From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Ongoing News Event: Casey White & Vicky White[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if the recent ongoing event of prison escape by criminal and maximum security prisoner Casey White, in which he's been helped by a corrections officer named Vicky White (no relation) would be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia entry? The event has been widely covered by national and international news and thus far the pair have evaded being captured (in itself atypical), but at what point does that cross over to being considered notable by wiki standards?

Additionally, I assume if the answer is yes, the article would have to be about this event itself rather than either one of the people involved (tho Casey White was the perpetrator of a 2015 interstate crime spree and convicted of murder in 2022). What are the best practices and naming/titling conventions for something like that?

Coverage: NYTimes, CNN, Newsweek, CBS (national) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SleepyWhippet (talkcontribs) 02:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SleepyWhippet (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SleepyWhippet: Not something I've been following, but yes, if this does meet the notability criteria at NCRIME, the article should be about the event, not the people (see CRIME)). ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 02:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, what would a possible title be for the potential wiki Article? SleepyWhippet (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SleepyWhippet As of now, a possible title could be "tragedy all around". Sigh... (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@I hear you.., very disturbing and sad. SleepyWhippet (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe start with “Prison escape of Casey White” and if someone thinks up a better title we can move it. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 15:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could have an article about C. White, due to his "interstate crime spree", and include a section on the jailbreak? DS (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That works too. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 19:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tomoharu Ushida[edit]

Hi, recently my draft has been declined. I would like to ask anyone help me to make it better to meet a standard for official Wikipedia page. Thank you. Shalom777br (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shalom777br – All I can say is: revise it to meet the general notability guideline, and, since it's a biography, WP:ANYBIO. Traditionally, it means that all statements should be covered with reliable, secondary sources. In addition, multiple outlets must cover it significantly. You may also want to use {{find general sources}} and read WP:BLP since the article is a biography. Thanks. — 3PPYB6TALKCONTRIBS — 19:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advise. By the way, do you want to write about Tomoharu Ushida instead of me, to delete my article and publish yours? Thank you for your attention. Shalom777br (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shalom777br Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I would advise not to ask any specific editor to create an article. However, you can request one at requested biographies. Nobody may pick up your article, but there's a better chance than just asking somebody. Have a good day/night!
Asparagusus (interaction) 21:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice! I put my request at requested biographies by nacionality (Japan). Have a good day too. Shalom777br (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shalom777br, posting at requested biographies would almost certainly be a waste of your time. ("Requested articles" is a depressing sight, studded with proposed vanity articles.) Your draft looks promising. I haven't clicked on any of the links you provide in the references, but some of these look promising too. I imagine that much of the writing about Ushida uses bland/gushy terms such as "excellent", "precocious", "inspirational", "perceptive", etc; however, some music criticism goes beyond this, saying what it is that makes a performance excellent, inspirational, etc. See if you can find some intelligent, informative criticism of his playing, and try to summarize this criticism and add it to your draft. -- Hoary (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice. How about this one?
Shalom777br (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been created in multiple other languages Tomoharu Ushida. I'm pretty sure it's notable enough to be in Wikipedia. --Deansfa (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After having a closer look, are you the one who creates the article in each version of Wikipedia? [1] [2] [3]. Be careful about doing this, this is not especially recommended. --Deansfa (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify for any new users, an article existing in other-language Wikipedias doesn't necessarily mean it meets the inclusion criteria for English Wikipedia. Zindor (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify for any new users, an article existing in 30 other languages has 99% chance to meet inclusion criteria here. Except if this article has been created in all these languages by the same person (which is the case here). --Deansfa (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deansfa Why is that not recommended? Is there a WP policy or essay on that? Just wondering. (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deansfa I am still curious. When you said "Be careful about doing this, this is not especially recommended" -- is there a policy or essay on this? Also when you say the article might be notable "Except if this article has been created in all these languages by the same person (which is the case here)". Why is that? I would like to learn. (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I.P, i can see two reasons why it wouldn't be ideal. If there are issues with the version on one wiki it will bring those problems to all the other language wikis it is published at. Secondly, some subjects are treated in more depth in other languages, so a major aspect of the subject could be missed because only one language's sources are used; this can actually result in people being offended. This is a bit of non-issue when it comes to notability however because assessing notability by looking at whether it is included in other languages is an unreliable method (and i'm not sure why Deansfa is extolling the virtues of it). It's best to just assess against our actual inclusion criteria. Zindor (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not recommended because it's obvious that it will be an automatic translation in some language. The article in French is totally garbage, the first sentence of the biography is not grammatically correct (no verb). The second sentence uses a tense we don't use for biographies, the other sentences have a strong flavor of automatic translation (weird expression, nonsense, etc). --Deansfa (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zindor Well, if there happen to be NO issues with one version on one wiki, that's a good thing!
@Deansfa And yes, automatic translation is always bad. I suppose very few people are actually fluent in many, many languages... but the policy is, or should be, geared toward "not using automatic translations" rather than "do not create the same article in many language Wikipedias". You made it sound like a real policy, and I hadn't seen one -- but I understand the potential issues. Thanks. (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deansfa I would like to ask one more time (last try): you said "It's not recommended because...". Where is it not recommended? @Zindor, is there a policy or an essay that I can refer to? Thanks. (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I.P. The 4th paragraph down at WP:WAX is directly relevant. Zindor (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zindor OK, thanks for that info! (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to add those "This user is" boxes to my user page?[edit]

I see many peoples pages having "this user is a *insert thing here* do-er. " or "This user supports *insert thing here*"

How can I do it? Is it hard to do it? Can only certain people do it? Smotoe (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Smotoe, see Wikipedia:Userboxes. Kpddg (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Smotoe, and welcome to the Teahouse! Anyone who would like to can add a userbox to their userpage. You just have to copy and paste the relevant code into your userpage. For instance, putting {{user en}} on your userpage produces the userbox that says a person is a native speaker of the English language. If you see a userbox you like, you can just copy the code for it to your userpage. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Smotoe (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Perfect4th Is there a "generic" userbox template that takes a parameter for *insert thing here*, or does each thing you want to say require its own userbox to be created? From that page, it looks like each variation needs to be created separately. As a computer programmer, that just seems inefficient to me. (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, IP user! As far as I'm aware, in general separate users have to be created seperately. The exceptions are those with numbered variants (such as those listed here) and those which use piped variables. These are a little more flexible; here's an example of one that accepts any input in its {{{1}}} variable. It is also technically possible, I believe, to specify what the input will display. I made this talk page message for fun for the World Cup; parameters {{{1}}} and {{{2}}} accept FIFA codes that display their respective country's flag. Similar principles can be applied to userboxes. Perfect4th (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Perfect4th I see that example with the numbered parameters. If the static text said "This user", and the template had a parm, that would seem to take a lot of work out of using userboxes. Or, there could be no static text, and just a parm. Although, could that lead to "unacceptable" or out-of-policy userboxes? (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, a userbox with the text "This user {{{1}}}" would be fine. Figuring out how to vary the color/image would take a little more work with a couple more parameters, but I know of no reason it wouldn't be possible. Perfect4th (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who needs colors and images? (just kidding) (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage/userbox help[edit]

So I saw someone's userboxes and I thought they were really cool, so I made my own. I did that and with both the visual editor and the source editor my userpage looked fine, but when I published the changes it looked really weird. Could somebody help me fix it? My userpage is here.
Jabin127 (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jabin127, it looks slightly unusual, that's all. Don't worry about it; just improve some articles. (Until you do, nobody will be interested in your likes, affiliations, experiences, etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, i've made the markup a bit stricter. Jabin127, is that <br> tag part of your signature? You don't need it there and it'll end up as lint. While HTML does generally work here, the mediawiki software will for the most part handle line breaks and spacing without need to define it yourself. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Jabin127 (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verifying biographical content provided by the subject of an article[edit]

Genuinely puzzled and would appreciate advice. I made a small edit to a celebrity's self-reported biographical details to reflect that they are unverified. It has been reverted by a more experienced editor. I've raised it in Talk [see last item on Talk Page here] but will not change back as I think that would amount to edit warring. I'm happy to learn from being told I'm wrong, but it seems obvious to me that if claimed biographical data and backstories relevant to image-making are accepted at face value without verification, this will lead to immense amounts of nonsense in Wikipedia articles as insterted there by PRs via simply getting the celebrity to utter the words. A sensible way to report autobiography or comments in interviews seems to me to be to use the format; "x says"? Emmentalist (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Emmentalist. I suggest that you read WP:INTERVIEW which says Generally speaking, it is okay to sparingly use interviews to source some facts, so long as the article is also using a good mixture of other types of reliable sources—for instance, if an interview happens to be the clearest available source for where a person who is already properly established as notable was born, or for where they attended university, or for the fact that they identify as LGBTQ, then the interview can be used to source a statement of that fact. In this case, the person is indisputably notable, highly successful and widely honored, and the article is exceptionally well referenced. I am not aware of any credible accusations that he is a liar. Writing something like "Hamiliton says that he started studying karate at age 5" creates doubt where that is unwarranted. Cullen328 (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Cullen328, can I just check that you read the article? It's behind a paywall. Perhaps you're a Telegraph subscriber? Davies, Gareth A (5 July 2007). "A salute to the real Lewis Hamilton". The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on 10 January 2022. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strange article and editor[edit]

The article Howie Weinberg is in my opinion seemingly not up to Wikipedia's standard, and one editor's contributions are only to this article. They removed the template I added for cleanup. I'm not really sure how to proceed after this, or if I even want to, but I'd really appreciate any advice. Ștefan Tărâță (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Tărâță, if the article doesn't meet WP:GNG, you can WP:PROD it or WP:AFD it. If it just needs cleanup then do it.Sungodtemple (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those impressive links actually mention the subject of the article ? Doug butler (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...or addresses the question? Shantavira|feed me 08:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what to do about my xylaria hypoxilon discoveries[edit]

Hello!This is Lark99,a newer editor also known as Sageost on Inaturalist. I am editing on wikipedia to bring my findings that i have named from the complex. I use my findings from identifications to name species vars. I am having a hard time siting my sources because my blog is apparently not a reliable source. what should i do? Lark999 (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lark99: I would recommend finding a scientific journal that may publish your findings. Wikipedia is not the place to record or write about your findings or original research. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lark999 Right, if you can't find reliable, published sources that are independent of you, then Wikipedia can't have an article about your findings. It sounds like "your findings" are your original research (see WP:OR), and original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I Inline link an image from an external website to my Sandbox?[edit]

I would like to link an image from Flickr to my sandbox but cannot figure out how to. I had previously uploaded the image to Wiki Commons but it broke the guidelines and so was nominated for deletion. I'm now trying to Inline link the image from Flickr to my sandbox but it is not working.

