Wikipedia:Teahouse

AlanM1, 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

An admittedly politics - adjacent question

Hello Wikipedians. Ok, how much of the Wikipedia staff and editors have a left bias? This ratio might say something about the factuality of certain articles. - S L A Y T H E - (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I stay far away from editing any articles that are political or controversial in any way. On the articles I do work on I may occasionally give a short quote from a written opinion, and state that one reviewer had this to say on the topic (giving a good reference for the quote) but I strive to not let the world know my opinion on any given subject. (I don’t need added drama in my life.) All that is written is done by volunteers, so there isn’t any Wikipedia staff. I believe all the paid employees work to keep the website up and running. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Slaythe: Wikipedia editors (who, as Karen has noted, are volunteers) are not required to declare our political positions or lack thereof, so there cannot be a meaningful measure of how many editors have a particular "bias". If you are concerned about the neutrality or verifiability of Wikipedia as a whole, it's worth rereading the core principles. You may also find that your concerns have been raised by many others and summarised and addressed at Ideological bias on Wikipedia. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 22:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You know, as a side note, there are propaganda tools that left-biased journo's use to the left's advantage. One of those being "lying by omission", which bluntly means presenting infos you prefer over others, resulting in overreporting and underreporting on the respective infos. There also other techniques they use that are more subtle and powerful. - S L A Y T H E - (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any idea of how many editors there are at Wikipedia? That will give you an answer.

I don't have the actual numbers myself (and cba to dig them out), and related to that is the question as to exactly how many are 'active' editors as opposed to somebody who just chipped in with one obscure article two decades ago. Either way it will be a VERY LARGE NUMBER.

Consequently, from a pure maths perspective, Wikipedia editors are a sub-set of the world, and I would argue that any 'bias' at Wikipedia is going to be a simple reflection of the bias that exists across the entire population of the planet. Does that help?

Having said all that, the factuality of 'certain articles' may well be dependant on the subject in question. Articles with a political angle may well attract biased editors like moths to a flame, whereas editors like myself remember that fire is a dangerous thing, and stay as far away as possible. But bias creeps in to the most surprising places, such as an article about a military unit I am currently editing, where a deficiency in equipment levels was blamed on budget cutbacks during the Carter administration, for chrissake!.

LOL, I've just checked Carter's page to see if he's still with us, and if he survives the next three days, he will be exactly 100 years old. I wonder if he has ever considered standing again?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

For those who are curious, there are 117,842 Wikipedians who have made an edit in the last 30 days last time I checked. That doesn't even account for the IPs! TheWikiToby (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd say more than right-biased ones. Do note Wikipedia is definitely not the most left-biased it could be; Take the extreme, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; Wikipedia frames the government of Israel and its population as the same entity (contrary to, say, Iran). Some leftist-ier places (I am specifically talking about the Israeli Left here, but more exist) already consider Israel to be a dictatorship, and as such, do not use this framing. RatherQueerDebator (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia awards

Is there a Wiki award for keeping a long daily editing streak? If yes, how long should it be to get awarded? Benzekre (talk) 06:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Benzekre, I don't think that kind of award exists here. The closest thing is maybe WP:EDITS, where it shows a list of editors who have contributed to the encyclopedia the most. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 07:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Benzekre You might be interested to look at Wikipedia:Service awards. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Benzekre Just in case you are not aware of it, you can use Special:Impact/Benzekre to automatically show your longest editing streak within your last 1,000 edits: which in your case as a newcomer means all edits so far. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Benzekre: In case you're wondering, look no further than WP:Database reports/Longest active user editing streaks (led by Johnny Au (talk · contribs).) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this info! 217.71.190.224 (talk) 07:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing me! Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

However, Special:Impact/Johnny Au does not show the correct editing streak. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The site would be much better if there were no awards, wikipedia is not meant to be "look at me", it is /was meant to be 'look at the truth'. Awards attract egos and boas. Begenuine8 (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea, Wikipedia has never been interested in the "truth" we are only interested in verifiability, you will shortly be blocked for your appalling personal attacks. Theroadislong (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

wikipedia deserves better than you lot, or it deserves to disappear. Stop threatening me with a ban ffs. Begenuine8 (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Do we have to have more tinsel (as it has been referred at wiktionary)? We already have a myriad awards to give editors, plus service awards, plus the wikilove that every site has, and honestly this whole thing is getting silly. Cremastra (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Is "Sex Type Icon After User Name" really necessary?

I have been Wikipedia user for 2 weeks. I am from Turkey. When I marked sex type button as "male" in my profile settings, then I noticed that Wikipedia had added male icon "♂" to my user name. That was just a demographic information for Wikipedia might be used for statistical reasons. Should we really know the sex type of the user when we look at his/her/their user name. I find it a bit unnecessarily support to the discrimination. Yes I also know that we don't have to declare our sex type. But here I want to emphasize something different. There is no problem to declare our sex type and to be shown it here, but it is not needed to highlight in our usernames. There may be a different place / part here for it. I'd like to learn your view. Thank you. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

There's no other reason to specify your gender onsite, so if you would prefer other editors not know, you are free to change the setting back to unspecified. Remsense ‥ 论 09:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The way shouldn't be this. I can declare my gender but I don't want it to be shown as an addition to my username. We don't need such bias labelling. In which social media, do user's genders are shown this much directly? Nearly none. If the other user wants to know it, it is shown as a minor detail somewhere in profile, but not at the user name. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

To reiterate: the preference serves no other function onsite than the social function. If you are uncomfortable with yours being specified, you can leave it unspecified. Other editors are free to make the same choice. I would suggest that you defer to other editors as to whether they choose to divulge this piece of information about themselves. Remsense ‥ 论 10:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Also—this is perhaps a more analytical point, but one you may find enlightening—there is a considerable issue online where many spaces are assumed to be "male" by default. As such, if one lacks the ability to specify, that could also result in uncomfortable social dynamics for certain people. If one would like others to know, there's no reason it should be hidden where it will never be seen—the only reason to specify is so that others know. Remsense ‥ 论 10:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to help clarify a possible misunderstanding: You state I can declare my gender but I don't want it to be shown. This is self-contradictory. To whom are you declaring your gender? Everything in Wikipedia is public. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

to help clarify, no objection to having gender public but why make it a bigger deal than it deserves. IT IS A MINOR DETAIL as clearly stated.MarkWHowe (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Basically above. You can simply choose not to use this option. I don't indicate my gender or pronouns because I simply don't care. If someone misgenders me or uses the wrong pronouns, I equally don't care. I also generally don't disclose on Wikipedia my age, marital status, education, field of work, or what type car I drive, again...because I don't care. If other's wish to do so, then it's not offensive to me. I still just don't care. If others wish to disclose that they really love chinchillas, Coachella, or Coca Cola, then okay. It doesn't affect me. GMG^talk 12:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  The matter is not about being offended or not. It is about the lifting all discriminative labelling wher it is necessary. The rules of Wikipedia is not something can't be changed. We are in a free world and have right to interpret the meanings of all acions, settings in the light of new approaches. All human being's duty is to expand the border of equailty and to stop discrimination on every level. Settings options can't be alleged as a choice if we don't want to express our gender. I can express my gender but I have right not to see gender identity as an addition to my username. All I am saying is about human rights. Likewise we can reach a better place where gender equality can find its balance. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  @DemirWikiTR34 My I ask where exactly you are seeing the "♂" icon? I've been on Wikipedia for years and have never noticed it anywhere "in my username", despite declaring in the settings for my account that I prefer masculine gender when people refer to me. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  I see on my user page and also I see these icon on some other users' their own pages too. Here is my user page link: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullan%C4%B1c%C4%B1:DemirWikiTR34 I wish I could add a screen shot but the box doesn't let it. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Again, the only purpose of that setting is if you want to tell other editors this information. Just go to your user preferences and put your gender as unspecified. Others clearly like having this option. If say...someone had a gender ambiguous name like Tracy for a boy, or Charlie for a girl, I could see how it could be annoying if others kept referring to you wrongly. GMG^talk 13:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  OK, @DemirWikiTR34, I see that icon at the Turkish Wikipedia you linked but it doesn't appear here on the English Wikipedia on my userpage or on yours; nor at my page on the Turkish-language version, despite my gender being part of my global settings, so it must be something in the settings for what I assume is your "home" Wikipedia: all have separate policies. It is, I suppose, possible that you see the icon when you look at my userpage there: some items change according to who is looking at the page. Anyway, I suggest you ask at the Turkish helpdesk or equivalent of our WP:VPT. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, you are right. When I checked your page, I didn't see the icon and also I checked some other users in English too and no icon. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@DemirWikiTR34: Special:Preferences says: "The software uses this value to address you and to mention you to others using the selected grammatical gender option. Your selection will be publicly visible to others". It's not for statistical reasons. I don't know Turkish but I examined the Turkish Wikipedia. They have made a default gadget which displays the gender symbol. It's "Hızlı bilgi" (quick information according to Google Translate) at tr:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. You can disable the gadget but it will only prevent yourself from seeing gender symbols. Each Wikipedia language makes their own decisions. You have to discuss it at the Turkish Wikipedia if you want the gadget to remove this feature. The gadget has a talk page at tr:MediaWiki tartışma:Gadget-HizliBilgi.js but the activity is low. I don't know where else to discuss this at the Turkish Wikipedia. If the feature is removed then it will still be possible to find the gender setting of a user but few people will do it, unless the Turkish Wikipedia adds it in other places. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for all this information. In fact, I also started to a discussion in Wikipedia Turkish but the response that I got is the same here. I mean settings, options etc. No one wants to talk really about the ssence of the matter. In Wikipedia, I have just noticed that there is also no box for whom wants to thick as "non-binary". Many companies have started to add this box in their gender section. I undertand that Wikipedia is more cautious about issues referring to gender poltics and wants to keep the conventional approach. It may be a bit disappointing but that's what we have here. I also didn't understand why gender icon is considered as a local preference. Gender equality is a matter which requires to be defended universally. Anyway I gave up my insistence. Here some things change really so slowly. Anyway, thank you. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@DemirWikiTR34: The reason for creating the setting is determining how to refer to users with words. The options say (in English):

• Unspecified: Use gender-neutral terms when possible (e.g. "their contributions", "that editor") (default)
• Use feminine terms when possible (e.g. "her contributions")
• Use masculine terms when possible (e.g. "his contributions")

I'm not sure what a single non-binary option would add over unspecified. The gender symbols are an addition made by the Turkish Wikipedia. There are around 1000 Wikimedia wikis at Special:SiteMatrix. I don't know whether other wikis do this. However, there are languages where the word "User" is different for male and female users, and the word automatically changes on user pages. This is done by the MediaWiki software which powers Wikimedia wikis. See e.g. the Spanish user pages es:Usuario:Rotondus (male) versus es:Usuaria:Mel 23 (female). Unspecifed also displays as Usuario. Some female Spanish users might be offended by being called Usuario. Apart from such languages, the gender-setting is not displayed automatically by MediaWiki itself anywhere as far as I know, but local wikis have great freedom to determine local policies and practices in general. Users who know the software well enough can always find the gender setting of somebody. See more at translatewiki:Gender. The English Wikipedia has many options at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Life/Gender#Gender nonconforming for users who want to display something specific on their user page. You can also make your own user box or just write something without a userbox. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

A setting like this, or the options as described, aren't going to satisfy everyone. I don't specify my gender in my preferences because it isn't relevant to my work here. I have been referred to as he/him or she/her. I don't care which, anyone can refer to me by either gender. I do strongly object to being referred to as singular they/them, however. That grammatical affectation always rankled me, so I don't use it myself. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that the matter is not about what we prefer. If we consider this issue over us, iy may lead us to wrong outcome. The matter is how the settings' options should be more preferrable for all users without making them feel discriminated or frustrated. Many US universities, organizations and private companies have started to present more choices to their users, applicant regarding gender type. As for me, I marked "male" box because I am a man but I have respect for whom wants to mark "they/their" option which is currently non-exist in "Free" Wikipeadia environment. Calling someone with "they/their" is not gramatically wrong because "they" used to be used for "he, she, it" in a singular forms in many documents up to the end of 19th century in Britain. How "you" has singular and plural form, the situation of "they" was the same for the singular form. We should consider this without our gender approach for the sake of people who wants to express their gender more freely. As for male, female icon, I learned that this setting is not used in Wikipedia English but in Wikipedia Turkish. All sexist icons have already left in many countries. I don't know why Wikipedia Turkish has still kept it. Thank you. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Point of interest: "you" was originally plural, and evolved to be used as singular, replacing thou, thee, and thy or thine (singular subject, object, and possessive, respectively). And I tend to say "you all" for plural "you", as they say "y'all" in the southern United States. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

)) Thank you for the useful information, I learned something new. English is not my native language. All I want is formations (states, companies, etc.) to give more spaces to individuals in terms of freedom and rights. I met with these lines of Sheakespeare on Wikipedia while I was reading about gender neutrality "There's not a man I meet but doth salute me / As if I were their well-acquainted friend" William Shakespeare, A Comedy of Errors, 1623)" I admit that I used to consider this issue not important but I admitted that it was important. In my native language, Turkish, we don't have male, female forms in pronouns, and even articles like in German, der, die, das. I hope Wikipedia also let more spaces to gender neutrality in near future.

Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia, how do I get better?

