Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 812: Line 812:
:Please first review the [[WP:AUTO|Autobiography policy]]. If you have suggestions for changes, please make them at [[Talk:Laura Donaldson]] in the form of an [[WP:ER|edit request]](click for instructions). For uploading a photo(ideally one you took yourself/a relative took) see [[WP:FFU|Files for upload]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 22:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
:Please first review the [[WP:AUTO|Autobiography policy]]. If you have suggestions for changes, please make them at [[Talk:Laura Donaldson]] in the form of an [[WP:ER|edit request]](click for instructions). For uploading a photo(ideally one you took yourself/a relative took) see [[WP:FFU|Files for upload]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 22:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
::(edit conflict) Hello. You have a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] and should edit carefully. You should read [[WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY]] and follow the advice there. I suggest that you open an account to facilitate communication with other editors and use the formal [[WP:ER|edit request]] process at [[Talk: Laura Donaldson]]. As for a photo, if you are the copyright holder, you can upload it to [[Wikimedia Commons]] under an acceptable free license. It can then be added to the article. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 23:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
::(edit conflict) Hello. You have a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] and should edit carefully. You should read [[WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY]] and follow the advice there. I suggest that you open an account to facilitate communication with other editors and use the formal [[WP:ER|edit request]] process at [[Talk: Laura Donaldson]]. As for a photo, if you are the copyright holder, you can upload it to [[Wikimedia Commons]] under an acceptable free license. It can then be added to the article. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 23:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
::: As the subject of the article, perhaps you also have access to clippings that document your career accomplishments? It would be especially helpful if you identify on the Talk page any articles or other sources that covered your career in some depth. Such sources will help greatly in overcoming a contention that the article in its current state does not demonstrate that you qualify for a stand-alone article under Wikipdia's [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]]. Please don't take my suggestion as a "dig". Your accomplishment in qualifying for the Olympics is, of course, amazing, but Wikipedia's guidelines require us to show that you have received [[WP:SIGCOV|in-depth coverage]] in multiple [[WP:RS|reliable]] and [[WP:INDEPENDENT|independent]] sources. [[User:Cbl62|Cbl62]] ([[User talk:Cbl62|talk]]) 00:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:25, 25 January 2022

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Assessing own artilces

I did search this before asking, but could not find the answer.

Are we allowed to assess articles that we created ourselves with regards to the quality scales? To date, I have not done so, I tag the relevant WikiProjects and wait for someone to assess them. By now I feel confident that I can assess articles. I'm talking about stub/start/C, I would not feel confident assessing anything as B and obvioulsy grading A and FA is a whole different process. Is that encouraged/discouraged/helpful/bad? What's the normal thing to do? CT55555 (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CT55555 I asked a similar question earlier, and someone told me that I could assess my own articles up to C quality. However, I wait until I'm informed my new article has been reviewed, and then check the status. If someone else has graded it a stub and I'm sure it qualifies for start class I change it up to that. But you would need to use your own judgement as to what seems correct for your new articles. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT5555: Karenthewriter is correct: it's best to either wait for somebody else to make a first assessment or to be somewhat conservative with how you assess your own article. Note that the written criteria for these classes have remained unchanged or basically unchanged since mid-2008 when C-class was introduced. However, because these were written at the very tail end of what I would call the "wild west era" of Wikipedia and a couple years past the start of what I would call the "reform era", implicit standards for article assessment, I would argue, have changed and gotten somewhat more strict. I was going to write a lengthy, tangential ramble here explaining myself, but I actually think I'm going to create an essay about it instead. The bottom line is that it's totally normal to review it yourself or to wait for a new page patroller to do that, but I think it's best to always err toward conservatism when choosing how to assess one's own articles. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is all very helpful, thanks. Karenthewriter User:TheTechnician27 I'll wait for others to review, let them go first, and be conservative and humble. I only forsee doing this for some old stubs that are clearly start or C class. CT55555 (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many articles are unassessed or have out-of-date assessments. It's fine to assess articles you create (up to C class). ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to change signature?

Hi again, I've seen a lot of users with pretty cool signatures, but I want to learn how I can do it myself. I mean, I already know some stuff about this, but it's too confusing. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, CertifiedAmazing2 (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC) CertifiedAmazing2[reply]

Hi CertifiedAmazing2. You can find out more about this kind of thing at WP:CUSTOMSIG; however, please understand that people are going to assess you as an editor based on the quality of your edits and not based on how cool your signature is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Just know I was just trying to give a compliment to those with custom signatures, rather than trying to say that's the only thing that matters. Either way, thanks for your help. Sincerely, CertifiedAmazing2 (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My aplogies if my reply seemed harsh. I wasn't trying to imply that you were criticizing editors with customized signatures; I think customized signatures can be cool sometimes. However, you seem to be a new editor and many times new editors focus are things (e.g. user boxes, custom signatures) which are nice, but aren't really related to Wikipedia editing. If you do decide to customize your signature, just make such to follow the guidelines given in WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I changed my previous response just in case you were confused by it. I never thought your reply was harsh. Also, I tried adding one but it didn't work, and now I'm stuck with this...signature (if you can even call it that). What do I do? Sincerely, #bodyContent a[title="CertifiedAmazing2"] { background-color: #ffa500; color: #ffffff; font-weight: bold; } (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Try reverting back to your original signature and then experimenting in your user sandbox. It looks like did WP:SIG#Customizing how you see your signature, when you seem to want to do WP:SIG#Customizing how everyone sees your signature. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like, Levi_OP could help you make a signature. They were actually the one who created my current signature. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Levi_OP repinging since I don't think my previous ping worked. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze Wolf: I've left a message on their talk page and will try to help them if they want it. Also, the first ping did work. Where it is in the message doesn't matter, if that's why you thought it might not have worked. ― Levi_OPTalk 15:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok. Wasn't sure if it worked after I fixed it and resigned since it didn't give me the notification of a successful. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze Wolf: Yeah, sometimes it just doesn't send a notification, and I don't know why. You can be assured that if there is a link to someone's userpage added in a edit, a notification will be sent to that person. ― Levi_OPTalk 16:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I got my own. What do you think? Sincerely, CertifiedAmazing2 wanna chat? 22:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Why does a signature have a limit of 255 characters? It's kind of annoying to work around and takes away the endless possibilities part of signature creating. Also, my signature is too big to add the "Sincerely" I put in my messages, which is yet another setback and now I have to manually add it each time I send a message.

@CertifiedAmazing2: This so as not to give undue weight to comments - 255 characters is plenty. (I think my signature is just over 255 currently, with the dash.) ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are the rules surrounding subjects that have already been written about in other wikis?

Hello, this is a purely theoretical question I'm asking to satisfy my own curiosity as I read up more about Wikipedia rules. There are so many wikis around today, with more specialised areas--e.g. fandom wikis, computer game wikis, etc. What are the ground rules surrounding subjects that may be already covered in another wiki, which someone may think about transferring to Wikipedia? Are there content duplication rules that forbid acceptance of particular kinds of content if they have already been written about substantially in another source (and could an editor point me to the guidelines if a page exists on this topic? Can't seem to find it myself)? E.g. say for example, a new Star Wars character that's already been given a treatment on a Star Wars wiki, and which someone may want to write about in Wikipedia. On the assumption that the basic requirement to paraphrase instead of lifting is met, is that okay? Talamioros (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis are not reliable sources, so it would be a non-starter. All articles must be based on reliable sources--Shantavira|feed me 09:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Talamioros, See WP:COPYPASTE, WP:PLAGIARISM and WP:USERG. What may be useful on other wikis are the sources they use, if any. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that in certain (not all) situations, it may be legal to copy an entire article from another wiki, if that wiki's copyright license is compatible with Wikipedia's. See WP:Compatible license for details about that. However, in most cases, it would not be appropriate to copy an entire article from that other wiki, since the other wiki's standards for notability and verifiability may not match ours. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for taking the time to explain! Talamioros (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki Links

How can I get an internal link for a different language of wikipedia? For example, how can I get a internal link to may be Russian language Wikibooks, or maybe Italian language Wikivoyage. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 09:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Itcouldbepossible. I always use the template {{ill}} for this; but see WP:ILL for all the possibilities. --ColinFine (talk)
Thanks for you help Colin ItcouldbepossibleTalk 14:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Itcouldbepossible ColinFine The {{ill}} template only links to other language Wikipedias. For instructions on intra-wiki projects (and languages) see this non Wikipedia link (Wikimedia Meta-Wiki) at meta:Help:Interwiki linking (which was also linked on WP:ILL). If you have further questions, happy to help ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shushugah Can I link russian language wikibooks also? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 14:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please read the link I sent you and inspect in editor mode what I did, so you can do something similar. See the following example b:ru:Сборка кубика Рубика 3x3x3 which you can visually change with a | separator like on English Wikipedia which results in Сборка кубика Рубика 3x3x3| ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shushugah Thanks, thanks a lot for such a comprehensive answer. I really like it. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 07:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Alan Singh

Help me to make this.[1] -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Karsan Chanda. Could you kindly specify your query? Do you want help to make an article on tribals or on a topic from the shared link? Please specify so that we can answer your query. Thank You. Kpddg (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the page in question is Alan_Singh, the reasons for its decline have been mentioned at the top of the page. Kpddg (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Karsan Chanda. If you want to create an article on Alan Singh, your absolutely first starting point (ideally before writing a single word) is to find three or four sources which talk at length about Singh himself - not just about his campaigns, or his tribe, or places associated with him. The sources do not need to be in English, or online (though it is helpful if they are); but they do need to have been published by publishers with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking. The book you have just cited looks as if it might be a reliable source; but why are you citing it? If it is for an article about the Mina, see our existing article Meena - you may want to make additions to that. --ColinFine (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ "Tribal Cultures and Change".
From the start of this draft last September, Karsan Chanda has been composing more about Amber Fort and the massacre of the Chandra dynasty (Meena) by Kachhwaha than about Alan Singh. If this is to succeed, focus on referenced content about Alan Singh. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 – Combined sections. GoingBatty (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can this page be resubmitted now? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Karsan Chanda: I suggest you reword your first sentence so it starts "Raja Alan Singh Meena...", as that is the Wikipedia guideline per MOS:LEADSENTENCE. You mention that "Historian Colonel James Tod has written about Alan Singh in detail in his book Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan" - what did Tod write about him? You only use that book as a reference for his deathplace. Did he write anything else? I also suggest expanding the references to include authors, publishers, years, etc. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: Kachwahas are said to be the descendants of Kush, the second son of Lord Rama. One of the descendants of Kush was Raja Nal who settled in Nurwar. Raja Sora Singh was the descendant of Raja Nal who was killed and his son Dhola Rae was deprived of inheritance.

As Dhola Rae was an infant, his mother felt that the usurper may kill her and the child so she put the child in a basket and reached near Khogong which was ruled by Meenas. Being hungry she was plucking wild berries. Seeing a snake near the basket she screamed but a Brahmin saw and told that the baby has a very bright future.

He took her to Khogong where she asked the king to give her some employment for survival. The queen included her in her slaves. One day, as per the order, she cooked food which was liked by the king. When he listened her story, he adopted her as sister and Dhola Rae as his nephew. Dhola Rae was sent to Delhi at the age of 14 and he returned after five years.