I am using this code: <img src="" /> but the problem is that Flickr does not include the image name in the link followed by .jpg. The link is in this format: with no /picture.jpg at the end.

Google Photos does the same thing, as does Imgur, ImbBB and I assume every other image host website. I also tried embedding the image and using BBCode but nothing worked. I either get error messages or a useless stringS of text. Is there a way to do this? Old Hoar's Frost (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Old Hoar's Frost. I'm assuming the image is this. Is there a particularly good reason for displaying it in your sandbox? Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion also on user talk. Zindor (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Old Hoar's Frost, just for reference--loading external images inline is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, and <img> tags do not work in wikitext. This is for security reasons. To insert an image inline, it must be uploaded either to the English Wikipedia itself or to Wikimedia Commons, and then linked to using the [[File:...]] syntax. Writ Keeper  01:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I won't attempt to link anything further. Thanks for letting me know. Old Hoar's Frost (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the restriction on image hotlinking is to prevent people from doing something like
<img onerror="alert('Look, a harmless alert')" src="" alt="Log you out" /> (talk | contributions) 04:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] This specific instance wouldn't work anyway, because logging a user out requires a POST request. However, to my knowlege, there are three main reasons why inlining images is not possible: 1) copyright: Not all external sites are compatibility licensed. Allowing inline hotlinking would lead to a mess copyright-wise, as it is difficult to prevent people from hotlinking copyrighted images. 2) It could be abused, as above, to attack any site which doesn't poperly secure their non-idempotent GET methods (this is a type of persistent XSS attack). It doesn't work on Wikipedia because all state-modifying requests ar either required to be POST requests when they should do anything, or (in case of action=rollback Don't work without passing an inherently context-dependent rollback token. 3) Wikipedia gets a lot of visits per second (if you want to trust up to 150k requests / second, divided amongt all foundation Wikis). Allowing inline hotlining with such a high viewer rate means that Wikipedia could be directly responsible for crashing other site's servers, or at least overloading them, mainly when they can't handle the resulting request volume. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are the security issue I was referring to, on which I will not be elaborating for obvious reasons. Writ Keeper  06:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Idempotent is the best new word I've learned in a long time. (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oritae -- random line breaks[edit]

Does anyone know why some of the lines here seem to break randomly? For example: "Their territory appears to have ..." -- The line breaks just breaks there, even though there's plenty of space left. Thanks, 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ficaia: Yep, it's also breaking for me. I think it is all of the non-breaking spaces:
The Oritae were a&nbsp;people&nbsp;inhabiting&nbsp;the&nbsp;sea-coast&nbsp;of&nbsp;Gedrosia,&nbsp;with&nbsp;whom&nbsp;[[Alexander the Great|Alexander]]&nbsp;fell&nbsp;in&nbsp;on his&nbsp;march&nbsp;from&nbsp;the&nbsp;[[Indus River|Indus]]&nbsp;to&nbsp;[[Persia]].<ref>Arr. ''Anab''. vi. 21, 22, 24, &c.</ref> Their&nbsp;territory&nbsp;appears&nbsp;to&nbsp;have been&nbsp;bounded&nbsp;on&nbsp;the&nbsp;east&nbsp;by&nbsp;the&nbsp;[[Hun River (Liao River tributary)|Arabis]],&nbsp;and&nbsp;on&nbsp;the west&nbsp;by&nbsp;a&nbsp;mountain&nbsp;spur&nbsp;which&nbsp;reached&nbsp;the&nbsp;sea&nbsp;at Cape&nbsp;Moran.<ref name=":1" />
I removed the zero width spaces and it seems to be fine now. (talk | contributions) 04:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And also, for posterity, the randomly breaking version is here. (talk | contributions) 04:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. Why would someone go to the trouble of inserting all of these non-breaking spaces? Hmmm.... (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assume there was a glitch when copy+pasting from a word processing program. (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The editor is kinda weird. In the 2017 wikitext editor, they look like normal spaces to me. But when using wikEd, all the &nbsp; appear. (talk | contributions) 20:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about referencing[edit]

I've just added some references to the article Native Son (1951 film), and I have some questions. First, I used the same source for two references, #6 and #10. I know I'd usually have to use a sort of "ibid" style for the second reference (and I would need help with that), but I'm not sure it's appropriate here because some of the references that were there already use superscripts, and I don't know what they're there for, maybe another way of formatting the same reference multiple times? (Refs # 2, 3, 4, and 11; 1 and 13 don't use the superscripts.) Ref. #13 seems strange to me: it is short and in the Reference Notes subsection with all the others, but it refers to a full reference above under the Reference section heading. Why would that one reference be listed in different place, and be referred to separately? Finally, all the links in my reference work (#'s 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12) but the only links that are highlighted in blue are #'s 8 and 12. Is there a problem? Pete Best Beatles (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pete Best Beatles. That article uses a format that includes both references and reference notes. I find that style of referencing bizarre and incomprehensible, although I think that it is an an acceptable variant. As for references used more than once, WP:REFNAME should be informative. Cullen328 (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328:I'm aware the WP:REFNAME exists, I just wasn't sure if it applied to the bizarre format. Could you discuss the superscripts and the blue highlights? Thanks. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pete Best Beatles: I didn't see any reason not to use the conventional single reflist in that article. Also (in regard to your other enquiry at the Teahouse) I converted the NYT's shouty house style into something more sensible. Just revert me if you don't like either change. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull:Thanks, you just alleviated a lot of stress. (Now if I could only figure out what those darned superscripts are all about.) `` Pete Best Beatles (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

URL Access Level - Registration, Subscription or Limited?[edit]

If you have to pay to view a URL in full, is that classed as Registration, Subscription or Limited?

I suspect the answer is Subscription, however I don't know what it means by Limited so it could also be that. Danstarr69 (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It would help to know specifically what you are referencing; are you attempting to edit an article? 331dot (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm correcting a "news" reference which someone has added incorrectly (along with other things on a stub article with just 2 references), so that it appears under references, rather than by itself.
I'm also adding a link to to that reference, along with an archive link.
You have to pay for a subscription to view articles there, so I want to know whether I should list the "URL Access Level" for that link as Registration, Subscription or Limited. Danstarr69 (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Danstarr69. I checked on what other editors had done by searching for "" in the Wikipedia search box. I quickly found List of WBA world champions which has lots of these sort of references. They use Subscription=paid=red padlock, which seems correct to me when I click the link to that website. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Michael D. Turnbull Any idea what "Limited" means? Danstarr69 (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume (but I've not checked the Help pages) that it is for sites which allow readers a limited number of views without payment. The UK Times website is like that see this link for how that works. So on that site I can do three searches/reads a week, I think. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing my new article[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: User:Cape doctor/Michael Mosoeu Moerane