I've been fascinated by this site for a while now and after rewatching The Cryptids of Wikipedia for the fourth or fifth time now, alongside some other Wikipedia based videos, I caved in and made an account to do some editing of my own! I'm wondering how I can improve my Wiki editing skills as well as what to do with my talk page, if there's even a point in editing that Avienby (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

One important point, if only informed by your other edit recently, is to never make personal attacks against other editors. Remsense ‥ 论 09:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Understandable, the last thing we need is for hostility to spread on here of all places. Won't make that mistake again. Avienby (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Avienby no, no real point in editing your talk page, though if you end up getting many, many discussions listed on it, you may want to set up an archive bot. For now, don't worry about it. I have some general advice for newbies on my userpage. I'd also suggest joining a wikiproject, if you are interested in any particular topic. Some wikiprojects are very active, some less so, but basically all of them maintain some kind of list of articles, and that can help you find tasks you're interested in. -- asilvering (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Please follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, if you want to get better at editing. Try to do the harder edits like referencing, and you will become a good Wikipedia editor!! Susbush (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Full name or acronym?

When specifying where a link is from in brackets, would I use the full name of the country or the acronym for it?

For example: 'Example Law (US)' or 'Example Law (United States)' Galaxy111 (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's a hard and fast rule. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms_in_page_titles. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify your question on two counts;

• are you talking about a Wiki link, such a ACI or United Airways, where the country of origin becomes abundantly clear once you have digested the contents of the pop-up screen? And are users on mobile devices less likely to benefit from these pop-up boxes, and therefore need more help?
• are you talking about country acronyms such as (It) when you wish to indicate (Italy)?

Unfortunately, the example you gave was for the United States, where (US) or (USA) is internationally recognised. Likewise (UK) is almost as well accepted. But this does not apply to all countries. How many readers would associate (HR) with Croatia?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, you can see what I mean in the external links section of the 3-feet law page, I am not talking about country acronyms but just shortenings. Galaxy111 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Having glanced at the 3-feet law page, (US) looks perfectly correct in my eyes. And after some digging I found MOS:USA which confirms this, and gives some useful pointers regarding when United States (in full) is more appropriate.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Galaxy111 (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

"Kambodsja er fri!" - Norwegian Socialist Song About Khmer Rouge

Is this notable to make a new article on the encyclopedia? It ended up to be a bit ironic, because the Khmer Rouge was notable for human rights abuses and genocide. Lan Pee (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esjtvZiYSho Lan Pee (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You should check is there are any refers to the song from reliable sources, such as newspapers or music sites. My check didn't show any such reports. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 19:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Lan Pee, and welcome to the Teahouse. While there are some special rules for certain types of subject, in most cases "notable" in Wikipedia is not about what the subject is, or does, or says, or creates, but about what has been published about the subject.

The question to answer, usually, is: "Has there been enough material about this subject published to base an article on?", remembering that Wikipedia is only interested in reliably published material (not user media, blogs, wikis, random websites, or user-generated sites like iMDB and Ancestry.com); and for this purpose, Wikipedia is not interested in anything that the subject or people associated with the subject say or want to say.

So in this purpose, you would need to find where people had written about the song, in some depth. ColinFine (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Lan Pee, the notability guideline for songs can be found at WP:NSONG. It is all about the depth of coverage of the song in reliable independent sources. Whether or not the song is controversial or "ironic" is irrelevant. Cullen328 (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Income

Can i add manually as infobox parameter, annual income of a person? Thanks! Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 19:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Afaict by Template:Infobox person, no. And if you intend to add it to an article, you need to cite a good source for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia Aside from the REALLY good PUBLISHED source needed, I can't think of a single reason why that would be appropriate. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

money makes the world go round 😊 Joking aside, I think that especially in the infoboxes of politicians there should be the parameter income. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 01:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pallikari You can suggest it at Template talk:Infobox person. Money can be important (even justifying a separate article:Category:Wealth by individuals), but the infobox is generally for simple, uncontroversial facts covered in the article text, and "income" might not be that at all, depending. Plus in WP-style it would have to be "as of 2022" or whatever can be sourced. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pallikari We have articles such as salaries of members of the United Kingdom Parliament, since in the UK at least the income for a politician is a set figure. I assume that other countries have similar systems. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I see...indeed there are problems for infobox use. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 16:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

How can earn money in Wikipedia

With you How I can Earn money on Wikipedia Myntrashopper (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Myntrashopper Paid editing is strongly discouraged. Editors for hire have an inherent conflict of interest with their employers, which they must disclose and which limits the editing they can do. —C.Fred (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Myntrashopper, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is that you can't: that's not what Wikipedia is for. ColinFine (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Trying to get a Wikipedia page for our company started but always getting declined

For context: this was the draft: Draft:KOL (Key Opinion Leaders)

Question: Would any of the experience editors on Teahouse consider getting the page started so there is no conflict of interest? --Koc2a885f (talk · contribs)

I'm not surprised it keeps getting declined. I can find no evidence that the company is notable, in Wikipedia's idiosyncratic sense. The draft cites two sources: one is behind a paywall, which is not in itself a problem, but means that I can't judge whether it provides evidence of notability; the other is not independent of the subject, being written by the company's CTO. I tried a Google search for "key opinion leaders", and found nothing about the company. Maproom (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Koc2a885f, the relevant notability guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and reviewers are strict about it. I see no evidence that this company meets that guideline. Cullen328 (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, let me ask a question: Hypothetically, imagine that for example, our company was under siege by a "Corporate Spy Ring", could I create a page for the "Corporate Espionage Operation" itself (not the company being targeted)? Would that be an even relevant enough to merit a wikipedia page? Koc2a885f (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Koc2a885f, you'd then be trying to show that "Corporate Spy Ring" met the guidelines at WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. So, it's possible, but it would still depend on significant, secondary coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

"Always" strongly suggests "more than once". Yet Draft:KOL (Key Opinion Leaders) doesn't seem to have been deleted more than once. I wondered about "Draft:Key Opinion Leaders". Yes, this has existed and was deleted, as the creation of "User:NewYorkerChic", which was just another username of an extraordinarily energetic spammer. -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Koc2a885f, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your words "get a Wikipedia page started for our company" sound as if you have a very common misunderstanding, and think that Wikipedia is like social media, a place where you can tell the world about your company. It is not: it is an encyclopaedia

If Wikipedia ever has an article about your company - whoever writes it - the article will not belong to your company, will not be controlled by your company, will not necessarily say what you would like it to say, should be based almost 100% on what people unconnected with your company have published about it, not what the company has said or wants to say, and may be edited by almost anybody in the world except people associated with your company (as they would have conflict of interest). Please see WP:PROUD. --ColinFine (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Concurrent requested moves on the same page

There is currently a requested move on Trump International Golf Club (West Palm Beach); while I strongly oppose the current requested move to include the state name, I do think the page should be moved to remove parentheses (for various reasons that I won't mention here so as to not canvass). Is it allowed to have a second requested move on a page that currently has one going on? Unnamed anon (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

No, that will just add a lot of confusion. You can bring up the other question in the move discussion that's already ongoing - a bit messy, but this kind of thing happens all the time. -- asilvering (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

protocol for deleting/merging pages?

Hi, I'm back. I ran across these two pages while looking through the cleanup list for WP:ALGAE: Chlorophytina and Tetraphytina. The long story short is that based on all sources I can find, the chlorophytina page is incorrect and tetraphytina describes what is actually chlorophytina. (Also, sources on the pages currently are for the most part unhelpful and don't included the name of the groups in them...) I just posted on both Talk pages, but it's unlikely to be a "hot topic" for anyone. And I'm thinking there won't be a big debate around consensus.

I've read WP:DEL, WP:DOM and WP:MAD but as a newbie, I'm not sure I fully understand. It seems like it would fall under this - WP:ATD-M, since they're essentially redundant pages?

Is there a way to submit this? (I know - be bold. But as I've only been around < 1 month, I don't think I have the technical knowhow or understanding at this point.) Cyanochic (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cyanochic, what I would do here is a WP:BLAR from Chlorophytina to Tetraphytina. If there's anything in the Chlorophytina article that you think should be in the other one, you can copy-paste it over (make sure your edit summary is very clear about where you got the original text from, for attribution reasons). -- asilvering (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll give that a read now! Does the fact that the title Chlorophytina is the correct name for the content of the current Tetraphytina page change which page should be blanked? (e.g. Tetraphytina is not an accepted name anywhere AFAICT)

Like should I just copy paste all of Tetraphytina to Chlorophytina, then blank and redirect tetraphytina to chlorophytina? Cyanochic (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I misunderstood your initial post - I would do the blank-and-redirect from Tetraphytina to Chlorophytina. Basically, you want the correct information at the correct title. Whichever title is incorrect, that should be redirected to the correct title. If the correct content isn't at the correct title, copy it from the incorrect title (leaving attribution in your edit summary when you do this). Basically, what you're trying to do here is make sure that the correct content is where it belongs, that there is no incorrect content anywhere (except the page history), and that the incorrect title points to the correct title. -- asilvering (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Great thank you so much for your help! Cyanochic (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

If you (or another wonderful helper) is around to check what I've done with setting up the redirect and leaving information, I'd super appreciate it since this is my first time ever setting up any sort of redirect. Relevant pages - Talk:Tetraphytina, Chlorophytina and Talk:Chlorophytina. Cyanochic (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I moved the WP:BLAR notice for you. :) -- asilvering (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I think I misunderstood where it goes. Thank you! Cyanochic (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Worthy Entry - Noob Editor!

hi all im trying to get traction and a page sorted for local disability campaigner and football club owner who has a documentary coming out on tuesday globally On TNT and Discovery +

The story is inspirational and a wiki page is fully deserved for George to have a place and be notarised on WIKI

can anyone help and expand on this talk, i started in sandbox but im so lame i do minor edits and changes as the world goes by but never really write from scratch

there really is so much to put in too! Talk:George Dowell#George Dowell MBE 2. Barshuts (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Barshuts Unfortunately, what you're trying to do is promote this person. People promote things for all sorts of reasons, and that doesn't make them bad people (or advertisers), but any form of promotion is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Editors use a guideline called notability to determine whether a subject merits inclusion in the encyclopedia – basically, if the subject has significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources which are independent from the subject, then it is "notable". There are exceptions to this guideline (which is called WP:GNG), specific to different subjects. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people), and see if the subject meets any of the criteria there. Don't hesitate to ask for more help or guidance – no-one here denies that our guidelines can often be confusing or intimidating. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This person is actually likely notable, as they were awarded an MBE on the New Year's honours list, which would seem to meet the first criterion at WP:ANYBIO. There seems to be significant coverage of him. I'm happy to help you create a draft through the Article for Creation process if you want. Cremastra (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

An MBE alone doesn't usually confer notability - that takes a higher-grade OBE or above; see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Dickson MBE - but the TV documentary does and both together certainly do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cremastra: How is this promotional? OP makes the case that the subject has already received wider recognition. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

“gain traction” sounds like wanting to promote a person -- NotCharizard ^🗨 11:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's have a little AGF and recognize that others might not use our standard terminology. GMG^talk 13:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The OP wants to get traction and The story is inspirational which comes across as promotional, as NotCharizard said. Cremastra (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

So we Wikipedia editors may only write about things that do not inspire us. Got it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

deleting text versus adding "citation needed"

A Task Center task took me to the BLP of a notable statistician. I took care of the task but noticed that almost all of the citations are to third-party SPSs (e.g., university webpages, professional organization webpages), contrary to WP:BLPSPS, while other parts of the article's text have no citations. I was able to find a couple of non-SPS sources and will try to reference some of the article's contents to one of those. My question: for article text that I'm unable to find a RS for, is there some policy guiding whether I should delete the text versus adding a "citation needed" tag? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPRS, contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. The operative word here would be "contentious". Remsense ‥ 论 00:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd also add "likely to be private". We don't want, for example, people's date of birth to be in an article unless it's widely known. How can we tell it's widely known? Because (I'm simplifying here) there's a published source that contains that information. A birth date or the name of someone's kids isn't all that likely to be contentious, but that doesn't mean we should keep it around. -- asilvering (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense, @Asilvering, the contents doesn't strike me as contentious or private. It's almost all about his professional work. For example, it says "The Mardia Prize (founded by Kantilal Mardia) is awarded by the Royal Statistical Society. This award is given annually/biennially to support interdisciplinary workshops. The aim of these workshops is to bring together statisticians and other science communities who can help in developing new interdisciplinary area and maintain a sustained focus." That needs some copy editing, but the Royal Statistical Society's website confirms it; however, my understanding is that that's considered a SPS. One of the other sources I found confirms that there's a Royal Statistical Society prize called the Mardia prize, but it doesn't include the info about the prize having been founded by Mardia (rather than just named in his honor) or what the aim of the prize is. So that's the kind of thing I'm wondering about. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Some users would still advocate straight-up removal per WP:BURDEN. Cremastra (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That seems fine as far as contentiousness or privacy would go, which would narrow the question as to whether you feel the material can be verified in a reliable source. If you think it can be, tag it. If not, consider removing it. Remsense ‥ 论 01:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you can just use the self-published source for that, it's fine. They're the ones who would know what their own prize is for. -- asilvering (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

But BLPSPS says "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article," and the Royal Statistical Society page wasn't written or published by Mardia, so I didn't think I could use it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I assure you this kind of reliable source for a simple fact like "won x award" is totally fine. The other information, ie "this award is for... the aim is..." is about the prize, not the person - so BLPSPS doesn't matter for that information. -- asilvering (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering, thank you for clarifying that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This is far from the fist time I've seen people under that misapprehension. It leads, in some instances, to good content been removed; and new editors being bitten. We need to clarify WP:BLPRS accordingly; done here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Articles undeleted without notice

I noticed that the articles merged for Articles for deletion/Pilot (Helluva Boss) were reverted by the user Canadienne Comedienne to their pre-deletion state without any notice. All the articles were reverted with the following edit summary: "That discussion was in July 2023 for a less-detailed version of this page; it is May 2024 now, and article has been updated since then, no longer meeting deletion specs." How should this be handled? Treetop-64bit (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Treetop-64bit: CC is blocked as a sock. You may revert their edits if you think that is the best course of action. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Easy edits

I still count myself as a relatively inexperienced editor with something approaching a thousand edits, but a short while ago I allowed myself to be side-tracked by an 'easy edit' topic that passed under my nose. In the event the article needs a total overhaul (IMO), but I saw two easy improvements and made them. Now I am feeling guilty because they were so easy, perhaps I should have left them in place for another, even more inexperienced editor, to rattle off?