The Kachwaha Rajputs returned with Dhola Rae and as per their conspiracy, they killed many of the royal people and the public during the celebration of Diwali festival. In this way, the Kachwahas overtook the town from the Meenas. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Karsan Chanda: Remember the draft is about Alan Singh, so the focus should be on him. I'm not sure if anything you wrote above is about Alan Singh. Looking at your draft more closely, I see you called it "Alan Singh" but mention "Alan Singh Chanda" in the infobox and "Raja Alan Singh Meena" in the lead. I suggest you be consistent about his name. GoingBatty (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: The names of Ratan Singh and Ralusi are also mentioned for Alan Singh. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pages created by me

In Xtools it is showing that I have created 5 pages, but I have only created one page and developed an existing draft. But, I did not create the rest of the pages. Why is it showing like that? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 14:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is it's because you moved those pages from mainspace to draftspace. Although I'm not sure why it would count this as a page creation. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Itcouldbepossible it looks like you moved them to draftspace as not ready, but then someone else has then written the article in article space later on (when they really should have just moved the draft back to article space when ready). So in the page history, your move (article --> draftspace) is the first edit that Wiki sees in the history, so it counts you as the "creator". Which is the case for [1] and [2]. Which seems wrong, but probably difficult to fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talkcontribs) 14:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302@Joseph2302 Thanks for the help. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 15:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze Wolf@Joseph2302 But, now it is showing that I have created only 2, and the rest 3 are gone. I don't understand what is going on. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 08:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

highlights mess up url when clicking a wikipedia article through google search results?

it adds a load of nonsense to the url in order to highlight a random part of the page eg:,of%20krill%20and%20other%20crustaceans. rather than: why? its annoying. its done it for atleast a year now. i dont like it. briefly, it would go away when you clicked the page. that was better i enjoy collecting many many wikipedia pages in my bookmarks and it has significantly decreased productivity. change it pls or ill cry :'¬( big love x (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen this, probably because I hardly ever use Google. I think you need to complain to Google: there is nothing that Wikipedia can do about how Google treats its links to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not nonsense, IP editor, but the link to the exact part of the article which says The capelin or caplin (Mallotus villosus) is a small forage fish of the smelt family...., which it highlights in purple when you click on the link. If you use instead Google's knowledge panel on the right of the search page, you'll get the simpler URL instead. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new (as of last year) Chrome feature. Aside from switching to another browser, you could try installing this extension. I'm on Firefox so I can't vouch for it, but it looks like it has a number of good reviews. Rusalkii (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple "consensus results", what do we do with the History of Dell page?

Copied from the Dell Talkpage

Oi... okay. So this is becoming an albatross around my neck. I'm going to put all the events as I see it here and ask for someone who is not myself, anyone involved in the original AFD, or the ultimate merge to make a decision on this.

1. The page History of Dell was woefully out-of-date, and I PRODed it.

2. Another user dePRODed as they saw value in the page.

3. Correspondingly, I opened an AFD. This AFD was improperly closed.

4. I began work on following consensus, and posted a notice (see above section).

5. The deletion review recognized this, but the Admin closed it with what appears to be another wrong reason, stating consensus as Merge to Dell. I believe the discussion pretty clearly shows consensus was to split the History section from this article into the History of Dell article to make it up to date.

6. Another user, unaware of the rather tumultuous happenings, came by and understandably merged it.

To lay out the reasons I saw from others and understand as consensus:

  • We agreed that the page had relevant information that should not be removed from Wikipedia here
  • We agreed that merging into Dell was problematic as well, because that makes this article WP:TOOBIG here, see comment chain starting with Peterkingiron.
  • Keeping the separate article matches other articles like History of IBM and History of Microsoft

As a result, it seemed to me like we had settled on updating the original history article and keeping it in place. I really don't know what to do at this point. Help? SpuriousCorrelation 17:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For your own sanity, and from a human perspective, I'd suggest just walking away and letting someone else sort out the mess. You shouldn't have to carry the albatross. If the merged Dell article is too long, someone will notice, sooner or later, and suggest splitting it. They may even end up acknowledging your attempts. If you're worried that useful information will go missing during the merge process, you could put the article on your watch-list to make sure the merge is done properly, and to make sure no one deals with the excessive size by complaining it's unbalanced and deleting great chunks - basically provided the information isn't lost, the merge/split question can be dealt with another day, and the damage caused by this fiasco isn't actually all that serious (I'm fundamentally lazy!). Elemimele (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An offline wikifriend sent me the essay Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline, which tracks with your advice. Thanks :) SpuriousCorrelation 03:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Committed identity topicon

Please see original request at User talk:CJDOS#Template:Committed identity topicon, where I was redirected here by Primefac after I used the {{Help me}} tag. In brief, a discussion is taking place at Template talk:Committed identity topicon#RfC 8 January 2022. I've come to the Teahouse:

  • To request an univolved editor to conduct the discussion, and revert non-consensual changes to the template's image.
  • To ask for assistance in getting more opinions at the discussion.
  • To inquire if template protection of some kind be considered in order to promote edit discussions.

This is not a closure request. I'm asking for more involvement, and someone not involved to take over the task of officiating the discussion.  — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC) (revised 10:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Help with expanding articles

I need help with adding sources to articles, expanding articles and creating infoboxes for articles as I have my hands full with editing. Can anyone please help me with this? I would be very thankful to get any help. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to offer help. One thing at a time, though. Could you provide a more specific request for help? Do you want instructions on how to do these things, or are you hoping for extra editors to help on certain articles because you don't have time? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Davidgoodheart has over a 100k edits, so I am curious what specific assistance he needs and if it something new editors looking for a task can be directed to. Slywriter (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read it as DGH wants an intern. David notMD (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women's last name after marriage

If you are creating a Wikipedia page for a woman who is known by her maiden name although she is married, which last name should be used as the title for the wikipedia page? Weissepedia (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article title should be the name by which she is most commonly known, see WP:COMMONNAME, but if she is also known by another name then a redirect can be provided from that alternative. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, that makes no sense at all. Why would you use a name she is not known by? Or is this some culture where women but not men are legally obliged to change their surname when they marry? --bonadea contributions talk 00:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bonadea, I don't see above any advocacy of the use of names that people aren't known by. (Am I missing something?) -- Hoary (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not mean to imply there was advocacy involved – I was genuinely confused by the question. The only way I could interpret it to make sense to me was if "she is married" meant "she is required by law to have the same last name as her husband". (Which has been true in many European and anglophone countries in the past, and possibly still is in some parts of the world.) --bonadea contributions talk 10:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's true in Japan, for one. (Successive governments -- all of the same one party -- have claimed that it's not sexist because the couple can plump for either one of the two surnames. Uh-huh.) If a Japanese person marries a foreigner, each can keep their surname; and there may be other minor exceptions. Anyway, if you are creating a Wikipedia article for a woman who is most commonly known by a certain name, then you title the article with that name. And ditto for an article about a man. -- Hoary (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea: I think you're over-stating the requirement a bit. It could simply be that she lives in a society where it is common for women to take their husband's name on marrying. Without knowing the specific example, we can't really comment on how common that is in the society where the subject lives.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea, @Hoary: I read the question as either:
  1. Do we use a subject's most well-known name or their official name (the former, covered by wp:COMMONNAME); or
  2. Do we use a person's current name even though it is less well-known or TOOSOON for much to have been written about them under their new name? Would our answer be any different if, say the person was a writer, academic, or performer who is credited under their new name on recent works? What if they have stated in an interview or a blue-tick tweet that they want to be known by the new name?
The second one is interesting in comparison with how we handle photos – we prefer a recent photo for a living subject, but after they die we would prefer one from the height of their career, or a particularly well-known or good portrait. (This actually happened with Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.)
@Weissepedia: I hope some of the considerations above help you to decide. But don't sweat it too much, you can always do a find-and-replace. ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 08:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article acceptance permisson

I would like to know who has the power to accept drafts and make them articles? Is there a special role needed? Thanks in advance. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gandalf the Groovy. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants for the requirements to be a reviewer of drafts formally submitted to the Articles for creation process. Please be aware that Articles for creation is voluntary and optional for most editors. If a draft has not been submitted to AFC, any autoconfirmed editor acting in good faith can move a draft to the encyclopedia main space. Cullen328 (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, further to Cullen328's point, Gandalf the Groovy, I think if you create an article in main space, or move one there, unless you are "autopatrolled" it remains hidden from Google and other search engines for 6 months, unless a new article patroller finds it and deems it okay. There is no reason why you shouldn't move an article into main space if it's ready, but if it's not, it might get draftified again, and if you move a lot of articles into main space when they're not ready, people will get grumpy about it. Elemimele (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Small correction, Elemimele, as per WP:INDEXING, new articles remain hidden form search engines for at most 90 days (a bit less than three months). Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, All! I don't know where I got that 6 from. Thanks, Victor Schmidt Elemimele (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to move a TOC back to its original spot after re-writing lede

So I just copyedited an article, including its lede which I re-wrote in another document and copy-pasted back into the article. After publishing that and the rest of my edits I realized that deleting and copy-pasting my new lede into the article caused the contents bar to move up before the lede starts. Ive tried everything on the internet on how to get it to its original spot, and I really dont want to redo everything else I wrote, so can anybody help me here? NSNW (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone fixed it. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that, its good that I don't have to worry about that anymore. Thank you anyway. NSNW (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The TOC automatically appears after the lede. It can be moved with __TOC__, and hidden with __NOTOC__. ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can the original French voice cast information be copied to the French and Quebec animated series from the French Wikipedia?

It's true that on the English Wikipedia many editors here often add the original English voice cast to French and Quebecois animated series to the articles I used to edit before, but there is a problem, it turns out that when I changed the original voice cast from english to french to infoboxes (these two revisions for example[3][4]) have taken care to revert my edits without leaving summaries as a reason indicating now that only my edits appear as vandalism or non-constructive to it, the same thing happened with Angel's Friends (which is an Italian animated series) I was about to remove the cast of voices to the infobox knowing that international voices do not fit here but even so[5], both the bot and two users who have had several incidents [here reverted it again and the question for me is can some information be copied from the original voice cast from French Wikipedia and paste it here? Well here are the web sources as proof: (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! In general, information can be copied from another language Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia if you provide a reliable source and give proper attribution per WP:TRANSLATION. In these cases, per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you may post on the article's talk pages so you can discuss the benefits of adding this information, and you can work with other editors to develop a consensus. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, the biggest reason why your edits might be called unconstructive and have been reverted is because this is the English Wikipedia and not the French. Also it seems the sources you have given are unreliable sources and information on Wikipedia must be backed by reliable sources. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaleeb18: Thank you for telling me, about the reason you were talking a while ago about the sources that I have provided if they are reliable, that is why there are times when users must verify web references to French-Canadian animated series articles to the database before to revert my edits again and yet I still haven't started on article discussion pages on this topic. By the way, add the information table to the Voice cast section so that something like this and this for example look comfortable. (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I would suggest starting a discussion on the talk page and saying there should be a table where it says the French name and the English name of the actors like how you provided those examples. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 12:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'm going to upload a number of screenshots from the following link. I want to confirm whether it allows reuse in reality. I have already asked it and now asking again just for reassurance. Please cooperate.

