This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
Hello, I would like to know if the image from this website https://bugguide.net/node/view/833514 is able to be uploaded to Wikipedia? I am asking this question because it says nothing about what the rights to the image are (as far as I can see). I would also like to know if there are images showing the hong glorious beetle which I can use for the article (obviously going to look for what the right to the possible image would be). The only thing it says is the date which it got copyrighted (2013) and the person which owns(?) the photo.
thanks.Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus
Copyright notice is a big hint. More importantly, if you click the photographer's name under the photo you will see "All Rights Reserved", so unless there is a WP:FAIRUSE rationale, the photo can not be used. I suspect fair use is unlikely but it is the area I am least familiar with. Copyright Questions Noticeboard may be better suited to help you with this question.Slywriter (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
It might pass as fair use, but it would not pass the stricter WP:NFCC. In particular NFCC#1 is deemed to forbid photographs of living people (because you could take a camera and go photograph them); surely the same reasoning forbids photographs of non-extinct species as well. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)19:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
A little more precisely, Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus, the default assumption is that all material is conventionally ("all rights reserved") copyright -- and thus no variety of copyleft, and unusable at Commons -- unless there is an explicit declaration otherwise, or some other specific reason (normally involving age) to conclude otherwise. -- Hoary (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I was simply asking them on their talk page because I didn't see that to be something that would be appropriate to ask in reply to this discussion. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Even if the puzzle thing rather than the color is a problem... Ultimately it is not a matter of whether the logo "objectively" offends autistic people (whatever "objectively" means here, and never mind that "autistic people" covers quite a lot of different cognitive patterns). It is a matter of which logo the WikiProject members want to represent them. Whether project members object because the logo is offensive, or because there’s some blue and they do not like blue, or because there’s a sphere and they prefer cubes, is ultimately irrelevant - what matters is that they strongly dislike it and you do not seem to be able to convince them otherwise. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)19:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
My understanding is that there is a wider cultural conversation about the appropriateness of using puzzle pieces specifically to represent autism. I don't see any reason that using puzzle pieces to represent things totally unrelated to autism, as the Wikipedia logo does, would be a problem. Writ Keeper⚇♔18:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
To editor Tigraan: We don't have to convince them about anything, the project can pick whatever logo they want, I just wanted to understand if really that logo is commonly perceived offensive, and I considered its eventual implications worth of a broader attention. — Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 23:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyright vio
Lately I've been doing analysis on articles and I have stumbled across things that made me curious.
What needs to be done to an article that is suspected to violate over 92% of a reference' rights? Neoinsession (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Neoinsession, WP:COPYVIO includes the instructions and template to place on the page if the article has copyvio issues. I know in my pre-WP:TWINKLE days manually templating could be tedious, so if you find the process too cumbersome, just drop the page name here and I or someone else will take a look and complete the necessary steps.Slywriter (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey! I do recommend reading the link above about Copyvio. If the page is 100% copyvio with no clean version to revert back to, G12 the page with Twinkle. Also, if you don't want to deal with it, and you suspect a copyvio, list it at WP:CP, and someone will clean it for you. Best, Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions)02:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Fixing website links
I want to help fix broken website links in citations. I think this is called "CS1" or "CN1" or something. I was curious how I could find a list of these that might be broken so that I could manually work through some and help improve the encyclopedia. Oopsemoops (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Special:SpecialPages is a list of pages automagically generated by the software that can't be edited (a list which paradoxically should include Special:SpecialPages, but doesn't). Nothing can be added or removed except by the developers, and they're only going to add pages in the Special namespace. Task Center is a more likely candidate. Since the page is only semi-protected, you could in theory edit it yourself. I would probably recommend talking about it on the Wikipedia talk:Task Center page. casualdejekyll21:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I created a draft and want to move it so that it's an article, but the title currently redirects to another article. How do I make a request that it's not redirected so that I can use the title for my draft? The title has to be a specific format, so I can't just pick another one. Are there any good usernames left? (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
While in the visual editor, click the three lines at the top right (next to publish changes button). Then click Page Settings. In Page Settings there is an option to make the page a redirect, so uncheck the box to make it not a redirect. Poopykibble (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I need help in knowing what the requirements are for moving an article into the mainspace
This is my first time contributing to Wikipedia and its amazing that this community exists, I am a marketing manager for a healthcare logistics company in Nigeria that was a crucial force in 2020, during the pandemic, however, this force went unnoticed due to some reasons. I believe in honesty and I am putting it out here that I have created a page for the CEO of the company(in the required non-promotional way of course) and I seek advice on how to bring the page up to Wikipedia standards.
As the experts in here, are there any pointers? I would genuinely appreciate your input and also would like to keep contributing to Wikipedia's forum moving forward.[[1]] Udenna Matthew (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
New users cannot directly create articles; typically they use Articles for Creation, which provides information to submit a draft- but that's okay. I have added this information to your draft. However, if you were to submit it now, it would be declined quickly, as it does not summarize what independent reliable sources say about Dr. Abiola. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please read Your First Article. Typically, we encourage new users to first edit existing articles, to learn more about Wikipedia, as well as advising them to use the new user tutorial. Successfully creating a new article is probably the hardest task to perform on Wikipedia, and diving right in can lead to disappointment and frustration, when you do not get some experience first. 331dot (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Udenna Matthew, if the major factor in the notability of your biographee is that he's the CEO of a company (Carter Biggs), then I'd expect an article to be produced about the company before an article about him. You say that the company "was a crucial force in 2020, during the pandemic". This sounds promising. However, you add that "this force went unnoticed". This means that no mention can be made in Wikipedia of its crucialness. It seems from what you say that any attempt at an article on your company's CEO is doomed -- not necessarily forever, but until notability (as understood by Wikipedia) can be demonstrated. -- Hoary (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, Vertigo2222. It's an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. For example, you. I know nothing about "Project Rachel" except that Project Rachel redirects to Priests for Life, and that something is wrong about this, because it's not mentioned in that article. Once you have determined that "Project Rachel" is "notable", as that word is understood (perhaps strangely) here, you are welcome to click on Draft:Project Rachel, to edit this (of course providing a reliable reference for anything that it says), and to submit it as an article candidate. However, I don't recommend that you do this until you've amassed some experience in editing existing articles in Wikipedia. Furthermore, my guess is that it has something to do with abortion, and more specifically the politics of abortion in the US; I recommend that you avoid any editing in this area (other perhaps the correction of discrete, unambiguous mistakes, again of course providing reliable references), until you've successfully made a few dozen edits in other areas. -- Hoary (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
From quick search, I found "Project Rachel is the Catholic Church's confidential ministry to those who have been involved in an abortion. ... Project Rachel is a diocesan-based network of specially trained priests, religious, counselors, and laypersons who provide a team response of care for those suffering in the aftermath of an abortion." In my opinion that should NOT redirect to Priests for Life, and instead would qualify for its own article. Per Hoary's comment, creating a new article is very hard for new editors. Look at WP:YFA, but I also advise gaining experience first. David notMD (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Need help getting a page published
Hi @teahouse. I have recently drafted a page and it has been declined because;
- (1) "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia" and
- (2) "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies. "
Very unlikely that an article about a pharmaceutical company that only has one drug, and that in clinical trials, not yet approved for use for any indication, qualifies for notable by Wikipedia's criteria. David notMD (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The drug itself, Pridopidine, is the subject of an article which you have been editing. What is your connection to the company? If you are paid (see WP:PAID). declaration of your status is required, and you are prohibited from directly editing Pridopidine. My concerns about that article are that many of the references, including the 13 you added, do not meet the standards required per WP:MEDRS. However, I am not sure MEDRS applies, as otherwise how else to write an a drug in development? David notMD (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Need help after changing my username
I have changed my username yesterday and now facing disrupting other's !vote as claimed by @Djm-leighpark:. I have updated my signature, wherever I am involved in voting. If anything left, please help me to resolve the issue. NeverTry4Me - TT Page08:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
This article contains an audio recording of the subject's name. Does anyone know how this was done? I'd like to replicate it on a couple other articles.
Will appreciate any help i can get.
Welcome to the Teahouse, MGetudiant. having more than one account is not prohibited provided they are not used for nefarious purposes. See WP:SOCKLEGIT. The rest of that page also describes the misuse of multiple accounts, which (with evidence) can be reported at WP:SPI. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I am reaching out to learn if you could help in the review process of an article I've edited about human rights in the digital era in the Caribbean. The article is the result of a Wiki edtiathon we did with different regional and international organisations. We look forward to encourage more people to edit our Wiki article. The results and participants of this process would be presented at Mozilla Festival by the beginning of March. For these reasons we would highly value any recommendation or support to fast-forward the article's review.
Thank you in adance for your time and consideration!
WikiLAC, the article's history shows that -- aside from a single contribution by somebody who wasn't logged in, and various minor improvements -- it was created by you alone. But you talk of "we". Is "WikiLAC" a single person, or a group? -- Hoary (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
WikiLAC, you need to decide what the draft is meant to be about, and then write about that subject. "Digital Rights in the Caribbean" suggests that it's about IP law as effective in Caribbean countries. "human rights in the digital era in the Caribbean" suggests that it's about human rights in the Caribbean in the last thirty years. "Digital violence" doesn't mean jabbing someone with your fingers; it's not clear what it does mean. In fact the draft seems to be about several miscellaneous topics that concern its various writers. Maproom (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Maproom, thanks for your feedback! I have changed the title to "human rights in the digital era in the Caribbean" to help readers better understand what the article is about. Have also done minor edits to the references about online GBV in the lead to make it clearer. This is the group of organisations behind the project Wikipedia:WikiCaribbean/DigitalRights. Would it help if they do edits to the article as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLAC (talk • contribs)
WikiLAC, you haven't answered my question. Maproom infers plural authorship of a draft that's largely written by a single username. If "WikiLAC" is indeed a number of people, this contravenes a policy of English-language Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Username policy. (Also, when you comment on a talk page [such as this one], please conclude your comment with four consecutive "~"; this will produce your signature and a timestamp.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Hoary, sorry that my answer was not clear. The edits to the text have been done by the group of organisations listed in the Wiki page I've shared. Due to practical reasons I have done the edits on the Wiki article. I ask again, would it help if these other organisations do edits to the article as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLAC (talk • contribs)
Hi Tenryuu, thanks for your questions. The project aims at promoting the work of third organisations focussed on digital human rights in the Caribbean - there are no references in the article from the organisations leading the project. Please let me know if this should be indicated in the lead. WikiLAC (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@WikiLAC: That wasn't what I said. What I said was anyone who is affiliated with the organisations mentioned in the article is strongly discouraged from directly editing said article due to inherent conflicts of interest, as you said in your response to Maproom: would it help if these other organisations do edits to the article as well? Individuals from other organisations may edit without such qualms so long as they don't have a conflict of interest. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: Thanks for clarifying that. It is an important point to address when inviting more people to edit the article. Are there any other recommendations I should follow to get the article reviewed? Mate 02WikiLAC (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC).
Apokrif, Someone may have a more technical answer but if you create the link newpageiwanttocreate or Draft:newpageiwanttocreate in your sandbox, click said link and you will get option to create a new page.15:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Apokrif, you should create a link in a sandbox. This will generate a red link: by clicking on it, you will reach the editor and create the new page. However, redlinks on the app don't necessarily work (at least, they don't work for me). To see them, you should scroll down to the very bottom of the page and click "view article in browser"; from there, you can easily use the procedure I described. Llaaww (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
What counts as a reputable source when writing about a fiction film?
Hi - sorry if this information is already somewhere. I'm really overwhelmed by how much information there is about editing Wikipedia pages and could use some guidance.
There's a film that I spent all last semester researching for a big essay project (I'm a university student) and the film's Wikipedia page is still just a stub so I feel like I'm a good candidate to expand it. However, I'm really unclear on what counts as a reliable source for a film. Pretty much all the information I have on the film comes from film reviews and interviews with the director - I just haven't found anything else written about it (it came out in 2020).
Here is what my instinct is:
1. If an opinion on/attitude towards the film is expressed across several reviews, I could potentially use those articles as sources for stating that the film is perceived a certain way. But information expressed as fact in reviews can't be used unless I can verify it with another source I know to be trustworthy. This is a problem since pretty much all the available information about the film that isn't coming directly from the film's director is contained in reviews. And if they are usable, I have a bunch of other questions about that!
2. The director makes a lot of claims but I should verify them elsewhere before using them. I don't know that it's even possible to verify a lot of what he says, but he makes certain assertions about the film that I would definitely want to include if I could confirm them (for example, that the film is the first of its kind in a certain category). If he is making a claim about himself, for instance about his inspiration for the film, could I use that on its own or is anything like that too opinion-y to go on a Wikipedia page? Is anything the director says usable on its own or does it all need to be verified unless I'm presenting it solely as his opinion?
Are my thoughts correct or am I way off base? Where do you get reliable information about a film that was made too recently to have any film journal articles written about it?
I didn't initially say what the film is because it felt a little embarrassing, but it's Ainu Mosir. I speak Japanese so I could look for Japanese-language sources, but it would be a bit of a pain.
Hi MenoEnds. Your item #1 sounds kind of sounds like WP:SYNTHESIS which is something editors shouldn't be doing. Item 2 sounds like a case of self-publication by the director in that it would need to be treated as a WP:PRIMARY source and used with caution. If you wanted to quote the director regarding what inspired them to make the film, then that might be OK as long as it's properly attributed and treated as a MOS:QUOTE. Any other claims which might be about other persons or things, even like something that seems as benign a "this is the first film of its type", would need WP:SECONDARY sourcing instead. Finally, non-English sources are acceptable as long as they meet the Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the feedback! I get what you mean about Synthesis, Marchjuly, so I definitely won't do that. The resources GoingBatty linked have been helpful in finding sources I can use for some of the information I want to add. As Mike Turnbull suggested, I'll start by adding citations for the awards section. Thank you all! MenoEnds (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
How to contribute my article
I have written my first Wikipedia article, a short biography. I want to submit it to be edited and published, but I don't know how, and cannot make sense of any instructions I've found on your pages. Please advise. My wikipedia username is Ajo47 Thank you. Ajo47 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Before you submit, however, you need to ensure that the material is properly referenced. There seem to be a number of sections with no references at all. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
InputBox
How do I create an InputBox where when an information is typed in it by a participants it would send them to a view page which has question for the participants to fill based on the project they want to run or engage on and also when the project is published where can I find most of the project list after participant are done. Thanks Jwale2 (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
What constitutes as vandalism and how should I deal with it?
So I've been editing for about a month now and have come across a bit of vandalism. But I usually see this in varying degrees. Sometimes I don't even know if the poor edits I see are even considered vandalism. So I shall list a few edits, as well as what I would classify them and how I think one should approach dealing with such edits. I'd like to know what you guys think and whether my judgements are accurate or how they could be improved.
2. Edit: [person in article] is a horrible person and has raped three women but has not been charged for any of them
* Classification: Good Faith edit
* Response: Not sure. If that's completely false it should be removed. But if there have been some allegations made covered by multiple reliable sources then it might be worth mentioning. Either way, I'm not going to research, I just know that the sentence above probably should not be written like that in the article. Ideas I have are {{Dubious}}, {{Citation needed}} (though that still doesn't take care of the tone used in the edit). Maybe {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}?.
3. Edit: This cock sucker deserves to die in the lowest depths of hell!
* Additional notes: First time seeing this? then response is as mentioned above. Second/third time: {{subst:uw-vandalism3}}, Fourth or more: {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} + report to WP:AIV
4. Edit: Computers can be used to play video games and things like xbox and also like talking to friends
* Classification: Good Faith edit
* Response: revert + {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}? But then again it's not exactly vandalism, so I'm unsure.
5. Edit: [subject] has done [something] → [subject] has not done [something].
* Classification: Vandalism...? Let us assume that the sentence they changed it to is a false statement.
Are the responses I listed appropriate ways of handling the situation and are my classifications accurate? Please let me know, thanks! Satricious (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Some notes from me:
0th edit:vandalism means to intentionally disrupt Wikipedia.
2nd edit: not vandalism unless deliberately accusing the person despite knowing otherwise. If its unsourced, revert as a BLP violation. Warn using {{uw-biog1}}.
3rd edit, escalate by two warning levels instead of one.
4th edit: good faith edit, revert as such, leave a handwritten welcome
5th edit: depends on context, but probably not vandalism.
6th edit: revert as vandalism, warn using 1 level above previous. Note that placing a warning and reporting at the same time is useless. If you warn, only report for new edits after the user could reasonably seen the warning.
7th edit: classic test edit. Warn using {{uw-test1}}.
My two öre: Edit 2 is just as bad as edit 3, and in some ways it is worse. Both of them may or may not be good-faith edits, both of them call somebody an awful person, but edit 2 accuses a person of a particularly vile crime, while edit 3 is just random profanity. Both should be reverted and a level 2 warning will be appropriate in both cases; in addition, edit 2 should be revdeleted. If well-sourced and neutrally phrased allegations of rape are added to an article, that may be a different thing. As for edit 5, {{subst:uw-error1}} or {{subst:uw-error2}} are useful for that situation. --bonadeacontributionstalk14:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the responses! I shall check out twinkle (definitely seen it tagged a lot in edits). And I'll be sure to look into and familiarize myself with the templates that have been mentioned. Satricious (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@Satricious: - I'd go as far to say that edit 2 is, especially if it's on a BLP, justification for an immediate {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}}. Putting an allegation as serious as that that on a person's page is very dangerous.
Biographies
I have gone through the documentation on writing biographies and I am wondering if biographies are only posted for popular people. This is after I posted a biography of someone which was declined. I'm fairly inexperienced please help. Thank you for your patience with me. TekkWeb (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@TekkWeb: Hello Tekk! You are partially correct. Articles on living people (covered in WP:BLP) are only created if someone is deemed to be notable, which usually also means they are popular. However, the difference is in order to be notable, you need to have reliable, secondary sources cover info on you. There are lots of people who are popular who don't have articles on Wikipedia because they aren't notable (such as many Youtubers for example, a Youtuber may have millions of subs, but if they aren't deemed to be notable then an article shouldn't be written about them). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@TekkWeb: To clarify what Blaze Wolf said: in order to have a biography on Wikipedia, the person has to be notable, but not necessarily famous in conventional sense or known by general public. For example, Serial killer article lists many notable and infamous (famous for bad things) people. Also, people can be notable within their field but otherwise not famous and not known by the general public. For example, just a few paragraphs above there is discussion about Daniel Musher: this person is probably not known by most people, but still qualifies for Wikipedia article since he made some notable contributions to medical research.
