I need help with the NCO ranks, i already made the png files how the ranks look but i dont know how to modify the code so i make it look like the greek one, cypriot army have 2 nco ranks for every rank, one for permanent NCOs that completed military academy and the other for SYP-EPY (in Greece EPOP-EMTh) for contracted NCOs that cannot become Warrant Officers, example bellow.
NCO and other ranks
NCO ranks (excl. OR-9 and conscript ranks) have undergone some changes through the years, the latest being in 2004.[1]
^ abGreece has only one level of Warrant Officer. According to the current issue (2021) of STANAG 2116, the Greek Warrant Officers are included in OR-9, however they are afforded the privileges of an officer. See STANAG 2116 note 29, page D-9
Repeat/Reuse Citation in a single article - How To
I want the quick and easy way to correctly refer to the same external source more than once.
Can you help me understand what is what? I believe that "name" which appears in italics, is the English name I arbitrarily choose to refer to the original citation, but I do not understand what "TEXT OF THE CITATION" means. Is that the entire original hyertext that generated the original citation? LBDon (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be the whole original text. So you could use <ref name="cbc">{{cite web|url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/saskatoon-regina-working-on-solutions-as-more-encampments-pop-up-in-frigid-temperatures-1.7403970|title=Saskatoon, Regina working on solutions as more encampments pop up in frigid temperatures|publisher=CBC News|date=9 Dec 2024}}</ref>
Hey, I have been working upon this draft, The draft is about the List of the episodes of an animated Cartoon series - Chhota Bheem. Here's the draft that I've created- Draft:List of Chhota Bheem Episodes. I'm facing following doubts kindly assist me
@JesusisGreat7 It is always a good idea to create drafts if the topic is supported by references which pass WP:42 (a shorthand for what is required. We want article on verifiably notable topics. The reverse is also true, we have no requirement at all for articles where notability either does not exist or cannot be verified.
If Wikipedia is not a newspaper per WP:NOTNEWS, then why are there articles about ongoing events? Some events such as wars I understand since we cannot predict when they will end, but for things like hurricanes, there is almost always an article made before the storm even dissipates that gets updated as information comes out. For these smaller-scale events, shouldn't articles not be made until the event is over? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions12:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:ApteryxRainWing NOTNEWS is more of a clarification of what should and should not be covered on Wikipedia. Ultimately, if an article is created and later turns out to be non-notable, it can be merged with other articles or simply gotten rid of. A good example of this would be the difference between why Storm Darragh and Storm Arwen were notable (red weather warnings are rare in our neck of the woods), while Storm Bert and Storm Aileen were merged into windstorm season articles. CommissarDoggoTalk?12:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ApteryxRainWing: NOTNEWS (and similarly WP:RECENT and WP:NOTEVERYTHING), applies more to how a Wikipedia article is expected to be written than whether it should be written; the latter is covered by WP:NOTABILITY. So, if an ongoing event is considered to be Wikipedia notable per WP:NEVENT so that a stand-up article to be written about it, it should be written in a formal encyclopedic style and not in the journalistic style in which many newspaper articles typically are written. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How far do original research and citation policies really go?
A few days ago, I nominated Redout for deletion due to lack of sources surrounding gameplay, development, and reception and people overwhelmingly voted to keep it. Because of this, I wonder about something. How far do the original research and citation policies really go? For example, if I were improving the gameplay section for Redout, WP:BLUE says I could add easily verifiable information without a citation. In Redout's case, couldn't I add a sentence along the lines of "In Redout, your ship has the ability to strafe sideways, which can be combined with steering to allow the player to drift". It's easily verifiable since it is literally the first thing you are taught aside from accelerating. I wouldn't say its common knowledge, but it still is such an easy thing to verify. Maybe this wasn't the best example, but basically I just want to know why we need to cite sources for fundamental mechanics in video games that can be verified by playing the game for thirty seconds. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions13:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David notMD said it's fine to write a gameplay or plot section without citations since those types of things can be verified by playing the game itself, but citations are still necessary for general information (release dates, developers, DLC, etc.) or critic reception. I rewrote the entire gameplay and plot sections for the Redout article. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions15:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Plot' is almost universally uncited because it's understood by default that all of the information presented could be reproduced simply by consuming a piece of media. Moreover, the sources are almost always going to be primary to that piece of media because few if any pieces of media have their plots covered beat-for-beat in a coherent, linear manner by reliable, independent sources. (Meanwhile, actually citing this information would absolutely clog up the 'References' section with these trivial citations.) Video games suffer from an additional issue that books and even movies tend not to have too, which is that expressing the plot strictly via citations can be extremely challenging depending on how dialogue-heavy the game is. With all this in mind, citations are generally the exception, not the norm.
'Gameplay' is a bit different and a bit trickier. Maybe I'll write an essay about this someday if someone hasn't yet, but games journalism outlets very often do cover a wide variety of the most important gameplay elements. The manual will similarly generally give more focus to the most important gameplay elements. Just writing untethered from those, an editor can get bogged down in meticulous detail not necessary for a general understanding of the gameplay (often lumped in as WP:CRUFT). Finally, the citations – unlike for 'Plot' – tend not to be to the media itself, and thus I as a reader don't have to directly engage with the media to verify what you've written. Thus, I would say that citations for 'Gameplay' are equivocal: you don't need them per se, but like at Ratchet & Clank, I would say it's useful for keeping yourself in line while writing and does at least help verifiability as a reader.
TL;DR: Plot, basically never with rare exceptions. Gameplay, not strictly necessary but can keep you from going off-track and can still be useful to the reader for verifiability. TheTechnician27(Talk page)01:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So Redout is a bit of a special case. The story and history of the world is told as you progress through the game, since the lore is told through ship and track descriptions. As for its gameplay, game journalists often fail to properly explain games like Redout. When I rewrote the gameplay section, I tried to include only the most important information (because Wikipedia is not a strategy guide, otherwise I would be screaming "strafe before steer" from the highest mountaintop) that would give someone a general idea of the gameplay without going too in-depth. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions12:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Taabii. Do you mean "How do I make a WikiProject active again"? I imagine, Timtrent, that Taabii is here because the message states: "Consider looking for related projects for help or ask at the Teahouse." If I were you, Taabii, I would go to the talk page for WikiProject India and ask if anyone would like to join you in collaboratively improving and discussing articles related to Jharkhand. A WikiProject is believed to be inactive when there is no or very little collaborative activity on a WikiProject. Also pinging Tinucherian to see if they may want to/be able to assist in getting the project active again. TheTechnician27(Talk page)01:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, for this article, protection prohibits edits unless more than 30 days and 500 edits. You can post a request on the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This specific article requires Extended Confirmed permissions. You must be logged into an account that is 30 days old with 500 edits. However, based on your random jumble of characters in your username and the fact you have no other edits, this may be an account used only for vandalism. If my assumption is incorrect, you may post a request with the edit you wish to be made on the talk page of the article. Ali Beary(talk2me!)(stalk me?!)13:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might add, Bookminder, as you're a bit new to Wikipedia: I haven't seen your edits to restless legs syndrome yet since they clearly didn't go through, but I highly suggest that you read WP:MEDRS before trying to contribute to articles on medical subjects. It's considerably stricter than our general guideline on reliable sources due to the high risk that medical misinformation can legitimately hurt or even kill people. The edits you tried to publish may have already abided by it, but it's something I think anyone trying to edit in this domain should at least be somewhat familiar with. TheTechnician27(Talk page)01:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At View history I also see no evidence of an added paragraph or it being deleted. Did you not press the Publish changes button at the bottom? David notMD (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely an instance of spam, and it definitely isn't appropriate. They've done this two other places too, and I really don't know how they landed on your username for this. Thankfully it seems on the surface like a light-hearted joke, but I imagine they'll be blocked once one of the several administrators who usually hang around here see this, because it's still disruptive spam. For now, I might just remove it from your talk page if you want or just leave it up as the strange little anomaly it is. TheTechnician27(Talk page)01:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Interstellarity: You're free to remove content from your user talk page as long as you follow WP:BLANKING; however, if you want it hidden in your user talk page's page history, you will need to ask an administrator to do that. I don't think WP:SUPPRESS is needed here, but you could ask an admin to WP:REVDEL it if it bothers you knowing it's in your page history. As for what to do about the account who added the post, you could (1) do nothing, (2) do one of the things suggested in WP:SPAM#Warning spammers or (3) go straight to one of the administrator noticeboards. Each person responds differently, but perhaps either (1) or (2) would suffice in this case, and (3) is only needed if they come back a do it again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it as not to encourage addition of more spam links. I don't think it is a joke; there are dedicated spambots crawling the web to add spam links to wiki websites. If they continue adding those links, I recommend reporting it to WP:AIV. Catalk to me!01:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Publishing, after drafting
It had been some years since I'd started an article from scratch, and my later WR contributions have been additions of information, wording improvements, discussions on talk pages (etc) — pertaining to existing articles. Publishing procedures have changed.
