're talking about, that way we can give tailored advice to that page.

Without that, the most I can tell you is to look at Your First Article for some good advice. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 17:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@HeyTiSee: Welcome to the Teahouse. You are going to want to look at Your first article and Easy referencing for beginners to establish wikinotability for whatever subject it is you're writing about. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, HeyTiSee. I'm afraid that you are having the same experience as almost everybody who tries the challenging task of creating a new article before they have spent time making improvements to existing articles and thereby learning how Wikipedia works. My advice to new editors (and yes, I see you created yhour account six months ago, but you have made only seven edits, so you are a new editor) is to put aside completely the idea of creating a new article for several months while you learn about crucial ideas such as notability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and verifiability.

Creating a new article starts with finding the sources, because if you can't find them, you will know that every second you spend on the article after that will be time wasted, I'm afraid. ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:BACKWARDS may be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft:The XDFilpDaf Channel was created and Declined back in October. You have done no editing on it since then. Try to figure out if you can add reliable source references, but if not, abandon the draft and in time it will be deleted. David notMD (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata on Microsoft Edge

Hi, I need some help on updating the software version for the article Microsoft Edge. I added information on the wikidata. Could someone help me? Myrealnamm (talk to me) 18:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Merge pages

Hi. I don't edit WP much these days, so I forgot where to post this. Loop (education) and Looping (education) look like the same thing and should be merged. Shall I just make one a redirect of the other, and smush all the content into it? Phacromallus (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

First of all, welcome back! - Secondly: One of the articles seems to be about teachers teaching the same class or not, and the other about students that skip a grade ahead. So, while unfortunately named, these are indeed different articles. JackTheSecond (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

JackTheSecond, which one do you think is about skipping a grade? Seems to me, they're both about the same thing. Maproom (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Unbelievable... 'my own biases' seems to be the answer to your question. Looking at it again, yes they absolutely should be merged. JackTheSecond (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I merged them, which was quite satisfying. I guess I did something wrong though, and imagine I'll be reverted soon. I believe Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log is the place to get other merge jobs. Phacromallus (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Cancellation of Draft: Arno Vanmassenhove

 Courtesy link: Draft:Arno_Vanmassenhove

Dear Wikipedia Editorial Team,

We noticed the cancellation of our client Arno Vanmassenhove's Wikipedia page and would appreciate clarification on the decision. Arno's significant contributions to entrepreneurship and personal development warrant recognition on Wikipedia. We are eager to address any concerns and ensure the accuracy of his page.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Cris Cawley Game Changer Publishing Itsarnovnm (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

That message and the current status of Draft:Arno Vanmassenhove are the exact reasons why it got denied at WP:AFC. The draft is filled with puffery and clearly violates guidelines on neutral point of view, something rather near and dear to us as Wikipedians. You call him a "visionary", said "this project showcased his early creativity and set the stage for his future endeavors" and "Vanmassenhove's ability to create compelling content and navigate high-stakes negotiations demonstrated a unique blend of creativity and business acumen that defined his path" among other examples. It reads like a CV.

In the references section, there's a distinct lack of any secondary references, one of the major Golden Rules of Wikipedia editing, with all of the references saying what is essentially "come and marvel at this fantastic man's work!"

It's a PR piece, and I'd seriously call into question whether you're here to make an encyclopaedia at all based on its content. I implore you, if you want to turn this page into something that belongs on Wikipedia, you need to research a lot more about Wikipedia's policies. Look to Your First Article for more. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 19:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft now deleted. Maproom (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

CommissarDoggo, it reads like a CV? I've had to skimread a lot of CVs in my time (before examining the more interesting ones more carefully), but never have I encountered one like this. (If I had, I'd have swiftly rolled it into a ball and tossed it into a wastebin.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Now now, who said it was a good CV? CommissarDoggo^Talk? 23:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Internet Archive and copyvio

Hey there, I wanted to cite the English version of the documentary 'London Calling: Cold War Letters' produced by ARD and shown by the BBC. Can I include a link to the documentary on the Internet Archive? That's all copyvio territory, right? JackTheSecond (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

JackTheSecond, you word your question obscurely. But if you are saying that London Calling: Cold War Letters (whatever this is) is copyright, and that it's at the Internet Archive in violation of the copyright, then no, you should not provide a link to it to it at the Internet Archive. -- Hoary (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary. Hm, yes, that sentence does not communicate the question I have all that well... Ehm: "Does the Internet Archive have a policy against copyright violations similar to Wikipedia, and can I trust it?" is probably concise. JackTheSecond (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