I have just completed, after two weeks' work, an article on the black African composer Michael Mosoeu Moerane. I pushed the Publish button, but now I am wondering what happens next... Cape doctor (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is good stuff, Cape doctor. It's the best draft I've seen in quite a while. In preparation for its promotion to article status, I've moved it to Draft:Michael Mosoeu Moerane and posted an comment/request at its head that may annoy you -- but, well, writing for Wikipedia is a pain, as you've no doubt already realized. -- Hoary (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cape doctor I see that the article has now been moved to Mainspace, so well done. Next steps are to add some categories (see WP:CATEGORY) so more people can find it. Also, are you aware of the did you know.... system which will place a "hook" from the article on to the Mainpage? Nomination is a bit of a faff the first time you do it but the nomination page (and more guidance) is here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is so encouraging, thank you Cape doctor (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Turnbull, adding categories is I think an extraordinarily complex and difficult process for the new editor. I've added a bunch. However, my addition was rather sleepy and it's very likely that I've made the odd mistake and almost certain that I've failed to add some that beneficially could be added. Perhaps you'd care to look at my work and improve on it. -- Hoary (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary, agreed! I just wanted to make Cape doctor aware of the system and maybe add Category:Choral composers as a learning exercise. Very often the editor who accepts a Draft adds some relevant categories but in this case Kenpmi did the move and perhaps because they are also relatively inexperienced didn't do that. I checked your own additions and they seem perfect, although I did remove Category:South African composers as that is implied by your addition of Category:South African male composers of which it is a sub-category. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Michael (and Hoary) - you have both greatly improved the article's visibility. Thank you! I didn't know about Categories and Hooks, thank you again. But I'm not sure what the status of the article is now and I'm terrified of messing it up. Additional Categories could be: Rhodes University alumni, W.B. du Bois, Pan-Africanism, Symphonic poem, Hymn, Church music, Spirituals, Maseru (capital of Lesotho), Morija (town in Lesotho), Thabo Mbeki, Epainette Mbeki, Joshua Pulumo Mohapeloa. Err.... how do I add them? Cape doctor (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cape doctor As Hoary said, I don't think you should worry too much about adding further categories and some of the possibilities you mention may not be established categories in any case. Your article is now part of the main encyclopaedia (we call this "Mainspace") and although it may not yet be indexed by third-party search engines like Google, it will be in due course. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike
Does this mean that it is not public, or approved, yet and I can still work on it? I am trying to resolve the issue you mentioned about using "Private Collection" that you pointed out, by finding secondary sources (even ones already cited) that can support the same information. Should I carry on doing this? Cape doctor (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cape doctor, everything you write on WP is public, like this page we're on right now can be seen by anyone who knows where it is. Drafts are also public, but not indexed by, for example, Google. Michael Mosoeu Moerane is in article-space, but that doesn't mean you or anyone interested should stop improving it. WP:BOLD is the law of the land. All WP-articles are works in progress. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! Cape doctor (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I thought I had it. I'm really trying to grasp where the article "is" now, or where it "will be" when it is "published". If I log out and search for this article as an ordinary user, I can't see it or access it yet, and that is what is frustrating me. I'm looking for enlightenment... Cape doctor (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Cape doctor! To enlarge on something Michael D. Turnbull mentioned in passing; many editors can, and some do, publish articles straight to Mainspace without going through the review process yours has, and sometimes these are substandard. To limit the latter's exposure before they can be brought up to standard, access by Google's (and others') web crawlers is blocked either until the article has been checked by the New Page Patrol reviewers, or 90 days has passed. Before either of these, a Google (etc.) search won't find the article, though a search within Wikipedia will.
The NPP may release the new Article to the Web, improve it and then release it, or revert it to (or back to) Draft space for further work: in some extreme cases where someone has tried to slip blatantly poor material past us, they might even reject and delete the item.
You certainly don't have to worry about this; your article is good enought that the NPP will likely mark it as patrolled (lifting the crawler block) as soon as they see it (problematic cases take longer to decide on). After that it might take anything from minutes to a couple of days before the crawlers make their next pass. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cape doctor, If you type Michael Mosoeu Moerane into the WP-searchbox, you should find, wether logged in or not. It is where a WP-article should be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cape doctor I have just done the NPP check and released the article for indexing by Google et al. Congratulations on a very nice new article! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Turnbull, on your comment "I checked your own additions and they seem perfect, although I did remove Category:South African composers as that is implied by your addition of Category:South African male composers of which it is a sub-category": please see the pale blue box atop the latter category. Simply, where somebody is categorized as a male (or female) XYZ, it's entirely proper for that person also to be categorized as a [gender-unspecified] XYZ. (For newcomers here: Such an overlap contrasts with most categorization, whereby for instance anyone who's properly in Category:Scientists from Johannesburg shouldn't also be in either Category:People from Johannesburg or Category:South African scientists.) -- Hoary (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Hoary, I was, and still am, confused by the blue box at Category:South African male composers which says "It includes composers that can also be found in the parent category" (my emphasis). I took this to imply that the situation was normally the same as for your scientist example, with which I'm more familiar, whereas it seems to mean should be found. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cape doctor referred the reader to Thabo Mbeki: The Dream Deferred a number of times, each time specifying the page number(s). The result was unnecessarily bulky, but (and I think more importantly) informative and helpful. One or more subsequent edits conflated these into a single reference, with an array of page numbers: it was now more tedious for anyone looking at the book to locate any particular assertion within it. Using Template:Rp, I've restored the specific page numbers where I can. "Where I can", because there are also newer references, whose specific page numbers I don't know. Cape doctor, as you seem to have access to a copy of the book and I do not, please readd missing page numbers. (More concretely, where there's a reference to the book but no page number, and the information can be found on pages 41–43, please expand plain <ref name="Gev"/> to <ref name="Gev"/>{{Rp|41–43}}.) Thank you! -- Hoary (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody else working on this?[edit]

Dear Experienced People,

I see we don't have Wikipedia biographies of either Gerlin Bean or Mavis Best, UK black women activists. I am happy to start working on one or two of these. How do I find out if anyone else has started on them? Wouldn't want to get in the way or duplicate. ~~~ Balance person (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Balance person it does not appear that anyone is working on either. How do you find out? put the name in quotes in the searchbox, click "search for pages containing" then change the "search in" to "all" and re-search - there are 5 entries for each person (one of which is your question) - none are in draft articles or user sandboxes - someone could be working on it "off-wiki" but we have no way of ever knowing that - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very helpful reply! I will have a go then.~~~ Balance person (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
e/c Hi, Balance person, welcome to the Teahouse. You can search drafts by putting Draft: in front of the name of the subject, so in this case putting Draft:Gerlin Bean etc in the search bar, but it's not as thorough as Arjayay's method so i would recommend you use that instead. Make sure to check the article subject against notability criteria before you start, from a quick look Gerlin Bean might have more sources to reference. Regards, Zindor (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thank you Zindor for your suggestion.~~~ Balance person (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not already aware, I'd recommend Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, Balance person. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see you're already a member. I should have looked at your user page before making that suggestion! Cordless Larry (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ha HA! Sort of thing I do all the time, Larry! Thanks! ~~~ Balance person (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how to upload info about a person[edit]

hi, i want to write about my father who is a politician and want to create a wikipedia page for him, how can i do that. (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have already started to do the drafting on your User Page, which is not the correct place for this. See WP:UPYES for what can go there. You have a steep learning curve to climb. Wikipedia does not have "pages" in the sense used by social media: it has articles about topics, not written in any way to benefit the topic but to benefit our readers. So, start by reading, not writing, first the help page WP:YFA and the policy page WP:BLP. Then read very carefully Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest editing. If you still want to proceed, use the WP:AFC process to create a draft that others will approve (or not). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi and thanks for contributing in wikipedia. Wikipedia has Articles instead of pages. Creating an articles is a hardest work in Wikipedia. If the subject is Notable then you are able to create article on that particular subject. I noticed that you are trying to write an article about your father, so you have to consider this conflict of interest and you must have the knowledge about reliable sources. And take a look at your first article and article for creation probably this may helps you. Thank you and happy editing. Fade258 (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] To be clear: Start a draft using WP:YFA. Copy all that content about your father now on your User page to draft. Delete all that content from your User page. State on your User page that you are creating a draft about your father. DO NOT YET SUBMIT THE DRAFT. Last, add refs to your draft. Every factual statement must be verified by a published reference. What you know to be true cannot be added unless described in a reliable source reference. It cannot be accepted without refs. David notMD (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: now at Draft:Brijmohan Shrivastav. David notMD (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better skin back[edit]

I clicked today: "Try out Wikipedia's new skin". It promised a lot of improvements. Not good. Seems to be for mini-screens. Since this is an experiment, according to the ad, how do I get back the better "skin" ? Jari Rauma (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jari Rauma, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you go to the "appearance" section of your preferences (should be on the top-right of your display), you should be able to change your Wikipedia skin back to the default. Have a good day! HenryTemplo (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi @Jari Rauma and welcome to the teahouse! you can switch back to the previous skin by going to Preferences > Appearance > Skins > Vector legacy (2010). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 15:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the answer. I found it myself also from Google. It took 20 minutes. There is an error in the wiki's instructions at this point. There it is said to look for the point "skin", but there was no word "skin". This is how foreigners are misled when you are not precise. For the new 2022 skin: I prefer Wikiwand and 2010 skin. Jari Rauma (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie hebdo issue no.2011[edit]