Thank you. Michri michri (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1138#Image. Can you point to evidence that this video either is in the public domain (according to the legal definition of this term) or is copyright according to a copyleft license acceptable for Wikimedia. If you can, please say which of the two it is, and exactly where you find the evidence. If you cannot, then no, you may not upload anything from the video. -- Hoary (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary, the video states 'reuse allowed' through CC licenseMichri michri (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Michri michri: May you describe which exact scenes or photos are you seeking to capture? Looking at the following video, I noticed that it was published under a Creative Commons licence (CC-BY), so that means you're allowed to reuse the author's original content provided that you give attribution to the creator. Though per this prior discussion, you may wanna recall that you have to ask permission from the copyright holders of any images used in that video whose authorship cannot be attributed to the group behind the YouTube channel. If your screenshots include the types of images I just described, best to err with caution and proceed not to upload them in Commons, as they are likely not published under a free licence. Thanks! 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ 💬reach out to me!・📝see my work! 12:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ , I want to take screenshots of Mohammed Shami from the video.Michri michri (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Michri michri: Are you collecting these screenshots to supplement the information in his article? If so, I am a little confused because I think that article, as it is, has enough pictures of the man. 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ 💬reach out to me!・📝see my work! 13:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Michri michri: You've asked about this before and people answered your question. Whether you can use screenshots from a YouTube video depends on how the video is licensed on YouTube and whether the content is 100% original content created by the YouTube channel holder. If someone uploads their own 100% original video to YouTube and decides to release them under a free that Wikipedia accepts, then a screenshot from that video can most likely be uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons as explained in c:Commons:Screenshots. However, if someone uploads a video to YouTube that contains copyrighted content created by others (e.g. video footage or photos from a televised sporting event), then you probably can't upload a screenshot of that particular part of the video even if it's released under a free license for the reasons given in Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works, c:Commons:Derivative works and c:Commons:Video#Videos and copyright. The YouTube video you asked about here seems to be for some kind of sports talk program about cricket. If you want to use a screenshot of the four people discussing cricket on the left side of the screen, the CricketNext logo at the end of the video or any original content created by CricketNext throughout the video, then you probably can. If, however, you want to create screenshots of the photos of cricket players on the right side of the screen, then you probably can't unless you can clearly show that those images were created by CricketNext and that CricketNext didn't get them from somewhere else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All are thanked from my heart for looking into the matter. Gracias Michri michri (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AI writing Wikipedia article

I am writing a Wikipedia bot that will write articles at 3000 - 4000 per day. Are there any rate limits that will get triggered? Can I pay to get outside of these limits? (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, that sounds like a really bad idea that will most likely end up with most if not all of the articles the bot creates being tagged or nominated for deletion, perhaps quite quickly. I also don't see how such a bot would ever be approved for use on Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Bots. If you're truly serious about this, then I would suggest you discuss your plan over at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard first to see what others may think before you try to do anything like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it'll be a bad idea, maybe good. IP editor, can you show us a couple of alpha-test versions of its output? Maproom (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll personally think this is most likely wasted effort, as the bar for new articles is quite high, and any bot creating articles should not cause unnesesary work for others by posting substandard articles into mainspace (see also WP:MASSCREATE). With regards to ratelimits, there are multiple ones that might apply. Amongst others, Wikipedia:Bot policy $ Performance, the API Etiquette and the User agent policy as well as the API ratelimits(note: these might be different for bots). Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think about this logically, we don't even permit machine translations from other Wikipedias; machine translation is something that has been developed by very large numbers of people backed with enormous amounts of cash, and machines still translate so badly that we don't trust them to meet the quality of a WP article - and a machine translation of another WP is starting with something that's already quite likely to be in the correct writing-style and format for a WP article, so the task is about as small as it can get. Meanwhile, copyright laws severely limit the lifting of chunks of text from other sites, so if a bot is going to write an article based on sources, it can't just cut and paste, it has to understand and paraphrase/re-write, as well as assess sources, which ironically often means making sense of poor machine translations! And look how far behind our new article reviewers are! They're a good and hard-working bunch and nevertheless, writers of new articles can wait weeks, even months, before their article gets patrolled. Just imagine the backlog if you add 3000 - 4000 articles per day. The articles would have to be so, so good that the bot could be given autopatrol rights, or the whole system would collapse. you're going to have an up-hill task persuading people of this, and you definitely need to talk to the Bot experts and demonstrate that your system produces top-notch articles. Elemimele (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User contributions for this IP show this Teahouse query, and three article edits back in 2020. That's all. Do you have a hidden, vast store of article creation that gives you confidence that you can create an article writing bot of any caliber, let alone such a massive output? David notMD (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t get the pay comment. Wikipedia is always free to edit. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Query was about posible to pay Wikipedia for the permission to create more articles per day than (an imagined) limit. David notMD (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the operation of an unauthorized bot is prohibited on the English Wikipedia. If you want to do something like this, you will, at minimum, have to receive approval from the Bot Approvals Group, and they will likely require a wider discussion than that to authorize any kind of automated content creation. Please don't do this unless you have received approval from the community. Writ Keeper  17:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a history of bot-created articles here on Wikipedia, and it's not a good one. There once was a bot that created articles on villages and towns, but pretty much all content it wrote had to be deleted because the lot of it was terrible. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Account of Jaden0912

CAn you help him plz. Greenpickles987 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenpickles987: No such user account. Please be more specific. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as though there is a global account with that name according to Wikimedia. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Greenpickles987 That account was globally blocked back in 2019, and there was evident sockpuppetry associated from those interacting with that account. As you appear to only have made 8 edits from your account here, plus some categorisations on commons, why are you asking that question? (Please also remove the YouTube link from your sandbox - it is not appropriate for you to use Wikipedia to promote personal video channels without good reason.) Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone tell me how I’m doing?

Hi all! During the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown a did a lot of reading about Scottish History and decided to do a wiki article about some of what I became interested in. My first attempt was moved from drafts to prime time, fairly quickly, but then got moved out because an editor thought I needed to do better with my references. I have done that and submitted it for review again. I am hoping that when it gets moved again, it will stay out as a wiki article and can be developed as a wiki article. Can someone review my article to see if my references look like they should. Am I missing anything else? Grnhrnt35 (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Grnhrnt35: Welcome! It might be helpful to include the specific web page where the info can be found in a source. Your first links to a general homepage. Is there a link available that goes to the actual charter document? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyrrho the Skipper: Thank you so much for taking the time to look and to provide me feedback and help. The issue is that the record is not digitised, so I linked to the source. There is a section that talks about where the records could be seen in person. Also, I was able to copy them and have images, as they are public records. Should I remove the hot link, link to the description of how to search them in person, leave it as is, or upload the pictures and link to them? There are 8 pages and therefore 8 pictures. If that is your advice, where would you upload public documents to that I could hot link to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grnhrnt35 (talkcontribs)

@Grnhrnt35: Welcome to the Teahouse! Unless you're planning to write a paragraph about each baron, you could reduce all those sections to a single table and move the pictures into a gallery. Sometimes you use "MacDuff" and other times you use "Macduff", so please check the capitalization. Image captions should not be bolded. Please fix the |last=/|first= parameters in reference #6. Should it be something like |last1=Duff|first1=James|first2=Henrietta|last2=Tayler|first3=Alistair Norwich|last3=Tayler instead? Keep up the good work! GoingBatty (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: thank you so much for your time. I appreciate your taking the time to go thorough my article so thoroughly. I’m not sure my plan was to expand on each Baron. I wanted to create the page so that it could be edited and added onto once in the main space. Is that an ok strategy, or should I format it differently if it’s not my plan to elaborate on each of the Barons? Regarding “MacDuff” capitalisation, the Barony is spelled “MacDuff” and the town is called “Macduff”. I think you will find it is consistent through that lens. I have removed the bold print on images. I didn’t know that wasn’t just a preference. I THINK the number 6 reference is actually correct. The author of the letters is an author, and lived in the date range I placed there. The book was written in the early 1900’s buy the other two authors. I looked up the format to do that before I put it out there. I admittedly looked it up though. I’m no expert. Am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grnhrnt35 (talkcontribs) 03:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnhrnt35: I'll leave most of your questions to the editor who will review your article. Reference #6 isn't correct, as the date range does not belong in the |last= field. Without seeing the book, I'm not sure how to properly credit both the author of the letters and the authors of the book. GoingBatty (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User kindly let me know he thinks my entry may be denied. Can someone take a look and help?

Hi all! This community is so helpful--I really appreciate it. I have submitted 3 entries with no COI on three very different topics and am waiting to see about approval. A helpful user let me know he believes one of the entries will be denied. Can someone take a look for me and let me know how to eradicate the problem? I have already deleted it once and fixed errors. The user believes it won't be approved because too many of the references are directly connected to him (i.e. his personal website and two of his company's pages). If that's the case, as I was using these as secondary forms of information, I can easily delete them and leave the 8 other sources of information. Isn't it allowed at certain times to use company websites as secondary forms of information however? I asked this question last week before submitting this page. Please let me know if it's better to just delete them and any related information. There is enough international and national coverage of the subject that I am able to delete. Draft here:

Again, thank you all so much for your help. I really appreciate how nice this community has been while helping me move from a regular editor to a creator the past few weeks. It is hard!MediaExpert1979 (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC) MediaExpert1979 (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MediaExpert1979: On Draft:Christopher N. Harding, which references are independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Harding (not just a passing mention)? GoingBatty (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vocabulary: Wikipedia defines content connected to the topic (websites, press releases, interviews) as "primary" and references completely independent of the subject at hand as "secondary." The former does not contribute to confirming notability. Examples include albums released by a musician and science journal articles authored by a scientist. Including information of this nature is useful, but not as far as notability. It is even possible for a person to own a business that is Wikipedia-notable without the person being notable. David notMD (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

STATUS: Draft:Christopher N Harding declined. Draft:Organic by John Patrick waiting for a reviewer. No evidence in ME's Contributions of a third article. David notMD (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


#REDIRECT [[Target page name]] FkpCascais (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FkpCascais: Hi there! If you go to Special:Preferences, the "User Profile" tab has a section called "Email options" which has your email address. Your password may be stored in your browser's settings. Hope this helps, and good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance templates

Hello! I was wondering if I could get more clarity on when to remove tags/tags in general. Based on what I’ve read, it seems that for some tags if the problem is addressed then the tag can be removed with an edit summary while other tags may require a talk page discussion. For an article that has the tag “needs additional citations for verification,” is there a general rule of thumb as to how many citations need to be added before the tag can be removed? Thank you! Eucalyptusmint (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eucalyptusmint, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, your question is a little nebulous, but no worries I would explain to you in the best manner I can, some tags can be removed by the article creator and sometimes, the article creator is not allowed to remove the tag. Take this analogy, if I tag an article you created with the {{unreferenced}} tag, it means the article in question has absolutely no sources, if you add a source you are within your rights to remove the tag, however if I tag the article with a {{COI}}, it wouldn’t be a good move for the article creator to remove the tag. There are other things I haven’t discussed, but you can see WP:MTR for a detailed explanation. Celestina007 (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eucalyptusmint, Furthermore as noted below, Ruslik0 is very much correct. if you encounter the tag {{citation needed}} or {{cn}} the full meaning is “Citation Needed” This references or points to a particular part of a given article, that indicates a source/citation for verifiability purposes is needed. Now, what you want to do is address this by injecting a reliable source, see WP:RS then proceed to remove the tag. Feel free to ask more questions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least you should address all "citation needed" tags. Ruslik_Zero 20:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's very helpful, thank you so much. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eucalyptusmint: Before removing the {{More citations needed}} template from Rajaji National Park, I suggest each paragraph should have some references. I disagree with Ruslik0, as the {{citation needed}} tags don't also need the {{More citations needed}} template. GoingBatty (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! Thank you for the clarification.Eucalyptusmint (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect death death for Eric Salzman

How can I correct Wikipedia incorrect death date for my husband? It is Nov. 12, 2017, not Nov. 13. (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, Please go the talk page of the article and suggest there, the edits you want to see added to the article. Do not do do yourself due to a conflict of interest, furthermore see WP:V. Celestina007 (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At Eric Salzman, I changed the date to Nov 12, and changed the ref to the NY Times obituary, that had the correct date. David notMD (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse! Since you have a conflict of interest (COI), you should not be editing the Eric Salzman directly. As Celestina007 mentioned, you may post your suggestions at Talk:Eric Salzman with the {{edit request}} template to ask another editor to help you, or you may use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Your edits to other articles where you don't have a COI are appreciated. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be an art gallery section on wikipedia?