JackTheSecond, I'm sure that it does, and I'm sure that you can't. (An article here about a then-recent and definitely "all-rights-reserved"-ly copyrighted book linked in 2009 to a Wayback scrape of a web page illicitly reproducing the entire book. Back in 2009, I removed the link, but the copyright status of the book is unchanged and the Wayback scrape is still as it was.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Note though that there is no policy that says your cite must have a url. I have no view on if the documentary is an RS for what you want to use it for, that is a separate question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Oh, I used the documentary in Draft:BBC German Service to build the article. Without the url. JackTheSecond (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

mobile tags in edit summaries

is it really necessary to display to the world that a user made an edit from a mobile device? soibangla (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, soibangla, and welcome to the Teahouse. WP:Tags explains how tags such as "mobile edit" can be helpful. Note that you can use them to filter History or Contributions lists.

If you think that there is some reason why that tag shouldn't be shown, then WP:VP is the place to argue that - I'm not sure which section of it would be best. ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Create an article

I would like to request for an article to be created titled Disappearance of Riley Strain. Strain is a college student who attends University of Missouri who went missing in Nashville on March 8th. Cwater1 (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Cwater1, if Strain is notable as defined by and for Wikipedia, then you can create Draft:Riley Strain. Asking others to do it is not going to work. -- Hoary (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh okay, thanks! No worries, I'm not asking someone to do my homework. Cwater1 (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Cwater1, see in particular WP:BLP1E. -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Strain is currently newsworthy (a mysterious disappearance) but I strongly doubt he will ever be Wikipedia acount-worthy. In the US, thousands of people are reported missing every week. Most of those are eventually located alive (often, children taken by parents who do not have legal custody), but that still leaves thousands who are not found, or are found dead. David notMD (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Evidence where citation is required.

How do I satisfy. For example,myappointment to a Court is questined but I have a photo of my commission. Amberino10 (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

[This appears to be about the article Shane Marshall. -- Hoary (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)]

As you, Amberino10, are the subject of the article Shane Marshall, please read, digest, and edit in accordance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. (This normally means not editing the article itself, but instead making suggestions on its talk page.) If you have a problem interpreting or applying what this says, feel free to ask here. As for citing a photograph that you possess, the page I've linked to says: "Three main policies cover content:[...] 2. Verifiability (facts in articles must be verifiable from reliable sources) [...]". The page on verifiability says, inter alia, "Unpublished materials are not considered reliable." -- Hoary (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

sandbox thing

why the hell do I get a message saying my edits were unconstructive and they told me to go to the sandbox for that stuff, TURNS OUT I WAS DOING THE SANDBOX SO WHAT DO I DO! I DIDNT EVEN VANDALIZE THE LITTLE TING THEY SAY NOT TO MESS WITH!

ok my rant is done 2601:281:D87E:6880:54B3:1ABE:2B5A:CC15 (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

What you were doing was perfectly OK. I'll discuss with the editor that warned you – making test edits in the sandbox is just fine. Tollens (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Do understand though, that the Sandbox is blanked automatically, frequently, so not a place to create lasting content. Use your own Sandbox. David notMD (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@David notMD: I don't believe IP editors can create personal sandboxes, since they can only create pages in the Talk namespaces (though I suppose they could use a subpage of their own talk page). Even then, on an IPv6 address it's very likely they will just be unable to find the page once their address changes. Tollens (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

My error. I overlooked that this was an IP that wishes to take over the general Sandbox for personal purposes. David notMD (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

I just joined today and can see where this will be a most entertaining and educational site for me. When I set up my homepage I selected topics that were of interest and that will be needed for research. My question is how do I select these topics or do I just put them in the search bar? Thank You for your Assistance Caryb7 (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Caryb7, the topics you select on your homepage are topics of interest for editing articles. If you're just reading wikipedia for fun, use the search bar to find articles you're interested in and go from there. -- asilvering (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

...I think both of you are talking about the Wikipedia:Growth_Team_features#Newcomer_homepage, but I'm not too familiar with it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Caryb7: Yes, this is about Special:Homepage and the topics of interest are only used by the "Suggested edits" feature. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Are all images on Government of India-owned websites subject to the Government Open Data License (GODL)

About the picture I included and found on a Government of India website, depicting Santi Sudha Ghosh, does the Government Open Data License apply to this specific image? Also, does the permission for using this image follow the general rules for using pictures on Government of India websites? Or are there special rules just for this image? Charlie (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