Bibian Mentel was born, lived and died in Netherlands. Someone added "of Indonesian-Dutch descent". Should the statement be kept and need a cite? Or should it be deleted? // Zquid (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Zquid (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, this definitely needs a citation - as a statement about a living person that is likely to be challenged, it even needs one in the lead. I'd delete - since it's a biography of a living person, a citation needed tag doesn't seem to be the right course of action here. casualdejekyll21:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@Tacicuri: ¡Hola Tacicuri, bienvenido a Wikipedia! Si bien todos los esfuerzos para mejorar la Wikipedia son bien recibidos, desdichadamente su nivel de inglés no parece idóneo para hacer contribuciones de utilidad, o las contribuciones no estan escritas en inglés. ¿Sabía que existe una Wikipedia en español? Quizás prefiera contribuir ahí. Gracias, ― Levi_OPTalk20:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I feel like at least reading the message before templating them would have been the appropriate response, especially since David already gave them an answer. casualdejekyll21:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Well if the user is asking a question in Spanish they probably aren't going to be able to read David's response. I did realize afterward, though, that they already have contributed to the Spanish wikipedia and this template doesn't fit very well. ― Levi_OPTalk22:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This page is for help in editing Wikipedia, not for general questions. You might find some useful information in our article Islam in Ethiopia; or else you can ask at the Reference Desk. Nobody here will do your homework for you though. --ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@Eddiedeclint: Hello, and welcome to the teahouse. You can edit the page if you want to change the mayor; if it is semi-protected or extended-confirmed protected, you may enter an edit request if you would like. Many editors change the mayors of cities and principals of schools and all kinds of stuff without a source, if you would like to include one, please do so, just add the source. If you don't know any sources, you may want to Google it up. Severestorm2822:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Using IMDB & Turner Classic Movies database et al as sources
Can you please confirm whether or not I can use Internet Movie Database and Turner Classic Movies database as sources? As well as the British Film Institute database, the National Film Board of Canada database and the Broadway League database? I've been told not to. However, without these databases, it is impossible to complete the filmographies of performers and, in many cases, the discographies of musicians and bands. It is impossible to confirm what they (and their publicists) have written on Wikipedia. And without complete filmographies and/or discographies, biographies are incomplete and/or incorrect.
Thanks LJA123 (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
LJA123 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I know that IMDB is not considered a reliable source as it is user-editable. I don't know about the other sources you mention. However, while I could be mistaken- I think that a filmography need only be cited to the productions themselves(as the participation of the person can be confirmed by the film credits), meaning that no specific citation is needed to source a mere appearance in a film. If the person is not credited, it might be a little harder, especially if it is a crew member and not someone who appeared on screen. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
OK thanks. If I need to, I'll use sources that aren't user-editable. 'Cept IMDB is often the only source of a film's credits....--LJA123 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
LJA123 The film itself is the source of the film credits. Just as with a plot summary for a film or book- no citation is needed as it can be confirmed by watching the film/reading the book. 331dot (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh I see.... But when it comes to soundtracks and production credits, you need to see the physical list. Although I suppose that people could find the movie (if it's still available) and look for non-performing credits. But that kind of defeats the purpose of Wikipedia as a reference tool.--LJA123 (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
LJA123, not really, WP is not a reference, it's a portal to references. I don't think TCMDb has much information, but if there is you can cite it; its mostly put in Externals links sections though. BFI, NFBC, and Broadway League are welcome, since they are official associations and can be trusted. GeraldWL01:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
OK thanks.
One more question: I've been over the YouTube thing already today (I can use obviously trustworthy sources). But can I use music tracks uploaded to YouTube from the albums which the YouTube users own? Not videos--just the songs. If a film, in itself, is a source, then surely a recorded song must also be a source? Regardless of how it came to be online?
Thanks!--LJA123 (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
LJA123, hmm, tricky. If you are editing a musician article and you wanna link the album playlist to cite the album, sure. If they have a description detailing it, you can also cite a video (official from the musician/band, not those uploaded by amateur channels) to cite the personnel. However if there is a link of the same type on Apple Music or Spotify I suggest using them as they're more accepted. In Ben&Ben discography, I cited the music videos to YouTube, but that's because the videos are officially from the band. GeraldWL08:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh we can use Apple and Spotify...I thought they'd be less accepted. I've been avoiding them because musician pages sometimes use them as encouragements to purchase. In the case of a lot of old music, or music that's more obscure, people load entire albums onto YouTube, and that's the only record of that music. So it's good to upload it, so people can find it and it's not lost. Also good to know that I can use official band videos. That's great, thanks very much.--LJA123 (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
LJA123, you're welcome. Keep in mind that many people can upload stuff to YouTube, but in most cases they're random people who just upload whatever they have; unless it is official from the band or record, or unless they're an official archiving effort channel, don't use the videos. There's 80% chance a vinyl exist, you can cite the vinyl (remember, not every source needs a link). Happy editing! GeraldWL02:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
how do improve an article on a person who has been on life sentence for 44 years? (no longer want help)
hi, i´m writing a article that was requested on a 80s serial killer who killed 3 people and was sentenced to life in the 80s, the issue is finding articales that dont just mention him in passing, and finding refrences about him in general, as he is a serial killer who isnt mentioned much now a days, being on life sentance since before the internet and all
@Im really bad at this: Remember that the sources you use for references don't have to be online - you can use books or magazines or newspapers from the 1980s from reliable sources that provide significant coverage. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
what do i even do
im not versed enough to use afd and dont have enough knowledge to write an article about anything, i cant even find articales i want to improve, what do i even do at this point, beside quit editing entirely Im really bad at this (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The image appears to have been formatted incorrectly when added to the main infobox, and this has now been fixed by GoingBatty. I believe these days most infoboxes are set up to automatically display images either a default standard size for the particular infobox per WP:IUP#Infobox and lead images and this is often found on the infobox template's documentation page. Some older or less widely used infoboxes may still format their images the old way, but most of the time all that is needed is to simply to add the file syntax to relevant infobox parameter and then let the software automatically size it. Trying force a particular size on an image is not always a good idea because it can sometimes create accessiblity issues per MOS:ACCIM and WP:THUMBSIZE if it's not done properly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: and @Marchjuly: Thank you all for working on this. It looks good... At least on my computer, even after I cleared the cache, I still have the same issue of the image not showing up when I hover over it with my mouse, Huntingtower School. I noticed that the pixels on it are 136 x 200 and I'm thinking that's pretty small? In thinking about possibilities, is there a way for me to test enlarging the pixels, just a little, and see what the page preview link looks like from another Wikipedia page before making it live? Or would I just make it live and then revert, if it didn't work? Thanks! Archivingperson (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
File:Huntingtower School Sheild.png was uploaded under a non-free license, which means it's subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy (i.e. things such as WP:NFCC#3b and WP:IMAGERES). File:Claremont-logo-CMYK-VECTOR-lion+torch-point.png, on the other hand, was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons license and a claim of "own work" (both of which are questionable in my opinion); so, it's not subject to the restrictions Wikipedia place on non-free content use. So, even though they are both images used in school article infoboxes, trying to compare them is like comparing an apple to an orange. You can try asking about this at WT:NFCC, but it seems unlikely (no offense intended) that an increase in size would be considered OK, at least in principle, to make it easier to see by a single user trying to hover over the link and see the image. When I hover over the article's name, I see it without any problem and notice no real difference with what I see when I hover over Claremont Fan Court School. In many cases, non-free images are uploaded at a size deemed to be too large and they end up subsequently being reduced by WP:BOTS or human editors to bring them more inline with relevant policy. That doesn't appear to be what happened in this case, but the uploader probably chose the file's size based upon what they downloaded from the source they used for the image. If the size is increased too much, the file might just end up be reduced to back where it was before by a bot. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I created a template on the Simple English Wikipedia but I want to make it redirect to another template. Templates are only editable in source mode, and I don't know how to make a page a redirect in source mode. Can somebody please tell me how? Poopykibble (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
A month ago, I added the "Uncited Categories" template to a handful of films (well, three films and some cartoons), and there's been no action on their talk pages since then. What are the steps I take to remove this category from these films, and how do I document it? There's the templates at the top of the articles, the categories at the bottom, and the films are listed on the Category: page. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Go forth and be WP:BOLD, though would suggest take it slow at first so if there is an objection, it gets raised before its hundreds of edits (i have no idea how many it actually is, if its a small number then disregard).Slywriter (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@Pete Best Beatles: One set of steps could be to go to the article, click the Edit source tab, delete the categories and the {{Uncited categories}} template, add an edit summary explaining you're deleting the categories because they're uncited, and then click "Publish changes".
Another set of steps could be to go to the article, click the Edit source tab, delete the {{Uncited categories}} template, comment out the uncited categories with <!--...--> and a note stating that you're commenting them out because they're uncited, add an edit summary explaining you're deleting the categories because they're uncited, and then click "Publish changes". Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess I just wanted to know if I had to leave a message on the article's talk page too. The articles were missing from the Categories page when I went there after taking care of the articles on their pages, and I didn't see it mentioned on the View history page... -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 06:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Squid Game Metacritic
I was reading the article Squid Game and it was said that the show was critically acclaimed. The source from this came from an article from Salon saying that the show received acclaim, and that source was used instead of the Metacritic one, which claims that it has "positive reviews." I did some research on it and there was a talk page discussion saying that reliable sources that say "this show is acclaimed" (if they exist) are used primarily before aggregator sites such as Metacritic.
Is this true? Is there any policy/guideline/essay that says that we use sources that describe a critical reception first before general consensus sites such as metacritic? I'm having a dispute over a similar thing at another article, and would like to back my stuff up with actual guidelines/policies. Thank you! shanghai.talk to me07:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
RogueShanghai, MOS:TV doesn't have a specific guideline on what a reception section should start with. But there's no problem with citing consensus to other (reliable) sources. Aggregators (especially MC which aggregates less reviews) is not always what determines what all critics think. In this case I'm right: MC only aggregates a disappointing amount of 13 reviews, and thus their score does not reflect the wider view. So yes, it's already in good shape. However I would suggest changing the MC sentence to "However on Metacritic, the series has a weighted average score of 69 out of 100 based on 13 critics, merely indicating "generally favorable reviews". GeraldWL07:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@Gerald Waldo Luis: Actually, the similar dispute in regards to Metacritic vs other sources actually has to do with music, not TV shows. But you're right. Is the MC sentence necessary? (i.e, nothing that this show has this score on MC) and also, does citing consensus to other sources that mean something is acclaimed, also allow the lead of that thing to say it was acclaimed? For example, lead section of squid game like "this show was critically acclaimed" I hope you get what I mean :b shanghai.talk to me07:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
RogueShanghai, yeah it's not really just music, and MC is a pretty polarizing site as sometimes it'll be right sometimes it'll be wrong. I wouldn't remove it as it is kinda expected for there to be an MC sentence. And yes, it is acceptable for the lead part. :) GeraldWL07:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP doubt
I just had a glance at the WP:BLP page, and I wanted to know whether we need to source even very minor edits?
I'm also asking this because one of my first edits was tagged as a Blp issue, all I did was change the spelling according to the title. Vial of Power (talk) 09:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Vial of Power, hi! I'm assuming you're referring to this? Apologies for that; the tag is automatically made to warn editors of potential vandalism, and it can misdetect sometimes. Happy editing :) GeraldWL09:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
How do I cite the source when the subject of the article IS the source?
Hello, I'm trying to update a notable person's wikipedia page for him. David W. Orr. David has provided me with written updates and corrections of his accomplishments. What is the appropriate way to cite the changes if the source of the new information is the subject of the article?
To amplify Jeske's answer, Keep Colorado Wild, it is a core principle of Wikipedia that all information in an article be verifiable from published sources. Information which has not been published anywhere should not appear in an article, and information which has been published only in a non-independent source may be used only in limited way. --ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I say do it. KCW has in effect proclaimed a COI ("DAVID W. ORR, ASKED ME TO UPDATE HIS WIKIPEDIA PAGE."). I also wonder if prior to registering an account, CDW was editing as IP 97.118.230.116. I tagged the article as refs needed, because that was true before either the IP of KCW started editing. Lastly, I think thiere is a copyright violation. David notMD (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Restored. No obvious need to re-add your tag. Sourcing not great but much briefer article and WP:NACADEMIC met, I checked google scholar and there's an AfD from 2008. I'll take a look later and make a rev-del request if history needs a wipe for copyvio.Slywriter (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep Colorado Wild, alot just happened and it's probably incredibly frustrating. Wikipedia wants the article improved. We want the world to know more about notable academics who have been cited thousands of times in their field and why they have been cited so many times. The best thing you can do for the subject is help find reliable sources that discuss his contributions and life story. WP:ABOUTSELF covers what can be included about the subject in their own published words. Additionally, presumably in those thousands of times their work has been cited, notable theories or contributions by the subject have been discussed. There are projects that can help guide, just requires research and a willingness to edit within the rules of wikipedia.Slywriter (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The content you added is not lost. Click on View history, and then on "Prev" (left side) for any of your entries. The content can be copied to your Sandbox to be revised there (and referenced) before being brought back to the article. You could even click on Slywriter's massive deletion and capture all of your content. An important note: some of what was deleted was verbatim from references, and therefore a copyright infringement. Information can be used, but it has to be significantly paraphrased. David notMD (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
How to see Good Article nomination Feedback if any
I am wondering how to see what the reasons for a good article nomination reviewer's decision are.
I nominated ITER for good article status and I never got a notice that I needed to improve it. How can I figure out what led to ITER being demoted to Level C article? ScientistBuilder (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
If I leave a note on an unregistered user's talk page that links to their IP address, will the person be able to see and respond the message?
@ScientistBuilder: You've received an answer to your first question in this post already. To answer your other 2 questions, yes and I don't know. I usually don't see unregistered users responding to talk page messages that often because they probably don't know what a talk page is. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654502:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Gerald Waldo Luis, yep I know. Hence why I said "usually". I've seen an IP respond to a message before (in a constructive way). For example, KingAviationKid was an IP who I reverted an edit they made and they responded to it (i think on my talk page) saying that they're not a new user and are wanting to contribute constructively, however they didn't like how the editor looked. So I suggested to use one of the beta features and they made an account and here they are now as an actual user. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654502:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
ScientistBuilder, Well, say you have the sentence "The film was released on 13 March, 1970." How many sources do you need to back it up? Say there's a NYT source saying 1970 and a book source saying 13 March. Then use those two sources. Any other sources are not needed; if there's an extraneous source then that's overkill. GeraldWL02:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I would like to be notified when a comment I make here or on a Talk page gets a reply.
I searched "WP:Notifications" and would like to learn how to automatically recieve a notification when someone replies and not only when my talk page is edited. ScientistBuilder (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
ScientistBuilderThe best way to find out why an article's quality status has been changed is to ask the person who changed it or ask on the talk page. The GA review process often has a substantial backlog. There may be a long wait until you get a response. To avoid adding to the backlog, it is a good idea to open a discussion on the talk page of the article about nominating before you actually make a nomination. Talk page discussions take time. Wait a few days for a response and consensus. Constant314 (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
To return to your original question, you have now twice made modest changes to an existing article over the course of a day or two and then nominated the article for a GA review. Both times an editor (not the same editor) decided, perhaps arbitrarily, that a GA review would be a waste of the reviewer's time, and reverted your nomination. My own experience with nominating a B-class or C-class article for a GA review (16 succesfully so far) is that the preparation process takes weeks and scores of edits, including, in some instances, dicarding dozens of references, adding dozens of references, and revising more than half the text. As for downgrading from B-class to C-class (or the reverse), anyone can do that, even a non-registered editor. David notMD (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I submitted a page with almost 16 references but it got rejected. Can somebody please guide me what type of references should i use?
This is a Pakistan based NGO and I have added 3-4 leading News paper references. I have added CrunchBase. Please help me getting this page reviewed successfully.
Hi! Your draft was rejected because of two reasons. Your article looks like an advertisement and also the references do not give significant coverage about your title. MyNewBall88 (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The descriptions above are correct, and it is also worth noting that a vote like this is considered to be of very little value. When the time comes to close the AfD, the closing Admin looks at the reasoning offered - this response contributes nothing new to the reasoning. Having people effectively say just "me too" doesn't help - see "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions".--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
New page
I would like to write a page about Danish company PE-Redskaber. What do they stand for, the heritage atc. The main subject would be Airtracks, because they are founders of it. Would it be a great idea? GretaPr (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
GretaPr Hello and welcoem to the Teahouse. We use the term "articles", not "pages" to refer to the encyclopedia. Creating an article being a good idea depends on if the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that is not based on any materials put out by the company(such as interviews, the company website, announcements of routine business actvities). Be advised that successfully creating a new article is the hardest task to perform on Wikipedia, and it is usually recommended that you first spend time editing existing articles, and use the new user tutorial, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. If you feel you are ready, you may draft and submit an article at Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
GretaPr, if you do write a draft, please skip what the company "stands for". Instead, what has it delivered? (According to reliable, independent, published sources, of course.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
How to find copyright free images?
Hi! I am looking for copyright free photos to add in a draft article. How to find copyright free images? How to know if an image is copyrighted or not? Resmise (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Your best starting place is the Wikimedia Commons. Images are uploaded there with the explicit purpose of being used on Wikipedia (though just to be safe you should still check the license underneath an image anyway!) — Czello11:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Resmise (edit conflict) Hello. Please note that photos are not necessary in terms of getting a draft approved; the draft approval process is largely concerned with sourcing and notability only. The best way to get a photo is to take one yourself with your own camera. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Resmise I would advise you to concentrate on getting your draft approved; you can always find images later. Bands/musical groups are often tough to find appropriate images for as most of them are owned by the band or its publicity firm. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@Resmise: Just for further information: If an image is not clearly linked to an obvious statement saying that it is either Public Domain or available under a Creative Commons licence which permits commercial re-use, then always assume the image is not suitable here. For your draft on Draft:Madkid you might want to make sure they meet our notabiltiy criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. By no means all musicians and bands do. See WP:NMUSIC for details. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Google images (and perhaps other search engines) has a facility that can help. Do a standard image search and then on the results page click on the "Tools" option. This opens a menu of filters, of which one is "Usage Rights" and can be specified to find those images with Creative Commons licenses from Wikimedia and elsewhere. You still need to check the licensing but the filter can be a big help. Google image search is sometimes better for finding items here on Commons, rather than using Categories etc. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Jay Foley
Please can this article (Jay Foley) which was deleted some years back be restored, so that I can work on it. Thank you Jwale2 (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for the support especially Shantavira for bringing back the article and also sharing links about the whole process given me a clear understand of things I did not know.