The 'should there be an art gallery section on Wikipedia?' Question which I have come up with while drawing some Ediacaran art on a paper towel is referring to how there should be a section featuring art, drawings, animations,3D models and uploads that have been uploaded by users on Wikimedia or Wikipedia.

This idea seems like a pretty good idea to me , as people might look at the images uploaded to the gallery tab and get some inspiration without having to go on Wikimedia and try to find images by searching for the name of the image because the image their looking for has a name similar to other files uploaded on Wikimedia and would result in that person getting confused and having to scroll down more and more if there are WAY too many images with the same file name that they're looking for.

And yes, I do know that it would basically work like the "featured image" edit on certain images, but trying to find a featured image is often frustrating as there can be multiple uploads of that feature image , as well as people copying the "featured image" script onto their newly uploaded , NOT featured image, to Wikimedia. When a image gets into the gallery tab (the one I'm talking about) it shows the image that WAS actually featured and not re-uploads of the same image with the same "featured image" script. For example , lets imagine a scenario where a person gets their image turned into a featured image on Wikipedia, then , malicious people see that image being featured so they steal it , upload it to Wikimedia and put the "featured image" edit onto the stolen image. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, a space where editors ask questions pertaining to editing here and how to edit better, I’m afraid your question comes off as a statement as opposed to a question. To help be of aid to you, could you expressly ask a precise question? Celestina007 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus If I understand you correctly, you are asking if there is somewhere that people who have done drawings of notable topics can display their work. If that's what you meant, the answer is 'Definitely not'. This is an encyclopaedia, and not only the text, but also the images used in articles must be based upon reliable sources and not personal inspiration or guesswork. Anything else would be out-of-scope for this project and thus liable to be removed. Try Flickr for that.
I sort of understand what you might be getting at regarding difficulty of searching for images. That's why utilising Categories - both when searching for images and adding the best ones after uploading them - is really quite important.
I'm afraid I don't understand your last comment about 'Featured images'. Uploaded content is licenced and can be freely used or reused by others, provided it is credited to the original source in accordance with the Creative commons licence. Uploading a copy of an original file and claiming it as one's own is against policy. Both these and pure duplicates would be deleted. Almost all image licencing issues and image management are dealt with over at Wikimedia Commons, not here. We can simply advise. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roger de Clifford (died 1285?)

Can someone please help me remove the "invalid year" error in the infobox. Ficaia (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ficaia: Welcome to the Teahouse! I removed the {{marriage}} parameter to remove the error. You can also start a discussion on Template talk:Marriage to request a change to the template syntax. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Article

Hi! We've edited quite a bit, but I would like to ask if making character lists that do not already exist be premature without help? -Jae RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RemusSandersRegretsEverything: Hi there! It might depend on the amount of information and reliable sources available. I suggest you start a new topic on the talk page of article that discusses the character. (e.g. Before creating Characters of Mean Girls, I suggest you discuss on Talk:Mean Girls). Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty, we've made major edits to the linked article already, so I believe that that would be an important separate article. However, for other edits we've made, there is almost no actual information on characters. The list I have in mind is a List of Heathers Characters or List of Encanto Characters. I'm not sure if it would be frowned upon considering we don't have as much knowledge on the editing capabilities of Wikipedia. -Jae RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ping:GoingBatty RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article

 – Combined sections. GoingBatty (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already posted something like this; we want to make a few character lists that don't yet exist. Would it be premature to make this article without much prior experience to making an article? We aren't sure how to use all the perks Wikipedia has yet. -Jae RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RemusSandersRegretsEverything: Hi again! You don't need to create a new section to continue the conversation. Another thing you can do is go to Help:Your first article and use the article wizard to create a draft. This will allow you to work on your list over a period of time without worrying if it's going to be deleted. You can also post at Talk:Heathers or Talk:Encanto (film) to have editors look at your draft and make suggestions. When you finish the draft, you can submit it for review to become an article. GoingBatty (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RemusSandersRegretsEverything Welcome to the Teahouse. I fear you are rather in danger of being blocked for breaching one of our policies that bans 'shared use' whereby only one person may operate one Wikipedia account, and not two or more. If your use of 'we' as a personal pronoun is purely a preference or affectation, and is one not relating to more than one person accessing this account, please would you be extremely explicit and clear about this fact on your userpage? Without such additional clarification, I fear someone like myself might come along and block you per WP:SHARED, and that this could happen repeatedly if you use the 'we' form. As it stands, I'm afraid I can make no sense of what you're saying on your account's userpage, so both clarity and brevity is essential.
To try to address your intitial quesiont: it is always best not to dive in straight away to do the most difficult thing here - creating new articles or list articles. Better to learn the why's and wherefore's of basic editing first. All 'List' articles must list only 'notable' topics - i.e. the page must already exist elsewhere before you collate names into one article. See WP:LIST and WP:Stand-alone lists. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Moyes, copying RemusSandersRegretsEverything. See dissociative identity disorder. The User name Remus... represents a human with multiple personalities who has chosen to use the pronoun "we." David notMD (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: See also User:RemusSandersRegretsEverything/pronouns. GoingBatty (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes You clearly didn't check our userpage before posting this, seeing as we have an essay linked about our pronouns as well as a slideshow of our alters that explicitly states that we are the Skeleton System.
@GoingBatty I tried to ping you in the previous one, but it hadn't seemed to work. Thank you!
@David notMD Thank you for helping! -Jae RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
also @Nick Moyes, we have made clarity a large part of our activity on Wikipedia. We have expanded on, fixed major parts of, and generally edited many articles, so thank you. -Jae RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RemusSandersRegretsEverything Please don’t take offence, as none was intended, I can assure you. No, I admit to not seeing your essay. It was 3am local time when I responded to you, so that may explain why I missed it, and perhaps my sharpness. The point I would like to get across to you is more one of suggesting how you can find a way to give quicker, easier understanding to admins like me who are intolerant of shared use accounts, and inevitably have to make quick decisions whether to block such accounts, or not. To distinguish you from those who ‘’are’’ editing against policy, might I suggest a better or at least more succinct form of wording to place right at the top of your user page that we can see? The actual wording is up to you, of course, but how does this sound?:
“Note to admins: This is not a shared account! - this user invites you to read [link] to understand how personal pronouns are deployed by this editor.”
I hope you do not feel disrespected by my, admittedly, terse initial response to you, and that this suggestion might be a helpful way of ensuring quick and clear understanding by other admins and users without the need to do a lot of additional reading. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes Okay, thank you. I am also sorry for the way I reacted, today's circumstances affected my moods when replying, and I admit that. I will work on doing better in the future. -Jae/Trix RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Does Wikipedia generally use the Oxford comma? Aythya affinis (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! No, Wikipedia does not frown upon the serial comma, seeing as it prevents words and hard to read sentences. -Gretchen RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aythya affinis: Our guideline is here. Generally, editors are free to use the Oxford comma or not use it, at their preference, as long as the usage is consistent within each article, and the usage does not result in ambiguity. CodeTalker (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both! Aythya affinis (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure how to proceed on a citation

Hi all, I'm still new to editing and have so far fixed simple things like broken redirects or number errors, but I've come across a particularly bizarre wall. Using Citation Hunt this uncited line from Discord's page was brought to my attention

  • "Discord allows users to connect various external platforms to their account, including Steam, Reddit, Twitch, Twitter, and more. These accounts can optionally be shown on the user's profile."

Having used Discord, I know this is certainly a feature that exists within the software. but original research is a no go so I went hunting for some documentation to prove that the feature existed and found only two support articles: This one, mentioning Spotify intergration and This one, targeting Xbox Live integration, I don't exactly know how to proceed, as these two articles demonstrate the existence of components of the system described, but not of the system itself. The way I'm thinking about it in my head is "Am I allowed to say cheese exists if I only have sources for cheddar and mozzarella?"

I appreciate any insight, AGuyNamedSquid (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AGuyNamedSquid Welcome to the Teahouse. Regarding Cheese, you are certainly able to say that cheese exists if you only have sources to say that cheddar and mozzarella exist. But probably not that cheddar and mozarrella are types of cheeses if you cannot demonstrate that as a fact! Now, I'm not a very technical person, but if statement about the feature you refer to in Discord is not contentious, then I feel it would be OK to leave it there uncited, even if the tag remains. Obviously, another editor could feel it was contentious and might expect a citation sometime soon, or they would feel able to remove it. But if this was a very obvious feature that we'd be expected to know, then maybe it remaining there unsupported without a citation would be acceptable to most editor (rather like uncited 'Plot' descriptions in film and TV articles). Either way, I would delete "...and more" which is quite unnecessary and somewhat tautological. This issue is perhaps something to raise at Talk:Discord. I hope this short reply is of some help. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AGuyNamedSquid, see if this helps [6] from CNN.Slywriter (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Ochoa and Julian Araujo are no longer eligible for the USA national team, people keep adding to the team when they are no longer eligible I edited the team and took them off, but some stupid person keeps adding them back! 03:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Msantiking0309 (talkMsantiking0309 (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Keskkonnakaitse, who is an experienced editor, reverted your edits saying in the edit summary that your wrong, but part of what you said was true. If the information you know is true than back it up with a reliable source. And please refrain from calling other Wikipedians stupid. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 03:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And please read WP:MINOR. Restoring a contest4ed edit is certainly not a minor edit. Meters (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Msantiking0309: Welcome to the Teahouse! Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I suggest you start a new section at Talk:United States men's national soccer team where you discuss the change you would like to make to the article and provide the reliable source, and work with Keskkonnakaitse and others to build consensus. Thanks for your efforts to make Wikipedia better, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "cabal" on humorous essays real?

Some pages (such as this one) have this template at the top:

Decree.png This is a decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW). It expresses opinions and ideas that are absolutely and irrefutably true whether you like them or not. Changes to it must reflect the wishes of the Supreme Cabal. When in doubt, please ignore the talk page and just keep reverting.

Is this cabal actually real? (This is YOUR page) (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] It may have been when the essay was created in 2007, but it's unlikely that it's still "active". GoingBatty (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So it existed back then, but doesn't anymore? (This is YOUR page) (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may have existed back then, but it's unlikely that it exists any more. -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It never actually existed. The circus got closed down due to poor reviews in any event, and so pages intentionally meant to just be humourous aren't a thing anymore. (That's not to say incidental comedy is a lost art on Wikipedia - just look at List of whale species.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano: - okay, I give up. I looked through List of whale species pretty carefully, and I must have missed the incidental comedy. Can you at least give me a hint where it is?--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Picture column, everything that lacks an image. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 11:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské Couriano that made my day. Thank you so much for drawing our attention to that! Elemimele (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské Couriano LOL! I had to scroll down almost to the end of the article, but it was well worth it! It is so nice to see that a sense of humour has not been completely banished by the WP Fun Police! Thank you. Smile.gif --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of a pity, really, and plenty of humour still around. When I am really down about Wikipedia, this always cheers me up. Mind that we are a allowed to keep this and other pages as "it is considered to be humorous". Lectonar (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I delete my account from this Trash Fire of a thing called Wikipedia

How do I delete my account from this Trash Fire of a thing called Wikipedia. The admin I've encountered are bossy grouches who just show up, jump to conclusions and criticize when I've been trying to do my best for a long time. When you calmly explain they made a mistake, they follow with another dig. Then when you say one thing on the page is important to you they ignore you like you don't matter and tell you to stop being negative or they'll make you! Ugh! In two days I've learned to hate Wikipedia. Some of your admin think they can treat people as rudely as they want, when this place wouldn't exist without amateur volunteers. It's not worth volunteering for something where the admin treat you like crap.  Daltonsatom (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't. Just stop using your account. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daltonsatom (talkcontribs) 07:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Bye. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, thanks for your help. :) Don't like limbo accounts.Daltonsatom (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this is about the article Intellivision Amico. -- Hoary (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Retiring for a means of creating a RETIRED banner atop User page, and I suppose Talk page. David notMD (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daltonsatom: Sorry you had a bad experience here. Per Wikipedia:Username policy#Deleting and merging accounts, "It is not possible to delete user accounts, as all contributions must be assigned to some identifier". GoingBatty (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First or last names in plot summaries?