Yes, I am aware that 'Suggested Edits' has three levels and I could apply some filters, but I am also wondering why there isn't an automated process for promoting editors to higher levels of difficulty. On the other hand I have delved into some alleged 'easy edits' that left me totally baffled, either by their complexity, or the fact I could see nothing wrong that needed editing.

I guess I am still learning.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, can I get a bit more clarification to answer your question? Susbush (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I was asking the editing community if my experience was normal, and whether experienced editors would apply easy edits if they came across them, or leave them as a learning tool for less experienced editors? The other reply (from @Andy Mabbett) suggests it is not an issue. WendlingCrusader (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

We are not short of needed edits, at any level of complexity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

WendlingCrusader, I have been editing Wikipedia for over 15 years, and if I see a situation where an "easy edit" would clearly improve the encyclopedia, I make the edit. The notion of leaving it to a less experienced editor never crosses my mind. Cullen328 (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Me too. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I need help for making the phonetic usage visible

i need to make the phonetic usage of the letter Draft:Shha with Cil top visible on the navbox Infobox Cyrillic letter 2.49.60.209 (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Given that Draft:Shha with Cil top has been rejected (not just declined) it is not clear why you are spending time on it, and in particular, why you are spending time on anything other than finding suitable sources to establish that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Adequate sources are the only thing that might cause @NoobThreePointOh to reconsider the rejection. ColinFine (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?

Two IP editors - probably the same person - have been making misleading and uncited edits to a number of pages recently. Sometimes this person reverts their own edit, other times another editor gets there first. They have been warned about this behaviour.

Should this be reported as vandalism?

Special:Contributions/82.4.208.76

Special:Contributions/148.252.144.117

Bob (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a constant background noise of anonymous editors engaging in sporadic, often invisible, and seemingly inscrutable edits—I kind of like it, it's a nice reminder that millions of people use this resource every day—and that I will never, ever understand what technical, personal, or editorial circumstances inform much of their behavior as recorded in page histories. Since vandalism is hurting the encyclopedia in bad faith, there is often not a meaningful answer to that question. I call this "gray-faith editing", when given my very narrow perspective, I can't really WP:AGF for an editor because I do not understand the pattern of edits enough to assume anything. It's like a few edits dashed off by a Boltzmann brain. Remsense ‥ 论 14:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I have a photo of my Father “Canadian “ whom served in WW2” Also my Mother also served in WW2”

Canadians that came home to Canada 🇨🇦 in or after WW2 2605:8D80:462:1A58:7000:9BC7:62D1:F60 (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! Do you have a question about anything Wikipedia-related? SirMemeGod  17:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Can I request feedback

The article was reviewed multiple times, initially accepted but later unreviewed and nominated for deletion, despite improvements. The nominator claims notability issues, it is relisted with no external comment, See Nasib Piriyev. I came here because it happened before on articles I created, and discussions were closed as Soft Deletion. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@12eeWikiUser, you've done your part already, and there's nothing more to be done here. Other editors will weigh in about whether the subject is notable or not. There's no amount of improvement that can fix an article if the subject isn't notable. However, until you get the hang of how notability works on wikipedia, when you're writing future articles, I would suggest using fewer sources and keeping mostly to what can be said about the subject of the article. Experienced editors look at an article about an "entrepreneur" with this many references and immediately think "WP:REFBOMB". -- asilvering (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering, this is helpful, thanks for the feedback. Let me keep improving and will do better in future articles. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 12eeWikiUser. I have just commented on the deletion discussion, but I will expand that here, because I suspect it is the problem you have had all along. Not one of the sources you link to in that discussion contains significant coverage off Piriyev, and so none of them contributes in any way to establishing that he is notable in Wikipedia's sense.

You need to look critically at all sources, and check that they meet all three of the criteria in WP:42. Only if they do will they contribute at all to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @ColinFine, this cannot be an excuse but, one of the challenges I used to (I think it is not only me) as an editor focusing on biographies about Africa and Middle east, is the lack of enough sources that meet WP:42. I often verify notability using WP:BASIC. That's why I think there is nothing wrong with Nasib Piriyev because it verifies WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@12eeWikiUser, WP:BASIC and WP:42 say the same thing. -- asilvering (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering, sure, they say same thing. I see that under Wikipedia:Notability (people) which has (WP:BASIC), it explains specific criteria we can rely on for a topic which has some challenges in meeting WP:42. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there any category

Is there any categories tracking all the pages that are using {{GBurl}}?
also is there any categories that are tracking all pages that are using the whole google book url starting with books.google.com? ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You're in luck! You can see the list of pages that transclude any given template at Special:WhatLinksHere: in your case see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Google Books URL. Remsense ‥ 论 18:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me out with that. is there any way we can trace external links like books.google.com. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Would a search for [insource:"books.google.com"] work for you? Like this one? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

 Thanks mates for helping me out, shall learn a lot more in upcoming days from you. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I had to double-check, but we do indeed have Special:LinkSearch/books.google.com that does what you want! Remsense ‥ 论 18:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Semantic Brand Score Page Creation

Hi everybody. I am struggling to get this article accepted and I am stuck. I have answered several comments and made edits, but would love the help of an experienced editor to know how to move forward: Draft:Semantic Brand Score. The last comment is about the unavailabilty of reliable secondary sources, but there are so many, even listed in the talk page of the article, so I don't know what to do next. WarmKomorebi (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Without looking at your sources, I find it surprising that of your fourteen citations in the draft, and thirteen on the Talk page, only one contains the phrase "Semantic brand score" in its title. This causes me to wonder how many of them have significant coverage of the concept, as opposed to mentioning it in passing. ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

All these works use the metric, not just mention it. Then there are many other papers citing the metric but not really using it, which are not listed as secondary sources. 109.54.163.39 (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

How is this score discussed in relevant textbooks? (Meanwhile, I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semantic Brand Score continues to be worth reading.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Are textbooks mandatory, or is newspapers and papers enough as secondary sources? I read the page marked for deletion but that was when secondary sources were not available in large quantities. 109.54.163.39 (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

No, textbooks aren't mandatory. But mere mentions don't suffice. What sources describe or evaluate the methodology that's the subject of this draft? -- Hoary (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

For example, all these works (also mentioned in the article Talk Page) provide a detailed description of the Semantic Brand Score and use it in their analyses (and hypotheses):

- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014829631930582X?via%3Dihub

- https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.12435

- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13278-022-00917-5

- https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10478487

- https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-66981-2_8

- https://www.politesi.polimi.it/handle/10589/150944?mode=complete

- https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/polish-twitter-immigrants-during-2021-belaruseuropean-kasia-parys

This other work just describes it:

- https://www.athensjournals.gr/tourism/2021-8-2-4-Bianchino.pdf

I have only mentioned secondary sources. WarmKomorebi (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

WarmKomorebi, I looked at the first of these. A description within it starts "To measure the importance of particular memes, the so-called semantic brand score (SBS) developed by Fronzetti Colladon (2018) is adopted." Most of what follows about SBS is attributed to (or taken directly from) the paper it refers to as "Fronzetti Colladon, 2018". The final sentence says "By combining frequencies and centrality measures, the SBS serves as a useful metric to measure importance of nodes in a network that may also help to fathom the diversity of organizational memes in terms of their importance." This looks like the authors' own judgement rather than merely a rehash of what Colladon says. I wouldn't call this passage a "detailed description", but it is a start. Two minor tips: First, the LinkedIn piece has a named author (Kasia Parys). Secondly, the draft says "The SBS is a composite indicator with three dimensions: prevalence, diversity and connectivity", which is comprehensible -- but is illustrated with File:SemanticBrandScore 01.jpg which neither adds nor explains anything, thereby managing to detract from the draft, and which I suggest you remove. -- Hoary (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks @Hoary! I have fixed the LinkedIn reference adding the name and removed the image you suggested. More detailed descriptions of the SBS in secondary sources can be found for example here:

- https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13278-022-00917-5.pdf (end of page 6 and beginning of page 7)

- https://www.politesi.polimi.it/handle/10589/150944?mode=complete (end of page 27 until page 29) WarmKomorebi (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Temperature chart

What is the difference in "Mean Maximum", "Mean Daily Maximum" and "Daily Mean"? 38.94.112.73 (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This page is for help with editing Wikipedia. I suggest you ask your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The context is the climate sections in Wikipedia articles about cities, I presume. Without getting into advanced math, you can get a better understanding by reading Mean and Average. In simplified terms, "mean" is the most common form of mathematical "average". So think of these fields as "average maximum temperature" and "average daily maximum temperature" and "Daily average temperature". I visited Alaska a few months ago, and these charts were very useful for understanding the typical weather in various Alaskan cities in June. Cullen328 (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

How to change the icon for the "Buddhism portal"

Hello, I am the creator of Portal:Buddhism.

I've noticed that when adding a link to the Buddhism portal on a webpage, there is automatically a white dharma wheel to the left of the link.

I'm considering possibly changing this image to a yellow-colored one, to make it more visible to light-mode viewers.

How can I change this file? Zoozoor (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Zoozoor. Unfortunately, I'm not able to reproduce the issue you're referring to. Would you be kind enough to provide a WP:DIFF to the type of edit you're referring to so we can try the same edit and see what you mean. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey, unfortunately I cannot provide a Diff because I don't even know how to modify this icon in the first place.

If you go to Buddhism#See also and look at the box on the right, which says "Buddhism portal," you'll notice the white icon immediately to the left. That's the icon I'm trying to edit.

However, I think I have solved the issue! I went to Template:Portal and I believe that's where I can change this icon. Zoozoor (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I spoke too soon -- the page Module:Portal/images/b can only be modified by template editors. Are you capable of editing this page? If anyone can, I'd appreciate replacing the Buddhism icon with "File: Dharma Wheel (2).svg". Zoozoor (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Module:Portal can't handle File: Dharma Wheel (2).svg in Special:Diff/1248725653, please change it to Dharma Wheel (2).svg. Sam Sailor 08:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Oops. And I knew that too. Anyway, it's been fixed by another editor. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

How do I make this legitimate edit without getting in trouble

There are a couple of good faith edits that I’m trying to make on Spanish Wikipedia that I made on English Wikipedia with no trouble. The edits are to remove reference to a claim that is verifiably false. This claim is spread across 2 Wikipedia pages. Every time I try to make these edits it is reversed by the same Wikipedia user. I have created full edit summaries, I have created relevant posts on the discussion pages, I have tried to engage this user both on my talk page and on their talk page and this user has not engaged me in any of these places. The user just continuously reverts my changes without engaging with any of my points. What makes this more difficult is that this user seems to be some sort of admin and threatened me with a ban if I continue. I have no idea what to do.

What’s more bizarre is that when I got another user’s help to make one of the changes I was trying to make, the edit was not reverted. (One of the same edits that was reverted when I made it was not reverted when another user made it).

I’m not a Wikipedia pro or anything but I really feel like I’m doing everything by the book. The user who keeps reverting my changes does not seem to be acting in good faith and is not engaging with me in any way. I still want to make the edits but I don’t want to get banned.