Over six weeks or so, I developed a draft of a new article. Partway through, I'd received a Comment saying that the tone needed to be more flat and dry. So I worked toward that. In my latest drafts, I had shortened the article as well. This is what I'd like to publish:
Hello, @Joel Russ. Since you have moved it to main space, there is nothing you need to do to it. You can carry on improving it, as can anybody else.
However, I think you should work at improving your sources. I'm not sure what ref 10 ("The introduction to "The Briarpatch Book"") is, but I'm pretty sure that it is not a reliable source, and so, should not be cited, period. The "History of the Briarpatch" is not published by the Wayback machine, but is a self-published source by the Briarpatch community, and the entry should say this (see Template:cite web#Using "archive-url" and "archive-date" (and optionally "url-status") for webpages that have been archived). As far as I can see, you have no independent sources for the existence of Briarpatch, so I question whether it is sufficiently notable to be included in an article about Raymond.
First, thanks so much for your reply. As to my reference #10, I'd like to leave it in place for the time being, if possible. The writer (Ms Bedi) directly copied a quote from the book. A problem I've faced is that, locally, I can't get my hands on a copy of Michael Phillips' The Birarpatch Book (ISBN10: 0912078634). True, my issue would be resolved if I can purchase a copy from a used-book seller.
Independent sources have certainly attested to the existence of the Briatpatch Network (established to support small businesses), e.g. Kirk's book, also page 306 of The Next Whole Earth Catalog, and elsewhere.
Your replacement contents web-template contents for reference #12 is a very helpful item. So thanks for that, and for the generosity of your entire response.Joel Russ (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles do not dominate court records. If there is a record of a divorce in 2020, Kahn and Ellison were married. She is wife #5. Clearly on the sky, but it's public record. I don't know what editor motives are for using "reportedly" sources over a court records but I am sure Ellison is pleased. Polymestor 17 (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The users would be WP:SPAs (single purpose accounts). Perhaps there is a conflict of interest, or paid editing. Check if there is promotion or whitewashing. Tagging is only needed if there looks to be a problem. Read the essay for more detail on how to cope with a SPA. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the SPA question, the article is seriously under-referenced: only 4 sources and 5 citations in total, and none in Sections 1–4 or 7–10. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's worse than that. Even though the article has been around since 2007, all four references are primary sources, mostly interviews, so none of them even are adequate to assist in establishing notability (which, however, is probably not in doubt if the proper sources were brought in). This 14kb article lacks even a single, secondary source to verify any of it. If presented as a draft at Afc, I would instantly decline it. I've raised this at WP:BLPN. Mathglot (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested in learning the very fundamentals of how to reason about axioms and proofs, I can't disagree with Moritz at the Math Stack Exchange who suggests "How to Prove It: A Structured Approach" by Velleman. I also recommend reading a recently featured Wikipedia article algebra, as algebraic structures are a core component of pure math. But yes, the reference desk is liable to be a more useful source of information here. (only answering in earnest as a fun novelty). TheTechnician27(Talk page)05:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am really confused about new articles and notability. I picked some well known people (Rowlett and Steckles) and researched them using independent sources and avoiding their own websites. The first has been rejected. The rejection links to academic notability criteria. This person is an academic, but I'm not arguing their research is notable or that they have won lots of awards, etc. I cited several newspaper articles and several in-depth interviews and I don't know why this isn't enough, especially compared to other people in UK maths that I can find Wikipedia pages for. I try to explain in reply to the rejection, but I'm not sure if that gets read. Any advice welcome! Maths11 (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your drafts were Declined (Rejected is more severe). The two reviewers posted standardized wording for their reasons for the decision). You can still ask for more feedback on their Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got it, thank you! I got a notification that there was a comment on my user talk page, and when I read it there was a reply button underneath so I used it, but that doesn't actually reply to anyone except me. Maths11 (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at some of your sources for Rowlett. This doesn't appear to mention him at all, maybe wrong URL? This one and this one he wrote, failing the "independence" criteria. This, this, and others are interviews, which are allowed to be cited, but also fail the "independence" criteria because its what he says about himself, and you can't base an article entirely on that. You're on the right track with the focus on newspaper articles/books/etc. but you need to find 2-3 that write a paragraph or so about him that aren't interviews to pass the notability (really, "is there enough independent stuff written about this guy to base an article on") criteria. Ping the reviewer with that and you should be good. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might have missed some of the ones not written by him because they were paywalled (couldn't tell if they were interviews or not), the reviewer could have too, so you might need to point those out specifically. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is really helpful. Here the independent things are either quite short or interviews, I had thought the interviews offered depth but hadn't realised being interviewed by an independent source wasn't enough. I still find it quite confusing when I see people with pages that only cite things written by themselves or their employers, but worrying about that doesn't help me. I'm learning, slowly. Maths11 (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of pages like that -- a thing I hear other people say on the Teahouse a lot and agree with is that the majority of Wikipedia pages are either pretty or very bad, so you can't always take them as an example. The B-class or Featured articles are the good examples, essentially. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Translating from German to English
I'm trying to translate my article de:Campusnetze from german to english, but my account is not experienced enough to do that. What can I do now (instead of translating for my own and manually)?
You may create and submit a draft via the Article Wizard. Be aware that you will need to make sure that the article meets the requirements of the English Wikipedia, which are probably different than those of the German Wikipedia, which has its own policies. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qlari: Please note that English Wikpedia already has an article with a similar title: Campus network. However, its scope and level of detail differ from de:Campusnetze. So I suppose it would be better to gradually expand en-wiki article by adding new information from de-wiki, rather than translating the whole de-wiki page and replacing the existing one here. --CiaPan (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I need help with an article about the company AIR Media-Tech. I tried to create this article earlier, but the moderation considered it too promotional. Now I’ve rewritten it and tried to make it more neutral. Could I get feedback on it? What are the chances of publication, and is there anything else I need to change? Thank you very much in advance for your help! Draft:AIR Media-TechYuliya Kravchenko 2018 (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Yuliya Kravchenko 2018, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you are having an experience which is very common among new editors who plunge into the challenging task of creating a new article before spending time learning how Wikipedia works. (I'm aware that you created your account six years ago, but you don't seem to have made any edits until recently).
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.
It is tiresome evaluating your sources, because you have presented them as bare URLs, which means that the useful information - publication, date, title - are not immediately apparent: please see WP:REFB. But I can see straight away that several are not appropriate: Crunchbase is not regarded as a reliable source, which means it should never be cited (see WP:CRUNCHBASE; anything from newswire, (or elsewhere if based on press releases) is of very limited value, because it is not independent.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent commentators have published about a subject, and very little else. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Thank you so much for such an expansive answer! In fact, I have two articles on Wikipedia (in Russian and Ukrainian) and they were written from scratch, just never published articles in English. Maybe that’s why I look like a new author :) Please tell me, can I try again to upload the article I will rewrite based on these rules? And do I have to make edits to other articles before publishing this one? Or is it more a desire than a rule? Yuliya Kravchenko 2018 (talk) 12:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Account deletion is something you can't do, but since this is your only edit, I see no reason why you can't just log out and leave the account behind. Was there a specific reason behind you wanting the account deleted, or do you just not want the account? Ali Beary (talk2me!) 13:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
say, as a purely hypothetical scenario, that i open a sockpuppet investigation on someone, and it ends with multiple socks being found and blocked. let's call this theoretical sock leratokgang, for no particular reason
say, then, that the case is closed, but an ip editor with similar editing patterns pops up between the case's closure and archival. i'm not really good at this ip thing, so i'll just mash some buttons and say it's something like 197.185.143.81
in such an unlikely case, what should be done? should the case be manually reopened to have a look at the ip, should a new case be opened under that investigation's page, or is there another option i'm missing?