I've always assumed that in plot summaries in film articles, after the first listing of a character's full, subsequent references to that character should use their last name only, instead of their first name, but I just realized I can't find this convention in WP:FILMPLOT. Which is it? Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Best Beatles I think MOS:SURNAME applies here.--Shantavira|feed me 09:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of MOS:SURNAME says "For fictional entities, use common names. For example, Jason, Luigi, and Wesker". I think this applies to plot summaries; use the name that is most commonly used in the film, or most commonly used in reviews of the film or sources about the film. It is quite possible in a film to have someone referred to only by their given name throughout the film, and yet whose surname is known, for example from a brief glimpse of an ID badge in some scene. It would be very unhelpful in such a case to use their surname. Where a character has a full name, given and surname, and both are used in a realistic manner, then it makes sense to use WP's normal rules for real life. For example, DI Humphrey Goodman in Death_in_Paradise_(TV_series) is called DI Goodman in professional situations, and Humphrey to his friends and family. In our article, he is initially referred to by his whole name, then "He" a couple of times, before "Goodman's replacement on St Marie is...", a very natural style for Wikipedia, and easily followed by our readers. Elemimele (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why can page movers edit editnotices?

It seems like the least related permission there is in the group. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by a particular un-logged IP

There is an un-logged IP user who makes clear vandal edits after every few days with different IPs. I have got about 10 different IPs and all have the same kind of vandal edits in Indian constituency pages, making it pretty obvious that it's the same person. By the time these edits are discovered and reverted, the IP user starts making similar changes on other Indian constituency pages a few days later with a different IP.

The last couple of IPs from where vandalism has happened are - 1 2 3 4 5

Is there any way to permanently block this vandalism from this particular user?. Thanks. Dhruv edits (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhruv edits Yes, you can report the vandalism to an admin but I do not see enough evidence to say that all those ip addresses could all be one user. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 09:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Pelham (died 1429)

Can someone please show me how to make a note (labelled "a") from the end of the first paragraph in this article, after footnote "2". I want to include a short quotation in the note. Ficaia (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To make a note, you must use this template {{efn|put what you want here}}. Then you must make a section called notes right above the references section and put the template {{notes}} in there so it will list out all the notes. Hope this helps! ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 09:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers :) Ficaia (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biography of a scientist rejected

Dear Wikipedians, I am a first-time editor, and I am trying to create a page for Jannis Panagiotidis, a German historian who is a prominent migration scholar, world-famous in his field (history of Russia Germans). My submission has been declined because apparently it does not qualify for a Wikipedia article — does no not show significant coverage. Could someone please help me to understand what "significant coverage" means specifically in the case of a living person/a scientist? For example, there are interviews with him in large newspapers such as the German Die Zeit, which I have linked in the draft - doesn't this qualify as "significant coverage"? What specific type of content would qualify as "significant coverage" in this case? THANK YOU for your help! Iravienna (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iravienna: Notability is determined when the article has significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Interviews are not independent of the subject. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 14:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reading is key. The notice says a lot more than what you mentioned. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 14:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give up. He looks a 1000 times more relevant than half of the existing enWiki articles, and you've done an excellent work in putting together the material. But you'll be stopped from posting it if you don't come up with more RS, reliable sources, which I am sure you can find: with his number of publications on such a topical issue, there's no way he's not quoted by at least half a dozen colleagues in books and peer-reviewed journals. Admins love those. Die Zeit is a perfect recommendation for me, but some are setting the formal threshold higher. Please ping me once you've managed, I'm interested in the article. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arminden He sure is quoted in many publications by other scholars! But those are all strictly scientific books and articles. I did not think Wikipedia is the right place for such quotes, but now I will try. Thanks for advice! Iravienna (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the references to be more aligned with Wikipedia format. I also completely changed the description of his involvement with the Ambivalences ref, as all I saw in the ref was that he led a discussion at a conference. What I removed was "He is also the principle investigator in the project on post-Soviet immigrant communities in Germany." If that is true, it needs a better ref. In general, I agree that more references ABOUT him are needed. David notMD (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iravienna: welcome to the club. That's exactly what's required. Taken at face value, Wiki has the same requirements as a PhD committee. Few articles are up to the requirements, but the rules do exist, and if a fellow editor or an admin decides to hold you to the set standards, then you have no choice. In a case like Panagiotidis', it's better this way. A scholar represents opinions, and those are seldom accepted by all, so a multi-faceted presentation makes perfect sense, rules aside. It's not an article on Pokemons. Those strictly scientific works are exactly what's needed. Good luck! Arminden (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of redirect page

How to work on draft of a redirect page? Mukesh.kfc (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mukesh.kfc, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I don't understand what you are asking. If you mean you want to create a draft, but the name of your proposed article is already in use as a redirect, then go ahead and create the draft anyway: when a reviewer accepts your draft into the encyclopaedia, they will sort out what happens to the existing redirect. If you mean something else, then please explain more clearly. --ColinFine (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mukesh.kfc — Per ColinFine, feel free to just create the draft. Simply enter your article name and insert the draft prefix (Draft:(insert title here)). You’ll notice that when using the template {{draft article}}, it’ll say: “The page (insert title here) in the mainspace currently is a redirect to (target page here)”. When you submit your draft, if it’s accepted, then your draft will either A: be copy-paste moved, or B: the redirect will be deleted under CSD G6, and the draft will be moved to take its place. Hopefully this helps. — 3PPYB6TALKCONTRIBS — 21:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Create table of contents when less than 4 headings

A TOC can be useful for DAB and talk-pages, even when they don't have the required 4 headings. Talk-pages for instance can have discussions that go on forever, a TOC can help with jumping over the "mammoths". By using the "TOC right" tag one can always create a TOC, but on the right side, where I don't find it as user-friendly. Any solution for a regular TOC on the left? Thanks! Arminden (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arminden! You'll probably kick yourself. :) Use Template:TOC left. Hope this is of help! LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dong... Can you hear it? That's me kicking myself. Thing is, I had tried once with <nowiki>{{tocleft}} and remembered that it didn't work. Now I see that does create a TOC, but it's not above the first paragraphs, it pushes into it and squeezes it to the side. But it's there. Thanks! :))
Done, sorted, can be archived (unless you know how to fix that too, but it's not really important). Arminden (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Arminden! No worries, so many templates. :) I'm happy to have helped. You can fix the spacing issue with {{clear left}} placed right next to the TOC left. That will make it nice & tidy just like a normally placed TOC. There's an example on my User Talk page. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks great! I'll put on a turtle-neck in your honour. NOW. Thank you!! Arminden (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Essay-like Tone? How long before my article is ready?

Hi! I'm working on the article Draft:Envelope Encryption. It got rejected a few days ago in the AfC queue because the tone was too essay-like, and I got a few comments about citation style. I fixed what I thought/was told was essay-like tone and the citations, but I'm not sure I covered everything. It seems like I haven't fully absorbed what the Wikipedian definition of "essay-like" is yet, so I would really like help with this. I am auto-confirmed, but I submitted to the AfC queue because I wanted feedback. Here are some questions I'd like help with:

1: Could somebody look at my fixed article and say if they think there are still essay-like parts of the tone? Some specific pointers would be nice!

2: I theoretically have permission to move my article out of drafts, since I am auto-confirmed. How many rounds of feedback should my article go through before moving it out of drafts? Do you think it's ready?


 A40585 (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A40585: Welcome to the Teahouse! The topic of your draft isn't in my area of expertise, but I wonder if you're overcapitalizing. For example, should we use "Key Management Systems" or "key management systems". The key management article leads me to believe that lower case is correct. Good luck with your draft! GoingBatty (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: Thanks for the warm welcome! Great catch! That's a mistake I make pretty often in technical writing. I fixed it. A40585 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @A40585: - I took a quick look and think the draft still reads like an essay. The biggest issue is that none of the info about envelope encryption is sourced. You describe the technique in your own words, but link to commercial cloud computing company sites, a paywalled research paper, and an online glossary for a related term. You'll need sufficient sourcing to demonstrate that the term is significant enough for a standalone article. I googled envelope encryption to see if I could find some technical articles about the term, and was unsuccessful. You're probably better off merging the info to encryption, such as to Encryption#Uses. Then you need fewer sources to demonstrate notability. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping a question

 – Combined sections. GoingBatty (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I got my question from a few hours ago partially answered (thanks to GoingBatty!), but I'd like a bit more feedback and opinions about when I can ship the article. For reference, it's this one: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Essay-like_Tone?_How_long_before_my_article_is_ready?. Thanks, and please tell me if bumping is bad etiquette! A40585 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A40585 Welcome back, and thanks for asking. Don't take it the wrong way, but because all posts here get archived after just 2-3 days of inactivity, bumping isn't really needed or appropriate. If a discussion gets continued input from editors over a week or two, then the post will end up at the top of Teahouse list until that activity ceases. Only then will it be archived. You should then get an automated message on your talk page saying it's been archived. So, if you still don't feel you've had your question fully addressed, that would then be the time to come back and ask again, ideally linking in to the now-archived thread that has been closed (there'll be a link in that automated message).
I'm not sure I can add much to what GoingBatty said, as it is very technical. I suggest your second sentence is used as the lead sentence. It makes more sense to a dolt like me. I would, however, strongly advise any new editor not to move an article they care about directly into mainspace. Once there, it stands a much greater risk of being deleted as inappropriate, whereas by going theough Articles for Creation drafts don't get rejected without good reason, and then you get a chance to take on board the feedback you're given. The downside is that it can take a long time to be processed - perhaps up to 2 or 3 months. Your own uncertainty tends to confirm that getting reviewer feedback would be helpful. Another route is to post at WP:WikiProject Computing and ask the technogeeks there to take a look. All that being said, it does look like it's potentially notable. I found this intro gave me a better understanding, and could also be used to confirm notability. If you're really unsure, you could always search related articles and see if what you want to add could actually be inserted into one of them. I hope this helps - and well done on getting this far. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes Thanks so much for your feedback! :-) I'll try those things too, since it looks like going through a WikiProject will be the best way to get a reviewer with a domain knowledge. I didn't realize you could do that. I'll try to take some inspiration from that intro too, but sadly the source itself is user-editable wiki style documentation :(. Thanks again, and I'll keep working on my draft this week! A40585 (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to follow specific Wikipedia projects

I want to somehow specifically follow the Wikiprojects theology and LGBT studies. Is there a way I can do this? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MaitreyaVaruna: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can go to the WP:WikiProject Theology and WP:WikiProject LGBT studies pages and click the star icon to add them to your watchlist, so you can see when discussion is happening. Is that what you meant by "follow the Wikiprojects"? Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: Yes that is what I wanted to do. Thank you MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once you have a Watchlist, you can add or remove article titles. You can also choose to watch individual editors. Which should not descend into stalking. David notMD (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to fix references

Hi! My submission ( ) got declined and I'm trying to fix the references and reliable sources. Could someone take a look at help me with what I'm doing wrong? Thanks much. Profjrhodes (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)profjrhodes[reply]

Remove all hyperlinks from the body of the article. I suspect that none of the awards are Wikipedia-significant, and thus the awards section should be deleted, but I defer to editors with knowledge of LGBTQ scholarship and Wikipedia's guidelines on awards. IMBd is not an accepted ref, as anyone can edit it. David notMD (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Profjrhodes: Welcome to the Teahouse! IMDb can be used in the "External links" section. I suggest you expand each reference to include a |work= or |publisher= parameter, and also a |year= or |date= parameter. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What would be sufficient indication of Astolfo's notability

I recently made an article Draft:Astolfo (Fate/stay night) for a character who is definitely notable culturally relative to other characters such as Byleth (Fire Emblem) who have full articles. What kind of coverage should I include in the article to establish the notability? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MaitreyaVaruna. I notice that your draft has only three references while the Byleth article has 22 references. Try to find coverage similar to those 22 for your draft. Cullen328 (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to note, though, is that notability isn't about the number of references so much as their quality. What you're looking for is works that come from a reliable source (one with a strong reputation for fact checking), that have detailed coverage focusing on that character in particular (not just incidental mentions of them as part of coverage of the wider series), and that are unaffiliated with Type-Moon. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Something to note about the draft as well is that the Journal of Geek Studies – perhaps unsurprisingly – is an online magazine, not a peer-reviewed journal. Articles are submitted via email, MS Word document, RTF, or LaTex. "This is done in order to check if they are within the scope of the journal and if the research seems reasonably sound." [emphasis mine] While it does have a small editorial board, this clearly isn't scientifically sound enough to be cited as "a study". TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are more sources you could find about him. He's a pretty popular character, and very notably androgynous, so there's probably been at least one article written about him in a more mainstream site. Erinius (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What part of Wikipedia needs the most help?