What do I do? Oscopo talk) 23:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Oscopo. The Teahouse is for questions about editing the English Wikipedia. The Spanish Wikipedia is a separate project with its own policies and guidelines. You will have to ask for help at their help desk or administrator's noticeboard. They may have an equivalent to the Teahouse. Coffeehouse, perhaps? Cullen328 (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Oscopo: Try asking on es:Wikipedia:Café. Oddly, that's what WP:HELPDESK shows as the corresponding Spanish page, it isn't shown here on the Teahouse. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I’ve asked my question there. Oscopo (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I think our teahouse is unusual and most wikis just have the help desk. -- asilvering (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Infobox error

So i just creating this article, HMS Diamond (1904), and there seems to be a big error with the infobox contents. Somehow the entire first paragraph has become a part of the infobox, causing the IB to not render properly. Why is this happening, and can someone help me fix it? Thanks. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved, please ignore the message above. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

In case some future reader is looking through the archives for solutions to similar problems: Special:Diff/1248697209. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Scam for my client Title new Page Added

Mohammad Hossain is a musical artists, I want to release a biographical data of his name on Wikipedia, now I am looking at Mohammad Hossain name charge, there is no page of his name in Wikipedia but a person named Imam Hossain is redirecting Mohammad Hossain's page now I How can I use it? MohammadHossain00 (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Anyone, including Mohammad Hossain himself, is welcome to create Draft:Mohammad Hossain, if this complies with Wikipedia policy and if Mohammad Hossain is notable. (The fact that "Mohammad Hossain" currently redirects to Imam Hossain won't matter.) But I'm puzzled. Are you saying that you are Mohammad Hossain? Why a "scam"? (Are you planning a scam?) -- Hoary (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

no I am Mohammad Hossain no I am studying music class together with Mohammad Hossain I am studying together with sir in musical industry today he is a famous musician so I want to release biography in his name.Because I know a lot about him, and no, sorry, I'm not a scammer , I'm a business man. MohammadHossain00 (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

MohammadHossain00, if you are not named Mohammed Hossain but are planning to write a draft about somebody named Mohammad Hossain, then your username "MohammadHossain00" is misleading. Please stop using it, think of a different username (one that doesn't suggest that you are Mohammad Hossain), and use that. -- Hoary (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok noted MohammadHossain00 (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

But please also note, @MohammadHossain00, that if he is your client, then you are a paid editor, and you must make the formal declaration specified in that link. If you are not being paid (then I wonder why you describe him as your "client"), you still have a conflict of interest, and need to understand what difference that makes to editing about him. ColinFine (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

One more point. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.. ColinFine (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Help me / guide me on a declined page to sort it

I have less experience and would like help with the page Draft:Lu Heng so i can to re-submit it having sorted the issues raised by the moderator to ensure it is not declined again. CrystalStacy (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

CrystalStacy, your draft says that he runs a non-profit organization that strives to help the entire Internet community achieve an empowered digital future.

1. That claim is highly promotional
2. That claim is entirely unreferenced
3. That is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
4. I have operated small business websites for 25 years and have also been a Wikipedia editor for 15 years and am therefore part of the "entire Internet community". Why have I never heard of this person if his contributions have been so sweeping? Cullen328 (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

CrystalStacy, excellent questions above from Cullen328. Rephrased/different questions:

• Wording: If "the entire Internet community" doesn't mean "everyone using the internet", what does it mean? What does "achieve an empowered digital future" mean? What does "[be] focused to promote internet governance education" mean?
• Notability: What would you say are the three best sources for information on him? (Please here, in this thread, link to the three.)
• Conflict of interest: The photograph of Lu Heng was clearly taken with his cooperation. You've said it's your "own work". We can infer that you worked with Lu Heng on this article. Please respond promptly to the request Timtrent made of you almost three months ago.

-- Hoary (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary I think they have made a response to my question about paid editing. I am not sure that they have replied to the broader WP:COI issue. @CrystalStacy Please add to your response to the paid editing question ny explaining what, if any, personal relationship, broadly construed, with the subject of the photograph.

To help you, I will ask this question formally on your user talk page. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The words "strives to help the entire Internet community achieve an empowered digital future", which appear twice in the article, give the impression that Heng is just a bullshitter. Does he or his organisation actually do anytrhing? Maproom (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 @Hoary @Maproom Thank you for your valuable feedback on the draft. I understand the importance of ensuring that the article meets Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality, verifiability, and notability, and I will address each point raised.

1. "Strives to help the entire Internet community achieve an empowered digital future" – Promotional Claim and Lack of Sources:

You are correct that the phrase "entire Internet community" and "empowered digital future" are broad and potentially promotional without clarification. Upon reflection, these statements could be seen as subjective and lacking specific detail. I will revise this wording to focus more on measurable initiatives or collaborations the LARUS Foundation has been involved in, such as its internship program with the University of Hong Kong, without overstating its reach.

To avoid unsupported claims, I will provide clear references to these partnerships, ensuring they are factual and verifiable. I am also working to find independent sources to corroborate the impact of the Foundation’s work.

2. Notability – Why haven't I heard of him if his contributions are so sweeping?

I appreciate the point raised regarding the claim’s scope versus its recognition in the wider community. The current draft could give the impression of sweeping contributions, which was not my intention. Moving forward, I will focus on presenting Lu Heng’s work and impact within more specific contexts, such as the legal disputes involving AFRINIC, where his actions have been covered in news sources and industry reports, rather than making broad statements.

I will also ensure that reliable, independent sources are linked to highlight the areas in which his work is notable, such as his involvement in the Pacific Telecommunications Council and his legal challenges regarding IP address management.

3. Conflict of Interest and Photo Attribution:

The photo of Lu Heng used in the draft was sourced from his official website, heng.lu, which explicitly allows the use of his images with proper attribution. I have credited the photo to larus.net, as per the terms specified on the website. I have not worked directly with Lu Heng in the creation of this article, and my aim is to present a neutral, well-sourced biography based solely on verifiable, publicly available information.

4. Clarifying Phrases:

• "The entire Internet community" will be replaced with more specific references to the stakeholders involved in the LARUS Foundation’s work, such as students, academic institutions, and policy organizations.
• "Achieve an empowered digital future" is indeed vague and will be replaced with clear examples of the Foundation’s initiatives, such as educational programs and partnerships.
• "Focused on promoting internet governance education" will be clarified by citing specific events or conferences where Heng has participated or contributed to discussions on internet governance.

5. Best Sources for Notability:

The three best sources I will provide to support Lu Heng's notability are:

1. Pacific Telecommunications Council (PTC) – Election Results: 2020 PTC Board of Governors and Advisory Council
2. AFRINIC-related coverage – "https://www.itweb.co.za/article/battle-for-millions-of-african-ip-addresses-turns-nasty/DZQ58vV8P43MzXy2", ITWeb (2022)
3. University of Hong Kong partnerships – Internships with LARUS Foundation - https://english.hku.hk/Undergraduate/Internships

I will continue refining the draft to meet Wikipedia’s standards and look forward to any additional guidance you may have. CrystalStacy (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I will atttribute the phot as am suppose to, error on my part CrystalStacy (talk) 08:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Just looking at source #3. That webpage does not mention Lu Heng at all and merely namechecks the LARUS Foundation. To show notability you need to find reliable sources that are simultaneously independent, and with significant coverage about him. If that's the best you can do, there is no hope of creating an acceptable draft, which I suspect you are trying to write backwards. Please read all the items I have linked before returning to update the draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, CrystalStacy. A couple of further points:

• Note that almost everything in an article should be verifiable from sources wholly independent of the subject. Materials from the foundation or university are not indepednent, and can be used in very limited ways in an article (see WP:NIS). Your 1 and 3 above clearly fail this test - I haven't looked at 2.
• I do't see anything on https://www.flagshippioneering.com that releases the images under any kind of licence. I may have missed something; but unless it explictly releases it under a licence such as CC-BY-SA, it is not acceptable in Wikimedia Commons. See image use policy, and donating copyright materials
• Did you use AI to generate this reply?

ColinFine (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

CrystalStacy, The three best sources [you] will provide to support Lu Heng's notability fail to support a claim to notability (as understood by and for en:Wikipedia). With no evidence of (en:Wikipedia-style) notability, no article can be created. -- Hoary (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary @ColinFine @Michael D. Turnbull From the responses i gather:-

1. The sources provided come to question and will need to provide reliable ones - if it is not too much to ask can you let me know by example the ones provided why each disqualifies ( bear with me i am new at this and in learning process)
2. Lu's image should be under an aceptable licence by Wikimedia Comms and properly accredited.
3. Provide reasonable claim to notability for the page on Lu.

Awaiting your guidance as i keep reading the items you have linked for my reference as i keep researching on other possible notable sources. Thank you. CrystalStacy (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

CrystalStacy, you first need to show that Lu is notable. Please read and digest Wikipedia:Notability (people) and pages to which that page links that seem relevant to Lu. If something written there is not understandable, feel free to ask here. A photograph of Lu will neither help demonstrate that he's notable nor otherwise help the chances of the draft to become an article. -- Hoary (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary Okay, thank you. Let me read and fully understand Wikipedia:Notability (people) before i continue . Will reach out incase of any questions. CrystalStacy (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@CrystalStacy You ask why each source disqualifies (to show notability) and in the cases of these three that's easy to state. #1 has his name and picture and no text about him. #2 says Cloud Innovation’s founder is Chinese entrepreneur Heng Lu. No more. #3 Not even his name. So all three lack significant coverage, irrespective whether or not they are reliable (which they may well be). Independence is debatable but irrelevant if the coverage is lacking. All we have is proof this man exists but like many business people and organisations it's all run-of-the-mill. en:Wikipedia needs much more to avoid being swamped by trivia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull duly noted. CrystalStacy (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you remove part of the talk page on other user?

I was thinking about removing some part of Japaneses' talk page because he rudely said the f word at the two users, I was thinking about removing only this part, but I was thinking would that violate Wikipedia's rule? 50.91.26.176 (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed rude (in a very routine kind of way). But we don't remove material just because it's rude. And of course it says much less about its addressees than it says about the writer. Please leave it. -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

What is the consquences if somebody just removed it even when they are told not to, even if they are trying to remove some words on the talk page of other user's? Do they get a warning or a block?

Like in the talk page. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The consequences that might follow from an editor doing something even when they are told not to depends on the nature of what they have done, and the credibility and authority of whoever gave the warning. If an adminstrator warns you to not violate a core content policy or other highly important policy, and then you defiantly go ahead and violate that policy, then expect to be blocked. The same applies to a warning from any experienced, well-informed editor. If an obviously inexperienced editor acting in bad faith warns you incorrectly, then you can disregard that warning. You need to have a well enough developed understanding of policy to correctly conclude that a warning is not valid. Cullen328 (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I encourage you not to remove things from another editor's talk page unless you are absolutely certain that no one would object. Routine f-bombs do not qualify, especially when the rude language is from the user on their own page. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

And in this specific case, the f-bombs are evidence as to why this editor has been blocked. Leave the comments alone, please. Cullen328 (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, that was because he was a sockpuppet of Equador83838/Cool828, when blocked and announced in his talk page, he [Japanese] shouted f-word at the two. User talk:Japaneses - Wikipedia.

Don't worry, I would not violate your rules. I promised not to edit. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Hi. I discovered a page that was flagged 3 years ago on Talk as WP:HOAX. The page is Tibet Area (administrative division)

I completely agree with the editor's assessment 3 years ago. Briefly, the text creates an historical hoax dated to 1912, then builds on the hoax to justify subsequent events. Clever.

For those at Teahouse who are learning about the subject... The Qing surrendered to Tibet and were expelled from 1912-1913, overlapping the nascent ROC years. The ROC wasn't creating administrative subdivisions in Tibet in 1912, but asking the 13th Dalai Lama in 1913-1914 for his recognition of ROC (Others; Shakya, "13th Dalai Lama, Tubten Gyatso" at Treasury of Lives). Numerous scholars - including Carole McGranahan, Tsering Shakya, Y. Tsomu, the Chinese author below - never mention the so-called ROC "Tibet Area". It didn't happen.

The hoax is further revealed by Chiang Kai-shek's own personal papers that were released (reliably reviewed, published in a book, carried at JSTOR, printed in Tiawan - I'll find the title), where he discusses his leadership's necessarily hollow political positions on Tibet, until 1945 after which the civil war with the communists kept him busy until his fall in 1949.

The page which needs to be deleted has as its first 4 sources an atlas, a population survey, and 2 unknown authors. Their opinions appear quite bogus.

I just spent (too much) time on the page editing the most egregious aspects so as to protect unsuspecting readers - before the page is actually deleted. I'm adding as much information as possible here in order to save us time.