I took down a picture of a cartoon of what people thought was the prophet SAW but someone put it back on?? For what reason is this?? Lethalhuntress (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lethalhuntress. The simple answer is that Wikipedia is not censored. It is an encyclopaedia serving the whole world and different people will vary in what they consider as offensive. Provided that images are relevant to the articles in which they appear, they won't be removed just because someone dislikes them. Why did you choose to read that article out of the millions we have here? Were you expecting to find something you didn't like and could censor? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually I was doing research for my studies and came across this, I had no intention to surf the internet and find offensive material, I just came across this, I have a life thank you. Lethalhuntress (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Turnbull, I think your rhetorical question goes a little too far. I'm sure many people come to Wikipedia and look up some topic they feel strongly about a topic, in order to see how it's dealt with. And as far as that goes, I think there's nothing wrong with that; they can perhaps point out things where biases so common they're hardly recognized have crept in. I'm sure, for example, that many of the people who would censor things here backed by Newsmax and Life Lobby--as being unreliable sources--feel VERY strongly that NPR is to be trusted (whether it is or not); that Trump is a white-supremacist (whether he is or not); that his claims about election fraud are without basis (whether that's true or not); and that the SPLC labeling a group as a hate group is a clear indication that it IS a hate group (whether it is or not). I'm sure that claim that Wikipedia is not censored is made honestly. Nevertheless, there is certainly room for discussion about it. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More context at Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. WP has stuff that can be seen as objectionable, it's like the rest of the internet/world in that way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to reply to the person who commented on my comment. Thank you for your reply, but it’s not because I dislike it- it’s not a petty issue. This material is deemed offensive to not just me but all Muslims, it shouldn’t be allowed to appear on Wikipedia as it’s mocking our religion and frankly spreading misinformation, it doesn’t matter if Wikipedia is not censored, this isn’t freedom of speech this is an insult and a mockery. As a Muslim it’s my duty to warn you heavily of the consequences of these actions, but this isn’t where you can say what you can, I could literally create a page about other religions and chat shit about other things but I’m not, because humans have a duty to respect one another. If people wish to continue to upload stuff like this, then you’ll see consequences for yourself. Lethalhuntress (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you might expect, you are not the first person to comment on images that might be offensive to Muslims. Wikipedia has implemented a way to make it less likely you would see one. The Help page Help:Options to hide an image gives instruction about how to implement this on your account when logged in. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lethalhuntress An encyclopedia that removed everything that offended one group or another would leave very little behind. Almost everything is offensive to someone. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what you mean by "spreading misinformation". Do you see any misinformation in the Charlie Hebdo article? Do you question that the magazine's cover was as shown? Maproom (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lethalhuntress "I could literally create a page about other religions and chat shit about other things but I’m not..." Yes, you could create an article, and if that article was backed by reliable sources, there would be no reason for it to be deleted from WP. (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lethalhuntress: I'd be careful writing things like [i]f people wish to continue to upload stuff like this, then you’ll see consequences for yourself, as that could be considered a veiled threat, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article literally specifically details the controversy that arose from the magazine issue being published. It doesn't promote or endorse the comic, it makes the WP article much more informative. Adding context to the controversy by showing the magazine's cover - literally the subject of the article - is not meant to disparage Muslims. It's to show the context behind the controversy. Not to mention the magazine was satirical. Lincoln1809 (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Map optimization in infobox[edit]

There is an article named Uttara. Recently I am working on its map in the infobox. I want to make its map like Inverted shape or shape from Template:Maplink. But I can't understand the template. Also there are coordinates feature I need to understand to make the map. How can I do it. Can anyone help me? Mehedi Abedin 18:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mehediabedin. There are a couple possibilities you can try (in no particular order). First, you can discuss what you want to do at Talk:Uttara (town) and see if any of the editors watching the article might be able to help. The next thing, you could try is asking about this at Template talk:Maplink to see if any of the editors watching the template's page might be able to help. You could also try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) to see if any editors familiar with templates in general can help sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me improve my first Article that got deleted[edit]

I have re-created the Article and moved it into Draft. The link is

Please help me in improving it and ultimately in publishing. Thanks Sabra143 (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sabra143, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your first attempt was deleted as unambiguous advertising, and that looks likely to happen to your new draft as well unless you fundamentally rewrite it. To take just one example, The goods are made using cutting-edge technology and provide a carefully curated collection of trend-setting styles is pure advertising copy, and doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Remember that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. Has an independent source (somebody completely unconnected with Bavincis) used these words about them? If so, then the article could explicitly quote them. But such evaluative language should never appear in Wikipedia's voice. ColinFine (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spotted inaccuracies / updates required but can't do myself[edit]

I'm not proficient enough at editing Wikipedia and don't at the moment have the time to learn properly - but I have found a string of linked pages that are very out of date. Is there a place where I can alert other willing and able editors to sort these pages out? Many thanks JackD (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JackD: Just as you posted a comment here on this page, you can also post suggestions for improvements on the talk page of any article. That would be the best place to start. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cushdybernard: As a reality check, some articles have few viewers, and far fewer looking at the Talk pages of those articles. Posting here a Wikilink to one or two of the dated articles. David notMD (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cushdybernard One simple thing you could do is to add the template {{update}} at the top of such articles. Many more people will read the article and see the template than will notice a comment on its Talk Page. Another good place to make such comments is on the Talk Page of any Projects interested in the article, which will be listed on its own Talk Page. So for this chemistry/EU-related article, a comment could go on any or all of the Projects which claim an interest in it. Although David notMD is correct in saying that links here at the Teahouse might help, this thread will very soon be lost in the Teahouse archive. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Fake Article for a Scavenger Hunt/ARG[edit]

I have had the idea for a Scavenger Hunt/ARG at my high school and I was wondering if I could create a fake article for this hunt. In it would contain clues for the hunt and different methods on encryption used. I plan for this to be done entirely alone and to start it as of March of next year LonePlayer (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested if I can do this and probably how to do this LonePlayer (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LonePlayer: Absolutely not. Wikipedia isn't a web-hosting service for personal use. It would be best to host that content on a free hosting service or blog site.
On the other hand, if your scavenger hunt met Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion (see WP:GNG) then there could be an article on it, but otherwise, no. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LonePlayer: Perhaps you should use another wiki farm, like Miraheze? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology Article Space[edit]

Im trying to get my Mythology onto Article Space

The title of the article is Asithis

Was wondering if it was declined

If so for what reason

Also how do I Improve my articles in the future so that I can get it into Article Space Asithis (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Asithis
hi Asithis and welcome to the teahouse! firstly, you would need to cite reliable sources about the topic, which your draft currently has none of (and this is required for verifiability). I advise you to read Your first article and Writing better articles as well, these allow you to write an article better. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Asithis If you created this mythology yourself, then it won't be accepted as an article on WP until (as @Melecie says) the wider world has taken note, and published some commentary about it. Please see WP:ONEDAY. To get any articles approved, or any edits to stick, you will need better punctuation. Cheers. (talk) 06:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Asithis Did you draw the artwork that is in the draft, yourself? (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Article, is being considered for deletion, have updated GNG sources but unsure how to contact editor who proposed deletion[edit]

I posted a new article Unicorn DAO, but it was flagged for deletion. The editor who proposed said some of the sources didn't pass GNG, so I removed them and included the following - TIME, CNN, Guardian.

There was also ref to Coin Telegraph a crypto news source, I'm not sure if this would count as GNG (is there a list somewhere?)

Anyways, I have updated sources and refs, but don't know how to reply / flag the editor in question. I submitted to the deletion discussion page some updates and included their user tag.

I understand there is quality control to sources, so want to make sure they are significant. Pathofkarma (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also wondering how you cite reports that are paywalled like ArtTactic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathofkarma (talkcontribs) 23:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pathofkarma, I haven't looked at either the article or the AfD for it, but would point out that for GNG what are needed aren't just reliable sources but substantive reliable sources. A Guardian article from which we can merely infer that yes, such-and-such a company exists, does business in Germany, and has been noticed by its rivals is very different for GNG purposes from another Guardian article that's devoted to the company, describes how it started, what business it does, how it has the second largest market share in Germany, that it crushed at least one of its major rivals, the problems it faces elsewhere within the EU, how its well-known dependence on Russian raw materials is now impacting its business, etc etc. -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense - I included a dedicated substantive article from Time, Rolling Stone, Decrypt and Coin Telegraph. The guardian mention is just for a specific data point. Hopefully adding a few sources fits the general notability guidelines. Pathofkarma (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi Pathofkarma and welcome to the teahouse! to add on to the above, a list of the most frequently used sources can be found at perennial sources. The Times, CNN, and The Guardian are all okay sources in general although hoary's point still applies: it has to significantly cover the company. also, including a link to their userpage (plus signing your post) as you have done automatically notifies them to the conversation, however you could also do with using {{u}} or {{ping}} to ping them. and finally, you could attach a {{closed access}} template onto the reference or add |url-access=subscription to the citation template to indicate a source is paywalled. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 23:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the flip side of the coin, @Pathofkarma, Coin Telegraph and Decrypt are probably not going to help - see here and here. (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - removed Coin Telegraph. Kept Decrypt because it is substantial. Not the main source - Times + Rolling Stone + Guardian the main. Pathofkarma (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. also added Rolling stone which is in the list of perrennial sources - RS covered 5+ paragraphs on company. and added the url-access worked great! Pathofkarma (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
also adding variety which was on perennial list. Pathofkarma (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Providing a verified source for information about a person's name[edit]

I was recently editing a Wikipedia page that is about my late mother-in-law. The page has existed for a number of years. One of the things I wanted to do was correct some information about her name. In particular, her first name at birth, was not the name that she went by as an adult. We wanted to correct that information and provide her birth name. I made a simple edit to do that. Someone objected to it because no source was provided for the information. I replied in the talk page that the source was personal communication from my wife, the daughter of the person who's Wikipedia page I was editing. I was told that this was not sufficient.

What I do have is a copy of her marriage license and also an image (that came from of the 1910 U.S. Census showing her name, and also a list of passengers from a ship arriving in the US that she was on. The problem is that these documents can't be found through an internet search. How do I make my documentation clear to someone who wants to know the source. What can I do to use these documents to show that my proposed edit is correct.

Thanks for your help. Fhnewell (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi Fhnewell and welcome to the teahouse! unfortunately, you can't. information has to be from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and while it doesn't need to be accessible through the internet (offline sources are allowed as long as they still meet the other requirements), it has to be accessible and verifiable to those who seek for it (so personal communication is not usable, and which is why we are looking for published sources). there's also the matter of conflict of interest (which I advise you to read) where your editing may be influenced by her being your mother in law, which may make everything trickier. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Fhnewell. Google can be your friend when looking for sources. There is an interview here where she talks about her name and when she started using Margot. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing me to that source. I will go back and edit the page using that as my source of information. Fhnewell (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fhnewell It is frustrating when things that you know are true are not accepted in a WP article. Sure, you would not lie, and likely not for this kind of info, but unfortunately some people make stuff up. That is why every asserted fact needs to be backed up with a published source, so that other readers can verify what you have said. Those are the rules here... (well, I mostly duplicated what Melecie said.) (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable Structure of a Wiki Article[edit]

Hello, I'm a university student currently editing Microscopic scale for a unit assignment, and my contributions have since been refined by another editor.