However I would want to find out how then or what is the best way to contest for this article in other for us to keep it. This is because on the AFD page has been closed and we cannot contest further more. So ones again your help on how to go about contesting it in the right way. Thanks Jwale2 (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Rather than contest the decision, just copy text into a new draft. But before you even think about that, you will need to come up with in-depth significant coverage in at least three independent reliable sources. If those sources don't exist, you will be wasting your time. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more information.--Shantavira|feed me19:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I want to create an article on the first person mentioned in this article (1). How much info exactly would I be able to source from here without getting flagged for copyvio? Ficaia (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Ficaia, hey there. Generally you would be able to avoid CV by using your own words to describe the quotes, or use minimal quotes. So let's say, quote "The expedition was the brainchild of Major Chaplin Court Treatt known as C.T." You can paraphrase this to "Major Chaplin Court Treatt, commonly referred to as C.T., was the magnum opus of the expedition." GeraldWL03:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
ColinFine, sorry for that misunderstanding. I do tend to think my edits are far from perfect, that's why I've been putting the standard of PR and GOCE before a GAN/FAC. I must admit I'm ESL, so yes, please do rewrite if that means more readability :) GeraldWL15:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Ficaia, no copyright detected for that specific sentence, but there's still a ton of copyright issues with other sources. See this; concern the networthlist and celebnetworthpost, the other ones are just minor. GeraldWL04:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Thenderking35 if you mean that you are working on a draft for a new Wikipedia article my advice is to read many articles about similar subjects to get a sense of what is typically included in such online articles. Practice making edits to existing articles to gain useful experience. When you are ready to take on the difficult task of writing a new article be sure and read Your first article and References for beginners. Best wishes on your volunteer work at Wikipedia. Karenthewriter (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Someone took down some verified but controversial information, but used my friends name. I want the article republished and the person who used the wrong name- ban them from Wikipedia Theater Nurse (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
It sounds like you're talking about an article being deleted? If so, please note that no one individual can do this arbitrarily, it's done by community consensus. We don't ban users for that. — Czello12:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
We can't even investigate what you say without more information. As Czello says, if an article was deleted, this will have been by community consensus, and there may be ways of appealing: see WP:DRV. If somebody removed some information from an article, that may or may not be justified: see WP:BRD. If somebody is impersonating a public figure, that is serious, and the account could be blocked pending investigation; but different people can have the same name. You'll need to be more specific. --ColinFine (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I added some controversial information (complete with published newspaper references) to an article about a local theater. The theater is in violation of union contracts, and it made national headlines. Someone deleted what I wrote and impersonated my friend, by using her name as the one who took the information down. While there are many people with the same name, there’s only one person by this name in the union in question. It was intentional slander and defamation of character. Theater Nurse (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Theater Nurse Your account has not made any edits other than to this page, so it is difficult to look into what you say. Please tell the title of the article involved. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Everyone involved, please note that the Teahouse (and Wikipedia in general) is a civil place, and you are expected to remain calm. Throwing accusations around may cause more hurt then intended. casualdejekyll14:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@Theater Nurse: The first addition to the article Casa Mañana referring to the recent "contract issue" was done from an IP address that geolocates to Irving, Texas. I assume that was by you and that you subsequently created an account to re-insert what Elainedavidson reverted in what has been that account's only edit to Wikipedia. It is irrelevant whether that name corresponds to a friend of yours: how could anyone know from just seeing an IP address? No Wikipedia policy has been breached according to our usual bold, revert, discuss processes and the article now contains the material you re-added. You could improve the bare URL references using the {{cite web}} method (see WP:REFB) and if further changes you think are incorrect should occur then you should discuss these on the Talk Page of the article to reach consensus. Meanwhile, no-one is gong to get banned for a single reversion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
This draft created by me has not been accepted as it is like an advertisement to the reviewer. I'd like to know whether it really is, considering the fact that the draft has a brief yet sufficient info about the person discussed and also which most of the daft lack, a handful of images, which I may add more if required. Cheers!Michri michri (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse @Michri michri:, I do not think more pictures need to be added to the draft, but you should focus more on the references. It does not really matter if the draft has a "brief yet sufficient info about the person discussed". It matters that the article is backed with independent reliable sources. because the reviewer said it was read like an advertisement, I would suggest reading WP:NPOV. Good luck with the draft and happy editing! ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb14:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I deleted all but one photo of him. Given that he is an author versus a performing artist who might appear if different roles, one is sufficient. More or fewer images have no impact on draft reviews. David notMD (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@Michri michri: An important point (that was not conveyed by the editors above): the fact that the article reads like an advertisement can be fixed, but there is a more serious issue. The article needs to show that this person is "notable". For an author, that usually means multiple reviews in newspapers with critical commentary of their work (other kinds of sources would suffice, but reviews are by far the most common way for creative professionals to pass the guideline). If you cannot establish notability (in Wikipedia’s sense of the term), you should not waste time fixing the "advertising tone" issues, because the article will not be kept no matter how hard you work. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)18:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I don’t know, I have not looked for sources. Digging up sources is hard, especially if you have to look across different languages. What I do know is that the reviewer left a message asking for sources that show notability - in their appreciation the sources in the article are insufficient, but maybe better ones exist. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)12:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Kindly, anyone tells me, Is mainstream media's (youtube) link is allowed in Wikipedia. like that CNN video report about an NGO then I entered this on my article reference list Muhammadyeakubhasan111 (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Muhammadyeakubhasan111. What matters for reliability is who published it, not the medium. A great deal of Youtube is is uploaded by random people with no reputation for fact checking (and some of it is copyright violations as well), and none of that is reliable. But an article by CNN on their official YouTube channel is as reliable as an article by CNN published anywhere else: see WP:YOUTUBE. (Remember that for notability, sources must also be independent of the subject, and have significant coverage of the subject). I haven't looked at the sources in Draft:Anudip Foundation, because, since you've formatted them just as titles, I'd have to go into them to see where they came from. It's good that you're formatting sources as more than a URL; but the publisher and date are absolutely crucial information for evaluating sources, as well as the title. --ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:YOUTUBE, many videos on Youtube are copyright violations and can't be cited per WP:COPYLINK. However, if a video is from a reliable source, you can treat it as if it came directly from the reliable source, provided the video was uploaded from the reliable source's own YouTube channel. Or, to rephrase, if the CNN video report is uploaded to CNN's official YouTube channel, then you can cite it. casualdejekyll18:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I created an article with authentic sources (newspaper press release).but even then wikipedia declined my article...I want to know that To submit an article on Wikipedia is too much hard.....that's not good..... Muhammadyeakubhasan111 (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, writing your first article is pretty hard. I haven't even written one yet myself, to be plainly honest with you. But the most important things for a Wikipedia article are notability and verifiability. In the case of your draft, however, you never even submitted it. In order to submit a draft, you need to click the blue button at the top of your page that says "Submit the draft for review!". Additionally, the edits made to your draft were because you copied text from other places. Although citing sources is the basics of a Wikipedia article, copying text directly from sources is a copyright violation, which is illegal. So.. don't do that. casualdejekyll13:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Just tell me anyone please..... that, to write an article about this (Anudip Foundation) NGO and publish it on Wikipedia is possible??
this NGO has more significant works like that they teach to poor, deprived people about modern technology like (computer and it's different programs) to make them Self-reliant....there are many NEWSPAPER press release are here
No discussion since the 6th, and it's been more then a week since it was started.. consensus seems to merge. Per WP:MERGECLOSE, anyone can close a merge discussion, even the nominator, which depending on how you count is either you or Tzar. Frankly, I could just close it myself, but I'm not feeling it. casualdejekyll19:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I'd rather have someone who can actually evaluate all the points made just so I don't close it as merge because it looks like there's consensus to merge. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Can I use my Wikipedia Library access for non-Wikipedia purposes?
Resolved
Can I use my Wikipedia Library for non-Wikipedia purposes? I don't make edits that require citations, usually.
I think it'll be more helpful for my schoolwork, instead of using sci-hub.
Generally the rule is if you have free access to it elsewhere, you should use that instead of applying for a collection in the Wikipedia Library. But if you're talking about one of the collections included in the base card, then yeah, that's totally fine. casualdejekyll20:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Seeking a Wikipedian to update Wiki article on David W. Orr
Hi,
David Orr is seeking a Wikipedian to update the Wiki article called "David W. Orr". The information is out of date. If you can help, please contact me. Thanks. Keep Colorado Wild Keep Colorado Wild (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep Colorado Wild Teahouse hosts are volunteers who answer questions about how to edit Wikipedia article, i.e., not a place to see co-authors. There is an article request page for requests for new articles, but not improving existing articles. Of the 43,046,177 users who have registered a username with English Wikipedia, you (and David) are the people most interested in revising the article about David W. Orr. Given your apparent COI, your path is a long slog of proposing changes on the Orr Talk page so that non-connected volunteer editors can decide to implement or not. David notMD (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I wanted to edit the article on the Riesz-Thorin theorem, but the code is weird
I am used to working with Latex, but when I decided to edit the article on the Riesz–Thorin theorem - more precisely the part on the statement of the theorem, I found that the code is really weird. Usually math formulas are put inside the math environment math.../math, but here it is different. Can someone say more about this? What kind of "language" has been used there? Is it outdated or should I leave it the way it is? 01Filippo (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@01Filippo: Welcome to the Teahouse. You might want to take a look at the {{math}} template's documentation. I'd suggest keeping it consistent, but you could try asking on the talk page to see if any interested editors think using standard math tags with LaTeX is fine. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@01Filippo: This is HTML and wikimarkup inside Template:Math; a little bit of documentation is on the template page. I don't know how popular it is these days; probably best to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. (Personally, I think it should be converted to LaTeX to make the code readable to mathematicians, but you should check with other mathematicians). —Kusma (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Request Help understanding Citations and Decline
Regarding: Draft:Peter M. Walzer
I submitted this to the AFC help desk and haven't seen any responses so far. Please pardon my ignorance. While I have edited small things before, this is my first solo flight.
This article entry was declined for sounding like an advertisement. There was no particular reference to content areas in the article that are at fault, just a generalization. This was paired with a comment that it was also declined for not having sufficient independent references. While there is a section of bibliographic works, none of these are used in citations. There are 70 citations with the exception of 3 or 4, from sources the subject does not control. Of these 3 or 4 citations, they were used to confirm an interview topic with a mass market media source the subject does not control. Having seen numerous attorney articles with less citations or relevance, I understand it is no fair to compare, it would be good to understand how to get this article in a better position.
To that end my questions remain:
1) What areas of the entry are violating a neutral statement of facts? 2) There are 70 citations from international media organizations down to local media sources, from broadcast news to industry trades. Are these not enough? If so, what type of citations will be needed?
Hello, Garvincarter, and welcome to the Teahouse. I haven't looked far through Draft:Peter M. Walzer, but in the first paragraph of the "Career" section I find Walzer’s dedication to the profession of family law is apparent in his long-term commitment to leadership within industry organizations and in prolific legal scholarship and teaching. If a reliable source wholly unconnected with Walzer said this of him, then you could openly quote that source, but such evaluative language should never appear in any article in Wikipedia's voice. Please see WP:PEACOCK. --ColinFine (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I've looked at the beginning of the reference list, without going into the items. It looks rather as if you have made the common error of thinking the more references, the better. Too many weak references make it look as if you're desparately trying to make them add up into a strong one, and furthermore they tend to make the draft unattractive to reviewers, meaning that it's likely to wait longer for a review (there isn't a queue). You rarely need multiple sources for the same statement, and if a piece of information is available only in run-of-the-mill directories, yearbooks, and non-independent "profiles", you should seriously consider whether it belongs in the article at all. Remember, 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. --ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@Garvincarter: Welcome to the Teahouse. Further in the draft you have Peter Walzer is a highly distinguished professional having received peer recognition from the family law organizations he has served, which also shouldn't be in Wikipedia's voice. It says nothing about which organisations he's received peer recognition from. External links also shouldn't be in the body of an article. You may want to consider making a further reading section to add those titles. I notice on your userpage stating that [you] are paid to do historical research projects. Are you also being paid by Walzer or one of his affiliates to write the draft on his behalf? If so, please disclose your paid relationship ideally on your user page; the draft's talk page will also suffice. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Deletion of numerous drum and bugle corps articles.
Can someone please tell explain why there were so many attacks and AFD's on several national-level "old-school" drum and bugle corps in October 2021? Several admins made an agreement in October to do AFD on many drum and bugle corps articles - both championship level corps and non-championship level corps. One editor deleted an article with many years of scores (showing finalist placements for years 1959-1973) with only an explanation that it was "cruft" information. (Not mentioning any user names here, but proof can be obtained that this agreement was made in October, on their user talk pages, and several admins went to work do the RFD pages for numerous drum and bugle corps.) Thanks so much - fairly new here. 136.35.223.97 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
136.35.223.97 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I understand how disappointing it can be to put the work into creating an article, only to have it deleted. However, all is not lost. First, you need to look at the reason(s) given for the deletions. The one mentioned above was for lack of notability, but check if that is generally the case. If it is, then check whether you can find more independent, reliable sources that talk about them in detail. If you can find enough coverage for each corps then it might justify re-creating those articles; I suggest contacting the deleting Admin, showing them the sources you have collected, and asking their opinion. Finally, if that fails, then you might be able to amalgamate some of that information into a larger article such as Drum and bugle corps (modern) - raise the suggestion on the Talk page for that article first to discuss your proposal and make sure the level of detail is considered appropriate.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Your contributions don't show that you've edited any pages, or had anything reverted. I would assume you edited under another device? What was your edit? ― Levi_OPTalk15:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I looked at your IP range. This edit was judged unconstructive by Itcouldbepossible at User talk:42.110.170.143. There was no reason to add that to an encyclopedia article. Constructive edits try to build the encyclopedia or improve the work around it. You have vandalised User talk:Itcouldbepossible and been warned for it. Don't vandalise Wikipedia. That includes user pages. Itcouldbepossible is not an administrator so he cannot block users but everybody can give vandalism warnings. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
He may not be an admin, but he can still report you to admins and get you blocked if you continue (Referring to the IP range, not you Prime). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654515:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter May I ask you something. How did you find the contributions of that IP? He had no contributions. How did you find the IP range? And how did you see the contributions of an IP range? I thought contributions can only be found for a specific IP or a specific user, not groups of IP. I would love to gain this new knowledge, as then it will help me to provide evidences at SPI, and also find the contributions of an IP range (though if that is possible). ItcouldbepossibleTalk03:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
OK, let me be straight. I have just warned him, and he is thinking that I have told him that I will block him. Moreover, I said
Hello, I'm Itcouldbepossible. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Marian Zelazek have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.
I can't tell you that because I don't know the IP in the first place. HOwever you can actually view the contributions for an entire IP range. You simply do that by adding something like /64 (Most common one I see for IPv6 addresses) after setting some of the numbers in the IP to 0 (last 4 sets of 4 digits for IPv6. I don't know what it would be for IPv4 since I usually don't see those get rangeblocked often). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654504:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
For example, for an IPv6 address (I'm going to use one I recently reported and got blocked as an example) say you wanted to find the contributions for 2603:6080:7204:1972:907f:f2de:be5f:d3a5 but you wanted to view the contributions for all IPs within the range. To do that you would take the last 4 sets of 4 numbers and letters (in this case 907f:f2de:be5f:d3a5) and make it all 0, making the IP 2603:6080:7204:1972:0000:0000:0000:0000 (often shortened as 2603:6080:7204:1972:::) and then add /64 to the end of it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654504:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Yep! I think it might be explained at IPv6 (which isn't a policy or essay, just an article on that particular type of IP address, the only one I knew about before coming to Wikipedia is IPv4). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654504:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't know. I don't have enough experience with seeing IPv4 ranges to know what you would append (for IPv4 you would just change the last 2 sets of 3 digits to 0 (so in this case it would be 42.110.0.0). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654505:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf Ok, thanks for showing your interest in answering my question.
No problem! I'm not a host yet, however I will probably nominate myself as one once I get this privacy issue solved. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654505:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Being able to see an IP range is important for anti-vandal work because sometimes a user will be vandalising across multiple IPs, making blocking just one completely useless since there are still other IPs in the range that can vandalize. Hence why there are range blocks (probably should've recommended that although I just looked that up since all that was my own knowledge). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654505:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf Yes, I need to learn about that also for my anti-vandalism work. Can you tell me why sometimes admins block IPs and why sometimes IP ranges? Do they also check if there were other vandalism made from the IP range? ItcouldbepossibleTalk05:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
My guess would be yes. An admin will probably only block a single IP if either the other IPs in the range aren't vandalizing or there might be too much collateral damage (or possibly some other reasons I don't know I'm not an admin). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654505:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I see the IP now, however since I'm unfamiliar with how to give a correct range for IPv4 addresses I can't tell you how to view the range for it. However in this instance, I do know the range would be 42.110.0.0/XX (x since I Don't know what the number there would be. My guess is 16?) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654504:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Just means that someone replied at the same time as you. Using the reply tool it doesn't really seem to matter, however without it you might have to retype your comment or someone else's (i don't know since I don't often run into an edit conflict). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654504:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Will my account block?
Hello, My IP address was blocked in Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. So, I made new account from my friend's computer. Then I logged in my device whose IP address was blocked. If I not do anything wrong, so will my account not be blocked again? MyNewBall88 (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, MyNewBall88: Whether you can edit from there depends what kind of block is on the IP. You can apply for an WP:IPBE if necessary. (Assuming you're not the sock and have picked up an address that was blocked because of what someone else did.) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 09:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
MyNewBall88 has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. Jéské Couriano and Kpddg, if an editor reveals that they've previously been blocked for sockpuppetry, then you shouldn't advise them that they can edit using their new account as long as they're constructive. The advice should be that the only way they'll be able to edit again is if they successfully appeal their block using their original account. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The people responding above were all clearly assuming the OP was an innocent editor caught up in an IP block of someone else. No one above is advising anyone to evade a block. -Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, In the abovementioned article it is mentioned that "On 13 November 1840 Belle Alliance arrived at Saint Helena. Two days later her passengers and crew joined the procession that carried Napoleon's body from his grave to the wharf where it was to be conveyed to France to be reburied. The crew of Belle Alliance wore ribbons around their hats with in letters of gold La Belle Alliance".
I have done extensive work on this ship's information and believe this entry is incorrect.
Napoleon fought a battle at La Belle Alliance, but the ship that took his body back to France was the "LA BELLE POULE" and not La Belle Alliance.
Can someone either prove me wrong or help to correct the Wikipedia entry please?
The article doesn't say that the Belle Alliance carried the body back, but merely that the crew took part in the procession to the wharf. Perhaps clarification could be added to say that the body was brought back on the Belle Poule. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I am very confused about notability guidelines, and have several questions about them. I know my article needs major revisions in several areas; I am not asking about the current content of the article, but rather how I might demonstrate notability of my subject.