To maximize your chances of getting a knowledgable and informative answer to this compound question, Charlie, try asking it at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary. Charlie (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Help Regarding Wikipedia Page Export

Hi. I am fine tuning an LLM and for that I need some wikipedia page texts. Basically, that is going to be an environmentalist type of LLM, having expert knowledge on environment and environment conservation. I exported pages from certain categories from Special:Export. But, it came as an XML file, and doesn't contain only the page title and the page text, which is as I want as the dataset for fine tuning. I would be highly elated if someone could help me out in this. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 07:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Itcouldbepossible. Can you use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example_(album)?useskin=apioutput? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Need Help for my first article

Looking for someone to edit / write correctly my article YPAFine Art Foundation in Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your understanding. Loreta Ypafaf (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

(Draft G11'd, user blocked.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not to author or co-author drafts or articles. David notMD (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Institute for Uranian Psychoanalysis

Friends,

I am working on this draft, can you please send me any advice? Draft:Institute for Uranian Psychoanalysis Jamplevia (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

That draft tells us nothing about the Institute and doesn't cite a single reliable source. Before you do any more work on it please read WP:Your first article and WP:BACKWARDS. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

See also WP:NORG. If the sources required don't exist, a WP-article will not be accepted. If you haven't, consider asking for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Jamplevia, Draft:Institute for Uranian Psychoanalysis has an external link near the top, to https://treeroots.org/. That page refers to "the dissolution in 2020 of ... the Institute for Uranian Psychoanalysis". So the first source you link to says that your subject no longer exists. That's not a promising start. Maproom (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The draft is not a place to ask questions about how to make the draft. I deleted that. If there are not references about the Institute published be people with no connection to the Institute, then the draft cannot succeed. David notMD (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I'm too busy updating the draft article's Talk page to respond any further on this unhelpful tea-whatever-it-is. ---- Jamplevia (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Creating new names...

What's 1st - _ , . 2600:1700:A1C1:8210:B9E4:F997:3463:9548 (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Can you be more specific as to what you are asking? 331dot (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Double standards in notability?

I noticed a discrepancy over the weekend and this prompted me to return here and ask how come there are a little double standards when it comes to establishing notability for historical figures and modern entertainers, especially youtubers. I followed this rabbit hole after I saw in the news Tristan Tate's article was deleted for not passing WP:GNG, yet passes notability under WP:GNP, I mean the same rational can be used for articles like Gessius Florus, which I can argue doesn't pass GNG. I saw many other youtubers like Niko Omilana have similar like coverage to these roman guys, in that it's really all just general information of them around nothing widespread yet he is still deemed not to pass GNG but under GNP undoubtably passes yet this was ignored in the deletion discussions. This is a genuine question as I honestly can't wrap my head round this. Serrwinner (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Serrwinner, the difference is material on those people survived for 2,000 years, from a time when paper wasn't even invented, let alone computers. I am sure Wikipedians from the year 4500 will consider Tristan notable if they find him in their archives, provided stories on everyone else from this time does not similarly survive. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean I totally get and really I'm not saying those Roman guys aren't notable and I agree with you. However how come using the logic that their life stories have survived 2000 years make them notable isn't the same as me saying someone like Tristan or Niko or even Iman Gadzhi (as much as I don't like him) have influenced a lot of young people in this generation with widespread proof to this ie. their following and all, hence proving their notability. Or as used in WP:GNP a "cult following" Serrwinner (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Serrwinner, sure, it's possible some of them are already notable, in the real world sense. Wikipedia has just determined they are not yet, in the Wikipedia sense. That is, there isn't enough usable material in the available reliable secondary sources to write a balanced article making a proper case as to why the life story of a given person is knowledge worth knowing. We're too close to the events right now. It's possible we will see a culture shift or a shift in gender dynamics, marriage and divorce rates, etc. And academics will write about how the influence of people such as Tate over the new generation is what's causing it. Maybe in forty years, an American president will say Tate was a big influence for him growing up. He's immediately notable as soon as anything like that happens. Maybe tomorrow, a couple newspapers will publish a few paragraphs with Tristan on focus. And, he's immediately notable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia has deleted biographies on nobel prize winners a short time before they won and immediately recreated the article soon as they won; that's just how Wikipedia works. WP:GNP is an essay. It does not guide Wikipedia. No way to know if there's one person agrees with WP:GNP or ten thousand. Anyway, reread the first two sentences. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