If the investigation is already closed, you should start a new report below. If you just add to a report that's already closed, it still shows up as closed in the list of cases, and is likely to be archived without anyone noticing that you added to it. But if it's very obvious then just contacting the clerk/admin who closed the report is probably a lot faster. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah, thanks
while it is a relatively obvious case, there's also the chance that i missed like 5 more socks (again), so there's that too. guess it's off to checking what said socks have done to see if any more disruption is occurring, and deal with it accordingly. i really hope re-reporting someone with twinkle works for adding additional spi cases, because things might get really embarrassing if it doesn't cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)14:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have 12 edits and your account is almost a year old. I believe that you have the ability to edit it now. I assume when you wrote this, you didn't have autoconfirmed permissions yet, but you do now. Happy editing! Ali Beary(talk2me!)(stalk me?!)13:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much!
I believe number of edits is different for different segments (languages) of Wikipedia. I have much more edits for articles in my native language. MarsJson (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
making a page
so I'm trying to make a page for a soccer team that I play from named Susa Fc, and I would wanna know how to request it to be done by somebody else or how to do it myself Nb998003293 (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Nb998003293, and welcome to the teahouse, and to Wikipedia.
I have several answers, but they're probably not going to be answers that you like.
First, most sports teams round the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and articles about them are not possible. (If they are notable, somebody has probably already written an article - but there could be exceptions).
Secondly, if you want an article created, by far the most promising way to do this is to do it yourself. We are all volunteers, and work on what we choose: why should anybody put in the work on your pet project? (If anybody approaches you offering to do so for money, do not on any account take them up on their offer. They are almost certainly scammers - see WP:SCAM).
Thirdly, writing an article is a much more challenging task for a new editors than it appears. Editors who try it before they are ready often have a disappointing and frustrating experience. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.
Fourthly, writing an article is even harder when you have a conflict of interest - not forbidden, and not impossible, but it is that much harder to recognise whether you are writing in a neutral way or not.
All in all, I would advise you to forget about this idea. If you want to contribute to this wonderful collaborative project, find some subjects you are interested in, and start making little improvements to existing articles as you learn. But if your primary purpose is telling the world about your team (or "promoting it", as we call that), then please find somewhere other than Wikipedia to do it. ColinFine (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything @ColinFine said is completely correct. I am actually making my first article right now and it is really hard. Aside from having to work with my habit of writing fancruft, I am also on a school computer right now so sources are hard to find with the web filter in my way. It takes a lot of time to make a good article and I suggest hanging around for a few months improving other articles before you make your own. And again, remember three golden rules: WP:NPOV, WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:COIApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions14:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List formatting
Hey Teahouse, I was looking over the article List of private contractor deaths in Afghanistan. The article currently just has everything as a bullet point. Would a table be helpful? I understand it would be a tedious task as there are over 100 names. Any feedback would be helpful. Example:
Name
Date
Nationality
Details
N/A
February 8
Pakistan
Two engineers were killed in an ambush in Ghazni province.
N/A
November 8
India
An telecommunications engineer was shot and killed. He was working for the Afghan Wireless Company.
Hi @CF-501 Falcon! Have a look at WP:WHENTABLE - it's suggesting that an important consideration is whether the information will be more clearly conveyed in a table as compared to a list, and also whether being able to sort the information would be useful.
It seems to me that the things people would be most likely to sort would be the deceased's nationality and the year of their death, both of which are already visible in the list's page. That being said, having the nationality info on the side looks a bit clunky and it looks as though it has to be manually updated each time a new death is recorded - that seems like it could easily run the risk of becoming out of sync with the list. My view is that a table would convey the information more clearly and would certainly make it easy to see any links between, for example, nationality and year of death. If you think so too, you could WP:BEBOLD and go for it or suggest it on the talk page to see if you get any other feedback there. Happy editing! :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a Wikipedia page about a hip hop duo
Hello, I'm trying to add a Wikipedia page about the Hip-hop duo THOTTWAT, who was founded by A$AP Rocky. Do you know the results and can you teach me how to do that? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have typed up the draft, you need to click "publish changes" for it to be placed on Wikipedia's servers(even as a draft). 331dot (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does "In progress" (code { {In process} } ) mean?
I tried searching Help for an explanation. Can someone point me to it, and let me know how to find out on my own next time?
Tagus (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, @Tagus. {{in process}} (you can read a little more here) creates this ---> In progress <--- You can search for most templates by typing Template:Name (replacing Name with the name of the template) in the search bar. TheWikiToby (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the deletion sorting keyword for LGBTQ+ articles
I just created an AfD that should be listed for the review of the LGBTQ+ wikiproject but I can't get the delsort codes to work. Anyone know the right string? Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for the names of each state's presidential electors for the 2024 election. I have noted that electors for some states are listed by Wikipedia, but some are not listed. Can you tell me if the names not listed will be listed.
Thank you for your help with this issued.
Barbara Burrell, professor emeritus, Nothern Illinois University. 174.106.9.22 (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Barbara. Since Wikipedia is entirely run and edited by volunteers who work on what they choose, there is nobody who has the task of ensuring that sort of consistency. So somebody might now choose to add them all in response to your question - or nobody might. If you have suitable sources for the information, you could even add the missing names. ColinFine (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I added a page Alfred Steiner (artist). There is another Alfred Steiner page Alfred Steiner page, a French weightlifter, so I added the "(artist)" to the page title since I could not find information on how to deal with it in the Help section and obviously thought that was how it was done. (1.) So now Alfred Steiner (artist) only shows up when that entire title "Alfred Steiner (artist)" is searched for, and does not show up when "Alfred Steiner" is searched for. (2.) I also think his descriptor should be (artist, lawyer). Could someone help me with these issues? And also point me to where to learn more about them? Thank you. Ogmany (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ogmany: I have two commments. (1.) Something has gone wrong with the categories at Alfred Steiner (artist), I've failed to figure out what. (2). When you cite six sources for a statement, it suggests that something odd it going on. Why not just cite the one or two best sources? Maproom (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking the categories for that post. It is not working for me either. Will try again soon. As to the six sources for a statement, I assume you are talking about the sources at the end the paragraph about the artists and arts advocacy groups getting together to write an amicus brief for the Supreme Court on artist's rights. It actually had a lot more press coverage and that is the good coverage. It is a landmark case and very interesting, covers new ground and is important to artists and I am sure the issue will evolve and is worth covering. I get your point though and will redistribute the sources throughout the paragraph instead of all at the end. Ogmany (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. It really brought what I was trying to get across about the subject into focus. I worked on that section, detailed its importance, which makes the multiple footnotes make more sense, and then added another innovative collaborative project that shows how as an artist/lawyer he integrates both fields. (Because I think he is a genuine polymath or multi-hyphenate professional, being innovative in both fields, much less being an activist in both.) On that note I think the page should be renamed Alfred Steiner (artist, lawyer) since he has made important and new contributions to both fields in both roles. I know I can change it to a new page with that title as per Help:How to move a page but wanted to check in if that is appropriate, and in this case believe it is, and the article demonstrates that now. Ogmany (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I read Wikipedia:Disambiguation and decided a Hat on the other article was not what was needed. So I created an Alfred Steiner Disambiguation page listing the two Alfred Steiners which is in my sandbox. I just cannot figure out how to post it. Could you check that I have it right and direct me to where to find out how to post it because at this point I am not getting it. Ogmany (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing question
When writing an article about a video game, can a digital storefront (eg. Steam, GOG, Epic, PlayStation Store, etc.) be used as a source for basic information like release date, DLCs, the developer, etc.? If so, does it count as a primary or secondary source? The information about these games is uploaded by the developers directly and the store is just a sort of proxy for delivering that information, but these stores (usually) are unaffiliated with the developers so maybe it would count as a secondary source. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions20:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would count as a primary source. The storefronts are selling the games, which inherently makes them affiliated (also as you said the devs upload the information, so it wouldn't be independent). Industrial Insect(talk)15:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best counted as a primary source, because it's directly from the source & not based on another document. It wouldn't be independent, either. But assuming the release date/etc. isn't controversial and the storefront is reputable I don't see why it would be as good a source as the developer's website. So, I'd say yes. Make sure to note the date you accessed it and save it on the Internet Archive, though, because these things change. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Teahouse, I've just encountered Template:Incomprehensible which when used displays: This article may be very hard to understand. That's usually because you, the reader, are a moron. Yes, you. Get a life. Please help clarify it.