1. Are the guidelines for notability different for academics than for individuals in the general biography category?
The Wikipedia page addressing notability for academics states "This guideline [academic notability] is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline.[1]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics). It seems this statement asserts that there is a different set of guidelines that may be applied to academics to determine their notability. Is this correct?
2. I am not sure how to navigate criterion #1. It states that "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work..." My subject's works are cited by others, but how do I know if they are cited frequently enough? According to Google Scholar, one book is cited 78x, another 45x, another 33x, yet another 22x, and still another 11x. Is this considered frequent in the niche realm of evangelical/confessional preaching? How might I determine this?
3. This brings up another question: The specific guidelines for criterion #1 note "(f) For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed." Is evangelical homiletics/preaching too narrow to adequately judge using these guidelines?
I think the subject of my article qualifies as notable under at lease one or two of the criteria. The page notes "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable."
4. According to the guidelines, criterion #5 is met if "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." Under the specific criteria for this category are three elements:
"(a) For documenting that a person has held such an appointment (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution is a major one), publications of the appointing institution are considered a reliable source.
(b) Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments.
(c) Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Named chairs at other institutions are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability."
My professor holds a named (endowed chair), and is a fully tenured, senior faculty member. He is also the director of a graduate program at Baylor University. Baylor University recently was named an R1 institution in recognition for its research activity. Do these facts satisfy the requirements of criterion #5 for the notability of academics?
5. The specific criterion c states that "(c) The publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person is usually enough to satisfy Criterion 1, except in the case of publication in vanity, fringe, or non-selective journals or presses."
My professor has a Festschrift written in his honor by a non-vanity press (Wipf and Stock). Does satisfying this criterion meet the notability requirements for an academic?
My professor wants me to continue to try and get the article about him approved; the more specific responses are, the better I will be able to communicate to him why the article may or may not be approved.
It seems this statement asserts that there is a different set of guidelines that may be applied to academics to determine their notability. Is this correct? Yes. (NB "may", not "must".)
Is this considered frequent in the niche realm of evangelical/confessional preaching? How might I determine this? I really don't know, as the very notion of "professor of preaching" is incomprehensible to me. However, in the academic fields with which I'm familiar, I've never seen numbers cited. Rather, one summarizes what has been written about these works within other academic works. (Blurbs, even by experts, don't count.)
My professor holds a named (endowed chair), and is a fully tenured, senior faculty member. He is also the director of a graduate program at Baylor University. Baylor University recently was named an R1 institution in recognition for its research activity. Do these facts satisfy the requirements of criterion #5 for the notability of academics? I would think so (though the notion of research in preaching baffles me).
My professor has a Festschrift written in his honor by a non-vanity press (Wipf and Stock). Does satisfying this criterion meet the notability requirements for an academic? Indeed, Wipf and Stock doesn't seem to be a vanity press.
My professor wants me to continue to try and get the article about him approved Then it's clear that you have a conflict of interest. You are free to create a draft, but if it is accepted as an article you should no longer edit it (other than to revert obvious vandalism and the like). What it says will be out of your control, the biographee's control, or the control of any of his students, employees, etc.
1. The notability guidelines are indeed different for academics than for general biographies, and both are different from the general notability guidelines. The former are called subject-specific notability guidelines, and technically, if the article meets any of these notability guidelines (including GNG), it is considered notable for Wikipedia.
2. This question would be better asked at WikiProject Academics. I would suggest providing examples in the article of where the subjects work has been cited in other academic works.
4. I do not see any reason why they would not meet criterion #5, assuming there is a reliable source that states they're the chair. I am also not certain if Baylor University meets the standard of "those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity", but I assume it would.
5. Yes, I'm almost certain this meets Criterion #1.
Now, even if your article meets notability guidelines, that does not necessarily guarantee approval of the draft, and there could be other changes that may be required for the article to be sustained in Wikipedia mainspace. ––FormalDudetalk00:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@Dgregory4: I tweaked the layout for you. For each piece of information on the draft, I suggest you provide a published reliable source or remove the item. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@Dgregory4: I would have thought that the Festschrift could be a good source of material to establish notablility of the academic. I assume that at least some of it will be material ABOUT him written by respected colleagues. When I was looking for sources for an article on Coral Bell the existence of a similar document, in this case available online, made the draft very straightforward to compose. Her Festschrift included a complete list of her publications, from which I coud select just a few important ones for the Wikipedia article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Muhammadyeakubhasan111. Context matters. At a quick glance, that looks like a video produced by a commercial venture, Cisco Systems, in collaboration with some usually reliable media outlets. So, the question is, what sort of assertion do you hope to use this video for? If it is something mundane and neutral like "CEO John Jones retired in 2021, and was succeeded by new CEO Beverly Baxter" (names made up), then that is fine. But if it is something like, "It will be very difficult for newcomer Beverly Baxter to fill the large shoes left by widely acclaimed retiring CEO John Jones", then an independent source would be required, and sources praising Baxter should also be summarized. The website in question should be examined carefully to see whether or not it displays the signs of journalistic integrity. Cullen328 (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
adding unsourced information about tasks and leadership of these organizations that I cannot verify in any source: [9][10][11][12]
and more recently,
adding similar information but citing sources that do not actually contain the information added: [13][14][15]
These are only some examples of these edits. These are pretty clearly coming from one person, and I have twice filed sockpuppet investigations which successfully resulted in blocks, but as this is now the third occurrence of socking to continue, I'm wondering what I can do to help make it more likely this does not persist. I have been trying to familiarize myself with the ins and outs of this community's processes for dealing with problematic edits, but I am unsure what to do here as this seems to fit into multiple categories. Just reporting the newest account as a sockpuppet again seems like it would be limited in its effectiveness considering the user demonstrates the ability to continue editing after blocks have been put in place. What is the appropriate next step for an editor like myself in this situation? Bring it up at the AIV noticeboard? Request protection for the pages? Edit warring noticeboard? Report the sockpuppet again and move on? Help me learn :) Thanks! Mkcaldwell (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! I've opened an SPI for the user and reverted the edits, and will request semi-protection if the vandalism persists. Mkcaldwell (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@२ तकर पेप्सी Really easy. Go to WP:REFUND. Scroll below and there you will see a form. Enter the page title that you want to seek undeletion for. And then click the Request undeletion button. And you are done. But please note that, the page in not for challenging delete discussions, or challenge XFD decisions. ItcouldbepossibleTalk16:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus: Your question is very worrying, as you seem not to have the ability to judge how reliable a source is, what the article is about, and want someone to tell you what Wikipedia page it relates to because you then want to use it as a reference. I honestly don't know what to say except "Stop!" Your enthusiasm for creating and editing articles on obscure taxa seems to be outstripping your ability to understand proper sources, and the need to base content on scientific sources, not journalistic mush. That article is just a filler article of no scientific merit, and should not be trusted or used as a source - especially if its not clear what it's about, or how reliable it is. However, you could be a detective and use information provided in the article to do a Google search and find a proper article featuring that fossil photo (hint: search on the photographer's name). In which case you would discover a published paper which suggest this may a cnidarian of the Middle Cambrian which might be in the class Scyphozoa, but that there was no certainty around it. Forget trying to identify the taxon (the scientists can't give you one) - maybe consider using that paper to helpfully add a little more content to Marjum Formation, and steer clear from populist science news outlets which just regurgitate small bits of much better sources. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: While I now know that the article is just a filler (given because of the information you gave me in the response) , I now also know that species of possible jellyfish are undescribed thanks to how I was not able to find any information about their names , scientific names and the groups they belong in other than the groups jellyfish belong in and the phylum cnidaria. The only specific article I was able to find which had this image were the previously mentioned jumbled mess of filler , http://qvcproject.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-joys-of-jellies_2.html (which states that the jellyfish themselves do not have any scientific name) Which isn't reliable given to how it is not secure by any means, another article which says like the exact same thing as the jumbled mess of filler https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna21552161 and this one https://creation.com/fossils-out-of-order which doesn't include the exact image of the fossil specimen found by Victor B. Lieberman originally. The source from the Not-Secure site only briefly , and by briefly I mean REALLY briefly mentions very little about their name and nothing else.
I've also recently found a source which says that the jellyfish in that specific image might be in the class itself , but it isn't the paper , and instead it's this https://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2007/11/01/3326553.html which also includes other specimens that B. Lieberman (and his team) found in Utah when searching for fossils
Those were the only "articles" I was able to find, if I do manage to find the paper by instead searching "B. lierberman fossil discoveries" or "B. Lierberman fossil jellyfish" I will be putting a message on your talk page.Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus OK. Forgive me: I'm not going to supply it for you right now as I feel it will help develop your Google searching skills to find the best sources. But all the clues you need to find it are in those summarised sources. There is certainly a short academic paper out there, so let me know on my talk page if you really can't find it, and I'll send you the link in due course. I'm sure you appreciate that the fossil records is a fickle friend. When you only have a faint impression on fine-grained mudstone of a soft-celled organism, it can be near impossible to distinguish it from other species, or to determine of it is a new species. If it's live 50 million years before the previous known earliest similar-looking fossil, chances are it will indeed be a different species (unless its like the coelocanth or Ginkgo biloba). Not every fossil gets named immediately (or at all), and sometimes it can be 100 years before someone is able to make comparative studies with other material from the same formation and to draw conclusions about relationships and to allocate names at whatever taxonomic level is appropriate. I just urge you to stick with moderately well-defined species, rather than to desperately seek to create new pages based on these poor sources when you're neither a palaeontologist nor a taxonomist. The best motto for Wikipedia ought to be: "When in doubt; leave it out!" (By the way: how did you conclude the photographer/palaeontologist was named Victor B Lieberman? That's quite wrong. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: The way I concluded it was Victor B. Lieberman was by looking at the image which was in the first source (the jumbled mess of filler) and looked at the image which included the specific fossil specimens and the comparison between the jellyfish which looked most like the fossil specimen cnidarian , in the bottom right of the image , it says the person which took the image of the jelly which is alive today (helmet jellyfish) and the unidentified fossil specimen, and it said that the photo of the fossil was taken by B. Lieberman. If this is wrong , I'll be on the look out for whoever actually found the fossil specimen and who actually took the photo itself and described the animal originally. Regards.Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: In none of the sources does it say any other person than B. Lierberman, and I do not know any other source which says the original finder of the actual fossil ,so , I feel like the finder either is EXTREMELY obscure , or , no one knows who actually found the fossil itself in the first place. And if that isn't the right option still, I guess I'll need a really tiny clue to atleast find the Identity of the original fossil finder of the fossil specimen dating around 500 million years ago in the Cambrian period. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus Yes, I agree with you: "In none of the sources does it say any other person than B. Lierberman...". So, why then did you reply to me above referring to a Victor B. Lieberman and going so far as to redlinking that name? Maybe you were thrown by the crackpot comment in 2014 in one of the 100% unreliable sources from a Christian ministry that you also linked to above where a 'Victor B.' suggested that the fossils proved the theory of the biblical flood.
But not only are the two finders' names not extremely obscure, the actual paper you need to find online (of which Lieberman is a co-author) is cited in one of the links you gave us above! It is attention to detail like this - and the ability to tell unreliable from Reliable Sources - that is absolutely critical if you are to be competent at creating articles about obscure fossil species or other taxa, or you will (even with the best of intentions) be responsible for introducing garbage content which other users might then believe to be true and republish elsewhere. And in that way can mis-information and errors be promulgated. I am beginning to feel you should steer well away from that area, to be honest. If you can, please also learn to indent your replies with an additional colon when using source editor so that the logical flow of discussion remains clear. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not delete edits except in exceptional circumstances. For each edit, you agreed to these conditions: "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.". Note the word irrevocably. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@Sympathics Whilst David is quite right, it is however possible to delete a page for which you are the sole editor - such as a draft you started or a sandbox page. If this is the case, let us know and we will try to help you further in making a deletion request. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@WikipediaNeko: Hello WikipediaNeko! There isn't really a set rule anywhere on how long something has to be to no longer be considered a stub, or at least there isn't to my knowledge. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654505:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@WikipediaNeko: No problem! I think usually it varies by WikiProject how long an article has to be before it is no longer considered a stub. I'd recommend reading WP:STUB since it provides more information on this. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654505:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, WikipediaNeko. A stub is defined as an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject. Also, an article that, although providing some useful information, lacks the breadth of coverage expected from an encyclopedia, and that is capable of expansion. So, the first definition is more restrictive but both are useful. In my opinion, a stub is often equivalent to a database inquiry, contains a few data points about the topic, but lacks written original prose summarizing significant coverage in independent reliable sources discussing the topic. I see a lot of articles tagged as stubs that actually provide a pretty decent beginning overview of the topic. I routinely upgrade those articles to "Start". Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@WikipediaNeko Have you picked up enough to understand how to display a list of all the most important 'stub' articles in any given WikiProject? If not, and rather than bombard you with extra information here, take a look at this example I prepared, using as an example a WikiProject about mountains of the Alps. You might possibly find Wikipedia:Content assessment of some interest should you want to delve even further into this often overlooked area. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
WikipediaNeko; It generally differs area to area. But I'd likely say an article that has 1500 characters isn't a stub. This is my personal opinion and other editors would possibly disagree with me. I use this tool to exactly know how much words and characters an article has! ─ The Aafī(talk)11:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
(this question is being asked on behalf of Fazran fayad) Hello! So one of my mentees, Fazran fayad, is somehow mysteriously blocked with no clear reason. THey're telling me it tells them they've been blocked for "disruptive editing" however it doesn't show their account is blocked at all. Could they possibly be caught up in an IP block? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: I'm not an expert on IP blocks, so it's possible that's not the problem. They can tell if their IP is blocked by googling "what is my ip" and then going to User:<their ip here>. If that is the problem, then requesting an IP block exemption should work. >>> Wgullyn.talk();19:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Independent secondary source doesn't match official source
Hello! So I've run into some kind of an issue. On Nintendo Switch Sports (which I don't think is notable enough for an article yet but that's besides the point right now) a user is saying that while the sources that are independent and secondary and not directly connected to the subject say the game is a direct sequel to Wii Sports, Nintendo themselves say it's the 3rd main entry in the Wii Sports series of titles, making it a direct sequel to Wii Sports Resort. I'm fairly sure we're supposed to go by what the secondary, independent, reliable sources say and not what Nintendo officially says, however I'd rather know for sure instead of reverting on an assumption I have that could be incorrect. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654500:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Wellll... it party depends on the source. We also don't usually completely disregard official sources unless they're self-dealing, which I don't see what advantage Nintendo would get from being mendacious here (I could be wrong). There's been a lot of editing on that page recently, so could you tell us which source? Is it a single source, or sources which do not appear to be copying from each other? It sounds like maybe a matter of opinion where we can't say "this is the deal, stone cold true", so would it be possible to say "According to Nintendo its this, according to Such-and-Such it's that"? Herostratus (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
The source that says it's a direct sequel is engadget. Can't check if the IGN source says the same thing (for reasons I will not say for the sake of my privacy). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654504:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
OK. Well, it sounds like it's not like "the Iowa's displacement was X tons" where you have an actual measurement. Unless you can prove that the Engadget guy is correct -- and how can you prove something like that? -- or unless you can demonstrate a good reason to believe that Nintendo is either lying about this or else does not understand its own product development progression, for my part I would go with presenting both sides. Even if the Engadet guy has fact checkers, what are they checking? Actual documents that prove his case, or just "yeah I agree with him"? Herostratus (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I understand that. However I"m going to continue believing the source is true and reliable unless I have some reason to think that it isn't true. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I am wondering what some recommended essential pages for editing on Wikipedia to read before I start editing articles including WP:MOS.
What are some other places to start reading as a new Wikipedia editor? ScientistBuilder (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I'm happy to be editing my first draft article, which has not been accepted yet. My subject is a performing musician, deceased, of the 20th century. His main output was his performances on sound recordings, of which I have documented many. But my editors have said I do not have enough secondary sources. When I put in some obituaries of this person and reviews of concerts he gave, published in newspapers, will those be considered secondary sources? And of course I will add more references to him in books and journal articles if I can find them. Ajo47 Ajo47 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Ajo47, hi there! Usually one would expect more coverage to warrant a Wikipedia article. Your proposed combination of obituaries, reviews, books, and journals sounds great, and I'm sure that if they are cited (of course to back up the claims and not just for decoration), Draft:George Ockner can be accepted. Happy editing! :) GeraldWL20:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I would like your opinion as to whether all the documentation I've added to my draft: George Ockner is likely to make it acceptable when I hit the Resubmit button. I'm afraid if it is not accepted it may be deleted. Thank you. Ajo47 (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Ajo47: In general, a draft has to show how the topic meets WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You can't just provide references that show that recordings exist - you'll have to use show how he meets at least one of the criteria at WP:NMUSICIAN. Obituaries and reviews by sources with editorial independence will be considered secondary sources, but you may come across some that are not independent (e.g. an obituary written by the family). GoingBatty (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ajo47: Hello! Right all of the sections have only one citation each. For example, the entire "Early musical life and career" section has one citation. For that size of paragraph, 3 or 4 references would be ideal. Cheers! >>> Wgullyn.talk();20:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Possible edit war with mobile user?
One or more mobile user(s) have been reposting the same content to the article on Alyssa Mastromonaco over the past several days. I would attempt to post something to the talk page but as this has already gone on for a while now I’m not sure that it would help. Not sure what to do next. Some advice would be greatly appreciated. Unconventional2 (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@Unconventional2: I've reverted their previous edit and warned them on their talk page. As they are an IP editor, it is likely that they do not know about our BLP policy. If they continue to add unsourced content, you can use a higher-level warning, and if that does not stop them, report them to WP:AIV. >>> Wgullyn.talk();20:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:ME, a minor edit is an edit where "only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions." This would include correcting typos, fixing formatting, and reverting obvious vandalism. Generally, any edit that doesn't add any actual information and only serves to make the information more accessible is a minor one, but if you're adding information or changing the meaning of sentences than it's not a minor edit. casualdejekyll20:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
How do I edit this "Decadebox" template?
Hi, on the page 2000s there is a Decadebox template. In this template, it says that the year 2000 was part of the 21st century. However, because the Gregorian Calender isn't 0-indexed (that is, there is 1 BC and 1 AD but no year 0 in the Gregorian Calendar), the first century is from year 1 to year 100, second century from 101 to 200, et cetera, 21st century from 2001 to 2100.