I have already sent my following question to the Wiki editor who made these changes via their talk page, but with concern for my assignment due date, I'd like to receive as much insight as soon as I can.

As the page was previously a stub, I made significant additions to it, including changing the structure of the existing information to the page. I made these changes according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Science/Guidelines, under "Scientific object/concept".

A wiki editor then reverted the structural changes I made to the page. I have no problem with the changes they made, although I am now wondering what is the basis of their decision, and if there are other resources or guidelines I need to read before continuing to edit this article.

If anybody could suggest any reasons or direct me to any other resources, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.

Sleepymochi (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sleepymochi. Is your class something that is being supported by the Wiki Education Foundation (WikiEd) or did your teacher just assign you and your classmates some Wikipedia articles to edit? If your class is being assisted by WikiEd, then I suggest you discuss things with your WikiEd course advisor. If not, then perhaps you should ask your teacher to take a look at Wikipedia:Student assignments. If your teacher is grading your class on the edits it makes to Wikipedia, then your teacher might not really understand what Wikipedia is and how it works. Any deadlines or other instructions your teacher has given your class are not likely going to matter much to other members of the Wikipedia community. Please understand, I'm not trying to discourage you in anyway; it's just that students and teachers often run into problems when their objectives or expections differ greatly from Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sleepymochi. It looks to me like you made some major contributions to Microscopic scale, and another editor made some relatively minor changes, specifically moving the "History" section to the beginning of the body of the article. This is pretty much the standard practice for "History" sections of articles. You mention Wikipedia:WikiProject Science/Guidelines, but despite the word "Guidelines" appearing in the title of that page, that is not actually a Wikipedia guideline. Wikiprojects on their own cannot establish guidelines, which must be agreed to by the community as a whole. Please note that there have not been any edits to that page for five years, and no edits to its talk page for seven years. I consider a page like that to have negligible credibility at this point. The relevant policy here is Wikipedia:Consensus, which is exceptionally well established. If another editor contests one of your edits, then it is incumbent on you to build consensus for your proposed changes. I hope this helps. Cullen328 (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sleepymochi - If you have had an interaction with another editor that you are raising at a noticeboard such as this one, it is a usual courtesy to ping that editor. For some notice boards it is compulsory, but not here. That way it makes it easier to build consensus. Not pinging the other editor(s) can make them feel as if you are going behind their backs to get a different (better?) answer. I have replied on your talk page about the issue.  Velella  Velella Talk   06:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Learning How To Add A Page For My Company[edit]

Is this where I can learn how to create a Wikipage for which is the company The Oklahoma Post ? Gregorymoyer1 (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gregorymoyer1, and welcome to the Teahouse! Articles on Wikipedia need to follow our reliable sourcing policy. For a helpful guide on creating articles, see here, for an an interactive wizard on how to create an article, please see here. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello @Gregorymoyer1: and Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you can create your company's article but you have to consider this conflict of interest and must have the knowledge about reliable sources, organization. Your first article and Article for creation probably helps you for creating article. Thanks and happy editing. Fade258 (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing the wizard. Cheers! I did read on the conflict and a couple steps to take as you said. I will do so. Gregorymoyer1 (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your unreferenced draft mentions that the media website was started in 2022. It is unlikely that it has been written about in other publications, which would be the reliable source references essential to establishing notability. David notMD (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has been. I am learning and reading today how to edit others articles first. So, I'll circle back around to the article I started soon. Thanks for your information. Gregorymoyer1 (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to verify an edit for a company through its official channels[edit]

I work at a multinational organisation which is popular enough that people use its name inso much fake news.

Is there a way we can set up a verified email to make edits that cannot be undone on Wikipedia? Honestly, we see lots and lots of fake news about us in multiple languages.

Thanks, (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia does not operate based on ownership of content; pages cannot be "locked" based on a company's wishes. The project's prose is based on what is said in reliable, neutral sources. If you would like to edit your own company's article, please disclose your paid editing; failure to do so may result in blocks. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an existing Wikipedia article about the company? David notMD (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A company representative is certainly free to create an account indicating that they are a company representative(such as "JohnDoe of XYZ Company"). You don't have to use your real name. They will also need to make a formal paid editing declaration and read conflict of interest. But that representative will have no more rights than any other editor- they will have less, actually, due to the conflict of interest. They would generally not be able to directly make edits related to the company, and would need to propose them instead on the article talk page. If a source is actual "fake news", you will need to explain why. Note that negative information about your company is permitted to be in any Wikipedia article about it as long as it appears in a reliable source and is not defamatory. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IF there is an existing article about the company, then you are allowed to propose changes on the Talk page of the article. Be specific, as in deleted _____, or replace ______ with _____. For each proposed change, you must provide a properly formated reference(s) in support of the proposed change. An editor with no connection to the company with either reject or implement the proposed change. David notMD (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IF there are repeated efforts to add false information to the article, you can request that the article be protected. See Wikipedia:Protection policy. Ths blocks unregistered editors and recently registered editors from editing the article. David notMD (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reference style[edit]

I'm planning to reference an article from The New Yorker magazine. The title of the piece is in all caps. Should I reproduce it that way when I format the reference? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a reason to do so per MOS:ALLCAPS unless the title includes initialisms or acronyms requiring each letter be capitalized. Some periodicals may use the all caps style per their house style, and while doing so might techincally not be a problem per WP:CITESTYLE and WP:CITEVAR, in might create introduce some inconsistencies that could otherwise be easily avoided. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly:No acronyms, just idiosyncrasy. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized there's already a reference in the article with its title in all caps, so I should follow suit for consistency's sake, right? That preexisting reference also causes confusion because it uses superscripts, and I don't if I should follow WP:REFNAME or not, because I don't know what the superscripts mean. See "Questions about references" above. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would defer to MOS:ALLCAPS in this case and not use all caps for the titles of article: such a thing is specifically referred to in the first bullet point of ALLCAPS. There's no reason to adhere to the particular style chosen by the publication being cited, though many probably might. I think CITEVAR might only be relevant if every citation used all caps, and you unilaterally decided to switch to another capitalization style. In such a case, it might be best to discuss things first on the article's talk page to see what others think, but I think it would be hard to establish a consensus to retain the all caps style except in some fairly odd case. If only a few of the citations use all caps but the others don't, then perhaps the person who added the all caps just didn't think to much about it and things like CITEVAR. Since citations are often added at different times by different people, inconsistencies in style can creep into the article. You could look through the page history to see how the article's creator or primary contributor formatted the citations they added and then adopt that style; you could also try and make the citation style consistent per WP:CS#Generally considered helpful if doing so improves the article. If you're WP:BOLD and someone subsequently reverts your changes, you should try and resolve things through discussion on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Former cantons in {{cantons of (department)}}[edit]

Can I add the list of former cantons in the templates of cantons of French departments (like in Template:Cantons of Nord)? See :fr:Modèle:Palette Cantons du Nord for example. (I know that most of those articles will be red links, but over the course of time, interested people can make such articles) Excellenc1 (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got the Global "ntsamr"-pattern spambot filter message[edit]

I want to help translate some exisiting Wikipedia pages from Japanese to English. I couldn't get it to allow me to do that for a particular page, so I tried making a stand alone English version with links connecting it to the existing Japanese version, but when I finally submitted the page to get published, I got the spambot filter message.

It says I should contact an Administrator.

It's my first time trying to make/edit on Wikipedia so I don't really understand anything yet.

What should I do? Sayjay1995 (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sayhay1995 Is this about the content at User:Sayjay1995/sandbox? David notMD (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In display, remove the left hand side panel/menu Quizjohn (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schools notablity[edit]

I want to write a article about a school how did i know that the school is notable enough or not. Saha86830 (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi Saha86830 and welcome to the teahouse! that would be found over at Notability (organizations) § Schools: All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Saha86830 in practical terms, try to find three sources that are each: secondary (most commonly, news media), reliable, independent (no reason to be biased), and in-depth (roughly, 10+ lines on the school). If you can, especially if they aren't tiny local news sources, then it's likely notable. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bango plc submission (03/05)[edit]


I've updated a submission for Bango plc, found here: Draft:Bango plc. I appreciate it takes time to review pages, but would like to ask if there's an average wait time. Shehrozs (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shehrozs you need to click that blue 'resubmit' button, otherwise you will be waiting for a very long time indeed! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My sandbox name is showing.[edit]