This kind of seems like wording that would get people a sharp WP:NPA warning or block if aimed at a fellow editor, even though I'm sure it's meant in a humorous/teasing way. Am I overreacting? If not, where's the best place to propose changes? Village Pump? StartGrammarTime (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was vandalised this morning. I have reverted it. Thank you for pointing it out, @StartGrammarTime. (Since it was an IP address which has made only this one edit, and was done from a mobile, I don't think there's any point giving a warning. The last time it happened was four years ago, so I don't think it needs protection either.) ColinFine (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft article keeps being submitted for creation despite not being complete
Hello! I'm the creator and main editor behind Draft:Plainrock124, this article has been submitted for creation by random users multiple times now, even though the article is still far from ready. What preventative measures can I do to prevent this from happening? I still want other editors to pitch in and help me work on this article, however the submitting is honestly getting on my nerves. TansoShoshen (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting predicament, TansoShoshen. Perhaps have the draft moved, without a redirect, to "User:TansoShosen/[string]". (The string might be "Turnips", or whatever you think wouldn't attract attention.) Look through it and alter any occurrence of the two consecutive hyphens, e.g. by putting "@" between each pair. Put <!-- at the very start and --> at the very end. When you want to edit, simply remove the "!", edit, preview, restore the "!" and save. When the draft is ready, remove what's at the very start and end, and reconstruct any two-hyphen string. NB (i) You can't (I think) move something without creating a redirect; if indeed you can't, ask an admin to do it for you. (ii) The fact that you're editing will still be apparent, via your list of "contributions". (iii) There's probably a simpler/better method, but if so it eludes me as right now I'm caffeine-deprived. (iv) If my suggestion is adopted, perhaps we'd better tear this thread into strips and flush them down a convenient receptacle. -- Hoary (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TansoShoshen. One of the things about Wikipedia is that pretty much anyone can edit any page at anytime. Another thing about Wikipedia is that whenever someone clicks on "Publish changes", they're releasing whatever they created under a free license that allows anyone anywhere in the world to build upon or modify at anytime (as long as they do so in accordance with the terms of the license). These things tend to work OK most of the time when it comes to articles because nobody really WP:OWNs an article per se, but they also apply to pages in other namespaces as well (like the draft namespace and the user namespace) where creators often do feel they "own" their work in a sense. WP:DRAFTS aren't really owned by one person per se and they can, in principle, be worked on or even submitted by others when they think they're ready for article status, but many users will leave them alone as a courtesy unless asked for help by their creators or to address some serious violation of a major Wikipedia policy. WP:USD aren't really too different from drafts in the draft namespace, but because they located in the user namespace they tend to be even left more alone absent any serious policy violations that need addressing. So, moving the draft to a userspace draft as suggested above might allow you to work on it at your own pace, but at the same time, if the draft is ready for the article namespace, you might just want to move it their yourself or submit it for an AfC review. Articles don't need to be perfect and it's completely OK to work on them after they become articles; moreover, once it's in the mainspace, it's likely going to be edited by others (you can't stop them from doing so). So, the same thing pretty much applies to drafts as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be made simply that the button "submit to review" (as opposed to the button "publish") in a page in user namespace (as opposed to draftspace) only works when the user of the namespace is logged in. 176.0.136.253 (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how to set me on google search result
blatant self-promotion
MD. Shibrul Alom is a Bangladeshi mobile software engineer and digital creator with over 5 years of experience in digital marketing, social media management, and mobile software engineering. He has completed an advanced course in digital marketing and SEO from HTI IT Institute (Bangladesh). Shibrul is skilled in managing Facebook, Instagram, and Google ad campaigns, building YouTube channels with SEO strategies, and designing graphics such as logos, posters, and banners.
Currently, Shibrul works at SB Mobile Shop in his city, where he provides expert mobile software services, ensuring 100% customer satisfaction through his quality service and technical expertise.
In addition to his work, Shibrul has also been an instructor at SB GSM, where he has guided students in mastering digital marketing, social media strategies, and software engineering. His mission is to empower students with the necessary skills and knowledge to succeed in these fields.
Last night there were 9 edits done to Integrated Aqua-Vegeculture System and I have looked at each of the edits and a very large section of text has been removed and most of the reasons do not seem valid.
Is anyone available to have a look into this and determine if it should be reported as vandaism?
I have started a topic on the talk page for each edit but I want to do all I can to avoid an edit war.
Wiki142B, Drmies made a number of edits. Choose what you consider the single most egregious instance, and let's consider whether it's vandalism. (Meanwhile, what's on the talk page is, however well-intentioned, unnecessarily bulky. Please cite diffs and comment on these.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki142B, Drmies has been an extremely active Wikipedia editor for over 17 years, and the reasons for these edits are clearly stated in their edit summaries. It appears that you have been adding material not usually considered to be appropriate to Wikipedia: please read WP:What Wikipedia is not, with particular attention to Sections 2.6. and 2.7. Removing such material is the very opposite of WP:Vandalism.
I notice that, since creating your User acount in May 2024, you appear to have have only edited this article and one other on a closely related topic. It may be that you merely have an intellectual curiosity about the general subject, but can you confirm that you do not have a WP:Conflict of interest that should be disclosed? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the extensive history and that. is why I decided to ask for more advice.
You said the reasons are clearly stated but, as one small example, this was removed;
Fish tanks
Fish are raised in tanks, producing nutrient-rich water.
From the subsection which describes the system components. The reason for the removal was listed as "not a manual". I fail to see how a description of the fish tank is anything like a manual. I would understand if it explained how to build a fish tank, or the size or materials needed etc.
I am new to the editing of wikipedia and I was given the advice that I should follow the template/structure of similar wikipedia pages, and the two pages I used as a guide both have subsections specifically describing the "system components."
This is the diff. I wonder who'd want such information, and whether even they would need to be told of a need for "a sealed containment structure designed to house the fish and to prevent the leakage of water" rather than, say, "a tank"? That whole section, deleted by Drmies, did indeed look to me like something downloadable from a corporate website. ¶ Here's something strange that survives Drmies's valiant efforts: "Establishing standardized terminology for describing aquaponic systems, including iAVs, will facilitate clearer communication, promote scientific progress, and enhance public understanding and support for these agricultural technologies." It's odd for a Wikipedia article to make such predictions. Still, there's a reference for the claim. Yet the reference points to an unsigned piece at iavs.info. -- Hoary (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In time, I would have come back and improved upon it, as I have mentioned in the talk page, general page improvements are a top priority for me and I made it publicly known that "I am reaching out to communicate my current objective of enhancing the organization, structure, clarity, and flow of this entire page" and so, instead of deleting the entire line, why not simply correct it to say "fish tank". If parts of it seem like it came from a corporate website, the correct decision would be to rewrite it, or mention it in the talk page, rather than deleting it entirely.
You say you think it is "strange" for it to say Establishing standardized terminology for describing aquaponic systems, including iAVs, will facilitate clearer communication, promote scientific progress, and enhance public understanding and support for these agricultural technologies., but, I feel that, not only is it not strange at all, but it should be obvious. It is also the direct subject of a paper https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/raq.12847 which I paraphrased from because it does not have appropriate copyright status.
The source I used is from the inventor's website, it is non-commercial, and the authors credentials can be easily found on researchgate.
WP:ACM states "Consider what a sentence or paragraph tries to say. If you can, clarify it instead of throwing it away. If the wayward material seems mis-categorized or out of place but still useful in some other context, consider either moving it to another page where it does belong, creating a new page where it would be warranted, or moving it to the article's talk page (which can be accessed by clicking the Talk tab) for discussion. Consider trying to find a reliable source for unreferenced content."
WP:SOURCEDEF states A source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. Although the content guidelines for external links prohibit linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services", inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with reliable non-commercial sources if available.