But wait can't I say that the Roman guys are not notable in the Wikipedia sense as well due to the references not passing all three criteria? Serrwinner (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately, GNG is still a guideline. Its the minimum criteria we've agreed on for when we can't agree whether or not a person should have an article. Sometimes people who are not notable meet GNG and Wikipedia may retain those articles even though it should not. Sometimes people who never get written about, so don't pass GNG, we agree to keep based on other criteria just because they are important, under the presumption that eventually there will be sources. Don't ask me where I got this from, but people who lived before the priniting press was invented, we presume are notable. Maybe Gessius Florus does not meet GNG, maybe he does. It ultimately is not even about him. He's a window through whom we can see a picture of a place and time in history. There isn't much that survives from so long ago, it would be a shame to lose anything that's reached us. Sure, if everything that's known can be included in another article, merging is fine even with Florus, but we don't want to lose any detail. So, it's not a fair comparison, because any random person living now isn't worth knowing about, but any random person from 2,000 years ago is, because of what we can learn about our own past through them. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

On "not passing GNG", not exactly the case: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Tate (2nd nomination) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The guys who voted delete did so on the basis of not meeting GNG but only addressing WP:PERP hence why I said it. Serrwinner (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but the closer was more BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

My page is getting rejected

My page is getting rejected and even deleted. I am unable to understand the mistake being made. Is there any reference. Page " Ambarish Anand:

136.185.212.108 (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Did you forget to log in? When you have an account, it's best to not edit logged out because there are rules about it and you'd have to learn those too. The relevant guidelines for you are WP:N and WP:NPOV. WP:V comes next. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's easy to make the mistake but Wikipedia is not at all in the same category as either LinkedIn or IMDB. Click on all the blue links that were included in the messages that you received on your account's talk page, and read the pages those open, please. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Ambarish Anand by User:Ambarish2anand was deleted as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11. It was extremely promotional. Under the heading "Ambarish Anand: The IT Maestro and Visionary Leader" it said: "Ambarish Anand stands as a beacon of innovation and leadership in IT services, digital transformation, and entrepreneurship. With a track record adorned with accolades and achievements, he is playing a part in reshaping service delivery in tech industries but also inspiring a new generation of leaders." And that was just the start. It's not "your" article but an encyclopedia article about you. This is not how our encyclopedia writes articles. See also Wikipedia:Autobiography. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with articles, not social media with pages. You may have grandiose opinions about your own importance, but unless people with no connection to you are publishing about you there is no potential for there being an article about you. David notMD (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

permission new languages

I do an intership and they asked my if i cloud make an new translation, Because they say we cant do that

Yours sincerely 91.126.218.231 (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@91.126.218.231 I'm not sure what you are asking with this question. Could you please explain a bit more? Kline • talk to me! • contribs 13:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Submission has not gone "live" on Wikipedia

Hi there.

I submitted a page about Terrence McCauley (author) for releasee on Wikipedia about a month ago, but have not seen it go "live". It appears to still be in my sandbox. (here's the link to my sandbox and the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:DutchessR/sandbox&oldid=1210452346)

Can you tell me if it's been submitted and if it's in the cue for submission OR if I've done something wrong? If I've done something wrong, how do I properly get submitted for release?

Much appreciated!

Thank you! DutchessR (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

You haven't submitted it, you published it. That's essentially how you save your work, not how you publish it to Wikipedia. What you're looking for is Articles for Creation. As an aside, you need to have secondary references for what you're adding to that page, otherwise it'll never pass AFC.

Please see Your First Article for more helpful information. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Theroadislong for adding that submission template. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Now at User:DutchessR/sandbox David notMD (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

As you claim that the photo is your own work, what is your connection to McCauley? David notMD (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Just noting for the record that it was a carbon copy of the author's website and has thus been deleted. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

recent changes show new changes button not appearing

so recently when i have used recent changes, the button that appears when a new change happens that shows the new change has not been appearing. i tried using live updates, but that doesnt work either, does anybody have a solution to this? Gaismagorm (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

nevermind its working now Gaismagorm (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Northwestern College (Iowa) Wikipedia page

Northwestern College (Iowa)

I have worked on improving this page by adding citations and removing academic boosterism. May the the two maintenance templates be removed now? According to Wikipedia's guidelines, I'm not qualified to remove them because I have a conflict of interest: I am employed by Northwestern College (Iowa). Please reply to VisualEditor. Thanks in advance for your help. Skielark Skielark (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

You have only added primary sources to most of the sections. Wikipedia requires independent secondary sources to verify the statements. Maybe, someone could replace it with a {{Primary sources}} tag. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Need help and advice for a beginner

I recently joined Wikipedia English. I started by making small editions, then creating a few articles based on existing ones (which didn't seem like a bad idea to me). Unfortunately, my articles were rejected because they were not developed and sourced enough. I took the time to rework one of the articles to see if it would pass the draft this time. But he was rejected again. Would a kind soul give me some advice on what I should change on this article: Draft:Lonza Arena. I am criticized for not citing enough references even though I included 24, which represents one for 30 words depending on the size of this article. Since I spent time writing it and I feel like I described the subject well, I would like to be able to validate it. Could someone guide me in this direction, please?