I have been an occasional contributor to Wikipedia since 2016 who has so far stuck mostly to topics I was particularly passionate about at the time. My most notable contribution by far has been the creation of the List of mass shootings in the United States article.

But I would like to contribute to Wikipedia more regularly and graduate from being a WikiTeen. I'm not particularly confident in my ability to write new articles or completely transform existing ones because I'm not a subject-area expert, more a jack of all trades.

What area of Wikipedia needs the most help? Categorization? Spelling/grammar errors? A particular subject? OttoKaneko (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OttoKaneko. I suggest that you check out Wikipedia:Community portal, where you can find many lists of tasks that need to be worked on. Cullen328 (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thank you. Not sure how I missed that. OttoKaneko (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@OttoKaneko, the Task Center has a bunch of options. One particular place that you can look is Articles for Improvement, which targets important but low-quality articles. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, this looks even better. Thanks! OttoKaneko (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@OttoKaneko Here's another idea for you: I you have a particular subject area that interests you, try to find a relevant Wikiproject that covers it (usually shown in the talk page of an article. Most of these Projects have Quality Assessment tables - multicoloured things that I ignored as too complicated for years, but then discovered they are a great way of finding important topics that need improving. Every article that has been tagged as falling under that topic is likely to have been given an 'Importance' rating and a 'Quality' rating from Stub to Featured Article. See a live example below: This one comes my pet area: WP:WikiProject Mountains of the Alps:
The Rimpfischhorn - an important 4,000metre high mountain in the Swiss Alps, but still only a 'Stub' Class article.
  • The vertical columns show the assessed importance of the articles (Top, High, Mid, Low & Unassessed)
  • The horizontal rows allow you to see how many articles of each Quality Assessment fall into each Importance grouping. By clicking on any number, you get a list of all those corresponding articles
So (assuming that you actually like snowy mountains!), either Stub or Start class articles that are of Top or High importance would be ideal targets for your attention. They are often the easiest to improve and, being assessed as highest priority, are likely to get the greatest traffic. Thus I see there are 5 articles currently deemed of Top importance that are 'Start' class, and 21 'Stub' articles of 'High' importance. I click the number and find these 5 articles that might interest me. Admittedly, the assessment is very subjective (see Wikipedia:Content assessment), but we have lots of WikiProjects who have these tables, and they can be a really great (but often overlooked) place to find ideas to work on.
The other side of the coin is that improving very heavily viewed articles means that any change you make will be seen by lots of people (see example for Covid-19 Pandemic), though probably the individual impact of your one single edit there might be a lot less. I hope you find something of interest that you can enjoy getting your teeth into. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thank you for this. A lot of potential ideas to consider. OttoKaneko (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overzealous deletion

I am having an issue with another Wikipedian. They seem set on deleting anything I add--and it appears from their talk page that they have done this to many others.

First they deleted notables that I added to city and high school pages, indicating that these people were not notable because they are not in Wikipedia. While I would have preferred it if this person had taken the time to review my citations, rather than assuming I was wrong, this is why there is a talk page. Next they deleted my addition of a notable who has a Wikipedia article, saying "they only went to school there." I maintain that going to elementary, junior high and high school in a town means a person is from a community and grew up there, matching the very definition of a related notable. At the same time, this Wikipedian did nothing to the other existing notables whose articles don't even mention a relationship to the city (something I plan on fixing, rather than deleting). To me, this shows malice toward me personally, rather than a sincere desire to follow the guidelines.

This has been going back and forth on two articles, and has escalated. Yesterday, I spent about 5 hours finding sources for data without citations, correcting incorrect facts, and adding content to the history section for the city. Ny change were +4,274‎. I used many sources, including a UNC press book, newspaper articles and the NCpedia (State Library/NC Dept of Cultural Resources), museums, and a credible e-newspaper. This person reverted all my work, saying that I used a blog as a source. Even if I did use a blog for one reference, why would any reasonable person delete other content that was unrelated to the blog? But I did not use a blog--I have a masters in library science and a masters in history, and know what an appropriate source is.

In the past, my activity as an editor has been adding sources and updating content. I rarely make bigger changes. I recently decided to try to be more active because I am currently not working (recovering from surgery) and the American Library Association has encouraged librarians (and women) to get involved. I want to do this, but I getting really frustrated and feeling bullied by this person. Today, I left them a message on their talk page making my case and asking them to revert my content and let me fix the source they are concerned with. However, based on the comments others have left, I am not expecting a response. If I don't hear back, what is my next step. How do I get someone to adjudicate this dispute? Is this normal? Rublamb (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rublamb, thank you for your work for Wikipedia. You've made an objection in User talk:Magnolia677#Cary, North Carolina. Magnolia677 responded. You responded. (All of this was very polite, and entirely proper.) And then -- nothing. So it may seem that Magnolia677 is simply ignoring you. However, Magnolia677 hasn't edited anywhere since you posted your message, and may just be asleep in bed or busy with "real life". So I suggest waiting till Magnolia677 restarts editing (and preferably a couple of days after that). -- Hoary (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary;Thanks. I am trying to keep the peace, but also resolve this issue so we can edit in peace--and maybe even have polite dialog about articles we want to edit in common. It was good that I got a response, but I am a bit concerned that once I had resolved their concerns about the non-existent blog, they switched tactics and challenged another source. Fingers crossed on thisRublamb (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rublamb:It can be frustrating to have a dispute where only one person is objecting, which is why Wikipedia has avenues to involve independent parties to review the dispute and weigh in. The first step is often a Third Opinion request. If that does not resolve the dispute, you have the option of submitting a Request for Comment, which will bring in multiple independent editors to weigh in on a specific point of contention. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You and Magnolia677 now appear to be in discussion on Talk pages about Cary, North Carolina, so please continue. David notMD (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please protect the hollow knight silksong page?

Its being vandalised several times. The vandalism says that its cancelled. It has been vandalised and unvandalized several times. Lionsleeps26 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lionsleeps26 If there has been a lot of vandalism you can ask for the page to be protected at request for page protection. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 01:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lionsleeps26: Hello! If you haven't already, you may request for a page protection on the article's talk page by inserting this template, or you may do so at the following page. Thank you! 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ 💬reach out to me!・📝see my work! 01:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Troubled.elias: That template is only for requesting an edit to an already protected page. It is not for requesting protection. RudolfRed (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RudolfRed: Ah, dang, I misread the instructions. Apologies! Should be redacted now. 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ 💬reach out to me!・📝see my work! 03:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I put information about the nanovna in the Network Analyzers article and it was reverted. It had 3 references. I cannot imagine why the information was erased except that the editor has not kept up with this advance. Rather than getting a $10,000 piece of lab equipment hobbyists like me can buy a $50-$150 device small enough to fit in our pocket that is fine for our purposes. It reminds me of my father, a computer pioneer, who scoffed that microcomputers could be good for anything, or a friend at NIST who thought of microcomputers as an amusing toy. He used supercomputer time at work, so it was hard for him to understand that anything less could be valuable. It's very frustrating to put valuable information into Wikipedia, properly referenced, and be undone by someone who is just ignorant of significant advances in the instrumentation. Sometimes the advance is not greater accuracy, but, like the microcomputer, putting an affordable tool in the hands of anybody who wants it.Conscientia (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Conscientia (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Network_analyzer_(electrical) RudolfRed (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You already started a discussion on the article's talk page. I suggest you start a new discussion in a civil manner, and WP:AGF RudolfRed (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Choo wwe

making article (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please make an article about wwe superstar, wendy choo. (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)livvy[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! The formal place for requesting someone else writes an article is Wikipedia:Requested articles, but there is no guarantee anyone will ever choose to write one. You could also try posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. In either case, you might improve your chances of someone writing the article if you provide multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about her career. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you didn't read the answer you received at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1138#Wendy Choo WWE when you asked the same question from a slightly different IP address. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Group Project

Hello there, Can I write an article with a group of people and on one account, or do we need to have separate accounts and work individually? LOWTeam2022 (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LOWTeam2022. You may work collaboratively with other editors, but WP:SHAREDACCOUNTs among multiple editors are not allowed. In addition, based on what you posted below, you (and your colleagues) might want to carefully read through Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Expert editors and Wikipedia:No original research because it sounds like you might be misunderstanding some impportant things about Wikipedia. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Username policy#Promotional usernames because your username might be considered unacceptable if you and others start editing as a "team" even if you all create individual accounts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick response and feedback. I will make these changes. Super helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LOWTeam2022 (talkcontribs) 07:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Research assistant