This paper ("Aquaponics nomenclature matters: It is about principles and technologies and not as much about coupling") is voluminous. I don't pretend to have read it. I think it's strange for the Wikipedia article to say that such and such "will facilitate" X, Y and Z, given that the likeliest interpretation of this is as a confident statement about the future. For discussants to agree on terminology ought indeed to facilitate the discussants', and others', communication; but to me it doesn't seem at all obvious that such agreement will also "promote scientific progress, and enhance public understanding and support for these agricultural technologies". (Remove likely obstacles from these, yes; but enhance them?) Still, if you say that the authors of this (conveniently open-access) paper do so prognosticate, then I suppose that the paper constitutes a "reliable source" for the claim, at least until some other academic paper argues persuasively against it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm there is no conflict of interest. I am writing a thesis on the history of aquaponics and have a very strong interest in the subject. Wiki142B (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki142B, hey, to speak informally for a moment, it's possible that even without overt conflict of interest, you may be just a little... too much of a fan of the topic. (See WP:Neutral point of view; we usually try to take the perspective of an uninterested third party collecting verifiable information of general interest to the public.) Remember that Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, and more generally is not an indiscriminate collection of information. For example, you had at one point a directory of over a dozen academics involved in the iAVS Research Group, and that's the kind of detail for which, in the context of an encyclopedia, perhaps less is more. To be blunt, I'm not sure readers need that. We're accustomed to seeing such breathless enthusiastic detail in articles written for promotional purposes (about a company or product), so please excuse our cynicism. It is also possible to be promotional without having a commercial interest, and sourcing directly from the inventor's website probably goes there.
In general, as ColinFine above has repeated several times in answers to others, writing a whole new article from nothing is difficult, and it's easy to get things wrong. What belongs in an article is perhaps a subtle thing. Working on existing articles while getting to know the core content policies may be useful. — Anon423 (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your thoughts on this matter. I want to assure you that I have refrained from making any additional edits and have not undone any changes, as I have been following the guidelines and taken the time to seek assistance/advice here. I have not edited the page since September and my last edits were actually reverting things that I had done, I think this speaks for itself in terms of my acceptance of a possible COI. I believe this approach helps mitigate any potential concerns regarding COI. I have also made sure to voice my concerns on the talk page to avoid any editing conflicts. I aim to adhere to Wikipedia's policies. While I understand that this is an informal discussion meant to be helpful, I would greatly appreciate your feedback on the content of the article itself, for example, in a previous comment I mentioned that the original description of the fish tank was overly and un-necesarily complicated, but, as I asked previously, why was that deleted entirely instead of being corrected/simplified - as per the wikipedia guidelines I quoted. Thank you for your understanding, and I hope my request is taken in the spirit of collaboration. Wiki142B (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki142B, there in no vandalism involved. Please read WP:VANDAL before making such accusations. (In my view, Drmies's trimming of the article did not go quite far enough. If the "Terminology" section were confined to defining terms, it would be acceptable; but much of it strays too far from the subject of the article.) Maproom (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are some article issue templates I can use?
I am going to make an article about a lake in Manitoba, Canada, so I am testing in my sandbox. I would publish it as an article, but it is going to have multiple issues. One is that the article is going to be short and two is that it needs additional citations. So what are some articles issue templates that I can add to an article or add to a multiple issue message? NicePrettyFlower (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NicePrettyFlower, if even you, the creator, realize that it would be too short and need additional citations, then don't publish it as an article until it is no longer too short and no longer is need of additional citations. -- Hoary (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about "needs additional citations" because they don't exist, or because you can't get your hands on them, or need to figure out how to do inline citations?
Highly disappointed to see the article on Autism going through bias.
I recently went through the current version of the Wikipedia article on Autism , and I found that this article is NOT representing the reality or encyclopedic wholeness. The huge, verbose, highly technical article is biased towards medical model of disability, medical genetics, and nearly zero information regarding the anthropology, evolution, neurodiversity, accommodation, accessibility, Augmentative and alternative communications, and all that actually helps wellbeing of Autistic people. The page boldly focuses on controversial methods such as ABA, such as EIBI (Early intensive behavioral interventions), DTT (discrete trial training) etc. without any mention of the concerns or criticisms against them. I entered the talk page, but it has been turned literally into a warzone, where any dissenting viewpoint is being silenced in name of "global and unanimous scientific consensus" which is simply wrong. It is mostly a view held by biomedical and pharmaceutical majority. But outside of that, opposing viewpoints do exist in actual Autistic populations (who have the lived experience), anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc. I added an "unbalanced" tag for reader information (I did not speak for complete erasure of controversial viewpoints, just needed the reader to know that there are other views), however the "unbalanced" tag was soon reverted.
It is not possible for me to daily attend and post arguments and counter-arguments. I have to acknowledge that, if this kind of silencing continues, this time Wikipedia literally failed as an encyclopedia, as well it failed at public health and education welfare perspective.
I feel like this needs editors' attention. Autism is NOT a well-understood condition by majority, Lived experience play the ultimate role on how a person feel about their life situation, and Nothing about us without us is an important ethics rule in disability cultures.
Myself and many other autistic editors have attempted to improve the article before and met the same difficulties. I agree that it is painful to read, and your concerns are very valid. I began to write a satirical alliance article to help showcase the issues in the autism article and show how medical language can create negative bias in my sandbox.
I really appreciate your work around this, and share your frustration with the central Autism article. It's not really okay that people are being persistently driven away from working on that entry by people stubbornly axe-grinding... Oolong (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RIT RAJARSHI, Wikipedia is a volunteer project. If you feel the article is lacking, then you have the ability to improve it by adding material on anthropology, evolution, neurodiversity, accommodation, accessibility and the other things you mentioned. Just be sure to add inline citations as you go to reliable sources that reflect the majority and top minority viewpoints on the subtopics you are writing about, and respond to any disagreements by other editors by working it out on the Talk page to find a consensus that works. Please understand that basing the article on published sources is not negotiable, and while your first-person accounts might be helpful on the Talk page as deep background, they cannot be used in the article, unless your views have been written up and published by an source. If you have some sources on the anthropology of autism, for example, you can just WP:BE BOLD and add content to the article based on them. This might help:
If you haven't had success using that approach in the past, then just list some sources here that you think could be used to expand the article in ways you would find productive, and maybe someone else will pick up the baton, and carry on. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Notcharizard:@Mathglot: Thank you so much for your views. I am thinking if I should create another article on Autism from other perspectives, as the current page is very strictly monitored, and has already structured in certain way that I feel difficult to change by some small edits. PS. I have TONs of references, although mostly from a social science perspective. I want to write their summaries which can be used by other users to improve the articles. I will be taking lot of time as I am extremely busy in my personal and professional life. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not possible to create an already existing articles but like it was suggested , feel free to make changes where you feel there is need for one. If the article is protected that you can't edit ,you can make some of these suggestions on the talk page Tesleemah (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Notcharizard:@Mathglot:@Tesleemah: I have access to edit button on that article but I am afraid somebody will erase my edits or may revert them. The article is already verbose. My time is precious. Is there a way I can state my article reviews that won't be erased by somebody? Can I store writings in sandbox for infinite period? Is the sandbox public access? And it looks even if I add non-conforming views to the main article, they might not allow to express those views. The talk page is warzone and they removed my "unbalanced" tag RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about you add the things you want to change in your sandbox and share with an experienced editor who can review if its ok to merge with the main article. Because ,in all this you have to be sure you are adding neutral and verifiable information. Afterward you can reach out to any editor edit warring with you.