XLand44, to be clear, that is not a minor edit and would require consensus even if the page was unprotected. This is not an "issue" you just discovered, instead it has been discussed over the years and the current ordering of centuries is the result of consensus among the community.Slywriter (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that the decadebox template is trying to fit everything together nice and neatly, and the calendar just doesn't really work that way. While centuries and millennia match up, decades do not start at the same time. I don't know why people find this so confusing, when basically the same thing occurs with weeks as compared to months and years and that doesn't seem to bother anybody. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Slywriter I didn't see any discussion on the topic on the talk page; furthermore, if this is the consensus the community arrived at (despite directly contradicting the calendar and providing false information), why not edit wikipedia articles to be consistent with this consensus? A page saying it begins in 2001 and then a decadebox next to it saying it begins in 2000 can be confusing for readers, as it's directly contradicting itself --Xland44 (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
How to link a post on the talk page of one article to the talk page of another article instead of making two separate posts?
I am working on improving the article on the Atomic clock and I am confused on what a hyperfine transition frequency is and when I go to the page it for it I don't understand the quantum mechanical terms fine structure, degenerate state, nuclear magnetic dipole, electron spin, magnetic moment, orbital angular momentum.
I have raised this issue on the talk page for Atomic clock and am wondering if there is a way to link my post with the talk page for Hyperfine structure. ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
This comment relates to the Wiki webpage on Herpes Labials, specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herpes_labialis#Treatment. There is no such think as "specialty antigens" what it should say is that specific antibodies typically fight the virus. However this page is locked for editing. This is a major error that needs correcting.
I wanted to be simple here, as an registered user can get alerts on their edits, IP user won't. I said 'some', and 'most', but not 'all'. Also I am not sure if asking to sign-up violates any rules or not. My apology is my say violated any rule. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page02:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Not really. However you had merely phrased it in a way that made it seem like you were saying signing up was mandatory. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654502:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi there! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you don't have a lot of experiencing editing existing articles. To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather independentreliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article - which contains a link to the Wikipedia:Article Wizard - and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Is it true that Centre Party (Sweden) is not only center but also center-right? Because as an example Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party is center. Example, in Spanish it is written as center-left and I don't find the evidence on the Centre Party (Sweden) page particularly good either. Wname1 (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello. My article created has been accepted and I am super happy. I was wondering if that means the page is now live or do I need to take another step? every time I search the article it doesn't show up on google. can anyone let me know if it is live? Fmik36 (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@Fmik36 Welcome to the Teahouse. A more relevant answer than that which @Jéské Couriano gave you is the fact that your article (Khaldoun Al Tabari) still has one further stage to go through before we allow it to be indexed by Google. But, yes, it is indeed live and findable via an internal search within Wikipedia. After 'Articles for Creation' approval, a more detailed final check is made by New Page Reviewers to ensure it appears to meet our key policies on notability and other things. As with all things on this volunteer-run project, there is a huge backlog. If, after 90 days, it is not 'NPP_reviewed' it will automatically be released for indexing by search engines. So it's simply a case of waiting patiently. Well done on creating your first article! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I've been trying to get a Draft AfC approved for a long while now. A few months ago, there was a lot of back-and-forth editing and commenting - now, in recent weeks, it's mostly been empty. Is someone able to help me get this little project alive or point me in the right direction? Draft:Make a Difference FoundationD.C. at MAD Foundation Inc. (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
More than half the refs are mentions of Wilipedia-notable people who are "ambassadors" for the foundation. These do not contribute to the article's notability. Other refs are to the foundations's website. A lot of content is not referenced. I agree that the most recent Declined was warranted. David notMD (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
the invention and important historical developments efforts of Pinned Photodiode
I would like to write in Wikipedia pages the following text but I had a lot of confusions. I am sorry that I made many errors. Can you edit and write in the text in Wikipedia for me ?
misplaced draft
About the invention and historical development efforts of Pinned Buried Photodiode by Yoshiaki Hagiwara
The first pinned photodiode (PPD) and the Buried Photodiode (BP) both have a shallow P+ implant in N type diffusion layer over a P-type substrate layer. PPD is always BP. PPD does not have the image lag. But BP may have the serious image lag problem. PPD is also not to be confused with the PIN photodiode.[21].
The first PPD with the no-image lag, the low-surface dark current and the high short-wave blue light sensitivity features was invented in 1975 by Hagiwara at Sony.[1] The evidence is given by Japanese patent application JPA1975-127646 [2], JPA1975-127647 [3] and JPA1985-134985 [4] on the double and triple junction type PPD with the vertical overflow drain (VOD) structures with anti-blooming function capability and Global Shutter function with VOD Punch-thru mode clocking-scheme, achieved the electric shutter function by Hagiwara team at Sony [5].
Sony developed the first double junction type PPD and use it in FT CCD in 1978 [6]. This was the first invention of the pinned photodiode (PPD), a photodetector structure with low lag, low noise, high quantum efficiency and low dark current.
Early charge-coupled device image sensors with the single N+P photodiode with the N+ floating surface suffered from shutter lag. The serious image lag was largely resolved in 1978 [6][7][8]developed by Hagiwara and his coworkers in 1987 [9] at Sony by 1987. The PPD was used in CCD sensors in the past analog TV era and is now still used in the present digital TV era in CMOS active-pixel sensors.
In 1980, BP was used in ILT CCD by Nobukazu Teranishi, Hiromitsu Shiraki and Yasuo Ishihara at NEC [22][23] They reported in public that lag can be eliminated if the signal carriers could be transferred from the photodiode to the CCD. [24]
The BP with the serious image lag problem was further developed and used in ILT CCD by Teranishi and Ishihara with A. Kohono, E. Oda and K. Arai in 1982, with the addition of an anti-blooming structure.[22][24] The BP proposed in 1980 and developed in 1982 by NEC [22][23] reported the serious image lag problem, which was by definition not PPD. BP is not always PPD. [21].
The photodetector structure invented in 1975 by Hagiwara at Sony was given the name "pinned photodiode" (PPD) by B.C. Burkey at Kodak in 1984. In 1987, the PPD mainly developed by Sony [9] began to be incorporated into most CCD sensors, becoming a fixture in consumer electronic video cameras and then digital still cameras.[22]
In 1994, Eric Fossum, while working at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), proposed an improvement to the CMOS sensor: the integration of the pinned photodiode. A CMOS sensor with PPD technology was first fabricated in 1995 by a joint JPL and Kodak team that included Fossum along with P.P.K. Lee, R.C. Gee, R.M. Guidash and T.H. Lee. Since then, the PPD has been used in nearly all CMOS sensors.
The CMOS sensor with PPD technology was further advanced and refined by R.M. Guidash in 1997, K. Yonemoto and H. Sumi in 2000, and I. Inoue in 2003. This led to CMOS sensors achieve imaging performance on par with CCD sensors, and later exceeding CCD sensors.[22]
[7] Yoshiaki Daimon-Hagiwara,” Advances in CCD imagers”, an invited paper at CCD’79 international conference at Edinburgh, Scotland, UK September 1979.
Should be linked to the following site for details.
YoshiakiHagiwara19480704 You have made more than 50 edits to Photodiode. All of them have been reverted, by nine different editors, some for copyright infringement, and you have been short-term blocked from editing the article. It appears you want to add content and references to state that you invented the pinned photodiode circa 1975. You have started a discussion on the Talk page of the article. I STRONGLY recommend you stop any attempts to edit the article until consensus is reached on the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I got a comment in a talk page after I submitted my article, but I don't know where to go to respond to this "talk" comment. Please advise. My username is Ajo47. Ajo47 (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Ajo47, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what you're referring to. The only message on your user talk page is a general welcome message: there's no particular reason to reply to that. If you do want to reply, for some reason, either do so on the user talk page of the editor who left the message, or reply on your user talk page, but ping the other editor. Or are you talking about another talk page somewhere else? --ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ajo47, Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, by any chance do you refer to this Draft:George Ockner and the comment left by Victor Schmidt? If yes then this here is Victor's talkpage. If I’m wrong in my presumption as to what I believe you are trying to ask please do let me know. For further information about talkpages see WP:TALKPAGE. You can also leave a comment at the AFC page. Celestina007 (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for writing to me. Since being invited by Professor Dave ( Burgenhaug ??) have posted and published a great deal of material. The last publishing I think was the 9th one and was advised to keep posting. Advice that was given earlier that the material can be polished up where necessary over time. Have explained that at 94 years of age the plethora of detail required in Wikiuni is now outside my capacity to digest. The Wikiuni open University seemed to me the best opportunity to disseminate the material that has already been written by me. The archive material is copied and pasted and seems to be arriving safely. If any unintentional violation of any copyright could it just be deleted? Time is not on my side and the question that remains is 'Do I keep posting?'
Your query was initially an absolute mystery. There is no article "Universal Language of Absolutes" at Wikipedia. HOWEVER, content by that title exists at Wikiversity as https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Universal_Language_of_Absolutes, which you created in January. At Wikiversity, you appear to have a useful correspondance with Dave Braunschweig. The function of Teahouse, where you posted this query today, is for helping Wikipedia editors. David notMD (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Teahouse, I'm the Recent User that Published III Zw 2 Article on the Wikipedia I was wondering what Articles Haven't Been Published Yet, I'd Like to Hear a Reply Soon --DemonymsPlayer (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC) DemonymsPlayer (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
DemonymsPlayer, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, I take it that you created an article, did a search of the article on your preferred browser and saw nothing right? you see if you create and publish an article yourself it is not indexed by google except a group of editors here referred to as new page reviewers mark your article as “reviewed”, also there are editors who have Autopatrol rights, this editors create articles and they are immediately indexed by google. Furthermore if after 90 days a new page reviewer hasn’t attended to you then the article goes live by itself. Celestina007 (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
If this is about Draft:Segala Island, Eritrea, you removed the decline notice, which, amongst other things, removed the resubmit button. I have restored it (there is no reason to hide it, we'll find out anyway). I am personally not convinced that this would go through, however. Bing searches aren't reliable sources, though individual results might be, due to their inherent tendency to change as well as the fact that different people might see totally different results. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
What to do when subjects of articles try to remove negative material from pages about them
A few weeks ago, in the Cluebot report interface, there was this edit from a long time ago where a company was trying to change information on their own page.
There was which edit from a long time ago, I.hate.spam.mail.here? Whichever it was, it's relatively uncommon for an editor to announce that they represent a company. It often happens that one has very good reasons to suspect that an editor may be, but suspicions don't merit accusations. Was/is the "negative material" well sourced? Was/is the resulting article balanced? Is/was raising/pursuing the matter on the article's talk page inadequate? -- Hoary (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I have now created 3 or 4 English Wikipedia articles which I started by translating from existing foreign-language Wikipedia articles. Frequently the foreign-language articles (French, Italian, Dutch, Danish) have had few, or poor, supporting citations, and so I have then had to do further research to find full supporting references. Question: are other-language Wikipedias supposed to use the same standards and the same quality and quantity of sources as English Wikipedia? If so, why have I found so many articles which would not be accepted in English Wikipedia? Masato.harada (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Masato.harada, hi there. All articles are expected to have at least a few reliable citations. I've seen many uncited articles in Indonesian Wikipedia because there are fewer editors there. The English Wikipedia undoubtedly has more editors, so it's easier for an uncited article to be nominated for deletion here than it is in others. That is why when you translate an article, you shouldn't just blindly translate, you have to do your own research too. GeraldWL17:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Masato.harada Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Each language version of Wikipedia is its own project, with their own editors and policies- they aren't the same. The English version tends to be stricter as it is the oldest and has a large number of participants. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
As 331dot says, each Wikipedia has its own policies, and some are less strict than en-wiki. It is also worth considering the question of time: in the early years, while en-wiki had broadly the same policies as it does now, editors were much less strict in applying them. English Wikipedia therefore has thousands and thousands of articles which, if they were offered for review now, would not be accepted: some would be declined pending further work, and some would be rejected outright. Ideally, editors would work through those thousands and thousands of substandard articles, improving or deleting them. (For some reason, this doesn't happen very much). It is likely that other language Wikipedias also have many articles which do not in fact meet their own standards. --ColinFine (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Citing a reference within a footnote
Good day, Teashop Hosts. I wonder if someone can help me with inserting a citation within a footnote. Specifically, if you would glance at the article on Duncan Napier, you will see four footnotes under the heading "Notes". The first of these reads as follows:
Most of the journals' text is reproduced in Melvin (2021) and Atkinson (2003)
where Melvin (2021) and Atkinson (2003) are references to books which are cited elsewhere in the article and which are listed in the "Further reading" section. What I am trying to do is to make those two references (within the note) into links, such that when you click on the link it would take you to the relevant book in "Further reading". In other words, I want it to look something like this:
Most of the journals' text is reproduced in Melvin (2021) and Atkinson (2003)
I've tried putting things like {{sfn|Melvin|2021}} directly in the text, and also experimented with the {{efn}} template, but none of that produces the desired effect.
Mike Marchmont, I exactly mostly cite stuff with Sfn. Have a look at Mahmud Hasan Deobandi. In Sfn, you just put the full bibliographic details of the citation in a section titled say References, and then using the sfn template, with required details, at the end of a statement. Regards, ─ The Aafī(talk)17:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
You shouldn't be moving the citations you use in the article into Further reading section. It will give you Harv error. I fixed it and it works fine for me. Wherever I click on Melvin 2021 or other source, the full citation is highlighted. ─ The Aafī(talk)17:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, TheAafi. First of all, thank you for reorganising the References section in the Duncan Napier article. It looks much better now. And I take your point about the "Further reading"section.
Regarding your reply to my question, apologies if I didn't explain the problem clearly. I know how to use the Sfn template within the body of the article. I often do that. But it doesn't appear to work when you put the Sfn in a group footnote (that is, a footnote that is intended to provide explanatory text, as opposed to one the points directly to a citation).
To give another example of what I am trying to achieve, if you would glance at the article Anglo-Zulu War, you will see that in the Infobox, under the heading "Strength", there is a footnote designated with a lower-case a. The text of the footnote is as follows:
Colenso 1880, pp. 263–264 gives 6,669 Imperial and Colonial troops and 9,035 Native Contingent. Morris 1998, p. 292 gives 16,800
The text shown here in blue are links to entries listed under "Sources". That's what I would like to achieve. I considered copying the code from that article, but I see that it uses the Harvnb template, which I understand has been deprecated.
Many thanks, TheAafi, for fixing the footnote. That is exactly what I was trying to achieve. I see you used Harvnb. Clearly, I was wrong to avoid using that template. I'll make a note of it for future reference.
Thank you also for adding an Infobox to the article. I am dubious about the sub-headings, "Academic background" and "Academic work" because Napier's background was anything but academic. He had hardly any education and couldn't read or write until he was in his teens. But I won't worry about it just now.
Hello,
I noticed that the alumni section of The Principia page did not cite any sources. In starting to do this process I also noticed that there was a lot of overlap with its partner page Principia College.
1. If it were up to me, I'd probably just have an alumni list on the Principia College page only. Is that a possibility or is that overstepping what others have done?
2. If I can't find references for the alumni section on The Principia page, is it possible to remove them until there are references?
Thanks! Archivingperson (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the idea of having alumni listed at only one of these two articles, and the College page make more sense. The first article links to the second, so people would know to go there. As to the alumni list, very often, lists of notable people (for towns, schools) do not have references. The assumption is that if one goes to the articles about the people, the connection to PC would be there, and referenced. THIS MAY NOT BE TRUE, mostly meaning that the connection to the people having attended Principia College may be mentioned, but not always referenced. Personally, I would err on the side of inclusion. David notMD (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
It's possible that at least some of the alumni listed in The Principia attended Principia School but not Principia College, so I don't think one could just blithely merge the two lists at the college page. Deor (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@David notMD:Thank you all for the responses. In thinking about the notice about the Alumni section "This section does not cite any sources.", would that be a permanent post? If the goal is to remove that notice, then it seems like the easiest thing would be to remove all of the non-cited sources and add them back only when they have a citation or B. Adding a explanation at the top saying something like "Please use citations to the Alumni list when possible"? Archivingperson (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I hazard a guess that it is unlikely that names were added without evidence, but it would be nicer if there was a reference for every name OR the articles about the people stated they attended Principia College AND that was referenced. However, if you look at university alumni lists such as List of University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign people, the great majority of names are not referenced. There is an accepted assumption that the articles about the people confirm their having attended. Do not add something akin to "Please use citations...", as Wikipedia articles do not include instructions on how to edit the articles in question. David notMD (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@NeverTry4Me: Most likely because if you looked at the template at the top of the page it says "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654501:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf:MoreLove adds the Teahouse Barnstar as a WikiLove message you can send, yes. However, it does not have the ability to add badges since it's an extension for WikiLove, and I do not have a script to automate adding them. VukkyTalkGuestbook11:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@Sbmalone: Hello SB! I've removed the image for you since I see no reason to use the exact same image twice on the page. For future reference, all you have to do is remove everything contained within 4 brackets ([[ and ]]) that starts with "File:". Also, is the subject of the article paying you to make edits? Regardless of whether or not that is true you must read WP:COI and follow the instructions on the page, as well as WP:PAID. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654520:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. A sandbox is a place you can try things out. On Wikipedia it means two different things: WP:Sandbox is a communal page that you can use to practise editing. Other people may use it as well, and it gets automatically cleared several times a day. In addition every logged-in user can have their own sandbox, which they can use for example to develop articles. See User sandbox for information on that. --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The draft page I'm asking about is a biography of George Ockner. My question is, how do I cite sources that are behind a paywall, such as newspaper articles from the Proquest Historical Newspaper database? There are obituaries and reviews of this person's concerts there. Thank you. Ajo47 (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Ajo47. You cite sources behind a paywall the same way you cite any other source, though if you're using one of the citation templates, there are parameters you can add to notify readers that the source is restricted (see for example Template:cite web). Note that for most sources, the important part of the citation is the title, date, publisher, and author (if known): a URL is a convenience not an essential part of the citation. See futher WP:PAYWALL. --ColinFine (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello ColinFine,
I'm a brand new Wikipedia contributor, so I don't know whether I'm using the Teahouse communications correctly. I believe my draft is ready to Resubmit, with many additions of reliable sources, but I wold appreciate your advising me whether you think it's ready for that. I only have until mid-August to resubmit it successfully, or it might be lost. Please advise. Thank you. Ajo47 (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Links in the LEAD
Is it better to put low-quality links to stubs and start class articles in the body of the article instead of the lead of the article?