I created a Wiki page for Zelipa Zulu and my sandbox name is showing. How do I rename or remove this? Jason4004 (talk) 10:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @Jason4004. Currently it's in your sandbox (as you know). I've opted against moving it to a draft at the moment, as currently it risks being viewed as a very pro-subject page.
You can't use external links within the body of (what will be) an article. You also need references: I suggest taking a look at Help:Intro, specifically the referencing page. Once you've handled those two bits ask here again and someone can move it for you, and let you know how to submit it for review to try and become an article. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So just to clarify a Wiki page for a person is classed as an article? Jason4004 (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi Jason4004! that is correct, and when moving the page you move it to (Article). however I'd advise against moving it to there for now unless you know what you're doing, since it would be better for you to work on your draft and get feedback first, as if you move it to an (article)-prefixed page it can be deleted when it doesn't meet the required standards of an article, while a draft allow you to keep working on it even if it doesn't yet, then let a reviewer see if it's ready. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Jason4004 We tend to classify everything in Mainspace as articles. Few editors here like the term "page" as it has connotations of social media, which is one of the things Wikipedia is not. Also, it clarifies, for biographies, that the person being described does not WP:OWN their article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason4004 To clarify, User:Jason4004/sandbox is visible (and editable) to other editors, but not an article and not found be a search on "Zelipa Zulu" within Wikipedia or an outside search engine. The advised path is fix stuff, convert it to a draft, then submit the draft to AfC (Articles for Creation) to be reviewed, and either accepted, declined or rejected. As mentioned, no hyperlinks in the text. Some of the hyperlink connections can be turned into references. David notMD (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See List of Nigerian screenwriters for examples of accepted articles about screenwriters. David notMD (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I can see I’m on a steep learning curve. I’ll keep it in draft and study examples. Thank you everyone so far! 2A00:23C4:38A2:6901:59A0:B5CD:ACEE:7688 (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move image[edit]

Hi! I made a dumb misspelling when uploading File:Portraid of Matthew Morris Aid.jpg, but I'm unable to change the name. I have page mover permissions. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PhotographyEdits To move files, you need to have a special file mover permission, or be an admin. I have tagged that image with {{Rename media}}, so hopefully a file mover/admin will move it. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302 Thanks! PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New entry not going in as same name exists[edit]

I am trying to create a page for a individual but the same name exists already for another different person. The name is John Kamara A Tech Entrepreneur and Wiki has the name already but for the footballer from Sierra Leonne. How do I add the page without being directed to edit the Footballer page please. THESE ARE 2 TOTALLY UNRELATED People Waranganayi (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just title it John Kamara (entrepreneur). However, be sure that it meets WP:NOTABILITY and is sourced by reliable, secondary sources. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 11:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much @Speatle! Waranganayi (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi @Waranganayi and welcome to the teahouse! while we're here, it's best to also read Your first article along with the two links above Notability and Reliable sources, each of those help articles would aid in creating a new article. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Melecie. Thank you. I have definitely read I'm however encountering this challenge that the name of the individual I am trying to add in exactly the same as someone who already exists on wiki. Please assist Waranganayi (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, you can title it John Kamara (entrepreneur). Kpddg (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Waranganayi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would advise you very strongly not to attempt to create an article directly in mainspace, but instead to use the articles for creation process, to create a draft of the article and submit it for review. Writing an encyclopaedia article is much more difficult than most people realise, and new editors generally have a somewhat frustrting time even if they do go via creating a draft: the likelihood of your very first attempt at an article being acceptable straight away is, I'm afraid, small. Going via this method has the additional advantage that you don't need to worry about the duplicate name. You can create Draft:John Kamara, and when you submit it for review and somebody accepts it, the reviewer will moveit to mainspace and handle the duplicate name appropriately.
Actually, I would advise you not even to create a draft until you have had a few months' experience learning how Wikipedia works by making small improvements to some of our six million existing articles. ColinFine (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coloring table content cells[edit]

I usually use the visual editor since I feel intimidated by the complexity of the source editor. But is there a quicker way to color in table content cells without having to switch back from one editor to another? Prodrummer619 (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Prodrummer619, welcome to the Teahouse! AFAIK, no. We have to switch to source editing for such advanced formatting. And, don't worry, the syntaxes maybe intimidating at first but becomes pretty helpful in some times. I hardly ever switch to visual editor now. Regards. Lightbluerain (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


how can i create an project TEEDKAAY (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TEEDKAAY: Hello TEEDKAAY and welcome to the Teahouse! Could you possibly elaborate what you meant with your question? Wikipedia doesn't have projects (outside of Wikiprojects). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To start up and be a member,there's lot of articles that i hv thought of that i wanna share
and need to be edited.
Can you please assist me to be accepted permanently like you
So where would i start from as a newcomer? TEEDKAAY (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TEEDKAAY: Well to start, you idea is not what Wikipedia is for. See WP:NOT for what Wikipedia is not for. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TEEDKAAY: Relax, and please dont shout. If you want to know where your sandbox is, it's located at User:TEEDKAAY/sandbox. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Issues[edit]

I'm at a loss with understanding this notability thing. I was told that my submission was rejected for notability reasons and then to make edits to fix. Couple of years later (after finally finding online sources and paying for subscription), I added/replaced them with online sources from different news sources. But now I'm told that the submission will not be reviewed further and that the sources are not appropriate for establishing notability. What could be done? Michron777 (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy, draft in question is Draft:Your Story Hour, which was Rejected three years ago. It was then deleted as having been abandoned, then recently restored. You could leave a query on the talk page of Reviewer User:K.e.coffman, who had posted the Rejected, as to whether that could be removed now that you are trying to improve the draft. Personally, I feel that a radio show that has been in existance for 70 years might be noteworthy. David notMD (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Michron777 I've added a note that further reviewers (after you resubmit) should treat the previous rejection as a decline, given the time-frame and additional work (although, looking at the state of it back in 2019, I would have declined, not rejected). Nosebagbear (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David notMD I will do as suggested. Thank you.
@Nosebagbear Thank you Michron777 (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shortdesc helper[edit]

Hi folks at the Teahouse! I'm befuddled as to how to enable the Shortdesc helper gadget on my device. I went to its information page and found that I was supposed to look for it in the Preferences:Gadgets section, which I did, to no avail. I cannot find it. Can anyone help me with this? Or is there any alternative way of activating it which might help? Thanks! Dissoxciate (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dissoxciate Shortdesc helper (along with a lot of other gadgets) are not available on the mobile site. To use them you will need to swap to the desktop site, this can be done with the "desktop" button at the bottom of the page. (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for that! I hope once activated, they can still be used normally on the mobile site though? Dissoxciate (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dissoxciate Nope, I'm afraid that's not the case, it can only be used on the desktop site. The desktop and mobile sites have different JavaScript API's and a few of the more complex gadgets and user scripts only work on the desktop site (another example is WP:TWINKLE). (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh crap, that doesn't sound too good. I guess I'll only be able to use it while on desktop then. Thanks for the heads-up, though! Appreciate it. Dissoxciate (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I created an article some time ago for a Canadian missing persons case (Disappearance of Dylan Ehler). This page has been subject to numerous edits, none citing valid sources, from parties who appear (or claim) to be personally involved with the Dylan Ehler case. I would therefore like to request some help from a reputed Wikipedia member, or members, in protecting this page from vandalism. There is now a person trying to put in unsourced information claiming that Dylan's parents were drug addicts and that his grandmother is criminally negligent, as well as a person trying to remove sourced information because it clashes with their own personal opinion. One person was on here awhile back claiming to be Dylan Ehler's mom, and they were chopping whole paragraphs out of the article for no reason, citing no valid sources or even any reasons why they were removing the information. Being from Nova Scotia myself, I know the case is highly contentious, and so there will be repeated vandalism on the page, most likely. Is there a way to protect the page? PetSematary182 (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182[reply]

PetSematary182 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Page protection may be requested at WP:RFPP. Pages are not protected preemptively, but will be if there is a demonstratable problem. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help! PetSematary182 (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PetSematary182: Hello PetSematary! I've removed some things from the article as they aren't really relevant to an encyclopedia article on a missing persons case (Such as a description of what they were wearing or where they were last seen, or that the town is most well-known for having an underwear factory). I suggest looking at some other articles relating to more modern missing persons cases (such as articles in the category Category:2020s missing person cases) to help know what is and isn't appropriate in the article. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is db-g12 suitable for draft with partial copyright violations?[edit]

Is {{db-g12}} appropriate to mark a draft for deletion (Draft:Organic fish) because of copyright violation when the entire three-paragraph lede is a verbatim copy of another source, but the later sub-sections appear to be OK, and cite the originals. In this case, there is also discussion of merging the content with an existing article (Organic aquaculture). How to just mark the portion that is in violation? if that's what I should do. signed, Willondon (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Willondon You can either remove the offending section then tag the article with {{Copyvio-revdel}} to ask that for any revisions with the material to be deleted, or you can list it at WP:Copyright problems where someone with expertise in dealing with copyvios will look at it. (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. signed, Willondon (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot more than copyvio wrong with that draft. It starts "Organic fish is a kind of organic food fish", but doesn't specify what kind of fish it, nor what is organic about it. It is badly written and promotional. "Its nutritional value is higher than the nutritional value of wild fish such as the Selenium, Iron and other minerals." Why "the" Selenium? why capitalise the names of those elements? Why no supporting reference for that claim? Maproom (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's for sure. I hesitate to spend time improving it with conventional English and sourcing, because it seems destined to be dismantled for parts to be merged into an already existing article very close in topic. Re copyright, looks like the violated source may have copied it from WP. (I notice Google searches will find draft material in WP, too.) So problematic, I decided to basically leave it, and let the draft expire and/or the merge discussion run its course. I see one editor has already scavenged some draft content into the pre-existing article. signed, Willondon (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Resource Request[edit]