I feel this is a little bit complex and you need to weigh if it all worth your time . I will leave this to other editors to give you better advise going forward. Tesleemah (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RIT RAJARSHI: Just for reference, your comment I have access to edit button on that article but I am afraid somebody will erase my edits or may revert them. could happen on any Wikipedia article regardless of the subject matter. Wikipedia's wants us to be WP:BOLD when improving articles, but it also wants us to understand that others can be just as bold in undoing the edits we make. When that happens, the best thing to do (absent any type of serous policy violation) is to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and try to resolve any disagreements over article content through article talk page discussion. Before being bold, though, you probably want to take a close look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles because medicine related articles tend to be more highly scrutinized than perhaps articles about some others subjects are. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for general reference. If being bold is not your style, you could be WP:CAUTIOUS and seek feedback from the various WikiProjects listed at the top of Talk:Autism and also check the article's talk page archives to see whether your concerns have been raised before by someone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, there have been a whole stream of editors (mostly autistic ones, I think) who got burned out on editing autism-related articles directly (especially the main one) because of intransigent opposition and reversions from people who are obviously very attached to a particular way of seeing autism. Oolong (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental problem is that autism is a vast subject and the "world view" of autism is undergoing rapid change. Viewpoints from five years ago already look unprofessional and outdated today. In fact there isn't really a "world" view because the state of autism-understanding varies hugely between countries. As a result, written sources about autism range from well-thought, up-to-date, caring and balanced, to utterly outmoded and inappropriate, verging on discriminatory and offensive. Unfortunately Wikipedia is an encyclopedia whose role is to give a balanced overview of all current thinking, even if some of the current thinkers are Utterly Wrong. We are not here to promote best practice or best understanding. We're here to describe the current situation (and the history that led up to it), even if the current situation isn't right, and even if the history is in places despicable. As someone personally affected by autism in loved-ones, I cannot bring myself to edit on the subject at Wikipedia, because it is fundamentally too hurtful to me. I have to trust that the situation will improve, sources will improve, and other, tougher editors will edit the autism articles to reflect the improved situation, as it improves. I'm sure I'm not alone in my feelings. Elemimele (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele Thanks; I would be happy if the editors accept the vastness or broadness of this topic than to force a reductionist strictly biomedical approach. Because the more subjective or philosophical journal resources will not qualify as "hard science", but still have lot of humanitarian values. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele You may think the situation in this way. Everyone is using video calls using a smartphone, and you are using a walkie talkie. Now yes you do face communication barrier, but more information on how a video display works, would not help you to translate the images into alt text.
Similarly, more and more information on brain circuitry or genes does not help dissolve the barrier.
But learning about lived social experiences do help.
Another example; think you are a trained classical musician who can detect microtonal differences instantly. Now you have been thrown into a factory where people breaking down metal sheets with hammer and you feel like damn blown. Now everyone points out at you as the problematic one. Or think you are a more sensitive clinical mercury thermometer and other people are thermometers used in a water bath or hot air oven. And you are pointed as the 'defective' one.
It takes 2 to make a communication. We spend hours to teach neurotypical communication to Autistics. Why not spend that time teaching the neurotypical society about Autistic communication? RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RIT RAJARSHI, though I have no connection to autism, edit warring like what's apparently going on in editing this one has long been distressing for me — to see in a group with such an important mission as Wikipedia as well as to be aware that I too may face something similar if I join in editing an article already struck by a few edit skirmishes.
So I have a question for senior editors who might be circling this article:
In an editing situation that seems to have reached an impasse like autism, does Wikipedia ever provide an impartial arbiter, even one unfamiliar with the topic, to step in to help? Not to make a final judgment about what should be done with the article but just to get the two sides to put down their weapons, discuss constructively, and move forward toward consensus on what to say in the article about what they couldn't agree on previously?
There's a process increasingly used in conflict resolution, ranging from corporate organizational teams to rival gangs, that could also help with this war-scarred autism article. It involves ensuring that those on each side really hear — really pay attention to — the other side's thinking and concerns. It goes something similar to what I'm writing below. These are only the main steps, not the mechanics:
— Each side listens to or reads a statement of what the other side wants to put in the article and supporting reasons.
— Each side repeats back its understanding of the other side's statement and the supporting reasons.
— Each side raises questions and concerns for the other side to address about the validity of its statement and supporting reasons.
— Each side answers these questions and concerns for the other side.
— The two sides work toward a statement they can both live with.
Augnablik, what you describe, falls most generally under the rubric of dispute resolution, of which there are multiple methods. But to answer your top question about whether some arbiter ever steps in to decide things, the simple answer is "No"; and in particular, admins do not do that. (Admins might block editors who cross some behavioral line during a dispute, but they will not decide who is "right".) Your last set of bullet points is very similar to something we do at WP:Third opinion, but that is limited to when there are only two editors. (Or perhaps, two groups evenly divided among exactly two opinions, I'm not entirely sure.) User:Robert McClenon can tell you more about that, but the short answer on that one is, there are already more than two people/opinions, so it is out of bounds here. Finally, there are some formal DR methods for multiple views/editors, of which the WP:Rfc process is the prime one. You can read about that at the link. At the end, there is an uninvolved, unbiased "closer", who however does not give any opinions of their own or attempt to arbitrate on the merits of the case; what the closer does, is to attempt to assess the weight of the arguments given by the various editors who have chimed in, weighing them against their ability to connect their views and conclusions with the stated policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Thus, it is not a vote tally, but an argument assessment. The closer judges the prevailing or predominant argument and renders an evaluation, not an arbitration of case merits. If there is no prevailing argument or it is evenly matched, the closer may render a NO CONSENSUS evaluation. The Rfc generally runs for 30 days. Mathglot (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this! It's a bit frustrating to me that Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms seem as opaque and convoluted as they do, but I understand that they've come out of years of volunteer labour and discussions of objectively difficult questions!
In the worst discussions I've had, what I've mostly wanted is someone who understands enough about the topics involved, but who probably isn't particularly invested, to step in and say something like 'your references do not show what you are claiming they show. You need to stand down.' Oolong (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot, the RFC process you mentionedhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rfc is indeed similar to what I was suggesting. Similar also in who would lead the process: \ not a judge but someone able to help a group move from a seeming impasse to something both sides can live with, or hopefully even celebrate.
My hope for this article is that the outcome of this situation goes down in the annals of Wikipedia as a wonderful example of how an edit war turned into an edit success. Augnablik (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not entirely sure what I am being asked, but the usual process that I use at DRN is similar to what Augnablik recommends. I start by reminding the editors that the purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article, and I ask each editor to state what parts of the article they want to change that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Then sometimes I ask them to comment on the other editor's objectives. A precondition to moderated discussion at DRN is extensive inconclusive discussion at the article talk page. I see that there has been extensive inconclusive discussion at Talk:Autism, and there has also been edit-warring. At DRN, the editors are asked to agree to a set of rules which include a rule not to edit the article in question while moderated discussion is in progress. Does that answer the questions that may have been being asked? It appears that Autism may be ready for moderated discussion, but only if most of the involved editors agree to participate. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish whoever might step in to help the two sides work things out would try this time adding in the components of having to listen carefully to each other’s statements and rationales, stating them back so it’s clear they were heard correctly, further questioning each other, etc.
Why? Because I’m impressed by what I keep reading in the top news media about how this strategy has worked in conflict resolution even with rival gangs. I think it has something to do with humanizing “those idiots” and other objectifications. Augnablik (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting thought! I've certainly seen the strategy of restating your understanding of someone's position being useful in a general sense; people like to feel heard! And it can be a great opportunity to correct misunderstandings.
Speaking for myself, a huge part of my frustration in that particular series of exchanges had certainly been the feeling that I have been totally misunderstood when I thought I was stating my position quite clearly. When I'm feeling more charitable, I can just about believe that that might have been the root cause of what I experienced as gross misrepresentations... Oolong (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, @Oolong. If people on two sides feel heard — even if not in agreement with - there’s hope for at least some degree of positive outcome that both can live with.
Without feeling heard, resentment, anger, and outright warfare is the obvious outcome. And with wars between wordsmiths, take cover in trenches! Augnablik (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can CaseOh have his page back now due to recent awards and recognition?
I am not sure if this is the right place to ask, but 8 months ago, a popular streamer and internet personality, Caseoh had a page. However, it was removed after an extensive argument due to him not meeting Wikipedia's notability standards for streamers and internet personalities. However, he recently won Content Creator of the Year at the 2024 Game of The Year Awards, and he has been officially recognised and endorsed by Microsoft and Mojang to do official streams for Minecraft and Xbox content. Is he eligible for a page now, or does he still not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notable internet personalities?
Hello, @Edelgardvonhresvelg, and welcome to the Teahouse. A word of caution about your title "Can CaseOh have his page back now". This is a common way of talking about encyclopaedia articles, but it is one to be carfeul about, especially if you are intending to work on that article.