Thank you Gotch87 (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

All your references are to one regional newspaper. To be suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, a subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. This generally means at least three different sources. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Please stop creating articles in mainspace. All of your efforts to date have been turned into drafts because of serious shortcomings, including the lack of any references. The one you submitted to AfC (Draft:Lonza Arena) was Declined (not Rejected) for reasons given by the reviewer and above (21 of 24 refs to local newspaper). David notMD (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

How do I disambiguate two churches with the same name?

Suppose a city, say Wikitown, has a Catholic church and a Protestant church, both named "St. Peter's Church". I wish to create articles for both of them–how should they be named? Is it like

• St. Peter's Church, Wikitown (Catholic), or
• St. Peter's Catholic Church, Wikitown, or
• St. Peter's Church (Wikitown, Catholic)?

Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, The Lonely Panther. The relevant policies are in WP:TITLE, specifically WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TITLEDAB. Off the top of my head, if the church is customarily known as "St Peter's Catholic Church", then your second option would be best, but if not, then your first. ColinFine (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Obituary as the main source and reference

Hi, with regards to Draft:Farid Allawerdi, all the article is from multiple online obituary publications about the subject, Farid Allawerdi, and all the online articles are referenced. The obituaries are from Arabic source websites of news, newspapers and publications by journalists and writers (all are published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject). I have merely toned down and re-written/translated them in the article body. There are 16 references about the subject matter and only 2 where the subject name is mentioned in passing. I do not understand why the reviewer rejected the article questioning its qualification for wiki. Rogerdoyle1 (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

You have not re-submitted the draft since it was declined, it has NOT been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

There are large unsourced sections (I think the record in this article is 12 paragraphs in a row without citation but do correct me). That is a massive problem and needs to be fixed before resubmission. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 16:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for highlighting that. Could I place the same reference after each paragraph as each paragraph refer to one long online obituary. Rogerdoyle1 (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

As long as what's sourced in the paragraph is from a certain citation, that citation should be placed at the end of that paragraph.

If one half of a paragraph is sourced to one citation, and the other half is sourced to another, put the first citation after the first half and the second after the second half. Please see WP:CITE and, as the first example that comes to my mind, take a look at one of my more recent biographies; Catherine Jordan. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 16:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

First Article

I've recently been asked to make a page for well known, notable percussionist. I've made several edits and citing every claim. I keep finding articles online that say "...now click the MORE menu in your sandbox and click MOVE to move the article..." but I don't see a MORE menu. I'm sure this is user error, like I didn't something incorrectly, or I'm just not seeing the menu, but can anyone help me out?

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:WikiDMM/sandbox&oldid=1212412209 WikiDMM (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @WikiDMM, I've moved it for you, and it's now at Draft:Gumbi Ortiz. When you are ready to submit it for review, simply press the blue button. -- asilvering (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I submitted it for review. WikiDMM (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, WikiDMM, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I'm afraid that you are in the same position as hundreds and hundreds of people who come here to create an article, and do so before they have spent any time learning how Wikipedia works. My prediction is that you are going to have a frustrating and miserable time for the next few weeks - I may be wrong, but that is what my experience tells me.

Like most such people, I think you have written your article BACKWARDS, starting with what you want to say and then looking for sources. You have few or no independent reliable sources. You have non-neutral language in your draft.

In addition, your wording above, saying "I have been asked to make a page" implies that you have a conflict of interest in writing about Ortiz. It is important that you clarify what your relationship is to him: if you are in any way paid or employed to do this, then you must make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor. You should probably also read WP:BOSS.

In my view your draft has no hope of being accepted in its present form. You may continue to work on it while you await a reviewer - if you are going to do this, you should first and foremost look for sources where people who have no connection with Ortiz have chosen, off their own bat, to write at some length about him, and been published in reliable places: see Golden rule for what we are looking for. Note that anything based on an interview or press release does not count.