I have a resource request I am thinking of submitting at WP:RX at the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. I would like access to the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics which is a very important reference for mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology. I do not have access through my university. Is there a way to obtain access to the CRC handbook as a Wikipedia editor? Ideally, I could access the database through the Wikipedia Library database portal if CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group partnered with Wikipedia. I realize this may be unrealistic, is there a way to find a pdf of CRC handbook, ideally the one with all the database material up to the 102nd edition? I have come to WP:TEA because I'm not sure what if WP:RX is for database requests.ScientistBuilder (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ScientistBuilder: The Wikipedia Library (of which I'm a member) does give access to Taylor & Francis, although applications may be limited in numbers so you might have to wait. I don't have such access so I don't know if the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics is one of the items you could then reach. There is an online version at this URL, which does allow searching but I've never used it so I'm not sure how much data you can retrieve without an account. At one time, the Handbook's publishers didn't allow non-commercial use of data from the handbook (see old discussion at WT:WikiProject_Chemistry/Archive_20#Chemical_properties_tables_republication) but I don't know the current position. There are loads of old editions available relatively cheaply as hard copy from your favourite online retailer! Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen D. Mumford page[edit]

i have a request to add to the page about the Population Control expert Stephen D. Mumford. it has come to my attention that he has his own website, called on this website, he makes several claims about the Catholic Church, accussing them of taking over the US supreme court through the organisation Opus Dei, and also accusses them of working with the CIA on Operation Gladio. i am very skeptical of these claims, as i have been unable to find any credible third party sources that confirm this. Omsk346 (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Omsk346. The place to discuss this would be at Talk:Stephen D. Mumford. But I'll say that, in my opinion, unless there has been independent discussion (or at least reporting) of his views, the article should not even mention them. ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Omsk346, Mumford seems to be a controversial fringe figure who does not fit in with either the "pro-choice" or "pro-life" factions of the abortion debate in the United States. I am not sure that he is even notable enough for a Wikipedia biography, but I could be wrong. A person's own website can be linked to, and it can be used to cite uncontroversial claims like where they were born or where the went to college. But such a websitevshould not be used for controversial claims about Opus Dei and the Supreme Court and instead that type of content should be cited to reliable, secondary sources that report on and analyze contentious claims like this. Cullen328 (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do to get this page accepted?[edit]

I started working on a Wikipedia page Draft:Kaden Brightwell to be submitted for creation. Besides tweaking a few details and adding more information, is there any big things that need to be fixed for submission to be accepted? Equable247 (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Equable247: thanks for your question. The major hurdle to your article being accepted is the notability of the subject itself. Unfortunately, Kaden Brightwell does not appear to have media coverage independent of himself. The barriers to passing notability requirements are high, and many people, subjects, organizations, etc., simply do not pass those requirements. Someday, this subject may be notable enough for an article here, but not currently. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Equable247: (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are essentially asking- to draw an analogy- "aside from the plumbing, electrical, windows, and HVAC, am I ready to build a house?" Writing a new article is the absolute hardest task to attempt on Wikipedia. It's even harder with a conflict of interest, as you have. You must set aside everything you know about Mr. Brightwell and all materials put out by him(like his Twitter feed) and only write to summarize what independent reliable sources say about him, showing that he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. This is usually done by independent editors who take note of coverage in independent sources and choose to write about a topic on their own- trying to force the issue one's self(either directly or through a representative) is not often successful. But, if you rewrite the draft to summarize independent sources, and can show he is notable, it can be resubmitted. Also be advised that Mr. Brightwell might want to consider that there are good reasons to not want an article about himself. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, unless its some kind of mistaken placeholder, the "honorary titles" section that was added shows they may not seriously be looking to contribute to the encyclopedia, but may be attempting some kind of prank. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also quite confused by Brightwell graduated from the Hunterdon County Academies in 2025. Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest, though, Equable247! (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Equable247, an article about a 14-year old with no reliable sources. Is this yourself? @Pyrrho the Skipper, is there a speedy deletion tag for a draft with too much detail about an identifiable minor child with information about his real school and siblings? StarryGrandma (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that can be applied to drafts, but I'm going to tag the reviewer, @KylieTastic:, so they can address this in the most efficient way. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it can only be applied by oversighters. Not being an oversighter, I have "addressed" this draft in a different yet efficient way. -- Hoary (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC) Incidentally, not being an admin at Commons, I've had to launch a deletion request there. -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The draft has been deleted for being a hoax. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article Editing[edit]

I have questions about how to upload the side bar table with the information

about the article?

How do I save the work completed so far when I’m not done with the article?

How do I send over to editor to see if I am formatting the information correctly? Gwen chandler (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen chandler, whenever you want to save, press "Publish". (In the context of drafts, "Publish" doesn't have its regular meaning.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:YFA explains how to create and submit a draft. A draft does not require an "Infobox" to be submitted for review, but it does require references. David notMD (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gwen chandler, what you call the "side bar table" (infobox) is among the least important aspects of a draft, and will have no influence on whether or not the draft is accepted. The most important factor is whether or not several independent, reliable sources devote significant coverage to the topic of the draft. The second most important factor is whether or not the draft accurately and neutrally summarizes the content of those sources. Those are the essential elements. Everything else is secondary and easily corrected. Focus on the two points that I described. Cullen328 (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help with copyright[edit]

I am trying to add county seals to county pages in NC. I just realized that the copyright (Government) does not include county made designs. I was wondering if there is another copyright I could use to for these images or if they could be deleted if there is no way to fix them?

Images concerned.


Thanks! DiscoA340 (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DiscoA340, you're far more likely to get well-informed advice if you ask at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Hoary. DiscoA340 (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DiscoA340, it looks like you are uploading County seals as copyright free as works of the U.S. Federal government. This is incorrect. While it is true that works of employees of the Federal government carrying out their job duties are in the public domain and therefore copyright free, this does not necessarily apply to state governments and their county level subdivisions. State and local governments establish their own copyright policies, which vary widely. You must investigate the specific policies of the specific government entity. Unless you can find solid evidence that a specific logo is in the public domain (or feely licensed), the assumption is that it is restricted by copyright. See WP:LOGO for possible exceptions for certain types of non free images. These non-free images belong here on English Wikipedia, not on Wikimedia Commons, which is for fully free inages only. Cullen328 (talk) 05:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rowspan template[edit]


How do you make the N/A template stretch over multiple rows without just the text being displayed? See here for reference.

Thanks in advance! TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Trevortnidesserped and welcome to the teahouse! you'd place {{n/a}} without a pipe between it and the preceding rowspan to prevent the template from detecting the {{n/a}} as text to be put in the table itself. I've fixed the template over for you, happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing draft submission[edit]

I submitted Draft:Neo-Nazism in Russia top AFC, but I noticed it seems to be linked to discretionary sanctions and I am unsure whether I am potentially violating them by submitting the article. Can I retract my submission of it until I get further information on it? Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 23:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Immanuelle. I don't believe you're violating anything by submitting an a draft for AFC review. Whether you're draft will be accepted is a different matter all together, but submitting it for review isn't (at least per my understanding) not a viloation of WP:ACDS. The discretionary sanctions notice was automatically added to the draft's talk page when you added a certain WikiProject banner or banners. This is just to let you and others know that the subject area often makes such articles targets for disruption and editors need to be aware that any such editing isn't not going to be tolerated even a little. I think you can simply wait until the draft is reviewed to decide what to do. If it's declined and you feel there's no point in pursuing it, you could blank the page and request speedy deletion per WP:G7. You could also simply abandon the draft, and eventually it will be deleted per WP:G13 after six months have passed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you make a link to a section in an article[edit]

No, i'm not talking about the 'Albert Einstein#Scientific career' sort of thing. That thing redirects you to another article and the section you have given. I want to link to a section inside the article. I searched up everywhere but i couldn't seem to find a template or a way to do that. Leahnn Rey (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Leahnn Rey and welcome to the teahouse! you'd do the same thing in this case, although starting with the article's name. to redirect to say, the thread five sections above, you'd do Wikipedia:Teahouse#What should I do to get this page accepted? happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary to specify the article's title. #What should I do to get this page accepted? will work. However, either Melecie's method or this one will normally collapse if the section is retitled, as it well might be. (You can neither tell other editors not to rename it nor expect that they'll check for the consequences of renaming it.) For this reason, I advise you to use Template:Anchor; see this. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you learn something new every day! thanks hoary 💜  melecie  talk - 01:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salting of Kathy Barnette[edit]

So I decided to work on Draft:Kathy Barnette, as when I found it, it was basically blank. I wrote a fairly basic article, and submitted it for review. Almost immediately, the draft was rejected and I learned that Kathy Barnette had been salted. While I'm not at all attached to Barnette or what I wrote, from my perspective, she definitely seems notable as she has been in the headlines CONSTANTLY! I can't seem to get away from her, Barnette this, Barnette that, she's everywhere. I will not be resubmitting the draft for review unless she wins, but I do think a discussion is needed to just talk of the possibility of unsalting Barnette. Physeters 00:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I KNOW RIGHT??? WikiFan2456 (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Physeters: Article titles usually are salted when there have been persistent attempts to recreate the article in question despite an established consensus to the contrary. In this case, you can see the log for "Kathy Barnette" here. The article was discussed at WP:AFD twice and consensus was to "delete and redirect" each time. Since there apparently continued to be attempts to recreate the article despite the AFD results, the title was salted. If you think that salting is no longer warranted, you can discuss your concerns with the administrators who salted the article and see what they say. If they don't respond or still feel the salting is needed, you can follow the other suggestions given in the third paragraph of WP:SKYBLUELOCK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kathy Barnette does not meet the notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN at this time. If she is elected, then she will definitely be considered notable at that time. Cullen328 (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Winning the primary may do it, at least WP:BASIC-wise:[4] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though Barnette doesn't satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, I suspect that she does now satisfy WP:PERSON. So, Physeters|, if you do want to appeal the salting, you might read WP:PERSON carefully, decide if she satisfies it, and, if she does, then amass a rather small quantity of excellent references (I suggest no more than five of these) to demonstrate that she does. Marchjuly has explained the rest. But another tip: Hyperbole, boldface and exclamation points would each make your appeal less persuasive. -- Hoary (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary I am already in the process of discussing appealing the salting. It doesn't look like they are going to do it as of yet, but I am still waiting for one major reply. Thanks for the advice about the bold text and hyperbole! Physeters 09:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link to AfC Help Desk discussion Zindor (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you create a new Wikipedia page?[edit]