That title implies that he somehow "deserves" an article. Since no article about him will ever elong to him, and as far as Wikipedia is concerned no article will ever be for his benefit (though of course he may get incidental benefit from one being written), it doesn't make sense to think if him "deserving" an article. Furthermore, if it happened that some reliable source reported something really unsavoury connected with him (this is hypothetical, I'm not suggesting that is the case) then a Wikipedia article about him should reflect that, though he might prefer that it didn't. ColinFine (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the title under the tense of him meeting Wikipedia's notability standards or not. I think that his page was originally removed back in April due to not meeting Wikipedia standards for notable internet celebrities. However, he is now an officially recognised creator for Minecraft and Xbox content, and he won a Game of The Year Award. I know that that the Caseoh article will not be a puff piece or written from a biased perspective. Since so many YouTuber, celebrity, and influencer articles suffer from it. I might work on the Caseoh draft, but I have other plans such as updating the de-extinction page on Spanish Wikipedia, because it is HORRIBLY outdated and seems to be written from the perspective of a Jurassic Park fanboy given all of the sections and allusions to Jack Horner, Chickenosaurus, and the Jurassic Park movies. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this person notable enough for an article?
I am planning to write an article about an economist who has published multiple papers, works at a university, has received multiple awards, has presented his work at very famous places, and his work has been referenced in mainstream news articles. Is this man notable enough for an article? I feel like he would be, but I'd rather ask before dedicating a bunch of time to this and then it being rejected. CrownRecruit (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CrownRecruit If you wish, you could list sources, the awards, and the references here or in your draft as CanonNi suggests—the draft talk page may be a decent place to collect your thoughts before draft submission or asking for help again. There's also the specific notability guideline for scholars, Wikipedia:Notability (academics), and of course the General notability guideline. You might also find helpful editors with more subject-specific experience at a place like WikiProject Economics or on economics articles that have recently seen attention.
In general though, I suggest you may wish to take it slow as a new editor instead of pushing into writing a whole new article. Breaking a rule and seeing your hard work reverted or sent back can be painful. Writing a complete new article from scratch is difficult, both in technical respects and because of various policies, especially for Biographies of living persons. As ColinFine says, consider first improving several existing articles. Once you understand core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability and see how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then perhaps read your first article carefully and try creating a draft (through AFC as suggested above). — Anon423 (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to upload an image that I created in BioRender
Wikipedia's image scanning bot doesn't let me upload an image of the nodes of Ranvier that I created personally in BioRender. How do I get past this? It says it can not determine whether or not it's copyright material. I guess I'll take it as a kudos to my graphic design skills? Mgcaptainzanko (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aligning an infobox to the left side of the page, or another alternative.
Hey -
On the page Tornadoes of 1998 in the Events section, there is an infobox, which is a map of tornado outbreaks, aligned to the right side of the screen which I'm not really sure how to deal with. It looks pretty awkward with all the empty space on the left side of the screen, so I was thinking aligning it to the left would make it look better. I couldn't find an easy way to do this, besides perhaps editing the CSS, which I know nothing about. What should be the best way to go about this?
This probably wasn't the best use of an infobox either. Is there a template that I can swap it to with (hopefully) minimal effort?
EatingCarBatteries, I am using a 15-inch laptop, and the map (in the Synopsis section, not Events) looks fine to me. I think it would be worse on the left. If you are seeing a particular problem on your device, can you describe it or provide a screenshot? Mathglot (talk) 09:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this for me. It looked like this both on a 1600x900 monitor and on an old Chromebook I have (not sure of dimensions)
EatingCarBatteries, thank you for that. Now I can certainly see what your objection is. For me, it looks different, with the map image on the right opposite the Synopsis and Events sections on the left, with the text in those two sections occupying almost exactly half of my available article width in the browser (which is to say, excluding the tools sidebar to the left), and with the map image occupying the other half of available width.
This appears to be a question that may involve technical details of different Wikipedia skins, browsers, and screen resolution, which means it is well beyond the scope of the Teahouse. May I suggest that you start a new section at WP:VPT, which is the right place to discuss this type of question, and summarize your question there? Please link this Teahouse discussion from VPT; you may use template {{Discussion moved from}} at VPT at the top of the section if you wish. Likewise, you can link to the VPT discussion below, using {{Discussion moved to}}. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting opinions: is ThisWebsiteWillSelfDestruct.com a realistic candidate for an article?
I was fond of that website in the early pandemic days.
I recently realised it didn't have an wikipedia article, did a quick search and found articles from Vice and The verge (and a few other less notable sites) discussing it, so I went ahead and started working on a draft.
But after reading the notability guidelines at WP:AFC I am having doubts. Squeezdakat (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say go ahead and submit it (Or even just move it yourself, though I'd lowercase the title of you do). It's borderline but I'd give it a better than 50% chance at first glance. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Florescaroline94 The first and the fourth certainly are not because one is a forum where (as far as I can tell) anyone can write anything they like and the last is a blog, again without the editorial oversight we like in reliable sources. There is a specific noticeboard where you can ask about marginal sources at WP:RSN. If you intend to draft an article for a company that doesn't already have a page on Wikipedia, your main task will be to show it is wikinotable using sources that meet our golden rules. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am making an article Draft:Nikolaos Stamatonikolos and i don't know how to add his medals. one silver and one bronze so if anyone can help, it would be thankful
I have often encountered deceptive claims from military sources, which are equally often repeated in otherwise reliable news sources. The specific claim itself might just be accurate, if you are prepared to squint at the details. I have already searched for the correct guidelines here (MOS etc), and failed. It's not quite WP:PUFFERY - so where will I find the best description of this phenomenon?
The base was 262 square miles (680 km2), about the size of Singapore.
This is allegedly supported by an article in The New York Times, but access requires an account. However, I am prepared to accept it as a correct quote, so that isn't the issue. The problem is that Singapore is a land mass, whereas Subic Bay is a vast area of sea water. The actual land mass of the Naval Base itself is probably only a fraction of that figure, in the same way that 80% of the area of San Francisco is the bay itself. Even for a Naval base, including the water area is disingenuous (unless you compare it to another similar area, not a land mass like Singapore).
I respectfully disagree. Firstly, the comparison is illustrating the size of an area, irrespective of what it is made of (land, water, mudflats, whatever), and people find it easier to relate to an area of land than to an expanse of water. Secondly, the water area of a naval base is very much relevant to its function and potential importance. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of other large bases like Pearl Harbor, Fort Irwin, Camp Pendleton. There is a small amount of acreage that is built out structures. But the entirety of area they are tasked to control is much larger. Because normal status = empty for most of the time should not disqualify it for counting toward the size of the named location. We don't list states/countries by area of developed space. Otherwise. Alaska would be a tiny state. Roughly 150-160K out of 360+million acres is developed. Alegh (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is good to have any response, but you are not always comparing like-for-like. Fort Irwin NTC is a major training area - the clue is in the first line, although in common use they might label the entire area part of the 'base', all the way up until somebody turns up and asks for directions to 'the base'. At that point they will be shown the small area that is actually Fort Irwin. The aerial image in that article shows it perfectly.
The comparison against Pearl Harbor is much more valid, providing the US Navy has exclusive control of the waters in Subic Bay. Is that the case? I suspect not, because Subic Bay includes several substantial settlements such as Subic, Olongapo City, and Morong.
Then we come to Naval Base San Diego, the world's second largest surface ship naval base. The base is composed of 13 piers stretched over 1,600 acres (650 ha) of land and 326 acres (132 ha) of water. Or approximately 1% of the area of Singapore. One per cent! That is a colossal gap between the exaggerated claim for Subic Bay, and the honesty of San Diego. How can you possibly be comfortable with that?
As for developed areas and Alaska; that's a complete red herring. My argument would be that we don't list the area of Alaska as including 12 miles of territorial waters. And that is what I believe Subic Bay is guilty of.
Hi, WendlingCrusader, I too didn't check the NYT source article, for the same reason as yourself, but having now looked on Google Earth, it seems to me that the actual water area of Subic Bay is only around 60 square miles, which means that the quoted base area would comprise about 77% land (all very approximate). This suggests that either the description is not misleading, or that the figure is in error, or that there is some further factor involved.
Perhaps, for example, the shore infrastructures were surrounded by a large area used for on-land training. Note that Section 3 of the article includes the paragraph: "The value of Subic Bay as a training area was recognized as the Marines practiced movements in wild and difficult environment. Their building of bridges and roads was also considered to be excellent training."
I agree the matter bears further investigation, but others would be better placed than myself to do so. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}94.1.223.204 (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Help improving a submission
Hello,
I submitted an article that was declined. The reasons were:
- This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
- This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
I'm supposing I can address the first one by greater use of footnotes linking to the source articles in well known media sources. I could use some help with he second point though. I understand it and don't disagree but also not sure I'm objective enough to my own writing (in this instance at least) to make the necessary edits. Are there any Wikipedia "player-coaches" out there available and willing to help? SBmeier (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @SBmeier, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think the first problem is that you have written your draft backwards.