Hello, I am a research assistant at a university. Part of my employment is to write and post an article on wikipedia about research models in my field. However, I have found that paid writers are not allowed to post on wikipedia or they need to disclose payment? Did I understand that correctly? Or what am I missing? :) Thank you - LOWTeam2022 (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again LOWTeam2022. It sounds like your employer might be misunderstanding some very important things about Wikipedia. I've mentioned some of these above in my answer to your other question, but you might want to explain to your employer that Wikipedia articles aren't really intended to be places for publishing academic or other types of research. Articles can contain information (when encyclopedically relevant) about already published and peer reveiwed reseach when it's considered to be a reliable source as explained here, but articles aren't intended to be a way of publishing or promoting one's research (i.e. means of first publication). As for paid-editing, it's not expressly prohibitted as long is it's properly declared as explained in Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, but be advised that many in the Wikipedia community are highly suspicious of even properly declared paid editing which may create issues between you and other Wikipedia editors. Paid-editing is a form of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and such editing is highly discouraged and considered inappropriate by many. Anyway both paid and COI editing can be done when done properly in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, but you will have no real editorial control over such an article once it's created as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content and no special consideration will be granted to you just because you've been compensated for your work by a third-party. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually quite a messy area, and I suspect you are the tip of the iceberg. I am quite certain that many universities and research organisations have held wikithons and encouraged their employees to update Wikipedia's articles/write new articles about their areas of research. In general, it goes unnoticed because all concerned are blissfully unaware that they've strayed into paid and COI territory. Usually, the people who do the work are motivated by very similar aims to WP itself, and they're often good writers who respect the importance of sources, so the product is good, and no one notices. @Marchjuly has given good advice. You will face an up-hill struggle because editors here are deeply suspicious of COI. But the absolutely, totally, fundamentally most important thing is that your task is impossible unless the research models about which you wish to write are accepted models that have been used/written-about independently by other researchers. WP isn't the place to promote new, cutting-edge ideas (that's straying into original research), or generally to promote one institution. Thank you for raising the question. You were right to do so. Elemimele (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I am doing this right to respond here...I sincerely appreciate your help in thinking through these details. I have been trying to process the information when I read it and glad to have this place to do so.
The research is not new; has been around for many years and proven with many case studies/examples. Also the research has already been published in peer reviewed journals and textbooks.
Does this help clarify? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LOWTeam2022 (talkcontribs) 07:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Creating new articles in accordance with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines is quite a difficult thing to get used to for even experienced (i.e. professional) writers because the Wikipedia:Manual of Style might not be what they're accustomed to and in many cases might seem "wrong" or "counterintuitive". Even the wikicode used in creating and formatting articles can be tricky if you're used to something different. However, it's going to make no difference how beautifully written and formatted an article is if it's not able to WP:OVERCOME the hurdle of Wikipedia:Notability. Wikipedia notability (or the lack thereof) is pretty much the main reason why article's end up WP:DELETEd. If you're unable to establish whether the subject you want to write about is clearly "Wikipedia notable", then its chances of surviving a deletion challenge go way down. I've got no idea what you're going to try and create an article about, but perhaps a good thing to do would be to check whether there's a Wikipedia:WikiProject which might cover the subject matter. Perhaps the editors of such a project would be better able to assess whether what you want to write about should be written about or maybe whether it's already been written about. Many WikiProjects have members with backgrounds in research and academia and they might be able to help provide advice more specific to your particular situation. If it turns out that Wikipedia is not suited for what you're trying to do, there are many WP:ALTERNATIVEs that might better suit your needs that will give you more control and are less restrictive when it comes to things like shared accounts, paid editing, conflict of interest editing, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have been coy so far as to the nature of the research area. Biomedical? Electronic? Energy? Economics? What does "research models" mean? Are there no existing articles for which the research at your university could be added to? Keep in mind that encyclopedias are trailing indicators of information. General advice here is to gain experience improving existing articles before attempting to create an article. David notMD (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And you can kill two birds with one stone in following David notMD's advice: if you can find some articles related to what you want to write about, improving them is a worthy action in itself, but will also help you find out about WP's style and formatting, and you might find an article whose structure you can use as a pattern for writing a new article. Although good sources are the vital starting-point, your article will have best chances of acceptance if it reads similarly to other, good articles in the same field (try to find good examples to follow; look on the talk-pages of the articles, where you will find a box at the top. In some articles, this box will say that the article is on an important subject, or has been rated. The best articles to use as patterns are those that are important enough to have been seen by a lot of editors - they're less likely to be misguided products that have slipped under the radar - and that are good enough to have been rated as good!). Elemimele (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Listing Our Oraganization

Dear Team,

Kindly advise, how could i list my organization details in Wikipedia. and if our organization has featured in any other news articles how do i attach the resource/referal . and what is the content format to publish here Radeemshu (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radeemshu, Wikipedia is not a place for the mere listing of the details of any organization. Please read and digest Help:YFA and WP:COIE. -- Hoary (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:NCORP. David notMD (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving page to draftspace

Hi, I came here, because of something that I have done, and cannot revert it. I moved Benipal to Draft:Benipal. It was actually an accidental move, and I cannot revert. Please do something about it. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 08:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Itcouldbepossible, that draft doesn't qualify to be an article. It can't decide if it's about a surname or a clan, it's only three sentences long, and it doesn't have a single reference. And therefore nobody should move it. Perhaps you would like to augment and improve it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary No need. I wrote 'accidentally move', but it was honestly not accidental. I actually meant to draftify it, but then I found that it was a long standing article, and someone told me not to draftify long standing articles, so I came here if the draftification could be reversed. Just as a matter of question, how is a draftification reversed, or is it not possible? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 08:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Itcouldbepossible: You may reverse it now. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AssumeGoodWraith No need, I was just asking if reversing draftification is possible, or not. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 10:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Itcouldbepossible: Move it back. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AssumeGoodWraith Where? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 10:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Itcouldbepossible: Article space. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AssumeGoodWraith I don't think that should be done, as Hoary days that it doesn't qualify to become an article. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 10:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, you technically can move it back. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AssumeGoodWraith How? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 10:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found that it was a long standing article, and someone told me not to draftify long standing articles It's a little more complicated: it was created as an article about five years ago, but was almost immediately changed to a redirect, and the redirect was there until a month ago. Some content was added, but the title was reverted back to the redirect. Yesterday, the same editor returned and added the current content. So the article you draftified is actually quite new, even though the title has existed for several years. --bonadea contributions talk 10:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea Thanks for the explanation. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 11:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When an article is "draftified", it should simply move: no redirect from the article should be created. If there is indeed no redirect, then the draft can simply be moved back to become an article (once it's good enough). -- Hoary (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Older history: Talk page of the draft shows that a version of an article by this name was deleted in 2011. David notMD (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David notMDYes, it is here. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 11:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary Yes, but to move a draft without keeping a redirect, we need mover rights isn't it? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 11:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Itcouldbepossible, I don't know if you're now (A) asking about moving a draft to an article (without a redirect), or (B) asking about moving an article to a draft (without a redirect). Are you in a position to improve Draft:Benipal? If you are, please improve it. If you are not, just forget it. Let it rot. Months from now, it will then disappear. The time you save can be spent on other articles. -- Hoary (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary No, I don't have knowledge about Benipal. I am not thinking about developing it. My question is, for example I just moved page A to Draft:A, and page A, has now a R2 CSD notice. Now, if I think, that it was an accidental move, and I want to move Draft:A back to page A, then what is the procedure? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 13:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images of peoples signatures?

What do people thing of signatures in biography articles? I really don't see how they add anything to an article and it was off the back of a conversation we had at Talk:Emma Watson#Watson's signature?, I feel they breach a few type of laws myself. Was looking for more input on the subject. Regards Govvy (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question worth asking, but you're asking it in the wrong place. I suggest that you work on a proposal. (One area that obviously needs work is: What is/are "a few type of laws", and in which legal system, and can't you improve on whether or not you "feel" something to be true?) When your proposal is better thought out and better phrased, ask about the improved version at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). (However, since you ask: I too don't think that they add anything; and I worry that their inclusion may suggest that signatures are important, and thus that "graphology" isn't piffle.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether including the signature is appropriate or not varies widely depending on the person, and the inclusion or exclusion of signatures from infoboxes has been hotly debated. For pre-photography era people, I always support inclusion of signatures, as they are one of the few things we have reliably identifying the individual. Sometimes the signatures are iconic, as with Picasso or John Hancock. —Kusma (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, I think for living people the signature should only be included if it is commonly depicted in RS. For example, those of presidents often get photographed signing laws or international treaties. Can't see a strong reason why we should care about Emma Watson's signature. —Kusma (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand for a deceased artist, that makes sense to me, but for people that are living. Doesn't make sense so much to me. Govvy (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref error

I have no idea how to fix this, but can someone fix the ref error on citation 11 at Algerian nuthatch, thanks. 2001:4455:364:A800:C13C:8A64:1CEF:F186 (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for asking. -- Hoary (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re-instating a deleted page


My son is an actor and he had a page on Wikipedia which was removed in 2019. He has numerous film and TV credits (as a lead actor) and has another big project coming out this year. I don't know anything about wikipedia, but I would like to get his page re-instated and find out what I need to do to keep it active. I note many other actors with less experience than him have active wikipedia pages.

His name is Toby Woolf

Can anyone help me?

Thanks so much.

Marnie Woolf Mw1357 (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mw1357: What is the name of the article? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, found it, deleted for lack of notability. [7]AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mw1357, hello. Read WP:BASIC. What are the 3-5 best sources you can link that are at the same time reliably published (WP:RS), independent of the subject and about the subject in some detail? This excludes blogs, wikis, imdb, own webpages etc etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toby Woolf there was a sense that in 2019, it was WP:TOOSOON for an article about Toby Woolf, at that time 10 years old, right now 13 years old. If you believe his acting career has advanced significantly, you can attempt a new draft, to be submitted to Articles for Creation (AfC) for review. See WP:YFA for process. As noted by GGS, quality references are mandatory. Given your connection (parent of) you will also need to post on your User page the nature of the connection. Required by WP:COI. Analternative to all this is to hope that Toby's career continues to blossom, to the point that a person with no connection will create and submit a draft. David notMD (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mw1357 (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, no, no. All those five do is mention him by name as having a role in TV shows and movies. Those are not ABOUT him, as in content at length about Toby. If that is the best you can find, then still WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The radiotimes is closest to one of the "multiple" sources demanded at WP:BASIC, but not close enough. The others (one noted "very sweet") just mentions his name. WP:TOOSOON seems to still apply. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mw1357. In addition to what's been posted above, you might want to consider whether it's really a good idea for a Wikipedia article to be written about your son. Wikipedia is in the WP:REALWORLD after all which can often be quite nasty. There can be quite a less than obvious downside to being written about on Wikipedia as explained here and here, and there's no final editorial control granted to subjects of articles or their representatives as explained here. Bascically, if you were successfully able to create an article about your son, you would be discouraged from directly editing it yourself and it couldn't be used to promote your son or his career in any way. If you had concerns about what was being added or removed, you would be expected to seek assistance from other editors as explained here and here and any changes you propose would need to be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I know it might seem like a really great thing for your son to be written about on Wikipedia, but you might find out that you have so little control over things that it turns out to be not such a good thing after all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all - that's really really helpful. Marchjuly what you say makes so much sense. With that in mind, I will drop this. The only reason I edited his page in the first place was that he had a page written for him when Rare Beasts went up on Wikipedia, but his page just linked and looped back to the Rare Beasts wikipedia page, which I found frustrating as he had done more than just Rare Beasts. I presume that if, in years to come, he justifies having a Wikipedia page, then it won't be problematic that there was a page in the past? Thank you all for your help and advice! Mw1357 (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mw1357. No, that shouldn't be a problem. A reviewer may look and see that there had been an article deleted before, but it should be reviewed on its own merits. I would recommend that you banish the concept "his page" from your mind, and substitute "the encyclopaedia article about him". Nobody owns a Wikipedia article, and specifically not its subject. Nor is a Wikipedia article in any way for the benefit of its subject, except incidentally. --ColinFine (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch architecture

 – Heading created by Tenryuu.

Hi, i have started to explore Dutch architects projects . I figured out that the first topic already existed as a rejected draft. i would like to know that if i should start editing that draft or should i request to remove the previous draft page in order to start a new draft page. the page is UArchitects. Bahram2010 (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Bahram2010 (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bahram2010, WP has an article about Dutch architecture. Nothing prevents you from improving that article, or related articles like Dutch Baroque architecture. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bahram2010, Draft:UArchitects was rejected. But that was in 2020. Imaginably, the company is more notable now than it was then. We can get an idea of whether it is indeed more notable if you would, here, provide links to three good sources that discuss UArchitects in depth and that are independent of UArchitects. -- Hoary (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bahram2010, you have already attempted to recreate an article on UArchitects. This attempt suggests to me that you think that Wikipedia will allow UArchitects to advertise itself. But it will not. -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"In its approach to visualizing education, the School De Brug fosters an ambivalence. First of all there is the centric way of education and the concentric arrangement of the school around its pupil." That is meaningless promotional tosh, which could never have a place in a Wikipedia article. Maproom (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

citation needed

I want to add [citation needed] to the end of the following paragraph in When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd, but I don't know how:

The poem is one of several that Whitman wrote on Lincoln's death. Although Whitman did not consider the poem to be among his best works, it has been compared in both effect and quality to several acclaimed works of English literature, including elegies such as John Milton's Lycidas (1637) and Percy Bysshe Shelley's Adonais (1821).