It seems like it would be better for an article to have no red links in the lead and a few red links in the body than a few red plinks in the introduction and no leaks in the body. ScientistBuilder (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@ScientistBuilder: I personally don't think it matters. Red links should not be included at all unless the red-linked subject is extremely likely to be notable, and really ought to have an article of its own. They're then "preemptive" links, already linking to the (future) article, so no one has to go back after writing the article, to find all the places that ought to refer to it. If the subject is that important, then showing up as a red-link in the lead of other articles might encourage someone to go off and write about it! Elemimele (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I see no red Wikilinks anywhere in Atomic clock. If you mean that there are valid Wikilinks in the lead that go to Stubs and Starts, that's OK. The quality of Wikilinks linked to has no relevance to the rating of the article the Wikilinks are in. Standard practice is first use of a term gets linked, and all subsequent uses of that term, not. As for improving an article's quality, the quality of references is paramount. David notMD (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
ScientistBuilder I think it is better to leave the links in the lead rather than remove them, especially when none are red links (and haven't been for some time for atomic clock). Many readers, myself included, just hover over these links if they want a brief reminder of the definition of something. Only rarely do I click to follow through to the linked article, so I don't care about its quality. WP:Overlink does have something to say about this but for technical articles more rather than less is correct, in my opinion. Note also that many readers never go beyond the lead, so knowing which other articles they could find on related subjects is useful. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Abuse of template on my talkpage by new IP/User, is this harasment ?
In less than an half hour i'm getting two Notices on my talkpage of Edit warring,[16], [17] first by a IP with a single contribution, then a new user Woodybrook showed up, put another one on my talkpage. I opened a case yesterday at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring which led to a temporary block of a user Rogeman123, now i'm getting notices from new IP/User. I have sent them both warning of improper use of template.
Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@Anton.bersh: Yes i know, then these two (one) IP/User show up, putting notices on my talkpage. There's no new discussion and i opened the previous one yesterday. I requested for semi-protection per Blaze Wolf recommendation. Thanks i will report sock-puppetry as well. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
An experienced user reverted my change. After a discussion, most editors agreed with my changes. Now the user is still reverting me. Help.
First off, you are violating the 3RR rule and could potentially be temporarily blocked. Please do not make any more reversions on that article. However, it does appear that you have a consensus for using the term "baseball stadium", so I'll raise the matter on their talk page. >>> Wgullyn.talk();23:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@Back Bay Barry: Actually, after looking at that discussion again, it seems like the matter of the definition of baseball park was never raised. I think that User:Nemov is actually in the right on this issue. Please don't make any changes to the definition of the article before creating a discussion on that topic. >>> Wgullyn.talk();00:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Okay sorry about violating the 3RR rule. I literally just read that page now. I'm sorry about that, but didn't Nemov do the exact same thing? Back Bay Barry (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Wgullyn Essentially, Nemov used a definition of "ballpark" to define "baseball park". I think the name of the article should be changed and I started a discussion on the talk page about that. But meanwhile, his change made no sense. It wasn't "status quo" as he kept quoting to me. He JUST made that change, in reaction to the vote that went against him. Back Bay Barry (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Back Bay Barry ohhh. Sorry about that. I thought that they were reverting to a previous version, not their own change. I've changed the definition back to the original one. Sorry again for the misunderstanding! >>> Wgullyn.talk();00:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the Teahouse.Oh, that's a draft you have there. I, um.. well. This is hard to say, but in the interest of being honest, even if it's a bit blunt: every single section needs fixing. The best section there is "Latest results", and even then it's sourced entirely to primary sources. You should probably read Wikipedia:YFA if you haven't already. Writing an article is hard, but I know you can do it! What you currently have however, just won't do. casualdejekyll01:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me, could you please give me some more specific things to focus on? Is it the language used? Just not sure where to start with fixing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leadership scholar (talk • contribs) 01:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Please read WP:YFA as suggested. Not to put too fine a point on it, but basically you should wipe out the draft and start over- only summarizing what independent reliable sources say about the topic, with significant coverage. Not brief mentions that merely document its existence, or any sources from the topic itself. Start with just your three best independent sources. Right now you don't have any; if none exist, the topic does not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: When the ip added Pearl Jam 20 to Adam Sandler filmography Specially in 2011 section it bumped Jack and Jill to below the 2011 section, It would be easier to see what i meant by going to the article itself and scrow down till you get to year 2011 and you'll see that Jack and Jill is actually in the year section opposed to the title section. Chip3004 (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I think this belongs on your teahouse query, but I'll answer based on what I know. A deletion discussion can take any random time to finish. It finishes when a consensus has been reached. Who knows how long that could take. Also, since a lot of similar opinions have been stated on the discussion by an IP and new accounts, A WP:SPI Has been started on you. Just letting you know. Vial of Power (talk) 08:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I have a webpage where content is deleted periodically. I would like to cite different versions of this page in the same Wikipedia article, which have been archived in the Wayback Machine. What is the best way to go about this? NemesisAT (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
If the version you want has been archived, then you can use parameters archive-url and archive-date as well as the main url. If in addition you use url-status=deviated, I believe it won't generate a link to the main URL. See Template:cite web. --ColinFine (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, I wasn't aware of this functionality! However, it isn't quite what I'm looking for. I am wanting to cite a webpage twice in the same article, but citing different archives of it in different places. I could create multiple citations where the only difference is the archive date and version, but I wondered if there was a cleaner way. NemesisAT (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
With such a new account as yours, you can also just delete all content on your Talk page and User page and abandon the account. David notMD (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Editing Question for New User
Hello, I just got a new account with wikipedia. I was trying make an edit to a
school on wikipedia by adding a name to it's Notable Alumni. I was able to add it,
but wasn't able to place it in the correct place alphabetically. When I tried, the section with the other alumni names turned blue. Can you help me?
Thank you. Peter Fleming 2601:642:C300:4A0:5955:434C:EBE4:31EC (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello there, and welcome to the Teahouse, hey, are you sure you are logged in? Please do confirm this, if you are having trouble logging in then you can just try and tell us what article you are trying to edit and we would assist you in doing this, if you are unable to login and you are sure you aren’t operating more than one account then you may find going here and requesting an account be created on your behalf to be pertinent. I’d personally handle it for you. Thank you for stopping by, we hope to see you again. Celestina007 (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
It would help if you say which article you tried to modify. The question above is the only edit visible in this IP-address edits history. Probably you edited when logged-in with your user account? --CiaPan (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I have permission from the copyright holder to use a photo, now what?
I wanted to improve a page with a photo, so I contacted the subject using one of the form letters here and got a response. "I, _____, the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the self-photo as attached and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of the work..." (apparently using an approved WP form letter as well), and sent that release in an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and to myself.
Ok, great, but the photo doesn't show up in Wikimedia Commons and when I try to upload it myself I get error messages blocking me from doing so.
At least as I understand it from what they said, the copyright owner sent it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and carbon-copied it to BBQboffin. Which sounds about right. casualdejekyll02:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
They did send the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and I was also included on the email, from their official email address. I didn't send anything except a WP-approved form letter to the image owner. BBQboffin (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons.
The content must be freely licensed. Do not copy files illegally (in violation of copyright) from other websites.
If you believe that the file meets our licensing standards: Upload the file again or click "Retry failed uploads"/"Submit modified file description".
Yes, as it says right there, "If you believe that the file meets our licensing standards: Upload the file again or click "Retry failed uploads"/"Submit modified file description"." casualdejekyll03:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Easy for you to say; the error message is all in red and is accompanied by a Big Red Exclamation Mark icon. Well, if this breaks Wikipedia for good and gets us sued into oblivion, it's all your fault! You gave me the courage to click on "Retry failed uploads"/"Submit modified file description" and...I get the same error message. I tried it a third time with the same result. Then I added some "optional" tags. Failed. A few more changes to "optional" things. Failed. And again. Then on about the sixth try it went through! Whoever said insanity is trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results was misquoted. I find it doing that works quite well, especially when looking for my car keys. Thanks for the help, the file is now uploaded somehow. BBQboffin (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I have a question about the correct way to cite sources.
I am working on adding page numbers for a source for Atomic Clocks and the page numbering for the pdf starts at 74 pages.
Should I use 77 for the third page in the citation or 3? ScientistBuilder (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I would have thought if it says 77 on the page then say 77. If there are less than 77 pages in the actual PDF then this will be unambiguous anyway.--Shantavira|feed me13:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Single citation, multiple quotations?
Can anyone point me at an example of a citation which contains multiple quotations? For example, if an article relied upon citations to two different sections of a single source book, in different parts of the article, and one wished to associate a quotation with each of the two citations, is there a way of formatting that? Thanks. Bill Woodcock (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Is there a way to get an image from a Goverment site without breaching copyright laws?
I would like to add a site from NIST.gov to atomic clock.
Is there a way for me to do this without having taken the pictures or would a NIST representative (employee, manager, etc.) have to add the image? ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, ScientistBuilder. You need to upload the image (to Commons, since it's PD) first: I suggest using the Upload wizard. Then once the image is available in Commons, you can edit the article to use it. I'm afraid I don't know how to do that in VE, as I don't use it, but I believe it's straightforward. --ColinFine (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Are pictures from the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom public domain?
I tried looking through the public domain and I couldn't figure out the answer.
Because the US Federal government chose to make images public domain, whereas most other governments have not so chosen. I don't know why that is; but remember that until the last twenty or thirty years, this was of interest to almost nobody outside publishing houses. --ColinFine (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
How to cite a webpage that automatically downloads a pdf
I am hoping to add a citation for https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/mises-en-pratique second brochure.
I would like to add a link to the document on the second mises en pratique definition but when I open the link it automatically downloads and the address is local to my computers file system instead of to a webpage on the bipm server.
Is there a way to cite this specific document on the webpage to help people find the source easier instead of looking through all the documents on the webpage as a citation and finding the second document on the bottom? ScientistBuilder (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
How about this?[1] You may want to juggle the parameters of the citation around to get the format you want. The main thing is that you need to peel all the cruft off the end of the URL, and let it end with ".pdf". Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Reading2019. I have just finished my History Masters at the University of Reading in England so know all about referencing. I want to know how I would go about producing a page on Beasts Before Us, a recently published book widely available in book stores across England on the evolution of mammals, or indeed its author, Elsa Panciroli. I have read this book.
Thank you,
Leeds2014Reading2019 Leeds2014Reading2019 (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
With all due respect, writing an encyclopaedia article is not the same as writing an acadeic essay or dissertation. One major difference is that a Wikipedia article should not contain any argumentation or conclusions at all: it should summarise what the sources say, but it may not do any synthesis from them. I'm not saying you can't write a good Wikipedia article, but please don't assume that because you have just got a Masters therefore you can immediately write a good article. If you haven't already done so, please read your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
No Original Research Clarification
I am looking a source that might relate to a claim on the Atomic clock article that lower line widths increase the precision.
I googled atomic clock line width and I found a site that talks about ultrasmall linewidths and it does not directly state the claim the article is making and I am wondering if I added this as a source if it would be original research or if I can add the source and if so what is the reasoning for me being able to add it even though it does not directly say it. ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Disclaimer up front: I'm about to give you bad advice. That is, advice on how to be bad. Like when I tell my kids that the most important thing about doing the wrong thing is to not get caught.
I know it can be very frustrating, if you are a subject-matter expert to see vague, incomplete, or misleading information in articles, when you know the correct information, and are perfectly capable of presenting it clearly, but can't find a citable source to attribute it to. There are lots of people who, in that situation, just go ahead and say what they think needs to be said, and leave it for someone else, whose strengths lie more in the "finding citations" realm, to clean it up. There are early Wikipedia articles which are the sole "original research" of individual experts, predating the policies on original research and citations and so on, which have never really been touched since. And there are other people who run around diligently cleaning them up. So, the best approach (and I get that you know this) is to find a citation for what you think needs to be said. The bad approach is to say what needs to be said, and leave it for someone else to find a citation. The polite thing to do, if you're going to be bad, is to acknowledge that fact up-front in the talk page, apologize in advance for it, and thank in advance whoever can clean up behind you.
On the other hand, if you can fix the problem, or get 90% of the way there, by simply deleting incorrect stuff, that doesn't require a citation to do, and it will also make the world a better place. Good luck. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@CRS-20: It depends on the case. If you're asking about, e.g., 22 seconds then no, replacing it with a space is not correct, because that can lead to a line split between a number and the unit, like this
So removing the others.on this line before seconds is correct. I ask the question for all those who are in the infobox. Thanks. CRS-20 (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@CRS-20: Nope. It would be correct if you're sure they're not necessary. And whether they actually are necessary depends on the screen size, font size and rendering habits of the web browser on devices used by people who read our articles. We do not know these conditions, so we use non-breaking spaces to avoid breaking the text where it is undesirable. If you can see any specific reason to remove this protection, go on, be WP:BOLD and fix what is broken. But removing 'just because' is likely to be reverted soon. --CiaPan (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I respect MOS, but I don't give up a common sense. IMHO, style is necessary to maintain a consistent, uniform and good look, not to deprive us of our mind. When sticking blindly to MOS makes the article look worse, I go for WP:BRAR and strive to keep article look good rather than following the manual. After all, that is our goal: to make a readable encyclopedia, not to build a monument of MOS. --CiaPan (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
The MOS does not say "no tags in an infobox". It says "it may be counterproductive in a table (where an unattractive break may be acceptable to conserve precious horizontal space) and unnecessary in a short parameter value in an infobox (where a break would never occur anyway)." If there was a parameter in an infobox that would be unlikely to have a line break, it is unnecessary. In long entries, like mission duration, that will result in a line break, an nbsp tag should still be added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Unless somebody is going around making every space in a sentence a non-breaking space, I see no benefit to ever removing non-breaking spaces. So what if you don't see the need for it, someone else obviously finds it useful and it is hurting you in no way. Even the added "cost" to Wikipedia as a whole is so minuscule as to be functionally none.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Referring to a person who shares their surname with a settlement
Forgive me if this is a silly question; I checked the MoS and didn't see anything. I'm currently revising Strool, South Dakota, and the settlement was named for Ben Strool, who was fairly involved in the settlement's operations until his death. Conventionally, we refer to subjects by their surname only, but in this case that could cause confusion between the settlement and the person (e.g. "Residents paid a monthly rent to Strool"). At the same time, only referring to the settlement as "Strool" and the person as "Ben Strool" feels unwieldy. He didn't hold any kind of title (e.g. doctor or senator) that would make it easy to distinguish the person from the town, either. Is there a consensus on how to refer to people whose surname is the same as the settlement? –Galactic-Radiance(talk)21:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@Galactic-Radiance if you add a section about Ben Strool, and it is clear you are referring to the person, you can call him Strool. If you add such sentences as the above-mentioned "Residents paid a monthly rent to Strool" I would suggest you refer to him as Mr. Strool, or the merchant. Thank you for your work on improving the stub article. Karenthewriter (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I have a sentence from atomic clock:
"These secondary frequency standards are accurate at the level of parts in 10−18; however, the uncertainties provided in the list are in the range of parts in 10−14 – 10−15 since they are limited by the linking to the caesium primary standard that currently (2018) defines the second."
I am wondering if this is needs any improvement or could be worded with WP:MOS dash guidelines and if it would be appropriate to replace the dash with the word to. ScientistBuilder (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, ScientistBuilder! According to MOS:RANGE, numbers such as this one here should be conntected with an en dash. Description words "between" and "from" are the exceptions, and if these words were present you would then use a "to" instead. Panini!🥪15:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Someone is misunderstanding something but perhaps it is me. I would say "1 part in 1014 to 1 part in 1015" if the meaning is powers of 10. The code for this is:
Oh! Pardon me, I thought you were referring to the first 10−18 instance, and I didn't even notice the second one. ScientistBuilder, through my interpretation of the MOS, I would leave it as is. The MOS doesn't say too much about this case, but what it does say is to at least put a space between the numbers, to differentiate it from the other en dashes. Panini!🥪16:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that the exponents were actually being superscripted, but I just copied it over in my reply to avoid the original poster not noticing the changes I was suggesting. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Should parody religons be treated like real ones on wikipedia? Is there really a difference, when you think about it?
This page is not for expressing your views on organized religion or how they should be treated on Wikipedia; the Village Pump is for discussing things like how to treat particular topics; your views on organized religion may be expressed on social media. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia has articles on subjects which are notable - roughly, that there has been enough published about them in suitable sources. It makes no difference whether they are real or imaginary, serious or jokes, good or bad. A hoax or a joke that (or a fake religion) that has received independent coverage can be the subject of a Wikipedia article. A solid company, a worthy non-profit, a prolific YouTuber, or a popular band, that hasn't received such coverage cannot. --ColinFine (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse. You can force the visual editor to work on pretty much any page by adding the string ?veeaction=edit to the end of the page's URL in the address bar, but there will be some functions that won't work properly. For the most part, the Reply tool works well enough, though if you want more functions, you may want to make an account and try out Convenient Discussions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm far from an expert on this, but I believe the policy is that simply being a candidate in an election does not establish notability, independent of other reasons. Being elected in a general election, on the other hand, does establish notability. Therefore, if you can establish WP:GNG independent of election coverage, you're good, or if the candidate is elected, you're good, but if the election comes and goes, the candidate does not prevail, and they're not doing anything else notable, then there's no reason for an article about them. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@TheChunky - Yes, if an article passes GNG then of course it can be accepted. NPOL is a sub-standard of GNG that basically says "If the subject passes NPOL, then it is assumed to pass GNG". The reviewer, in saying that NPOL is not passed, is saying that they assume GNG is not passed because it hasn't been demonstrated in the sourcing of the article. casualdejekyll17:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Where do I express concerns about a draft Article for Creation?