What is next? Hopefully a speedy delete? Just trying to be helpful and to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. Metokpema (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Metokpema, the Teahouse is for asking and answering questions about editing Wikipedia and that certainly includes discussion of deletion processes. But you cannot reasonably expect that Teahouse hosts will have topic area expertise in Chinese administrative divisions of 112 years ago, or any familiarity with the scholars you mention. All that level of detail belongs at Talk:Tibet Area (administrative division). But despite what you said, there was no consensus three years ago that this is a hoax. Maybe it is a hoax and maybe it isn't. The place to narrow that down is through discussion at the article talk page. There are three distinct deletion processes, which are speedy deletion, proposed deletion and Articles for Deletion. Familiarize yourself with those options, and be prepared to make an effective case for deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If I were you or a subject-matter expert, I might as well take it to AFD to gather further consensus on the next course of action for this topic. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Metokpema: Since there has been no resolution on the article talk page, a better place to discuss this would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tibet. Rather than duplicating the existing discussion, you could post a pointer there, to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Can somebody please help me - I don't feel safe here

I don't really feel safe being here on Wikipedia at the moment. I've requested rollback permissions at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback which I take back and should've never done. I got a response I didn't like (not because it was denied, because it just felt it was too civil for me). I have ASD and can get upset, sensitive about things and get stressed out easily. No one here is really respecting me on all the hard work I do here to improve the railway station articles in Melbourne, add more images to railways in Melbourne and to fight vandalism. I feel like I've being treated as a bad faith editor. Can somebody reassure me this is a safe place for everyone? I want to continue editing here. Am I really a bad faith editor? PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 11:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I am sure you are doing a great job here, but it can be difficult. I suggest that you just stop editing Wikipedia for a few hours, as I am about to do as I am going to bed here in Australia. Yes, it is safe place. If you get messages you do not like, just delete them and ignore them. Bduke (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey PEPSI697, thanks for your contributions! (I'm also in Melbourne, but not as dedicated to transport topics as you are.) I'll admit to being puzzled at the edit you made at RFP/R and your comment here, because I don't think I've ever seen anyone accused of being too civil here. In any case, while you are welcome to archive or delete messages on your own talk page, deleting feedback from an administrator on a formal request for permissions could be seen as an indication that you might not always comply with the policies, guidelines, or (sometimes unwritten) conventions that have developed here over many years. In other words, I can see why an admin would hesitate to give rollback permissions to someone who had deleted that same admin's comments without a good reason. This doesn't necessarily mean that you are seen as a bad-faith editor – just that you did something that wasn't a great look, but you can learn from this experience. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 13:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

My guess is that they mean "uncivil". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting it out, I mean't uncivil. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 23:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want me to remove your rollback right, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll do it. You got the right because an administrator felt you could be trusted with it. You can keep it and not use it, or you can ask that it be removed. Let me know. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

They were never granted rollback. I think the thing they "take back" is the request for the permission. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I am not sure what you mean by “too civil”, but I also have ASD and can become overwhelmed or easily upset by criticism on Wikipedia, especially by those who believe editing experience gives them the right to be rude. The best thing to do in this situation for me is to take a break from Wikipedia and come back when I am no longer upset, be it a week or a few months. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 22:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean't uncivil. See WP:CIV PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 23:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The reason I went to the teahouse was because I felt like I was accused of being a bad faith editor by an admin. Now, I never intend to make any personal attacks. So am I going to get blocked? PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 23:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

PEPSI697: You can read the blocking policy to see the actual rules. I don't see anything block-worthy on your part (but note that I am not an administrator) but I think that continuing to pursue this inquiry here and on Fastily's talk page is starting to look a bit like both paranoia and harassment. Making stringent rules (both on Fastily's and on your own talk page) about how other editors are supposed to interact with you is also going to rub people the wrong way. I do sympathise with you – it's challenging when one person who is sensitive to criticism comes up against another who can be a bit blunt. When I see conflicts like this I find it useful to return to Tamzin's guidance for taking care of your own mental health and also being more mindful of how your behaviour can impact other editors and the good of the encyclopaedia as a whole. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

PEPSI697, there was nothing uncivil about Fastily's response to your Rollback request. And he has never even remotely called you a bad-faith editor or implied that you were one. If you interpret others' replies to you so incorrectly, Wikipedia may not be the best place for you, because Wikipedia has many guidelines and policies which need to be observed, and citing those is not an attack on you or your good faith. You might consider finding a fan-wiki or some other type of venue to participate in, if you find standard feedback on Wikipedia so disconcerting as to "not feel safe here". Softlavender (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I've moved on from this situation (unless no other replies come). I'll leave the rollback request behind and may try again in a few months or in a year if I'm still allowed to. I'll concentrate on fighting vandalism and other bad faith edits and updating and improving railway station articles in Australia or other public transport related content. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 11:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

That's an excellent plan, PEPSI697. Softlavender (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@PEPSI697 Minor note, your talk page says "Any user is allowed to use this talk page or leave a topic or reply unless its polite" which is not really what you meant. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. What would you like me to change the notice on my talk page to or remove? PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 08:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

PEPSI697: I think the phrase that Doug Weller mentioned is another example where your meaning isn't as clear as it could be: Any user is allowed to use this talk page or leave a topic or reply unless its polite, if it violates the rules, it will not be tolerated and that user would no longer be able to be trusted to leave a message here. Did you mean unless it's not polite? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I've fixed the message in this diff here. Have I improved it thoroughly? It not may be exactly what the feedback provided was saying, but did my best to improve it. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 00:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

PEPSI697: thanks, it's not contradicting itself any more. Maybe you don't need "unless its uncivil" as that's already implied in the same sentence. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done fixed the content again by removing the requested removal of content PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 01:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Images removed from page?!

Hi I've been editing a page about the contemporary artist, Studio Lenca. However I just noticed that all the images (that I took) have been removed. Can you tell me why this is?

Thanks,

Oliver Frida1984 (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Frida1984, welcome to the Teahouse. The files were deleted at Wikimedia Commons as suspected copyright violations and you were notified at commons:User talk:Frida1984. Paintings are usually copyrighted and it's not allowed to publish a photo of a copyrighted work. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Frida1984 If you are in contact with the artist, you can ask them to permit your upload of what is called a "derivative work" (i.e. your photo of their creation). This can be done by email: see Commons:Volunteer Response Team for the full details. Admins at Commons can "undelete" your files, so Studio Lenca would just need to know the filenames you used and give appropriate permission. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Layered COI and tone problems

Unity Day (United States) happens this month, and the article seems to have copied from the organization's website multiple times over the years, and has major sourcing and tone problems. I can't handle it right now and am not an expert at "cutting through the noise", especially with a national event, so I humbly request someone else fix it. Thank you! QuietCicada chirp 13:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

That article's contribution history is replete with COI edits. I have semiprotected it due to past disruption.

I also removed the History section entirely due to being mostly promotional fluff written in first-person ("our") peppered with citations to YouTube. You can look at my revert and see if there's anything in there that's salvageable. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding article links to other articles

Hello.

I am new to the Wikipedia editing system and wondering how I add links to articles (Visual Mode).

I can complete some general grammatical errors in the articles but cant add links.

I hope you can give me an guide or answer on how to add links. Xboxfan38 (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Xboxfan38, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It depends on what kind of link you are trying to add. The whole thing is summarised on Help:Link.

(My answer is about the source editor, as I'm not familiar with the Visual editor: see Help:VisualEditor for more information about that.)

To add a wikilink (for example a link to another Wikipedia article) you put it in double square brackets, for example [[Mexico]] displays as Mexico. To get it to display text different from the name of the article, see piped links.

To add a citation to an external source, see referencing for beginners.

If you are talking about a link to an external website, this is something you should very rarely do in an article (see WP:EL), but you can just type the full URL (eg https://google.com gives https://google.com ) ColinFine (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Xboxfan38: Welcome to the Teahouse. In the visual editor there are a few ways to do this. You can

• click on the button in the toolbar to get the link dialogue box, or
• type [[ where you want the link to appear to get the same dialogue box, or
• if you're using Windows, use the shortcut Ctrl+K.

From there you can choose to either add a wikilink or an external link. Please make sure you're adding links that follow style guidelines, particularly those on external links. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tenryuu,

does the shortcut for windows also work on ChromeOS? (that's what I use.)

Thanks. Xboxfan38 (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tenryuu,

does the shortcut for windows also work on ChromeOS? (that's what I use.)

Thanks. Xboxfan38 (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Xboxfan38: I can't tell you for certain as I don't use ChromeOS, but hover over the and see what the tooltip says; buttons with shortcuts usually display the shortcut in the tooltip. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Diagram removed from page

Added a diagram of my creation to two pages (List of longest-living organisms and Longevity in the non-human section) that just got removed (reverted to the previous version). I was wondering what could be done in that regard, since the only comment was "illegible diagram with bonus inappropriate external link" and I don't really know both why it got removed exactly and how to, in case, provide a better contribution to the pages. I could maybe ask the editor but I still find hard to navigate the talk section as of now.

Thank you in advance! Yobonnie (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Yobonnie, the "bonus inappropriate external link" alludes to Wikipedia's policy on external links. In the majority of cases, external links, i.e. links to sites other than Wikipedia, do not belong in the body text or image captions of an article. As for whether that is a helpful diagram, you should discuss this issue on the talk pages of the relevant articles – editorial decisions on Wikipedia are made by consensus. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I see! Thank you very much Yobonnie (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Thinking of working on a new article. I've edited a decent amount but never written an article from scratch.

Is there a list of publications that are acceptable as sources? Preferred as sources? Not acceptable as sources?

I'm also curious about how to add pictures -- how to be sure that and make apparent that the photo is in the public domain or otherwise not in violation of copyright. Jreiss17 (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a list of commonly discussed sources, of varying degrees of acceptability. Please read more about reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jreiss17 Welcome! WP:RSP is a list of sources that have been repeatedly discussed on WP. It looks extensive but it's a drop in the ocean. Generally not accepted: social media, blogs and wikis. Preferred: books (not self-published ones) if you have them. WP:BACKWARD may be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

On pictures: rule of thumb is that any random picture you find online is under copyright and can't be used, but there is devil in the details. I assume you know about Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Jreiss17, there are countless reliable sources that have never been debated or contested on Wikipedia, because there is no need to contest them. These include books by academics published by respected university presses and peer reviewed articles published by respected academic journals. One step down might be articles in journals published by by respected long-standing historical societies. The most important skill of a long term productive Wikipedia editor is the ability to independently evaluate the reliability of a source. Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all.Jreiss17 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

the role of the paparazzi

death of princess diana

BOAZ ARAKA (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@BOAZ ARAKA Welcome to the Teahouse, which is a place to ask questions about using and editing Wikipedia. If you have a question, we will attempt to answer it. Meanwhile you may wish to read the article Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Also worth reading, BOAZ ARAKA, is Paparazzi. Cullen328 (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

make a page

i want to make new page about Jewish Educational Media (JEM) but i have no idea how to make a wikipidia page and i dont know where to get citations YisroelB501 (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to find reliable, disinterested, substantive sources, YisroelB501. That will be your job: you can't just ask others to do it. (Of course, if you encounter problems, others may well help you.) Then you'll have to summarize what they say, and specify which part comes from where. The needed sources don't necessarily exist: for many imaginable subjects, adequate sources don't exist, and no article can be created. Before you continue work on your creation Draft:Jewish Educational Media, it's a good idea to get experience improving existing articles. (Most articles can be improved.) Your experience with existing articles will make your work on a new draft very much easier. ¶ Incidentally, it seems to me that whoever wrote the prose that's in Draft:Jewish Educational Media wouldn't have also written "i want to make new page" (above). Is what's in the draft actually written by you? -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hoary (or any admin passing by), at the risk of asking silly questions: is there anything salvageable in the version of Jewish Educational Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) deleted way back in 2007? And out of curiosity, what was the reason for its deletion? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Very reasonable questions, Rotideypoc41352. (1) Nope. (It was only 485 bytes long.) (2) To my surprise, I see no reason. (All I know is that no WP:AfD/JEM exists.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

i keep getting rejected beacause of unreliable sources

can somebody look at my article and give me some feedback Benjamin Fallah (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Not rejected but declined. Benjamin Fallah, as your very title above suggests ("[because] of unreliable sources"), you've already got feedback. You can see it on User talk:Benjamin Fallah. How is it inadequate? Or which part of it (or which page to which it links) don't you understand? -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Benjamin Fallah, vast swathes of your draft are entirely unreferenced, violating the core content policy Verifiability. Cullen328 (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

List of United States Presidents by genealogical relationship

Where can I find a list of United States Presidents by genealogical relationship? It has been on Wikipedia (by this or some similar name) before and it is very interesting and something an encyclopedia should have. GotoGothenburg (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

GotoGothenburg, Wikipedia has Ancestral background of presidents of the United States. Another unrelated wiki called Familypedia has Genealogical relationships of Presidents of the United States. Cullen328 (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is an article just like your second link here at Wikipedia, or at least there was one some years ago, but I cannot find it now. What name does this article have here at Wikipedia? GotoGothenburg (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Is the Lancer TTRPG notable enough to warrant an Article?

I am a new user and am interested in eventually creating the article for the Lancer Tabletop Roleplaying system, which I think I have sufficiently checked does not exist yet, not even as a redirect article. I plan to complete smaller tasks and edits before undertaking this. In the meantime, I would like to ask if this subject warrants an article at all.

Dungeons and Dragons has a page, as the most popular and well-known TTRPG. Pathfinder by Paizo has a page, as another quite popular alternative to and (originally) derivative of D&D. Starfinder has a page, as a spin-off of the Pathfinder system altered and adapted to a Sci-Fi setting. Call of Cthulu and several Warhammer: 40, 000 systems are marginally less popular still. I think the variety above merits some consideration for Lancer, as a published system itself. Pancakes0708 (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Pancakes0708, welcome to Wikipedia! The criteria for a topic having its own Wikipedia article are described at Wikipedia:Notability. In short, you want to see if you can find sources that are reliable, independent of the game's authors, and that provide significant coverage of the game, meaning they discuss it at some depth. These sources are the ones you will base the article on; if there are not enough sources that meet these criteria, writing an article is not worthwhile. Happy editing! -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I did check the Notability guide, I see I misunderstood the order of operations, as it were.

I'll have a hunt around for some good secondary sources and see if there's enough to warrant an article.

Either way, looking forward to doing my little contributions, it's nice to be a little helper where it's needed <3 Pancakes0708 (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

article for my company

I wantto create an article for my company Ahmed alsherirf (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

That is inadvisable due to your conflict of interest. Please also see our definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ahmed alsherirf, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that in most cases the answer is, you don't. Wikipedia is not for telling the world about your company.

If your company is one of the few companies in the world which meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then it is possible that we could have an article about it. If it is not (like the vast majority of companies) then no article is possible, whoever writes it.

Because of your conflict of interest, you are discouraged from writing it yourself; but not forbidden. As it is your company, you would be regarded as being a paid editor, so you must make a formal declaration of that on your user page.