I need to know if you can create brand-new pages because i noticed that you have not got one on the 2022 Eurovision Song Contest Theme, The Sound Of Beauty. So I want to do one. WikiFan2456 (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @WikiFan2456 and welcome to the teahouse! there is already an article on the 2022 Eurovision Song Contest, and I don't think themes of ESCs are given their separate articles. if there's lots of notable discussion on the theme, I'd advise you to put it on the existing eurovision article first, as writing an article is very tricky to do. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Can I ask you, do you watch Eurovision yourself? WikiFan2456 (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WikiFan2456, whether or not a given editor watches or does not watch a song competition is utterly irrelevant here. This is not a fan site. This is an encyclopedia that summarizes what published reliable independent sources say about a topic. "Watching the show" is not a qualification for editing. Cullen328 (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that some of the editors who discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision watch the thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions on what I should do to get published an article about microwave barriers[edit]

Goodmorning, I wrote an article about Microwave Barriers & Sensors and was rejected with this comment "I'm not sure what this is... an essay? original thought? I just know its not an encyclopedia article and it is unclear what is trying to be expressed to a reader." I am writing here to ask to someone more expert than me if could please help me in understanding what this sentence means and what are the changes i should implement in order to make the article suitable for wikipedia. Could anybody help me finding issues that should be solved? Thanks in advance for your time and suppor Annaas98 (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Annaas98 I have very little understanding of your topic, but possibly you could get some useful input if you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the draft is not about barriers to microwaves, but about motion detectors used to detect intruders. It is hard to understand. It says "Microwave sensors are motion devices that transmit a designated area with an electronic field". So it seems that they don't necessarily involve microwaves. I've no idea what "transmit ... an area" means. And I doubt there is such a thing as an "electronic field". Maproom (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Electronic field production there surely must be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you make too many typos[edit]

If you edit pages a lot and make too many typos, can you get banned from editing? My school already has an IP ban Skepstep (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Skepstep: Only if an administrator has good reason to suspect they are doing it in bad faith, or if they are making far too many mistakes. See WP:GF and WP:DE. The Tips of Apmh 12:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Skepstep, welcome to the teahouse, it is extremely unlikely that one gets banned from editing due to making too many typos. As long as you are editing in good faith, contributes positively to this encyclopedia, and listens to advice I would say that it's actually quite difficult to get banned from editing as a beginner. Your school IP ban is likely due to vandalism, which is editing that is not in good faith and is common across school IPs. Justiyaya 12:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Skepstep, adding to the above, Wikipedia:Spellchecking#Using_a_web_browser may have something of use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TV Infobox Broken[edit]

Can someone fix whatever is wrong with the Infobox TV? It gives the error Lua error in Module:Infobox_television at line 106: bad argument #1 to 'find' (string expected, got nil). It also has the same error message in the infobox itself, however there it says to match rather than to find, and line 284 rather than line 106 Danstarr69 (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Danstarr69 Welcome to the Teahouse! Are you referring to Template:Infobox television? Where are you seeing the errors? GoingBatty (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GoingBatty Whenever I try to put the template on an article, whether as a shortcut, or the entire text, those errors appear. Danstarr69 (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Danstarr69 What is the name of the article where you are trying to add the template? GoingBatty (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GoingBatty it's got nothing to do with the article. The TV template is broke. I tried to add the entire template text last night (when I was half asleep) to a rough stub article I was thinking about creating, like I usually do when I add templates. However after adding the release date, I noticed the errors so I thought I must have done something wrong. Then I deleted the date, and the errors were still there. Then I blanked the page, and added the shortcut instead, and the errors were still there. Today, I've just started a draft for a random article which doesn't exist, and tried again to post the template, but again those errors are still there. I suspect it's something to do with the edits on the template in March and April. Danstarr69 (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Danstarr69 I just pasted the whole template to User:GoingBatty/sandbox and don't see any errors. Could you please provide an example where you see the errors? GoingBatty (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GoingBatty I'm starting to think that it only appears on new articles, as I've just pasted them both on articles which already exist and the errors don't appear.
However on articles which haven't been published yet:
The line 106 error appears at the top of the main article.
And the line 284 error appears inside the infobox on the right. Danstarr69 (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Danstarr69 Here are the steps I followed, and I don't see an error:
  1. Searched for "BoopBoop" to confirm there is no article of this name.
  2. Clicked on the redlink BoopBoop to start editing the article using the source editor (not VisualEditor)
  3. Copied the empty template from Template:Infobox television#Usage
  4. Pasted the empty template to BoopBoop.
  5. Clicked "Show preview" and I don't see any errors.
  6. Did NOT click "Publish page".
What process are you performing? GoingBatty (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Danstarr69:, by not-published do you mean draftspace? I've tested the blank template (even went as far as publishing) at Draft:Sandbox with no errors. I think a pressing question here is are you populating any of the fields in the template with information? Zindor (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zindor I did the same steps as GoingBatty, yet for some reason it's only showing me these errors on unpublished articles, and not you two. I don't even know what all that Lua stuff even means. Danstarr69 (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A Lua module is a lightweight server-side program which handles the more complex operations of the template. The error "line 106: bad argument #1 to 'find' (string expected, got nil)" made me think that either a parameter had been filled with non-parsable characters or that the template was using some kind of magic word (Pagename etc) to populate a string but this was being inhibited by being in the wrong namespace. Both those theories now seem wrong however. Zindor (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GoingBatty I did the same, and the errors always appear.
However I've now just pressed publish on the empty article so I could show you, and the errors don't appear anymore now it's been published.
If someone wants to delete it, they can, however I'll be updating that one, or re-creating it later today anyway.
Here it is, with the errors magically disappeared after publishing One Pair of Eyes (TV series). Danstarr69 (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GoingBatty and Zindor.
By the way, the errors can only be seen when I switch from source editing to visual editing. Danstarr69 (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Danstarr69, I feel like we've come across a similar issue before at the Teahouse. I'm sure we'll have an answer for you once we rack our brains. Zindor (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why are my sources not considered reliable?[edit]

Hi everyone, my submission was declined due to it was not supported by reliable sources. But I tried to collect well-known reliable independent sources and they have entire articles (not passing mentions) written on the subject of my article. Could you please help me with some more clear information about the references in my article? Why are they not considered reliable and what kind of additional references should be used? Thank you in advanced.```` Krakozjabla (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Krakozjabla Welcome to the Teahouse! I presume you are referring to Draft:TVALB. Reference #1 does not appear to be independent. Reference #4 states it is a "Artikull i Sponsoruar" (Sponsored article), which means it is not independent. Reference #3 seems to be very similar, which leads me to believe it is also not independent. Reference #5 appears to be a press release, which means it is not independent. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there are three separate requirements for a source to contribute to notability. It must be reliable (this applies to all sources), it must be independent of the subject (some non-independent sources are acceptable, but they do not contribute towards Notability; and it must contain significant coverage of the topic, not just a routine mention. I haven't looked at them, but judging from GoingBatty's comments, most of your sources are not independent, whether they are reliable or not. ColinFine (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to remove bias and move to criticsm on page.[edit]


I have been trying to edit the StandWithUs Wikipedia page by asking on the talk page to remove a claim that the org. is right-wing. StandWithUs Unfortunately, despite numerous credible article and sources, the article is slanted, based on bias sources and papers, labeling an educational org. as right wing. A number of the sources were removed due to antisemitism however this main issue is still there. The reality is that it is a non partisan educational organization, and there may be disagreement, that is why I am asking to move this term into the "Criticism" section of the page.

Please help me remove this from page.

Thank you. MtTamlady (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PARTISAN would be a useful read for you. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MtTamlady. This matter has been discussed extensively at Talk:StandWithUs, and the current consensus is that the right wing descriptor is accurate and well-referenced. Cullen328 (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MtTamlady. Cullen best describes where these discussions should take place but I would like to point out a common misconception about Wikipedia. This surrounds the words "fact" and "truth". Wikipedia is not so concerned with any particular editor's or subject's view of truth or facts. Wikipedia is only concerned with what reliable sources say. It may, in fact, be true that this organization is not "right-wing". But if reliable sources say it is then Wikipedia is going to say it is. Our desire is that Wikipedia accurately summarize what independent reliable sources say about a subject, even if they form the wrong conclusion. Just because something is written doesn't make it more or less true. The opposite is the case too. Current consensus made the right decision in upholding Wikipedia policy.
Feel free to add the term and information to the "Criticism" section of the article but this would only solidify the use of it in the lede as the lede summarizes the key points from the article anyway and reliable sources have given more weight to the "right wing" descriptor. --ARoseWolf 17:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]