You can use Template:AfC comment at the top of the article (right underneath the big box at the top) - {{afc comment|1=your comment here}} renders "Comment: your comment here". Additionally, you should check out WP:COI/N, the conflict of interest noticeboard. casualdejekyll17:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Casualdejekyll:, I wouldn't worry. The AfC people are a canny bunch when it comes to COI and sourcing, and will probably pick up on what's going on. It looks a bit of a marginal case anyway. I see only one supporting source of any merit, and that one (Washington Post) doesn't paint a great picture of notability. If it gets accepted, you can always send it to AfD. Given the shenanigans at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Globcal_International I'd be half expecting strange things to happen over this creation anyway. Elemimele (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Welcome back, ScientistBuilder! If you want to discuss something about the NOR policy, you can reach out to the users who are active in this field by leaving a message on the policies talk page. Of course, you can also always reach out to us as well. Panini!🥪17:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
... and if you have a specific example around your atomic-clock work or wherever, then you can also use the talk-pages of the articles to discuss anything you're proposing to write, if you feel it might be taken as OR, or anything that you think is OR that you think should be removed. Elemimele (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
how do i check if i should write a article on a notable site?
im thinking about writing a article on a website called Social Media TestDrive. i have checked, and it meets all three criteria. but how do i check if i should write an article since it meets the criteria? -just a quick reminder,Im really bad at this(talk)- 16:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Im really bad at this, hi! Well if you conclude the subject is WP:NOTABLE, I suggest making it a draft so you can improve the article more before publishing. To do so, on desktop, search "Draft:Social Media Test Drive". See the redlink? Click it, then write the article. Then publish it. But if you want to publish it to the mainspace directly, do the same thing but without "Draft:", although I suggest not to do this in case it's actually not notable. GeraldWL16:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
If you think something is notable enough, go ahead and start writing a draft in the draft space (Draft:TestDrive). Once your draft is submitted for review other people can decide if they think it's not notable enough. ― Levi_OPTalk16:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Im really bad at this: I can already tell you your draft is going to be denied right now. One paragraph and two sources aren't enough to merit an article. I suggest you add more information about the subject as well as add some more sources. I also would suggest you look at some already established good articles similar to your topic to see the layout of the article and what they might include. ― Levi_OPTalk18:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Content questions on politically charged article
Hello,
While I registered an account several years ago, I have not used it in a while. Upon my return, I've been looking through the pages at WP:CSB flagged as needing attention and noticed some possible problems on Neocolonialism. First, it's a philosophical and political idea but seems to be taken for granted as true/valid within the article's context (i.e., no alternative interpretations are offered), which could be a NPOV violation even though most of the views offered are sourced. (The section "Catholic Church" is not sourced, though it quotes two living people.) Concerns have also been raised on the article talk page about WP:COATRACKing of criticism of American foreign policy that have gone unanswered in almost 6 months. I'm just not sure what to do here, because any attempt to be bold and "fix" it could very well come across as POV pushing on my own part, especially without sufficient experience to make those sorts of judgment calls. ChromaNebula(talk)17:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I am wondering if it acceptable to replace the definition of the dot product's equal sign with a triple bar.
I looked for a mention of it in the MOS for Math and want to make sure its okay.
I have made a few changes to the Dot product page. ScientistBuilder (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
COI Request Related to Updating for Tag Removal; Best Route to Suggest an Update?
Hello WikipediaTeaHouse. This is a COI request to address issues with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomali, which I am an employee of. There are tags present at the top of the page I'd like to have removed. As a COI, what is the best way to suggest changes to bring it inline with Wikipedia standards to have the tags removed? In reading through responses made by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mhawk10 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quetstar, I believe I can suggest changes needed but am unsure of how to propose them. Is the best route to reach out to one of them directly via their talk page with the suggestions or to simply go in and make them and then remove the tags, if I believe they are no longer relevant?
@JWF+Anomali: To make a COI edit request, place {{Edit request}} on Talk:Anomali. As a paid editor, you should not make changes directly to the article. Instead, copy the article to your sandbox and make the changes there, and then link to the sandbox in your request. See WP:COI for more general information. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk19:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Sdkb: - Thanks for your help. To clarify. I will not make any changes directly to the article. After making the changes in my sandbox as advised, do I just need to add a link to the sandbox or add all the changes to the talk page as well?
@Sdkb: - Thanks. I was also advised by another editor to add a disclosure notice in my talk page prior to suggesting any edits, which I did. Can you advise if I did this correctly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JWF%2BAnomali
@Toofllab: It looks to me like there aren't enough sources on the subject, and it's likely to be declined. Almost all of the references are about their company's investments, not the person. The only source that actually mentions the subject in the title is an interview, and therefore a primary source, and should not be used often. >>> Wgullyn.talk();21:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Luke the Evangelist was an ethnic Syrian, this is an unignorable fact
hello, i’m a project associate helping with the rebrand for Stanislaus Regional Transit Authority (StanRTA). Modesto Area Express was absorbed into StanRTA. The folks at StanRTA want to edit the MAX wikipedia page. They want the name changed from MAX to StanRTA. Is there a way to do this without having to create a brand new page for folks to be redirected to? 2600:1012:B069:CC02:352C:3159:CD92:3829 (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello. After making the required declarations for a paid editor, you should raise an edit request (see that link for the details) on the talk page Talk:Modesto Area Express, specifying the changes you want making as precisely as possible, and providing reliable published sources, preferably ones independent of the Authority. ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To add someone to such a list, they must merit and preferably have an article about them. To merit an article, the person must meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The Atomic clock article has a section I am wondering about:
"The NIST-F2 caesium fountain clock operated by NIST was officially launched in April 2014, to serve as a new U.S. civilian frequency and time standard, along with the NIST-F1 standard. The planned uB performance level of NIST-F2 is . "At this planned performance level the NIST-F2 clock will not lose a second in at least 300 million years." NIST-F2 was designed using lessons learned from NIST-F1. The NIST-F2 key advance compared to the NIST-F1 is that the vertical flight"
I am wondering if the standallone quote starting with "At this planned..." should be in another sentence.
I looked for information on Wikipedia:Manual of Style on quotes, but there is a lot of guidelines around quotes so I wasn't able to find it.
Is this okay or could it be improved and changed for the better? ScientistBuilder (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@ScientistBuilder: I'm not quite understanding your question, because "I am asking if the fact that the quote is freestanding" is not a complete sentence. But Sdkb is saying that the quote should be paraphrased. I have done this. CodeTalker (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Translation
I am working on improving an article on Wolfram mathematica.
I would like to import text from the German article.
I am not sure if I need to have 500 edits as an extended confirmed editor to use Content Translation.
How do I make use of this article in German to add to the English article? ScientistBuilder (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@ScientistBuilder: As far as I am aware, only creating new articles with the content translation tool is restricted to EC users. Wether or not you use the content translation tool, please be aware that translations should be of a high quality and must comply with all english Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularely on sourcing and on BLP content. Please do not use machine translation tools, most often the results are garbage. Please see WP:Translation for more information. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
My first serious efforts for WP were translation from German, and I'm sure that was before I had 500 edits. The important thing is that you acknowledge the translated material as described at Help:Translation, and follow the guidelines there. It is super-important that the translation is of a good quality. Machine translations are often really dubious. The problem is that they deal with all the obvious stuff very well, which lures the user into a false sense of security: they break down on technical stuff, subtleties and ambiguous situations. If you want to use a machine translation, you will need either a combination of technical knowledge and willingness to go back to the sources, or a good knowledge of German yourself (sufficient to translate without the machine) in order to make sure the machine translation is accurate. But good luck, and happy editing! Translation is a very useful activity. Elemimele (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
ScientistBuilder, I do a lot of translations, mostly from French but also from German occasionally. I never use the Content Translation tool. Feel free to contact me on my Talk page for more about this. Also: attributing the translation in the edit summary is a strict requirement: see WP:TFOLWP. Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
What is the wikitext for linking to another Wikipedia article? For example, if I am writing about South Africa and I reference Johannesburg, what wikitext do I use on the word Johannesburg to make it turn blue so that when it is clicked on, it transitions to the page on Johannesburg? 102.132.134.49 (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
One thing you can do to remember that is [[goes|shows]] meaning you put what it links (goes) to first and you put what it shows second. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb13:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
how to make new page and get approvel
how to create new page and get approvel for same?I have written some of authentic pages but not able to get the approvel for same Umarpatelw (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
You have had two drafts declined for not having adequate references to confirm a bank's and a person's notability, and then you skipped using the draft/review process to create a person article in mainspace which has now been nominated for deletion for inadequate references. Learn more about what is required for referencing, especially for biographies of living people (WP:BLP). David notMD (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
You are a paid editor working on an article about a client company, and you initially skipped the Articles for Creation process to create the article in main space. It is on you to be competent. David notMD (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello! So a merge discussion I started is now over 10 days old. I'm attempting to request closure (I know I can close it myself however I'd like to make sure it's done properly) however I'm not exactly sure how. THe instructions at the requests for closure page don't seem to make any mention of merge requests. For those wondering, the discussion is here (yes I know i can do a wikilink but the title is rather long so this is easier). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654516:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
What you are looking for, Blaze Wolf, appears to be WP:MERGECLOSE. Follow steps 4 and 5, or, if you'd prefer to watch someone do it before you can confidently do so, I can also merge the articles for you if you'd like. Panini!🥪16:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Technically step 4 gives you incorrect instructions, telling you to use the discussion top and bottom templates instead of archive top and archive bottom @Panini!: Yes I'd like for you to do that for me. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654516:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
It looks like it's already been redirected and there wasn't much to salvage anyways (most of the Internet Channel article either was copied from the Wii Menu article or was poorly sourced with blogposts), so I've closed the discussion and moved an additional paragraph of content to the Wii Menu article. Panini!🥪17:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
(Asking this question in line with my previous one since they cover similar topics) Hello again! So there was a discussion at Talk:Ford F-150 Lightning (electric pickup)#Requested move 6 February 2022 about moving the article to a different title. It's been a week since the RM started and there seems to be consensus to support the move. Would I be able to go about closing this RM or do I have to have an admin close it? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654520:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Blaze Wolf; No, wherever you a party, you shouldn't be performing any such actions; be it a RM or an AfD. Closures should always be left to those who are uninvolved, preferably those who can perform such actions, like page-movers and admins in this case. ─ The Aafī(talk)16:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@TheAafi: Alright I figured that was the case. I wasn't sure if I could close it if the consensus was obvious and then go to the place for requesting a move that I can't do myself for technical reasons was something I would be allowed to do. Thanks for telling me! ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654516:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Broodiness: abnormal/normal behavior in hens?
This question relates to the article "List of abnormal behaviors in animals" link: [[22]]
In this article, we are given a list of abnormal behaviors in animals, and on this list, we see the behavior "Broodiness". The article states that broodiness is "(...) considered abnormal in modern commercial egg-laying hens". The reference to this is the article "The Effect of Certain Groups of Environmental Factors upon the Expression of Broodiness" by William H. Burrows and Theodore C. Byerly (note that the article is from 1937!). I am not able to find any evidence in this scientific article that states that broodiness in modern commercial egg-laying hens (or in any other hens or chickens) is considered abnormal behavior. Is there any reliable reference that actually does investigate broodiness as an abnormal behavior? How can Wikipedia claim that broodiness is an abnormal behavior when there is no scientific evidence on this? 130.225.188.130 (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I see the subject was indeed raised in the article talk-page, but I think it's so self-evident that referring to something as "modern" when the reference dates from 1937 that we can reasonably remove it. I've done so, and noted why in the talk-page. We'll see if anyone reverts. I also feel that the list is supposed to be of abnormal, not undesirable behaviours. It'd probably be possible to find sources saying that broodiness is normal natural behaviour in hens, just as a tendency for tigers to eat zoo-keepers is unfortunately natural to tigers. So all in all, it wasn't a good item in that list. Elemimele (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. All article talk pages can be edited just like any other page; you may click "edit" at the top of the page, or in a section header, to reply to a message. As I have done here- replies should be placed underneath the message you are replying to, indented with a colon. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Also after every time you leave a message you must sign your message with your signature (username and date) by putting 4 tildes ~~~~ at the end of your message. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb13:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@2001:44B8:41C6:F700:48:BBBA:CD3E:5971: if you're replying to a talk page message on an editor's own talk-page, they will be notified that you have done so. If you are replying to a message on an article talk-page, or to something that they have posted on your talk-page, it is a good idea to include the template {{re|username}} or some other variant so that they are notified. You'll see that I've done this here (except it hasn't worked properly because you're an IP address, not a full user-name! Sorry!). Otherwise they may have no clue. Elemimele (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
What happened with my edits
I am confused by the edits I made on Katherine Delmar Burke's page resulting in a two-week block. I've wanted the editing to be looked at but have been called incompetent, untrustworthy, and other things by wikipedia editors who were way to heavy in their edits and inserting mistakes in the meantime. I'd like to be off the block and have been creating content in my sandbox.[1] Yet it's standing still. Please help.Factsforsure44 (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Factsforsure44 (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
WikipediaNeko, the first Herald-Dispatch article is an opinion piece so its only acceptable use is to verify the writer's opinion. The second article is news reporting, so can be used to verify assertions that appear in that article. Cullen328 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
My name is Historylvr32, and as I read the article about the Mamma Mia film, I saw that there was a misspelling in a sentence. I was wondering were they trying to say coincides or coincidence? Thank you in advance for answering!Historylvr32 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Historylvr32 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a faster option, which is installing Twinkle, when you have reached autoconfirmed status. If you are experienced enough, you may be promoted to a faster reverting option, Rollback, where you can be signed up here. Severestorm2823:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
6millionarticles, accuracy in reverting is much more important than speed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an MMPORG. I have has access to rollback for quite a few years, but I use it rarely. Unless vandalism is glaringly obvious, I take at least a few moments to evaluate the edit and sometimes a few minutes. And if I decide to revert it, I leave an edit summary explaining why. Cullen328 (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, this relates to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lists_of_space_travelers. This AfD was opened by Tamingimpala at 8.15 this morning, as a recommended redirect. For the sake of honesty, I have a personal bias in that I think the redirect is daft, and have said so, but the consensus today has been against me, and the last person to post something was apparently the article's creator, who's voted redirect. Based on this, Tame/Tamingimpala has closed their own AfD at 20:34 on the day it was opened, with the result "Redirect".
I'm not going to argue the toss about the result, but I think the way this has happened is outrageous. AfD's are supposed to run for 7 days, not 12 hours, and closure as a result that's effectively "Delete" by the proposer just seems wrong to me.
I have asked, very strongly, that the closer re-open (on their talk page), but since the list has already been deleted, I'm not sure if this is too late? Or whether anything else should be done to ensure the material isn't gone for ever before it's properly debated. My worry is that others who've worked on lists of astronauts or have an opinion may not have logged on in the last 12 hours, in which case they'll find the entire thing has gone from initial proposal to final deletion between the time they had their evening meal, and finishing breakfast the following morning. I don't want to bludgeon a view that others don't have, and I'm not normally a stickler for procedural things, but this is just not right. Elemimele (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Update ignore the above, Tamingimpala has reopened the debate, and in any case, I've been hoodwinked by a very weird browser issue; on the PC/Browser I was using, it actually opened the wrong article when I clicked on the link in the AfD. This is totally weird, and I'm trying to find out why. Elemimele (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Elemimele FWIW, you're absolutely right that a nominator is not supposed to close their own nom at AfD unless it's a withdrawal/speedy keep situation, which this obviously wasn't. I note that this user appears to have done this a couple times now. Alyo(chat·edits)22:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I apologise for causing confusion. I have no idea why I landed up at the wrong list. It meant I got all hot under the collar about the deletion of a list that wasn't being proposed for deletion. It's been one of those days. Elemimele (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Oh, and in fairness to Tamingimpala, the correct article was actually written by one person, so once they'd agreed it was inappropriate, I think it would have been okay for the original creator to tag it for speedy deletion as their own unwanted work, with no significant contribution from others, so I guess Tamingimpala was only jumping a very small gun! I was looking at the wrong article. Big oops! Apologies all round. Elemimele (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
All good! Alls well that ends well on that front--as I said it's just noticeable that Taming happened to have done this twice in the span of a week, so regardless of what happens with this AfD it's better to leave him a note now about non-admin closures like that. Alyo(chat·edits)22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
WikiVersity Incorrect Formatting of Images and Bullet Points or Numbering
It seems to me like they are some sort of bullet point, although I'm not sure why they are being used instead of actual bullets. It doesn't seem like a formatting issue, though. ― TunaNoSurprisesPlease22:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't see a white square in Firefox but a bold double-headed diagonal arrow: . The character is U+F0D8 in a Unicode Private Use Area so it doesn't have a standardized meaning. I don't know why it's used there, maybe an error. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by localized time but I don't think wikitext can show a time which depends on the time zone of the user. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
There are userboxes that can display a localized time if that's what you want. I use this one: {{Time userbox|-6}} (the number following is your time zone's difference from UTC) ― TunaNoSurprisesPlease00:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Talk page archiving
Could someone with a working User Talk page archive have a look at mine and let me know why it isn't working? I'm not expecting it to run instantaneously, but it's been a week. I'm assuming I'm overlooking something obvious? -- asilvering (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Asilvering: Hello silvering! I myself don't use cluebot (instead I use Lowercase sigmabot III) but I've heard that Cluebot doesn't really have a regular schedule for running so it might be a bit before it gets archived. If you'd like a bot that will regularly archive your talk page, you can take a look at my talkpage for the code for Lowercase sigmabot III. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654501:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@David Biddulph I was holding off on doing that until cluebot had actually come by the first time. But I realize now that it already had, and just ignored the top post. Problem solved. Thanks anyway! -- asilvering (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Wait... it HAS come by. But it's missed the first thing on the page. Possibly because it was originally added without a proper heading... Sorry for maligning you, cluebot. I'll just have to move that first post over to the archive myself, I guess. -- asilvering (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (February 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Hello, I removed duplicate links, moved external links into references to the body of text, and condesed to be less repetitive. I do not know how or whom to ask to remove the notice. I did read the guidance and I wasn't able to deduce how to do it myself, or if that was even a good idea. Any guidance most appreciated. AlaskaStar49 (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello - I'm new to wikipedia and tried uploading my first page, but it got declined. The user interface/experience is awful on this site. Can someone help me get a page approved? Thanks! Lowhanging8ball (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
The draft you submitted does not have nearly enough content in it to be accepted as an article, let alone it's lack of reliable sources. To improve it, you'll need to add more information in the article that is reliably and independently sourced. ― TunaNoSurprisesPlease22:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Lowhanging8ball: Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you've never edited Wikipedia before. To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather independentreliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Finding articles a particular user has created
Is there a simple way to find what articles I, or a specific user, have initialled created? I have been around here for a long time and I am curious how many articles I have created over the years. --Bduke (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
ScientistBuilder, presumably this is an image that should be uploaded to Commons (if anywhere). For questions about images for (possible) uploads to Commons, better ask there; specifically, Village pump/Copyright for copyright matters, Help desk for almost any other matter that you're soon likely to encounter. -- Hoary (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Resubmission in mainspace
I have submitted a draft for review but now I have already made 10 contributions. Can I somehow fasten the process and move it to mainspace ? Sjanapgs (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Welcome to Wikipedia, @Sjanapgs, the only way that you are able to speed up the process in Articles for Creation is that you add WikiProject tags, what you do to add them is when you look at the draft, the yellow box will have a list of information on creating an article. You expand the section saying improving the odds of a speedy review and press the button of add WikiProject tags. When you go to the page for adding the tags, you type the general categories that the page falls under and then click add tags. This method will not always work, however it can speed up the review as reviewers may review the page over another one if it falls under something of interest to them. Hopefully that answered your question, Zippybonzo (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sjanapgs, Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, please could you tell us what article that is? Secondly it appears you are barely 4 days old, that is a little too soon to decide to create articles. Penultimately you seem to be in a hurry what seems to be the problem? Is it something we can help you out with? If not, then please note that we have no deadline here, except for un-submitted Draft articles which haven’t been edited in 6 months. To the crux of your question, what I want you to understand is drafts that are submitted are thrown into a pool as opposed to a queue so basically Patience is the most imperative factor at the moment, whilst there are ways to hasten the process, it is my opinion that those are more theoretical than practical. You have fulfilled your obligations by submitting, it is then behoove of editors with the AFC pseudo perm to fulfill theirs but please have patience. Celestina007 (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Sjanapgs: Draft declined with many comments about what is wrong. Fix all that. Yes, technically you can convert a draft to a mainspace article without going through AfC, but if it still has fatal flaws, then the New Pages Patrol may revert it to draft, propose a Speedy Delete, or start an Articles for Deletion. David notMD (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Can someone please guide me on how to get my first article live?