Writing a new article is very hard for new editors, even if they do not have a conflict of interest. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

In any case, unless somebody can find the multiple independent reliable sources which are required to show notability, it will be a waste of anybody's time to try.

Note also that an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Editor Bias

Original poster was Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I have been using and donating to wikipedia for a number of years now, but have not considered editing, until recently. I am curious how editor bias is monitored, especially since I have been unable to find any way to report misconduct. There appears to be a hierarchy here, and I am wondering if some of the more experienced editors, are granted, or are able to take more control, and become less accountable in the process? Begenuine8 (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Everyone here is accountable for their contributions and your comment at Talk:Veganism verges on a personal attack. Theroadislong (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Hi, Begenuine8, welcome to the Teahouse. There actually are ways to report editor misconduct; which place you go to depends on what's going on. If you have a dispute about specifically the content of the article, you can take it to the talk page and discuss it with others there; there are also the steps at WP:DR to consider. If the issue is specifically with user misconduct, you can open a thread at the administrator's noticeboard/incidents page; please read the instructions at the top of the page fully, and understand in particular that your behavior will be examined as well as the person you're reporting. There is no formal hierarchy of editors, other than an extremely flat one that only determines who can edit through which kinds of protection; there are non-confirmed editors, confirmed editors (who have been around 4 days and made 10 edits), and extended-confirmed editors (who have been around 30 days and made 500 edits). Then there are various functionaries like admins, who are trusted with the ability to block users and protect pages. But none of those hierarchies grant any extra authority in writing content on articles; in article-writing, all editors are equal, and it's the sources that reign supreme. (And yes, I agree with Theroadislong about your editing to the Veganism talk page.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC) It should be noted that Begenuine8 has made some personal comments against me here [1] and definitely another here which I removed [2] calling me a necrovore. The personal attacks are odd. I created WP:VV and have improved 1000s of articles in this topic area. Their behaviour so far is too aggressive. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Thank you for proving the point of my query, no one else could have confirmed my suspicions better. You control the subject, one that you have a bias against. Stop boasting about your WP:VV by the way, that is the issue, that is a product of your bias, and deception. Vegetarianism and veganism are close to being polar opposites (as odd as that may sound to those unfamiliar with the latter), you deliberately merge them here to avoid your own guilt. Enjoy your continued games. Begenuine8 (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC) "improved" is highly doubtful btw Begenuine8 (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Begenuine8: Enough. Consider this an official warning to stop personally attacking other editors. You've been given the venues to raise questions of misconduct; if it's as manifest as you say, use them. But you will stop making comments of this nature. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Do as you will, you proved my point, now ban me, and delete the evidence. Begenuine8 (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Begenuine8 now calling me a "charlatan" and "liar" for no valid reason [3]. An admin should block this user per WP:PA. This is most likely a case of WP:NOTHERE. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC) You are a charlatan and a liar. You deliberately control and misrepresent a subject to suit yourself, and this boys club supports that. It is no surprise that wikipedia is famous for this. You lot are destroying the credibility of this site, and seem unaware, or apathetic to its original intent, and importance. Have no fear, little liar, I will be blocked very soon, and you can go back to your shenanigans, boasting all the way... Begenuine8 (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC) You obviously have a hatred of vegetarianism that is making you blind to historical fact. Donald Watson was on friendly terms with vegetarians even after he became a vegan (he lectured with the Vegetarian Society) and Elsie Shrigley remained associated with the Surrey Vegetarian Society. Just because someone is vegan does not mean they have to hate vegetarians. I have been to many events and there is no hatred between the two. At WP:VV we have a mixture of vegetarian, vegans and non-veg who want to improve articles. You are spreading hatred for no reason. This aggressive behaviour has no place at Wikipedia. You are not here to cooperate with other editors or improve articles. An admin should close this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC) The editors backing you up, are not gullible enough to fall for your games, they will pretend to, but they will not, even though they will still back you up. The issue is you deliberately merging vegetarianism and veganism together every chance you have. They are two very different things. Wikipedia is now just another corrupt media channel, because of people like you, and poor management. Begenuine8 (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC) It's doubtful you know anything about this topic. Veganism grew out of vegetarianism. Nobody is claiming they are the same on Wikipedia, not one source would claim that. I have spent over 20 years of my life researching this field and I am in contact with all of the leading scholars in the field of vegan studies. None of them would promote this anti-vegetarian hatred you have. You have not cited any reliable sources. This isn't a place to promote hatred or your personal beliefs. You are causing disruption and wasting other users valuable editing time. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC) User has since been blocked for personal attacks and WP:NOTHERE CommissarDoggoTalk? 13:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this article subjective and unreliable?

Hello, I'm a new editor so I'm not sure on this, but I think this article may have lots of subjective words/sentences. "creative spirit and adeptness" "drive and aptitude as an engineer and inventor": Margaret A. Wilcox (more info on talk page) Ultramegavolt (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

haha I think I see it too...it reads like a praise biography. i am a new user too so I am still learning the art of writing neutrally, it's only now that I'm seeing how important it is. Waiterminute (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering how this article hasn't been deleted, or at least edited to remove the subjective parts Ultramegavolt (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I trimmed it down a bit. LizardJr8 (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Waiterminute: See: WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

can i post article here for review?

Hello i am new here on wikiepedia i want help can i send article over here before publising for get a review?

Wikigrabber (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Wikigrabber This is not the place. Please read the instructions at Draft:Khalil seddini. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Wikigrabber, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Your draft does nothing to establish that Seddini meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and without that it cannot be accepted as a Wikipedia article.

Writing an article begins with finding several places where people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to write about the subject and been published in reliable places. Two of your sources do not contain significant coverage of Seddini, and the third is mostly an interview. An article about Seddini must be based on what others, unconnected with him, have published about him, not on what he or his associates say or want to say.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to fast-track a review of a draft article?

Hello, I have a question about how long it takes for a draft article to be reviewed. I understand that it takes a few months for articles to be reviewed, but is there a way to request a quicker review of a draft article? The subject of my draft article is 91 years old and his physical health and mental health are deteriorating. He would like to see the article published on Wikipedia before his death because he values Wikipedia as a reliable and valuable source of information. Sorry if this is the wrong page for asking this question - I am new to Wikipedia. Thanks for your help. Hoptimist5 (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hoptimist5: no, but AfC is optional. You can move the article to mainspace yourself. However, it might get deleted.

Looking at Draft:Robert Eddison (aphorist), I suggest

• Using a consistent referencing scheme.
• Relying more on secondary sources.
• Making sure all content is sourced (currently, the "Early life and education" section has no sources).

I'm personally not sure if he's notable. Are there any more independent, reliable sources about him in particular? I suggest adding them to the article and relying on them for more of the article's content if so. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Hoptimist5, and welcome to the Teahouse. To be frank, writing an article for somebody is a risky business, as there is no guarantee that an article is possible, or that it will be flattering (see WP:PROUD)

In this case, I'm afraid that your draft does not appear to me to do anything at all to establish that Eddison meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which mostly depend not on what the subject has done, said, or created, but on what has been independently published about them. As far as I can see, all your sources are either his work, or not independent of him.

Writing an article starts with finding reliable independent sources with significant coverage (see WP:42 for more detail) and if they cannot be found, writing the article should stop at that point, since it is never going to get anywhere. ColinFine (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The others have already given you the important advice about WP:42. I just wanted to jump in to let you know that the earlier decline, for layout and citation style issues, should not have happened; these are not reasonable criteria for a decline. Hopefully it's more encouraging than discouraging to hear that sometimes AfC reviewers get it wrong - if your draft is declined again and you don't understand why, feel free to come back to the Teahouse for another second look. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Does Ignore all rules bypass No original research?

Ignore all rules states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." but does that bypass the no original research policy? (assuming the research is actually of good quality and would pass peer review) TheAbigail (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend that you read Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. In short, no, ignore all rules does not bypass no original research. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying and pointing me to info (for the record i am not actually going to put original research on wikipedia, i just wanted to know how the Ignore all rules policy works) TheAbigail (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I want to specify a bit better, plus I feel like my initial response was a bit rude. Ignore All Rules basically exists to say that the rules of Wikipedia should work to help the betterment of the encyclopedia, and if a rule is stopping Wikipedia from properly functioning, it can be ignored and overturned (essentially the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law). Industrial Insect (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@TheAbigail Just to mention that IOR is not a policy but an essay. Experienced editors know that we have three levels of agreed consensus about how Wikipedia should be written. Policies are the highest level, then guidelines then essays. The first two are relatively few in number and are described at WP:P&G. There are literally dozens of essays, some of them humorous, and while most are useful, citing them to try to dodge a policy like WP:NOR will rarely succeed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Assuming you mean IAR, it is a policy, not an essay. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh! Yes, I was looking at the linked WP:IAR? in Industrial Insect's post, which is indeed an essay, whereas WP:IAR is a policy. Not surprised that newcomers are confused! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

50% Quotes?

Hello Teahouse. I'm a new Wikipedia editor (account created 22.09.2024).

I would like to know more about WP:IS, Independent sources. Suppose I come across a news article about a living person (for a BLP) published by a news outlet that is reliable and has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:V Verifiability). However, the article's text consists of nearly, or at least, 50 per cent (a majority) of quotes from the person in question.

For me, I see that as leaning towards being self-published. Does a source heavy on direct quotes impact whether it is WP:IS or independent, thus affecting notability verification for BLPs? (I am raising this concern since nothing is said in the "WP:" policy pages about sources not really written by the subject but whose text mainly consists of their quotes.)

Here are two references from existing Wikipedia articles that sorta meet this criteria.

Example 1: The Independent.

Example 2: Philippine Daily Inquirer.

Thank you! (I prefer the VisualEditor.) Ramkarlo82 (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It depends on what you're using the source for, exactly. For notability purposes, I would say that both of these are significant coverage that would count for notability - what wouldn't so much is if it were only a lightly edited interview. This kind of quote-heavy profile is fine. Would a more in-depth biographical piece with fewer quotes be better? Sure. But this is fine. -- asilvering (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @asilvering!

P.S. Why? I wanted to seek clarification on Wikipedia's policies regarding WP:N Notability, WP:V Verifiability, and especially WP:IS Independent sources. After making minor grammatical edits here on Wikipedia (I have made around 40 so far), I aim to evaluate articles (mainly those Philippines-related) on whether they meet the notability criteria.

I have already begun reviewing references in some articles and saw numerous quote-heavy interviews with commentary, like the two examples from earlier. At first, I was unsure if such sources count towards establishing notability, but now I'm more clarified, thanks to your response. (I also checked WP:IV Interviews for more information afterwards.)

Cheers! Thanks once again. Ramkarlo82 (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Your instincts are good - I'd expect this kind of source to be treated with more skepticism in a deletion discussion if, for example, there was some suspicion of undeclared paid editing. -- asilvering (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Academic notability and sources clarification (Mostly regarding living persons)

I have a quick clarification on WP:NACADEMIC. I've found a few scientists now that don't have pages, but have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences and American Academy of Arts and Sciences. To be elected to these, they must be certainly notable scientifically (and is #3 on Notable Academic Criteria). Some scientists are more public-facing than others and the ones I'm talking about are the "less public facing" ones. They have bios on NAS and AAAS websites and I can find bios or brief articles on their university websites. (And lots of published research of course.) However, no true "third-party" sources, particularly because AAAS, NAS, and university website bios are self-written. So these people seem to meet the academic notability guidelines, but when creating new articles I want to make sure I actually "prove" notability in citations.

Tl;dr - for academics, is the fact that they've been elected to NAS enough if they have stayed out of the public eye/sci comm spaces? Usually NAS members have a few other notable awards under their belt that can be referred to plus some highly cited scholarly work as first or lead/last author that would accompany this. Just no independent/third party sources.

I created Catherine Peichel a few days ago, who is a pretty good example of this scenario.

(It seems I'm becoming a frequent flier at the Teahouse :P Ty all for the help as I fully hyperfocus on Wikipedia.) Cyanochic (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cyanochic yes, they're still notable - you'll want to make sure that the evidence for their election to whatever society is coming from that society's website and not the academic's own CV, but that's all we need for verifiability there. The "third-party" sources in this case would be papers by other academics that discuss their work, but you don't need this to prove that the academic is notable, so long as you can show a pass of one of the notability criteria at WP:NPROF. -- asilvering (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cyanochic I think it is an excellent idea to provide brief biographies of people like Catherine Peichel with the evidence that establishes their wikinotability. Others can expand on your work later, when more sources are available. Indeed, once the WP:NACADEMIC hurdle is passed, more details can be added from WP:ABOUTSELF sources. Wikipedia has in the past been criticised for not having any biography at all of some individuals until they won Nobel prizes. Your help in getting them into the encyclopaedia earlier in their careers would be appreciated! Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Somehow I hadn't come across WP:ABOUTSELF before, that definitely clears it up more. And it's nice to know I've found a worthwhile project. Cyanochic (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

While you're at it, I recommend watching Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators. You don't have to participate in the discussions if you don't want to (although more participation is always welcome!), but even lurking will help you get a sense for how notability of these types of articles is handled. -- asilvering (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I just gave it a scroll and added it to my watch list. It seems like most the people I'm looking at so far likely wouldn't be challenged for notability. And I'm trying to avoid any scientists I know personally. (I might seek out a place to list/request them someday, but I'm finding plenty to do so far and it's not at the top of my list.) Cyanochic (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

If you ever do want to write an article for a scientist you know personally, go ahead, just declare it (WP:COI), and go through AfC instead of directly creating in mainspace. In my opinion, once you've got the hang of a basic start-class academic bio article, they're all pretty much the same - I personally wouldn't be too worried about writing one to npov, not in the same way I'd be worried about writing an article on a poet or entrepreneur or whatever of my acquaintance. Though if you're the slightest bit uncertain about notability in one of those COI cases, I'd advise not writing the article at all. -- asilvering (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Category help?