Then you should remove everything from your draft that is not found in one of those sources.

But my more general advice is that you should put aside the whole idea of creating a new article for several months, while you learn about Wikipedia by editing existing articles. When you have understood about notability, reliable sources and neutral point of view will be the time to read your first article and come back to it. ColinFine (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with most of this, but would like to add that you can indeed keep information that is sourced from interviews, press releases, etc, provided that it is neutral and the topic is shown to be notable through other sources. -- asilvering (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Your not submitted draft is at User:WikiDMM/sandbox. It should be submitted to the Articles for Creation review process for a reviewer to evaluate and accept, decline, reject or speedy delete. David notMD (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@David notMD, a new editor who can't find the tools menus is really unlikely to be able to usefully understand this kind of comment. It would be more helpful if you could move the draft for them and tag it for AfC. -- asilvering (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

WikiDMM Asilvering was kind enough to do what I only pointed to - adding a Submit function. There is a backlog of drafts and the system is not a queue, so could be days to months before it is reviewed. As currently written, there is a lot (a lot!) of content that is not verified by references. David notMD (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm definitely going to keep working on it. Thanks! WikiDMM (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Moving redirect page

Hi there, I've probably asked a similar question in the past, but I can't seem to remember what the procedure was. I'm trying to move the page Kampot Province, Cambodia to Kampot Province, which is currently a redirect, with the rationale that there is no other Kampot Province anywhere else, so the disambiguating "Cambodia" is unnecessary. Unfortunately, I don't know how to get rid of the redirect page. Please help! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku! The instructions are at Help:How to move a page. Since there is a title at the target "Kampot Province" already, you may have to request the move be made. Once moved, the original page with ", Cambodia" should be tagged with Template:R from name and country. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 18:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Mallcore

I want to re-create this article and make it a redirect to Scene (subculture)#Criticisms. Its actually a fairly common term and used in that section so imo a redirect makes sense. However the page is protected. Could an admin lift the protection or create the page themselves? Thanks --FMSky (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@FMSky, WP:AFC/R is for this problem. -- asilvering (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit Conflict

Hello!

Please tell me how to recover lost edits during an edit conflict. When I act instinctively, I end up losing my work and having to start over, which is a pain. Any advice on how to avoid that going forward? Thank you very much! Fenharrow (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. When an edit conflict comes up while attempting to publish an edit, your attempted edit is provided at the bottom. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see. I will check it out. Thanks! Fenharrow (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Using a YouTube source

Hello, I have an issue and I am wondering if it is reasonable to use a YouTube source to cite something. I am working on the article CaseOh, and I mention that he collaborates with streamers such as Jynxi, but somebody said I need a citation for it. There are no news mentions of it, but there is a video uploaded to YouTube by Jynxi himself, which proves exactly that it happened, better than any other type of source could. The link to the video is Caseoh | Jynxzi Podcast #1 - YouTube. I understand YouTube links are usually discouraged, but I am not sure if this is an exception. Thanks. Antny08 (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

YouTube sources are discouraged as WP:PRIMARY sources, but using them as a statement of fact is generally ok as long as you aren't trying to extrapolate anything from that.

If that video says specifically that they collaborate, that's fine, if it's just them two in the same video then all that really is is them in a video once. An example of this would be on Ren Gill, where a YouTube video he put out is used to spell his middle name. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 21:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Eric Mays

In all my years at WP I don't think I've come across an article like this one: Eric Mays. I'd like to go in and clean-up but honestly I'm at a loss. Without any real inline citations, let alone sources to back up a good portion of this entire article, I'm afraid most of it will simply be scrubbed. Obviously it was written by someone who knew the subject closely or at least has an extreme WP:COI. The article itself follows no MOS. I guess what I'm asking is: how would some other WP editors approach this task? I'm not afraid to get my hands dirty, but this will be quite the undertaking. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not personally gunna read through it right now, but due to the lack of proper citations (there is a reflist but there's absolutely nothing inline) it'll be very difficult to do much with this without just nuking it.

The last time I came across something like this with such a dire lack of citations (at least it had citations already), I ended up just finding citations and rewriting the majority of it. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 21:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It should look a bit better now after I reverted a recent edit adding reams of unsourced puffery. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 21:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It does, March - but I see you haven't (so far) communicated with the editor who added all that. I suggest it would be a good idea to do so. ColinFine (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Good point, thanks for the reminder. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 21:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Important question

Does WP:A3 apply also to drafts? 37.160.173.21 (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)