This is the first time I am writing an article. It is about the biography of a person. I came across this person during the first wave of covid. The article was rejected twice. The reviewer also mentioned there is COI involved and that I have used promotional phrasing.
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Manoj_P_Kudtharkar
The help I receive from here will be highly appreciated. JosephTonio (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
JosephTonio, the draft was rejected. You are told: "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." There's a big "STOP" sign. All of this means what it says. Please stop. What's lacking is evidence of notability, and your fellow editors cannot miraculously generate this. -- Hoary (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Eisshhh Hoary, @JosephTonio, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, now, whilst Hoary (a very brilliant mind here) might have been a tad bit too frank about their response, they are however correct, when your article is rejected at AFC it means you have no option of resubmission, AFC serves for many purposes, snd one of them is, accepting an article because it might survive an AFD, but when rejected it means the AFC editor believes the article either is a WP:NOT article(predominantly promotional articles) or a blatant notability fail they are confident the article will definitely not survive an AFD. I’m sorry as I believe this wasn’t the response you were probably hoping to get. Do feel free to ask more questions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
JosephTonio, the only thing I'd add is that AfC reviewers are both fair and human. If, having read WP:PERSON you feel that you misunderstood what was expected, and can now do a better job: if you are absolutely certain you can find several sources that have written about the subject in reasonable depth (not passing references in articles about something else), sources that are independent of the subject (not press-releases from events in which he's taken part, interviews with him etc.), and which are reliable sources (not blogs by people whose reliability we do not know), by all means engage the AfC reviewer in conversation. Post three really good references on their talk-page and they'll almost certainly be open to reconsidering. But if you can't find a couple of really good sources, there is genuinely no hope, no matter how many poorer sources are available. Lots of the best people in the world don't have WP articles! Elemimele (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Remember that character with a jigsaw puzzle piece as it's head when you are uploading a file? Me too.
Well, I decide that I should call it as Jigsie. Do you really like that name? TwentytwoAug (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Do you have an actual question to ask about editing Wikipedia or are you just shooting the breeze? Because this isn't really an appropriate question for the Teahouse. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654514:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I started making some edits on wikipedia recently, however there is no update on whether or not its been approved. I also did not get a notification that I made an edit, however the wikipedia page shows that we have. Nailsnailsnails (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
That is unless the page is pending changes protected. Usually pending changes protection won't affect you, however the page relating to it says this, "Edits by unregistered or new editors (and any subsequent edits by anyone) are hidden from readers who are not logged in, until reviewed by a pending changes reviewer or admin." ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654515:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
To become a autoconfirmed user, must all of my 10 edits be a pending changes protected page? Or I can edit any 10 pages and become a autoconfirmed user? thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nailsnailsnails (talk • contribs) 16:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Pending changes protection isn't used all that often (usually it's either semi-, extended-confirmed, or full protection) so you don't usually have to worry about it. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654517:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Userpage
I seem to remember making a userpage, yet it shows the metawiki page. Is this an error, or did I actually never do this? Thanks in advance, Caedem (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I have been on Wikipedia for a while now and like, I don't really have anything to do and I want to do something. So, like what can I do to help Wikipedia? Jawico666 (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, WikipediaNeko. There is no formal system for requesting a rewrite: since Wikipedia is a community of volunteers, such a system would probably not get much uptake (even the existing system of requested articles does not often result in an article getting written). The best thing to do would be to start a discussion on Talk:Eusebius of Alexandria, explaining your concerns, and how you think the article could be improved. You're also welcome to have a go at improving it yourself. You could also post at the talk pages of one or other of the WikiProjects named at the top of the article's talk page, and see if anybody in those project was interested in working with you on the article. ColinFine (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
How do I publish about a company on Wiki.
I have been pushing an article about a company for about a month. And over time, the article has been deleted. Can anyone assist me on what not to include?
Presently, I include the link to the company's website in the article as well as the services and products produced. It also includes the link to the product on the company's website...
I am in dire need of assistance and I will appreciate one ASAP.
Many thanks in advance Javatheseertech (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
QuickQuokka was a bit too quick with that reply. A person who works for a company (WP:PAID) or has an unpaid connection (perhaps the founder is your sibling (WP:COI)) is not prohibited from creating an article, but those must be declared on your User page, and the great majority of the content of the draft must be verified by references not connected to the company. Except for a few simple facts, using the company website as a references is a no-no, and those references do nothing to confirm the company's notability. David notMD (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
As I am not an Administrator I cannot see your attempt at an article. However, I can see that it has been Speedy deleted four times, and you have been warned that if you try again you will be indefinitely blocked. My guess is that none of your references indicated the company is Wikipedia-notable. David notMD (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I am an administrator, Javatheseertech, so I can read your deleted drafts. Your latest submission was nothing like a neutral encyclopedia article. It was a self-promotional company brochure written in the first person plural, with an exclamation mark to show excitement. Your draft utterly fails to show that your company meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Do not submit any similar drafts or you will be blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
You are forbidden about creating regular articles in the main part of the encyclopedia if you have a CoI, Javatheseertech, but you are allowed to create draft articles, either as a user page or as an article beginning "Draft:" and have an experienced editor review the article to check that it is acceptable. See WP:AfC. Please be open about your relationship to the subject of the draft when submitting. — Charles Stewart(talk)19:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
No it isn't; 232,78 degrees Celsius/451 degrees Fahrenheit are the temperatures at which paper (books in this case) self-immolates. Read the novel if you want to know more. Lectonar (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Lectonar: Yes, but the name of the book is "Fahrenheit 451".
No-one is searching for "Celsius 232.78" instead of "Fahrenheit 451".
Well, my reply was to your original question: it isn't a joke, it's not totally obscure and it's a cultural reference to boot. I am going back to look at and process some page-protection requests. No need to discuss this back and forth here. Lectonar (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
For those wondering, self-immolation is pretty much spontaneous combustion (given the meaning of the word and context I'm given). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654514:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
It may be relevant to this discussion that Celsius 232 is the title of an updated play version of Bradbury's Farenheit 451, the title of a short story (which I've read but can't find a reference to) written in response to the novel, and the name of a major Spanish SF and Fantasy Festival. I don't doubt that there are other Bradbury-inspired uses of it.
[Edited to add] Sorry, not a story but an album and poetry collection actually called Centigrade 232 – same idea, differently defined temperature scale :-). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.130.191 (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, perhaps it should be added to the article. And I'm not arguing in favour of the redirect page, I just thought the information might inform the discussion. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.130.191 (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm making a userbox for somebody but it just shows up as "/UserboxesSpecial:MyPage/SARBOI/". I am logged in and I have no idea what to do about this. Can somebody please help me? DinosaurTrexXX33(chat?)20:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Read WP:BIO and WP:BLP (only for creating biographies of living persons) for further information, biographies are required to contain references, no original research, and many more. If you are unsure if the biography meets the criteria, please create a draft at WP:DRAFT. Severestorm2823:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
You appear to be working on Draft:Michael Travisano. Do not submit it yet. All of the refs are to a few of his science journal articles. That does nothing toward establishing his notability (and there is way too much detail of the science). What is essential is finding and using as references published material tht is ABOUT Travisano. David notMD (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@Nmedinac I have fixed some minor formatting errors, but the key thing for you to do is ensure the article meets WP:NPROF - the criteria for notability for scientists to have an article about them here. He may well do so, but at the moment this draft reads like an inside job by a student or co-worker. Statements like "Mike Travisano is a central figure in biology at the University of Minnesota." are utterly pointless and verge on sycophantic. For a professor of biology, I should hope they are a central figure at their own university! You need to demonstrate how he, through his work, is notable outside of it!
Do please read and follow this guide in declaring an obvious Conflict of Interest with the subject you want to write about. (We don't mind that you know them - we just need you to declare that for transparency). Ensure every single statement you add is supported with a reliable, published citation. If you can't prove that at the age of two he moved to Newark, just remove that bit. You may cite a university website listing his biography, because we presume there has been editorial control and checks over what they allow him to publish in any online cv there. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I am working on an article and am wondering how to add a tweet as a reference. I know how to use {{citeTweet}} but am wondering how to use a Tweet as a source. ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@ScientistBuilder: An inline citation is the most common type of reference. Please say which tweet you wan to use as a source of what in which article, and try to say which type of reference you want if it's not an inline citation. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi I'm working on the Donella Meadows page. It's talk page requests the addition of photos and I've found an official website with photos that asks for people to write to an email address for permission to use them so it seems like they'd be open to use. But I'm not seeing this case covered exactly in guidance. How would you suggest I handle approaching them to ask for Wikipedia to have permission to use? Not sure how to email them (i.e. do I use a personal email) and what procedure I should ask them to follow if they are willing.
Thanks KNY22 (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC) KNY22 (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi @KNY22! Welcome to the Teahouse! It sounds like the images are reserved. See WP:ERFP for what to do next, which is send over a form (any email you'd like, but make sure to mention the existence of permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) You may also want to pop over to Commons' Copyright Village Pump. casualdejekyll02:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
hello, I wrote an article and then Wikipedia send me a message like this
So, now, I want to know that, will my article be deleted? I gave too much mainstream media's references...even then it be deleted that will not be fair.........thanks Muhammadyeakubhasan111 (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow host, I have a question about fair use images. For the article List of The Book of Boba Fett characters, you can see the top image is a collage of 4 images. I was told at the Commons Village Pump that I would need to provide the fair use information for each image. I thought I did so, but I got a message from B bot on my talk page saying that because the images are orphan files they will be deleted. So how do I go about providing the fair use information for each picture in the collage? ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb19:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Kaleeb18: It looks like the reason the files are up for deletion is because the individual files themselves aren't being used on the article anymore but instead a single file containing each individual one. Not sure if the individual files can be kept with the reasoning that they are used in the single file or not, but my guess would be no. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Relax. There are multiple versions of the image available, at different resolutions. Only one of those versions is in use. The others will be deleted. DS (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@DragonflySixtyseven: I know that, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I was told at the Commons Village Pump that I would need to provide the fair use information for each image. I thought I did so, but I got a message from B bot on my talk page saying that because the images are orphan files they will be deleted. So how do I go about providing the fair use information for each picture in the collage?. Am I supposed to provide a fair use image for each image in the collage. If so how do I do that. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb04:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Suggest reliable sources to find info about boy bands
Hi! I am looking for reliable sources to find info about a Japanese boy band. Could anyone suggest some websites that are considered as reliable sources to find info about Japanese boy bands? Resmise (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
This is in reference to Draft:MicroPublication Biology. This is the article I created and had submitted for review. It is now rejected with the following comments-
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
My article is about an academic journal. I would like to point to several other existing Wikipedia articles about academic journals with similar references-
Hello, FluffyPinkDude. This is about Draft:MicroPublication Biology. Your draft has not been rejected. Instead, it has been declined. That is an important distinction. Wikipedia has over 6.4 million articles, and frankly, many of them are of poor quality. An argument that consists of "I found other old poorly referenced articles on Wikipedia, so I should allowed to create a new poorly referenced article" is not an argument likely to gain much traction. You need to provide references to reliable published sources that are entirely independent of this journal, that devote significant coverage to the journal. Do any of your current references meet that standard? Cullen328 (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Cullen328 Thank you for making that distinction it really helped. So according to me, several of them should meet the standard, but I am clearly wrong. To improve my understanding of the guidelines I am giving examples of the following 2 references. Let me know whether these meet the criteria.
1) [1] This reference is a peer reviewed publication authored by people who are not affiliated to the journal at all. They talk about how this journal is helping in micropublishing.
Hello, FluffyPinkDude. I do not claim to be an expert in the reliability of sources discussing academic journals, but the first source you linked to seems to be a publication affiliated with UC Berkeley and that seems to be a reliable source devoting significant coverage. The second seems to be a directory or database entry that does not include any original coverage. So, my preliminary assessment is "one good source, one bad source". Multiple references to reliable, independent sources devoting significant coverage are required. Cullen328 (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
As the subject heading states, I am just wondering what the procedure was. I am not gunning for anyone in particular but did notice some unscrupulous removals of my works by IP addreses which have no merit to removal.
I am wondering about what to do about this Yuendemu artist's incorrectly spelled name on wiki. The name on wiki is currently Norah Napaljari Nelson. The Darwin Supreme Court, where one of her paintings has been translated into a mosaic floor, lists her name as Nora Napaltjari Nelson, which would seem like an authoritative source, but I have made errors in editing before and I am anxious to not make more.
I also know that she passed away sometime in the last 3-6 years, because I know people who knew her, but I can find no online reference or record. I only have a printed brochure from the recent 30th anniversary of the opening of the Supreme Court that implies her passing, and I have not found that online anywhere.
Advice most welcome. Teepeemee (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia (not just wiki) article on Norah Nelson Napaljarri explains that 'Napaljarri' is Warlpiri, and 'Napaltjarri' is the Western Desert dialect. That seems clear enough. I don't think a label in a Darwin court would be an authoritative source. The National Gallery of Victoria might be more reliable.--Shantavira|feed me09:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Plain Text
Is there a way to extract only plain text from a Wikipedia article and no math or science formatting, images, HTML, or another specially formats?
I am working on pasting text into a translator.
I would also like to find only text when reading articles out loud for Spoken Wikipedia Project. ScientistBuilder (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
The simplest way is to use JS, get the DOM node for the content you want and call .innerText on it. If need be, you can clone the entire tree, remove the elements you want actually remove and then convert with .innerText —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@ScientistBuilder: It won't solve much of your problem, but you might want to try getting a more visual-friendly layout for pages. Years ago I installed a script that reduced a lot of the elements for narrating.
Code
/* Toggle VF */
// timestamp 10 Jun 2018 1603
var currpgName = mw.config.get( 'wgPageName' );
var currURL = document.location.href;
var prntable = currURL.endsWith("&printable=yes");
var torf = prntable.toString();
var myFlag; // must be defined here
var currFlag;
function chkmyFlag() {
try{
currFlag=window.localStorage.getItem("myFlag");
} catch (e) {
}
if (currFlag=="VF" && torf=="true")
{
nullFlag();
dotogg();
}
}
chkmyFlag();
function nullFlag() {
try {
window.localStorage.setItem("myFlag", "null");
} catch(e) {
}
}
function setFlag() {
try {
window.localStorage.setItem("myFlag", "VF");
} catch (e) {
}
}
function clrFlag() {
try {
window.localStorage.clear();
} catch(e){
}
}
// Printable VF Button
mw.loader.using( 'mediawiki.util', function () {
$( document ).ready( function() {
var prntVF = mw.util.addPortletLink ( 'p-coll-print_export', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=' + currpgName + '&printable=yes', "Printable VF", "p-VF", "Voice-friendly version for printing [b]","b");
$( prntVF ).click( function() {
setFlag();
});
});
});
// Toggle VF Button
var next="center";
mw.loader.using( 'mediawiki.util', function () {
$( document ).ready( function() {
var ToggVF = mw.util.addPortletLink( "p-tb", "#", "Toggle VF", "t-Toggle VF","Convert to Voice-Friendly format[4]",'4');
// alert('next is: ' + next);
$( ToggVF ).click( function() {
dotogg();
if (next=="center") {firstHeading.style.textAlign = "center";
$( ".Template-Fact" ).hide(); next="left"; }
else
{firstHeading.style.textAlign = "left";
$( ".Template-Fact" ).show(); next="center";}
} );
} );
} );
@ScientistBuilder: Keep in mind that most web browsers have a "reader view" or something similar. Essentially, this displays a web page as just plain text, without any formatting, navigation or other paraphernalia. So you could use that to display a Wikipedia article, then simply copy and paste the text from the browser to your translation tool. Mike Marchmont (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Advice on how to demonstrate or evidence achievements
Saeed Alememari is summiting the highest point in every United Nations country. He has recently completed all the countries in Central America and many of the Caribbean. He has a lot of photogrpahic eveidence and Garmin GPS records of all achievements.
What are the best ways this evidence can included into a new Wikipedia page which will be constructed.
Newspaper article, YouTube, TV, Instagram, other ?
I would appreciate any advice on the best way that these achievements can be included ?
Welcome to the Teahouse, Tav Chlordane. For general guidance on this, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The best type of source would be secondary, so anything reporting on Alememari's achievements that is a reliable source (i.e. has a reputation for fact checking). This could be newspapers, television reports, and in the longer term, books. YouTube content would only be appropriate if it's been produced by an organisation with a reputation for reliability, such as a television company. Instagram posts would likely be primary sources and not appropriate here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Also, it might be a little WP:TOOSOON for an article about this endeavour, since it is not yet finished and the goal not yet achieved – how significant will it be if, for some reason, he has to give up next week? Remember, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, has WP:no deadline, and is not a vehicle for promotion.
Of course, none of this stops you from accumulating references and text in anticipation of Saeed Alememari's success, either on your own device, or here but in a WP:DRAFT rather than a Mainspace Article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.130.191 (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy link:User:Raihanprodhania/sandbox. The user had started this on their userpage which someone moved to a draft. I felt this wasn't correct way and reverted the move, and copied the whole content to this user's sandbox. Leaving the assistance and other stuff to other Teahouse hosts. Thanks ─ The Aafī(talk)08:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I came across this page the other day and found out that the page has included only parties that are present in the LegCo (which all are pro-Beijing) and excluded parties that are only in the District Council (which are the minor pro-Beijing parties and the various pro-democracy parties). This contradicts the subheading (Parties and groups in the Legislative and District Councils) which implies both should be included.
Checking the history it seems that it was removed in [23], then restored later in [24], but then removed again in [25] disguised as a table formatting cleanup. It seems that all these people were only focussed on modifying the table, yet did not even bothered to change the date in the paragraph before, which is nearly 5 years ago.
As I'm still new to editing on Wikipedia, I'm not sure if there is a violation of certain policy. (There's too many policy pages and I'm not bothered to read through all of those) Can someone more experienced look into the matter? Wpi31 (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:Digital Rights in the Caribbean
Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Resolved
Courtesy link: Draft:Scott M. Gibson TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
CiaPan (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment: your comment here".