I'm looking at Category:Conflicts in Europe and I'm wondering why it doesn't contain every war and battle in European history in its category tree? It seems to mostly only contain rebellions, protests, and small-scale militant attacks, and then, inexplicably, World War II. Batrachoseps (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Batrachoseps. That is the main category, and you need to click through the subcategories and sub-subcategories to get to e.g. World War II. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome, User:Batrachoseps! The articles are grouped in many layers of subcategories (categories within categories). To get to Napoleonic Wars, for example, you can click the link to Category:Conflicts in Germany, then Category:Wars involving Germany, Category:Wars involving Prussia, and finally, Category:Napoleonic Wars. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste Thanks for the explanation. Batrachoseps (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding artist page

i have added Page of Sargi Maan

Need help to publish that page Ramanjot2024 (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ramanjot2024, please have a look at the comments left for you by the AfC reviewers. You need to show that she passes WP:MUSICBIO to be eligible for inclusion. -- asilvering (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Sargi Maan has been nominated for Speedy deletion, so expect it to disappear soon. Listing her songs does not establish notability, nor does listing minor awards. Needs refs fo what people have written about her. David notMD (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I declined the speedy deletion. There is no promotional content, and drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Money

Can you make money editing in Teahouse? 2600:1011:A03F:4A35:6CC6:AFE2:B35C:7A5C (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

No, in fact you should not be thinking about making money from Wikipedia editing at all. See question from just a few days ago: § How can earn money in Wikipedia. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 22:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

any map-makers want to have some fun?

I made a Table here https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ballistic_missile_submarine&action=edit&section=14 , and I would like someone experienced to make a World Map with the data from the Table. I also want to add the locations of sunken submarines with nukes on board to this map later. Walter Tau (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

You may want to try commons:Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

How do I report a harmful user to the admins?

I want to report the user LubanaPB02 to the Wikipedia admins so they can restrict this account from damaging the project further. I have tried to warn the user on their talk page but they continue making their POV-motivated and unsourced edits to numerous Indian biographical articles. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@MaplesyrupSushi: Welcome to the Teahouse. This is the inappropriate venue to report editors. You want to go to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents for that, but read the boxed text carefully; there is a strict process in filing a report and your own behaviour will be looked at as well. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tenryuu - Thank you! MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@MaplesyrupSushi: Please follow the process at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

adding my just published book to a list of books on a wikipedia page

I want to add my just published book to a list of books on the wikipedia page on the Man in the Iron Mask. I added a paragraph on the content and import of my book on 10/2/24. But I want to add some footnotes in that paragraph and I also want to add my book to the list of books given on the page about the subject. I have never done this before and feel as if I should ask for advice on how to add footnotes and an item in the list of books. I went to the instructions page but I was afraid to start experimenting. Can someone tell me how to do this? Sarah Madry Avemalakoff (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Avemalakoff: Welcome to the Teahouse. We ask that you don't write about yourself, as that is a clear conflict of interest and comes off as promotional. Even discounting that, you did not offer a citation to a secondary source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

OK...who could read my book and put something on about it? Avemalakoff (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Ideally an editor who has no connection to you or the book whatsoever. Asking someone to do it for you automatically burdens them with a conflict of interest if they accept your request. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Avemalakoff, and welcome to the Teahouse. Tenryuu is right that we regard adding references to your own work as editing with a conflict of interest. That doesn't mean that your work cannot be referenced, but you need to make a request on the talk page of the article, not edit it yourself: see edit request. Then an uninvolved editor will look at your suggestion(s) and decide what action is appropriate.

There are a number of different cases.

First, who published your book? If it was from a reputable publisher, then there is a possibility it could be cited; but it it was a vanity publisher or self-published, then Wikipedia will not take note of it: see reliable sources.

Assuming it is regarded as a reliable source, then if you think that your book provides verification for information already in the article, then you can propose that a citation be added at the appropriate place in the article.

If you believe that your book provides new information that is relevant to a Wikipedia article (which I'm guessing is that case from the edit you have already made) then you can propose material to be added, with a properly formatted citation to your own book (see referencing for beginners). Again, another editor will decide whether some or all of what you have proposed belongs in that article. (If you disagree with them, you can argue the case: see dispute resolution; but make it clear that you have that conflict of interest).

One further possibility that may have occurred to you: it is unlikely that a link may be added other than as a citation: see WP:EL. ColinFine (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I have to replace a link.

The old link on Masjid Al-Sabur was so inappropriate that I have to replace the link with this one: Masjid As-Sur

Do you think I did the right thing on replacing the link with more appropriate? 50.91.26.176 (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You linked to https://www.masjidassaburlv.com/#:~:text=Masjid%20As-Sabur%20(As-Sabur%20Mosque)%20is%20the. I ahve cleaned atht up, to https://www.masjidassaburlv.com/. Otherwise, it looks fine. Thank you for your contribution! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you made a little grammatical error. Just being politely saying that you misspelled ahve instead of have and athat instead of that. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

All the Steps in Creating a Manual Source

I've been trying to cite a source to an archived website but whenever I get the source, clicking on my citation always redirects me to the archived website's home page. So, I've decided to create the source manually but I'm just so confused and overwhelmed with how to do so. Can somebody provide a step-by-step description on how to do it? 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:F59F:53A3:6AAD:2B2C (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this is in regard to your edit at Backyard Football. When I click on the first link in the reference I'm taken to what is presumably the archived page in question, not the home page. It appears to be working as intended? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I'm talking about an edit I want to make to a draft page of the original Backyard Baseball. I wanted to add a source for the part talking about how Backyard Baseball 2001 would be the first game to use professional Baseball players as playable characters. 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:F59F:53A3:6AAD:2B2C (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The source for Backyard Football, by the way, was made by user @Cyberlink420, who gave me permission to use it for Backyard Football three months ago, in case you are wondering. 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:F59F:53A3:6AAD:2B2C (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

This one, right? Yeah, because of the way Humongous's site is formatted, the URL in the nav bar doesn't change. You need to copy the link to the press release you want. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:F59F:53A3:6AAD:2B2C (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Lint-errors duplicate ids

Hello! I noticed that a page that I watched has some lint errors duplicate ids this lint-error list. I found the explanation about the said lint error in this page where it said that "The standard solution is to add a lower case alpha character to the year." but not fully understand how it works because as far as I know the "date" parameter of Template:cite news only allow a date format to be inputted... Can someone explain me how to fix those? Thank you in advance! — Shenaall (t ♣ c) 03:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Shenaall. I think the quote is meant for citations only using |year= like books. Stray Kids doesn't use a reference system where predictable reference ids are needed, or ids are needed at all. You can use |ref= at Template:Cite news#Anchor to choose a unique name, or omit an id with |ref=none. Or just ignore the problem if it doesn't seem worth the hassle. Special:LintErrors lists duplicate ids under high priority but it also says we have more than 3 million. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello PrimeHunter, thank you for you attention on my question! Fixed all lint errors duplicate ids with |ref=none, thank you so much for your help! :D — Shenaall (t ♣ c) 07:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Fat Bear Week

Some time ago, I tagged that article with {{Tone}}. An editor cleaned up large parts of the article, but they and I agree that there's still work to do. All I have to go on are some gut feelings about phrases that sound wrong (e.g., rivers teeming with red salmon), so I'm here to seek a more experienced editor's help with (1) finishing the cleanup, and (2) refining my aforementioned gut feelings into clear positions. Ursus arctos californicus (talk) 05:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ursus arctos californicus: Welcome to the Teahouse. The Guild of Copy Editors has a requests page, though it may take some time before someone takes on your request. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Ursus arctos californicus (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Ursus arctos californicus, I fail to see the problem with rivers teeming with red salmon. "Teeming" is a very clear and descriptive word that according to the Oxford English Dictionary, goes back to 1150 when Old English was transitioning to Middle English. I did a Google Books search for "teeming with salmon" and "teeming with fish" and the phrases appear in page after page of search results. Merriam-Webster defines the word as "to become filled to overflowing" and "abound" and "to be present in large quantity", and that certainly applies to Brooks Falls during salmon spawning season. What is it that bothers you about the word? Cullen328 (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You're right, that was a bad example. It's possible that, in the context of the sentence it came from, it seemed a bit peacocky, but perhaps I'm just hypersensitive to such prose because the article had so much of it before. Ursus arctos californicus (talk) 06:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Images are inverted on Dark Mode

When I switched to dark mode, some of the images have inverted luminance, but not hue. Why is this happening and I am curious to know which code makes that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sellena8053 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sellena8053, if you don't get a good reply here, try asking at WP:TECHPUMP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sellena8053 The new dark mode has led to all sorts of compatibility issues which are noted and can be discussed here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Mistaken title and information- Association of Greek Tourism Enterprises

Dear Sir/Madame

I am the pr and marketing manager of SETE

In wikipedia it is mentioned as "Association of Greek Tourism Enterprises"Association of Greek Tourism Enterprises

but SETE is not an association. The correct name is Greek Tourism Confederation our official page is SETE

We would like to correct the title of our company. Also to update it and change the logo which is a little bit different.

Please let me know how

Kind Regards

Elektra Kaloudi

Kaloudi (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I've placed some instructions on your user talk page that you must follow. Please read them.

You may go to files for upload to work on providing an updated logo. If the new name of your organization is likely the most commonly used name, you may propose renaming it at Requested moves. Changes to the article itself should be made as edit requests on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding help of Sargi Maan Page

hi Sir

i had added category of Sargi Maan Page. Kindly suggest me changes required. As this page is Punjabi Singer Biography Ramanjot2024 (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ramanjot2024 You'll get feedback from experienced draft reviewers in due course. There is a large backlog so you may need to be patient. At a brief look, I would suggest you alter the tone of the part that says [she was] demonstrating her passion for academics. I doubt that you have a valid source for her "passion", even if you have one that says she went to university. Are the sources correctly associated with the text? At present, a Spotify link is used as #3 with listings of her recordings but I don't see a biography there: and in any case that would be a non-independent source that doesn't help with notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Apart from other problems with it, "[she was] demonstrating her passion for academics" could be taken to mean "she was showing that she was sexually attracted to professors", which I doubt is what is intended. Purple prose and Verbosity should be avoided in encyclopaedia articles. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

How to select an audio file?

Please how to select an audio file while using tools by Wikipedia? RAPGOD500 (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to clarify what you mean, what you are trying to do, and most importantly which tools you are using. Cremastra (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Found that a sentence in Childhood Dementia is likely outdated or innacurate. Noone's replied yet. What's my best course of action?

I brought this up in the article's talk page 19 hours ago, but noone has replied yet.

So, until someone decides to weigh in on the discussion, is there anything I should do while waiting for a response? I tried looking into policies but didn't find a useful answer.

I'm thinking that if it is innacurate, it could give wrong ideas to people reading the article, so that's why I'm looking for an appropriate course of action. (And to have a better idea of what I should do if something similar happens in the future) Irina Rainbow (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Irina Rainbow, often it is best to be bold and make changes; if someone disagrees, you can then hash that out on the talk page. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, being bold does make sense, since I really think the sentence is probably innacurate.

Though the only source I found for rewriting it is the Childhood Dementia Initiative's 'Knowledge base' (login required but anyone can register). But I'm not sure about its inclusion as it's not a very traditional medical source, so I don't know if it'd be accepted or not.

Alternatively I can either wait for a reply and putting a note to the relevant WikiProjects (as ColinFine suggested) or delete the sentence (more controversial). Irina Rainbow (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Irina Rainbow, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The first thing I will say is that discussing it on the talk page is a good way to start.

The second is to say that we are all volunteers, with other calls on our time; and we are distributed over many timezones.

So nineteen hours is really not a lot of time to wait: please be patient.

The third thing is that there are very few watchers for that talk page. I suggest putting a note on the talk pages of one of more of the WikiProjects listed at the top of the talk page - a note saying that you have made a suggestion on this talk page, and asking people to go there and join the discussion.

Thirdly, you are not required to open a discussion on the talk page before making an edit - though it's probably good idea with something as fundamental as this. But if you have had no replied after several days, I suggest you start editing the article. As far as possible, split you edit up into pieces rather than doing one huge edit, so that if somebody does want to revert, they won't necessarily revert everything.

If somebody does revert you, please read WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to write this response.

I don't mind waiting at all, just worried for anyone who might read the article and leave with a wrong idea about a relatively important part of Childhood Dementia (what kinds are the most common).