I can't find the answer to my question at Wikipedia:Citation needed Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use the {{cn}} tag, Maurice Magnus. You can add a date (see the linked template documentation) but if you don't then a bot will come along later and add one for you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mike Turnbull (talk) but, when I clicked on the {{cn}} tag, I didn't see how to use it. Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Magnus Just put {{cn}} in the text where required.--Shantavira|feed me 14:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You simply add it after the punctuation at the end of the unsourced statement. You'll see an example at Template:Citation needed#Example 2. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Shantavira and David Biddulph. I did it. That wasn't difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurice Magnus (talkcontribs) 14:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maurice Magnus: Oddly, the sentence you marked as requiring a citation in the lead is not mentioned in the body of the article. MOS:LEAD makes it clear that the lead is supposed to summarize what's in the main article but doesn't need to cite anything because those citations will be below where the information is given in detail. I'm no expert on the topic but it was brought to good article status a few years ago by Gerda Arendt, who still makes contributions to it and can probably fix the problem. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The biased sources and informations about context.

How do i change the biased and wrong info about the context.

Hello. A lot of the sources under this categorty: are biased or dead links. I'm trying to remove them but instead my changes are getting removed. What am i suppose to do? Baybars1 (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you can start by ending your disruptive editing. --Semsûrî (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Baybars1: Welcome to the Teahouse! Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you can start a discussion on the article talk page to express you concern about particular sources and provide suggestions for new independent reliable sources. Instead of deleting dead links, you can search the Internet Archive and other repositories for archived versions of the web pages. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

playing around to get familiar with Wiki

How can I change my User Name? Elkedopp (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elkedopp: Hello Elkedopp! You can request your username to be changed by following the instructions at WP:CHU. Also, if you want to "play around to get familiar with Wiki", I recommend doing so in your sandbox, otherwise your edits could be seen as disruptive. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elkedopp Welcome to the Teahouse. I just wanted to add that playing around with various aspects of Wikipedia is a great way to learn. However, changing your username just to learn the process is going to cost another volunteer administrator's time and effort to deal with. If you don't have a really good reason to change it, please don't. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - and a follow-up for you, Elkedopp: I notice you've been editing Draft:Elke Dopp. If you are not that person, then changing your username would be immensely sensible, and I'd urge you to do it immediately. On the other hand: if you are Elke Dopp, then you have a Conflict of Interest which you should declare on your userpage. Instructions for this are at WP:COI. We strongly discourage users from writing about themselves. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:NPROF for the criteria we use to determine notability of academics. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting this accepted and published

Hey all, Do you mind looking over my article, and making any tweaks or helping me with some mistakes that I did not catch? Please and thank you Reggie Wilcock (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: Draft:Desmond Cook. Cannot become an article, because he is not a professional level American football athlete. The declining reviewer made this clear by posting [[Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Give up. David notMD (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David notMD: Actually, that's not the correct rationale. Many college players qualify for articles, but this one clearly does not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desmond cook. Cbl62 (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ADMIN HELP NEEDED: This is a block evasion by User:D cook 12 who created an article about Desmond Cook, since deleted. See the User's Talk page, bottom, and Desmond cook and Draft:Desmond Cook 12 W&M. David notMD (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by 78.26 --ARoseWolf 15:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Станислав Савченко/sandbox

 Станислав Савченко (talk|C|TB|) 15:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Hello there! Check my sandbox, please.--Станислав Савченко (talk|C|TB|) 15:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The sources and notes in your article are done wrong so I would suggest reading referencing for beginners. Also categories should only be added to articles in main space. I would also suggest reading your first article for help on how to make one. Hope this helps! ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 16:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Станислав Савченко: I tweaked the references for you. The list of presidents and directors isn't necessary, especially being mostly unreferenced and many redlinks. Is there other content you could write based on the references and links you have? You should use some parameters with the infobox - see the documentation at Template:Infobox organization. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for my own edits by specific dates

Is there a tool that allows me to review my own edits (or someone else's) by specific dates (e.g. Sept. 2010 or 23 Sep 2010) without having to scroll through dozens of pages of contributions? Cbl62 (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62 Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, there's an easy way, and one that's easily missed. Just below your username Special:Contributions/Cbl62 you'll see a dropdown arrow for 'Search for Contributions'. Click that and you have access to filters, including date ranges, which should give you what you need. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh- and if you need to view more than the maximum of 500 edits at a time, just tweak the url in your browser and change it to limit = 5000. (I'm not sure if it will actually display more than that, but it was turned down to 500 a few years ago and there was much outcry and it was reinstated. But as you've made nearly 200,000 edits since 2007, I'd advise not trying to show them all at once, or you might break Wikipedia entirely! Nick Moyes (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and another tip: If you want to discover when you last interacted with specific editors on any page, try this tool. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick answer, Nick. Despite 200,000 edits, I think this is my first visit to the Teahouse. Five stars to the Teahouse from me! Cbl62 (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome. Hope to see you here again sometime. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: One more tip - if you go to Special:Contributions/Cbl62 and click "500" and then "older 500", note the URL of the new page will contain something like &offset=20220113131333, which is 2022-01-23 17:52:25 (UTC), and &limit=500. You can change these two values to see different sets of contributions. For example:
Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Batty. Cbl62 (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to correct an article

I have come across an article that is not only factually incorrect (conflating two events) but also logically ludicrous. How do I go about correcting it? (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. You can click "edit" on any article in order to make the edit yourself, but some articles might be locked so only registered users can edit it. In which case you can go onto the talk page of any article and make the request there. — Czello 18:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can’t just change information. All the information on Wikipedia has to be backed with reliable sources. So if you have reliable source to back up the information that you think is factually incorrect than go right ahead and replace the information and provide the reliable source with a reference. If you do not have a reliable source to back up your information than that would be considered original research and your edits will probably be undone. Hope this helps! ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 18:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing you are asking about Australia Day, also that you started editing as IP, then registered an account and continued as User:Autist4lyfe. You are verging on what Wikipedia calls 'edit warring' (two or more editors reverting each other's edits). The proper next step is to start a discussion on the artic;e's Talk page. Now that you have an account, 'sign' your name by typing four of ~ at the end of each comment. David notMD (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

can I delete my account or is removing the email address it? This place is not good for me. Autist4lyfe (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Autist4lyfe: Unfortunately, accounts can't be deleted, as edits must be attributed to an account or IP address. You are free to simply stop using your account. If you do, please refrain from continuing to edit war. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Autist4lyfe: The body of the article explains that the celebration of the European landing on Jan 26 dates back to 1808. Changing the infobox to disagree with the article content is unhelpful. Also the source you cited doesn't mention Jan 26 as the date of the first citizenship ceremony in 1949. I'm curious where you came across this alternate theory, is it circulating on social media? ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 00:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this is the closest I've ever come to social media. Thought I would get out of my comfort zone. Apparently the fact that there were no Australians prior to 1949 is considered irrelevant. I will leave you all to whatever this is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autist4lyfe (talkcontribs) 00:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Autist4lyfe If your government chooses the wrong reason to celebrate the holiday, you will need to speak to your government, not us. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murdoch newspapers

New here. Most of the articles referenced on the wiki page are from Murdoch newspapers which cannot possibly be considered reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autist4lyfe (talkcontribs) 19:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Autist4lyfe: Hello Autist! You can check out WP:RS for help in determining what is and isn't a reliable source. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, if you have any questions about the reliability of a source you can ask about it at the reliable source noticeboard unless if it is obviously an unreliable source like a fan page, blog, self published things etc... ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 19:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Autist4lyfe At WP:RSP you can find a list of sources that have been discussed several times and the current WP-view on them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Autist4lyfe says he's questioning the reliability of the sources, but I think what's really in question is their independence. Maproom (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Autist4lyfe (ec) I'm sorry you feel that way. Accounts cannot be deleted, but you may abandon your account. No one has access to your email address so it's not necessary to remove it, but you can. If you do, you will be unable to recover your password should you change your mind. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to remove Hebrew and Hungarian sitelinks from the Chia Pet article?

I want to remove the previously mentioned sitelinks, as they are about a different topic.

The English Chia Pet article is about a specific product from a specific brand. The Hebrew and Hungarian pages are about that type of product in general. QuickQuokka (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@QuickQuokka: I see you removed the Hungarian link from the corresponding Wikidata item a few minutes after you posted here, and an IP editor removed the Hebrew link from the Wikidata item a few minutes before you posted here. GoingBatty (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citing locked ProQuest document

I am hoping to add a citation to my schools Wikipedia page, and I managed to find an archived newspaper article about the schools founding. However I'm only able to access this article through an access link provided by my school library, and trying to access the link through other means results in the document being unavailable. Should I cite this source despite its limited availability? EmptyHardDrive (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cite the physical newspaper instead, using {{cite news}}. (For an offline newspaper cite, we need, at minimum: Publication name, publication edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1923), article title, article byline, and page(s) the article is on.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Mcmatter, I need help to better understand what it is that you are requiring for the ZTERS page. I appreciate any assistance.

Thank you,

Jesse Jessedstallone (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessedstallone Welcome to the Teahouse. I think Mcmatter was fairly clear in their decline of Draft:ZTERS when they said "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added . If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." So, your topic must meet our Notability requirements. That means you need to provide at least three in-depth and independent articles from Reliable Sources that have written about that company in some detail. Insider news statements, blogs, press releases are excluded from this, as are mere passing mentions. Read this page to understand what that means. It is likely that ZTERS is one of hundreds of millions of companies around the world that do not meet those critieria. It would be waste of time pursuing this if you cannot find three really good sources. If you can, feel free to pop back here and show them to us, and we can advise if they're good enough to justify an article on Wikipedia. Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will research for additional reference articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessedstallone (talkcontribs) 21:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jessedstallone - I just noticed one thing I might add to Nick's comments. Some of the wording is very close to the wording in the SI article. See WP:CLOP; while Wikipedia articles are based on information in reliable sources, we should not be using an almost word-for-word copy of their actual wording. Examples: "flush with cash" and "veteran wideout and special teams ace". "Flush with cash" really isn't encyclopedic language anyway, and before mentioning Shepard's positions, we should probably just mention that he is a professional football player. I hope this helps! Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DAB for term with lots of spelling variants

I mean this: Talk:Bayt#Change of concept needed; also templates needed to help reduce the number of items. The main technical question there is: Is there a way to add {{srt}}-type catch-all templates for the spelling variants which are NOT in the title of the DAB page? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to expand a page that has been written about me

A page was written for me: I would like to add more information to my personal information:- I would like to add a recent photo, my 'Alma mater' and occupation. I wonder what 'Years active' means...? I'd like to add information to the main body of text. I am working on a laptop - VisualEditor (?) - not mobile view (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please first review the Autobiography policy. If you have suggestions for changes, please make them at Talk:Laura Donaldson in the form of an edit request(click for instructions). For uploading a photo(ideally one you took yourself/a relative took) see Files for upload. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello. You have a conflict of interest and should edit carefully. You should read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and follow the advice there. I suggest that you open an account to facilitate communication with other editors and use the formal edit request process at Talk: Laura Donaldson. As for a photo, if you are the copyright holder, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable free license. It can then be added to the article. Cullen328 (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the subject of the article, perhaps you also have access to clippings that document your career accomplishments? It would be especially helpful if you identify on the Talk page any articles or other sources that covered your career in some depth. Such sources will help greatly in overcoming a contention that the article in its current state does not demonstrate that you qualify for a stand-alone article under Wikipdia's general notability guideline. Please don't take my suggestion as a "dig". Your accomplishment in qualifying for the Olympics is, of course, amazing, but Wikipedia's guidelines require us to show that you have received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]