Since I'm not sure I should use the source I have to rewrite the sentence (like I mentioned in my reply to Maddy), I think I'll follow your suggestion and put up notes to the WikiProjects in the meanwhile. Irina Rainbow (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello again Irina. I think you're right to be cautious about the source. We have a higher standard of reliability for sources on medical subjects: see MEDRS. ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

How to fix Template:Maplink not displaying in infobox

I amended the boundaries of Tanjong Bungah on OSM a couple of days back and it appears that the maplink template inside the infobox is still displaying blue static. I tried editing the id value multiple times, but no joy. Needing help to fix this. Thanks hundenvonPG (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi hundenvonPG. Please clarify the problem. I don't know what you mean by blue static. At Tanjong Bungah below File:Tanjong Bungah, George Town, Penang 2023.jpg I see a map with a grey shape with black borders which appear to match the orange borders at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11203461. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

That's odd. At my end, from both the mobile app and web browser, the maplink shows completely blue. Apparently it functions well for you, PrimeHunter? hundenvonPG (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@hundenvonPG I see https://maps.wikimedia.org/img/osm-intl,13,a,a,300x200.png?lang=en&domain=en.wikipedia.org&title=Tanjong_Bungah&revid=1249163653&groups=_bd93cf5bb5cd89f9f009d78df0d5d0b5a9dc783d in both the desktop and mobile version. It looks fine to me. Does that link work for you? Try to bypass your cache on the article. Can you see other images, e.g. at Template:Maplink? They all look OK to me. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for my slow response. It's morning now here. Checking the article again and the maplink now works, but I'll keep an eye all the same. Thanks PrimeHunter 🙂 hundenvonPG (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft reviewing

Can an AFC reviewer please review the draft that I created and tell me whether it can now be a draft or still needs some content pls? I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

the link is Draft:James Dokhuma I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@I have a great knowledge The draft is in the backlog of those awaiting review, so you will have to be patient. I'm not an AfC reviewwer but can see that the section on his death appears not to be written in the tone required of articles here: see also this guidance about using only surnames. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I have a great knowledge, I will be more frank than Michael D. Turnbull. The "Death" section violates the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. It needs to be drastically trimmed to include only the verified facts, eliminating all emotion, trivial details and religious sentiments. Cullen328 (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I have trimmed up the Death section a little bit, but haven't checked which bits are verifiable. Cremastra (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Citing PDFs

So I am working on an article, and need to cite a PDF, and since Wikipedia is saying that it can't cite it for me, I am having to manually cite it. Would i cite a PDF as a website, book, journal, etc? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@RedactedHumanoid It could be any of these as the |url= parameter is available in all the citation templates like {{cite web}}. Can you link the .pdf and the article you want to use it in here in this thread? Then we can give further advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

A: Here is the PDF[4]. B: The article doesn't exist yet, it is a new article that I am working on creating. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd use {{cite magazine}}, which is what it most resembles. Looks interesting! Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for your help. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

How to login?

Hi! I have trouble with login in to Wikipedia. Please Help and Guide me! 77.65.110.55 (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. What is the nature of your trouble? 331dot (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Try reading Help:Logging in. Cullen328 (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Government

Name the Liberia counties, district with their senatos and representatives 41.191.104.231 (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I confess that I am unable to do so. 126.167.109.87 (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I am also unable to do that, sorry. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 23:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The Teahouse is for questions about using Wikipedia. For general knowledge questions try the reference desk WP:RD RudolfRed (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Filtering "what links here" to exclude navbox links

Hi all, per title. Is there a way to filter or check the external links for an article that are actually in the prose, rather than coming from templates or navboxes? Something toolforge-y? Thanks. Meluiel (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge \: I check if there are any redirects and use the "insource:" keyword (can't think of the right word right now) liberally. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Category and main article matching

For South African place articles which were named "town, province", the convention was changed so that articles should now have "town, country" as their titles. For example, "Kempton Park, Gauteng" was changed to "Kempton Park, South Africa" and "Edenvale, Gauteng" was changed to "Edenvale, South Africa".

In this regard, should we also ask for category names to be changed the same way? Should we request for "Category:Suburbs of Kempton Park, Gauteng" to be changed to "Category:Suburbs of Kempton Park, South Africa"? Should we request for "Category:People from Edenvale, Gauteng" to be changed to "Category:People from Edenvale, South Africa"? GeographicAccountant (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Re: Editors, Disputes, and Front-of-Line Blocking - Next Steps?

The following discussion 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.

---

I recently tried to improve a disambiguation article's introductory line but an established editor rolled back all changes with no explanation (removing the added content which is not currently on Wikipedia anywhere, but is available via a library loan for the book in question, which includes a non-condensed definition).

Admittedly, this is my first time trying to volunteer a contribution, and I thoroughly reviewed the policy and guidelines prior to making the edit beforehand. I'm quite dissuaded from ever attempting to do this again, if any trivial addition like this is going to cost this much time and be this arbitrary I might as well not contribute at all (which aligns with volunteer psychology). I'm a bit flustered because I wasted so much time trying to improve a public resource which no one will benefit from as a direct result of the editor.

Per the dispute policy guidelines I reached out to that editor directly on their talk page, they said it was a policy issue linking the Manual for Disamb but were no more specific than that. I thoroughly reviewed the page they linked related to Introductory line requirements and there seems to be no policy issue there, the edit appears to meet the guidelines. Nothing obvious stands out as a proper justification for the rollback, the edit was an introductory line edit.

I asked for further clarification, and they went radio silent but not before rolling back their talk page to remove the request for clarification.

As a volunteer I find it very difficult to contribute when an established editor is effectively and arbitrarily adding cost on volunteers who want to contribute; and acting as a front-of-line blocker to any additions while also refusing to communicate properly in good faith. No one is a mind reader, and yet the editor would make me guess at their reason as to what is wrong or their reasoning when it is not clear or obvious from what they provided.

Below is the contribution I attempted to make. I own one of the authors books (written 1925). There is no current information about the book aside from their title on the Author's page Ivan Ilyin, which was linked as a reference in the edit. If this edit were to be reformatted and moved to the individual entry portion, then it appears it would violate policy so its entirely unclear how or what next steps need to be done to have the edit included.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Evil_(disambiguation)&diff=prev&oldid=1249198002

What are next steps for getting this edit moving forward? I'm open to any suggestion from knowledgeable people. 2600:8801:8000:D3E6:81E6:A780:97CD:31B1 (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! The other editor was correct in removing the content that you added to the Evil (disambiguation) page. As the MOS:DAB explains, a disambiguation page should only include a single short explanatory sentence for the primary topic (if there is one) and a phrase explaining each other article that the term might refer to, where the primary topic and each of the other entries has a link to the Wikipedia article that corresponds to the entry. The disambiguation page for Evil already had its short explanatory sentence + link: "Evil is the absence or opposite of good." You seemed to be trying to elaborate on that, but such an elaboration simply doesn't belong on a disambiguation page. Take a look at the Evil page instead and think about whether there's an appropriate place to add the contents that you tried to add to the disambiguation page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with FactOrOpinion. In order to make a substantive improvement to a disambiguation page, you need to have a clear understanding of what a disambiguation page is intended to do, and what it not not supposed to do. So, read and study those links. The lead sentence of a disambiguation page succinctly defines the primary topic (if there is one) and links to a more detailed article about that topic. Disambiguation pages do not have substantive content about anything. Only include enough content for the reader to decide "this is the right link" and click it. More broadly, it is not appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia to ascribe the definition of such a monumental topic to a single author. That is a violation of the Neutral point of view, a core content policy. Cullen328 (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, I appreciate it.

The current succinct definition provided is an over-generalization past the point of absurdity. This is particularly so in areas of epistemology where the definition as written is lacking identity (its circular based solely an individuals belief in good), which favors Nihilism while ignoring many common (for the time) objective measures based in observation.

The existing page also favors views on Tolstoy's pacifism and Sentimental Moralism which also violate the core content policy on Neutral point of view that you just linked.

It was my understanding that the disambiguation page was meant to help readers find the correct pages related to a matter they are searching for with many choices like an Encyclopedia, and the Neutral policy would not be violated if both definitions were included (as they would be in an encyclopedia); but the edit is being blocked and withheld.

The definition is not just a single author, the author does formalize it further than most in a cohesive framework, but its my understanding the definition is based on previous works of his and others, though much of his work remains untranslated from Russian, some of which was destroyed during the rise of Bolshevism. This particular work was written in 1925 as Bolshevism forced the author into exile, it has only recently been translated to English in 2018, but represents valuable thought in philosophy on the subject matter.

The problem here seems to stem from a contradiction in policy stemming from the same word having multiple meanings that can be contradictory, and the actions being taken to enforce the existing policy to prevent additions aren't erring on the side of giving the reader a choice.

Put another way, this could be construed as censorship since only one favored views (that are circular, and contradictory) are being allowed.

Given that my edit apparently runs afoul of your Neutral Content Policy, and the current revision favors Tolstoy's Pacifism and Sentimental Moralistic Thought, shouldn't the entire page and related content be removed to resolve the core content policy issue?

To me the rational choice is let the reader choose, its not an elaboration its a specified definition with one single shared meaning. The other isn't a real definition following rational principles because the meanings can quickly become contradictory, which is a problem when using Hegelian dialectic to describe things in the physical world.

Can you see the contradiction? 2600:8801:8000:D3E6:81E6:A780:97CD:31B1 (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You are completely wrong in every possible way about the purpose of a Wikipedia disambiguation page. Nobody at the Teahouse should have to read your extended philosophical musings. They are off-topic. We converse here about the nuts and bolts of how to productively edit Wikipedia, including how disambiguation pages work. You are on the wrong path here, and I encourage you to rethink your approach. Cullen328 (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

These are not philosophical musings.

Showing a contradiction is the first step in discerning properties of falsehood, and observing consistency following rational principles and method. These two properties are incredibly important just about everywhere. These are the principles which back modern science in the pursuit of understanding and truth.

I can see this is fruitless, as there is no reasoning or discussing things with people who are incapable.

I've donated quite a bit over the years (thousands), but there is one thing that I will not ever do, and that is knowingly support or fund insanity, which is the absence of rational thought, principles, or the ability to reason (in humans).

The treehouse is stated as being a place for asking questions about policy and to get help so contributions can be donated by volunteers to improve the site consistently, but you were unable to answer my question or even admit the contradiction or consistency issues of the policies you and others have referenced as justification to void my contribution. This is arbitrary, improper, and without logical rational basis.

Bullet point #2 on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation carries the meaning of what I said which you say is incorrect.

Best of luck, you and others like you are going to need it as the slow creeping ruin makes the site useless and eventually shut down. No need to respond. Close out the request for help, no longer needed. 2600:8801:8000:D3E6:81E6:A780:97CD:31B1 (talk) 06:28, 4 October 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.

2020 Census updates

Most (all?) of the articles about cities in Iowa have a demographics section with the results from the 2000 and 2010 US censuses. I would like to add the 2020 census data to these articles (I have a Python script that pulls the required info from the US Census server). If I do this, I'll be updating hundreds of articles. Is this a bad idea? Is this update going to occur some other way? The 2020 census results were released a few years ago, so I think the articles should have the latest data. PopePompus (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

PopePompus: WP:BRFA might be the best place for this. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

PopePompus, I think that you should proceed if you are confident of your programming skills and do some careful advance testing. Perhaps the volunteers who did this with the 2000 and 2010 results are no longer active on Wikipedia. The only way an update occurs is if someone with the skills volunteers to do so. In this case, "someone" means "you". Be responsive to disagreement and alert to malfunctions. Monitor your user talk page and your watchlist during and after the process. Good luck! Cullen328 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick and helpful reply. I'm not going to fully automate it in the sense of having the script doing the editing itself, etc. I have a script that reproduces the 2010 results (which the Census server will still provide) and I will check that my script can accurately reproduce the 2010 data already in the articles before I have it produce 2020 updates. I think I will also start with some small cities first and then pause for a while, in case other editors see that I've made some sort of mistake. I guess if I update the Iowa pages, and nobody finds I've done something destructive, I could do the other states too. I've already done one sorta large update - the County pages for Iowa counties have a "Population Pyramid" plot, and they were showing year 2000 data. I've updated those for all counties in Iowa and Minnesota. Nobody yelled at me about that. PopePompus (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

PopePompus, my editing areas of interest and technical skills are in other areas, but I think the plan as you describe it appears to be a good one. If things go smoothly, please consider taking on other states. Cullen328 (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's not really going to technically be a bot. I'm going to have a Python script generate the text for a 2020 Census section, but I will do the actual editing (inserting the text into the article) manually myself. I don't have anything vaguely approaching the nerve to write a script that just looks at the list of cities in Iowa and automatically updates them all. The process outlined on WP:BRFA seems to be strictly tailored for true bots. PopePompus (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

PopePompus: Oh I see, you'll automatically pull the data but manually edit the articles. Your plan looks good! — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

visa requirements for Canadian Citizens

can some one help on how I can edit the visa requirements map in order to change Syria and Cuba into e-visa countries ?

link that verifies Syria is an e-visa for Canadians

https://www.emirates.com/english/before-you-fly/visa-passport-information/visa-passport-information-results/?widgetheader=visa&nationality=ca&destination=sy

link that shows Cuba is an e-visa country also :

https://www.emirates.com/english/before-you-fly/visa-passport-information/visa-passport-information-results/?widgetheader=visa&nationality=ca&destination=cu

Husam.bell (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

If no one responds here, you may want to try commons:Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. Courtesy links: File:Visa requirements for Canadian citizens.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 09:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Article for a dead person

Hi, I have a question about creating a page for a deceased person. Do the same rules for reliable secondary sources still apply? Thank you.Aona1212 (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)