An article on "Guardrails of Democracy" should be a summary of what reliable sources have written about the specific phrase "Guardrails of Democracy", and very little else.
You haven't told us even who originated the phrase, let alone what they or others have said about it. You mention six books (I presuem, since you don't actually give us a bibliographic citation for "Miles 1973" or "Boller & George 1998"). What do those books say about "Guardrails of Democracy", specifically? If they don't mention it, what are they doing as references to this article?
It is this that makes your draft read like an essay: I certainly get the sense that you are developing an idea. This might be very valuable but it is not what a Wikipedia article should do. No Wikipedia should ever advance a theory, an argument, or a conclusion, unless it is summarising what is presented in a single reliable source. ColinFine (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Colin, thanks for the feedback. I'll need to ponder how or if I can address that satisfactorily. As for the idea itself, I think it is more accurate to say that my thinking was taking shape and then I found that the concept was already in the public domain and slowly getting traction (as far as I can deduce). SBmeier (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been expressing my concerns to the current status and form of Wikipedia page on Autism, so I kept some feedback in the talk page. I also added an unbalanced template which was later removed. I discussed my concerns about that too. But an user with a Russian-looking alphabet or Cyrillic alphabet is directly calling by my name in section title as well as within article, and also adding "et al" after my name ( Talk:Autism#c-Димитрий Улянов Иванов-20241213132400-Autism as a Neurodevelopmental Disorder - Response to RIT RAJARSHI et al.) I perceive this as a personal attack and a lack of good faith. I am requesting more experienced editors to look at the matter. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section begins with mentioning contributions by you and by another editor. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to summarise that as "RR et al". ColinFine (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know I've already asked about my userpage before but I've done a lot of work on it since then. Does my userpage go a bit overboard, especially with the inline links? I joined the welcoming committee and I am expecting at least a few new users to come to my userpage from my signature on my welcome messages so I tried to leave a lot of inline links for them to click on and get a feel for the scope of the encyclopedia. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions15:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, they've got a point. The reason we exist on this world is to get as many rules added to the book as possible. No one ever told me I couldn't add an inline link containing some sarcastic joke for every single word on my userpage, but I'm sure they wouldn't like it if I did so why don't we make it official? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions16:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of February 2013, the XML file containing current pages only, no user or talk pages, was 42,987,293,445 bytes uncompressed (43 GB). The XML file with current pages, including user and talk pages, was 93,754,003,797 bytes uncompressed (94 GB). The full history dumps, all 174 files of them, took 10,005,676,791,734 bytes (10 TB).
As of August 2023, Wikimedia Commons, which includes the images, videos and other media used across all the language-specific Wikipedias contained 96,519,778 files, totalling 470,991,810,222,099 bytes (428.36 TB).CommissarDoggoTalk?16:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been asked by a good friend to change certain items on both her and her late husband's Wiki sites. A few are personal, some are work-related. So, she (Ann Charters) would be my source as well as some information about her late husband (Samuel Charters) who is also the subject of a Wikipedia page. What should i do? Thank you. Please advise.
If you could find credible sources with which to back up your information, you could make these changes. But please do not add any new information without citation, even if it is straight from the her mouth, we have no way of verifying that. And make sure you declare WP:COI. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ritlarge. Private interviews conducted by Wikipedia editors with article subjects or their spouses cannot be used on Wikipedia in any way. The relevant policy is No original research. The only value is that what you are told may help narrow your search for reliable published sources, and the interview subject may be able to provide you with copies of or links to reliable published sources. Cullen328 (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to write about the educational background of an employed Professor. Can I use a Top 100 American university website as a source? Is this considered a secondary source even though it is possible the Professor wrote his own certifications here. At the very least the university definitely fact checked this.
I submitted an article for review a couple of weeks ago, but haven’t heard anything back as yet. Is there anything I need or could do to speed up the process? Thanks! MJ638 (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure it has been submitted? Usually on submitted but unreviewed drafts, I see a big orange box with "Review waiting, please be patient." at the top, but it's not on the draft that Rotideypoc41352 has linked above. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I never received that “Review waiting…” message or the big orange box you mentioned. I had initially submitted a draft of “The Double Archetype” around one year ago, but it needed major revisions, as it was my first such submission to Wikipedia. I then reposted the article but it was well beyond the 6-month mark for editing. My recent re-submission (i.e., “The Double Archetype/Soul Figure”) I posted as a new submission and am concerned that it won’t be reviewed again. What to do? MJ638 (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correcting classical answer that has many cited references
Bertrand's box paradox - Wikipedia Is just one of several Wikipedia articles that pose a probability problem and answer the same way. The question in each is about the probability of a specific outcome of an event after it occurred but the answer is the probability of that outcome before the event has occurred. Therefore the answer is incorrect.
I tried editing Betrand's box paradox but since it contradicts all the cited sources, it is not completely accepted. It was thought that I was using "original research." But my reference is an article of which I am the sole authoer published in the peer-review magazine Chance:https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/N2ZHDVNZTCGQBQWTN5ZQ/full?target=10.1080/09332480.2024.2415844 How do I edit to correct these wrong answers?
Hello, @Kicab, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure why you were directed here, because I don't think you'll get any better asnwers here than at the Talk page. ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to chime in since I'm the one that suggested that they come here. The discussion on that article's talk page was primarily between myself and Kicab, though I'm fairly new here so I wasn't sure of the best way to resolve the dispute. In retrospect I probably could have asked here myself, though someone else has joined the conversation so I think that things will resolve themselves over at the talk page. Thank you! DoomInAJar (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, there are two sources from the US Dept. of Justice that list all of the people named and their offenses so I think the problem is just that those sources are not cited prominently or frequently enough. That is, in theory, they could both be appended to each individual person but that seems to be overkill to me. I asked a follow-up question but did not get a further reply.
As far as I can see, the current references #1 and #2 are sufficient to satisfy WP standards for biographical information. It seems that they should be referenced more prominently so that it is clear where the information on each person is sourced from. I've done what I propose for the first two sections -- adding those references adjacent to the date that starts the section. Another alternative would be to repeat them for each individual.
I'm looking for advice as to
which method (or another suggestion) is best?
If there is anything else that would be needed to address the issues that have been flagged on that entry before the warnings can be removed.
As to the issue flagged about use of "unencyclopedic" terms for the crimes. I believe that was valid when the issue was posted but the entry has long since been revised to use the descriptions of the crimes as listed in the DoJ source, sometimes with arbridgement such as "Desertion in violation of the 58th Article of War" in the source listed simply as "Desertion" in the WP entry.
1. I’m having an issue in getting my peer review done and I’ve gotten no responses and I’m trying to promote the article to at least B or C class. What should I do?
Welcome to the Teahouse, @Reader of Information. Can you please link to these two articles so that we can see them?At the top of my head, I would probably go to the article's respective Wikiproject talk page and see if anyone interested would want to review these requests. TheWikiToby (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reader of Information: For 4th Army (France) I would say that is not a stub, but certainly not B class. The reason is that it is composed of a series of lists, without much contextual text. If you add more explanatory prose along with references, it could be rated a "C" otherwise I would suggest a start rating with so few in-line references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am relatively new and enthusiastic editor but I get discouraged when I see duplication or even contradiction between articles which overlap in context. A clear example I’ve encountered concerns the topic of history in “Hawaii”. Hawaii the US state and Hawaiian Islands, the archipelago, are practically the same thing in a History context. There is also an article History of Hawaii.
Jp2207, that template is a special case of template {{Excerpt}}. Personally, I find the use of {{Excerpt}} helpful and advantageous, for the alignment reasons you state; some other editors disagree. For a discussion of the pros and cons, see {{Excerpt#Advantages and disadvantages}}. Some of the possible disadvantages have mitigating factors; follow the links in that section.
Note that new and enthusiastic is good, and WP:BE BOLD is an approved editing guideline. At the same time, Hawaii has had 4,218 editors, and currently has 1,467 editors watching the page, while History of Hawaii has 998 and 125. It may be worth raising a discussion at one of the article Talk pages, probably at Talk:Hawaii, and sketch out your plan there, to see how other interested editors may react. It would be disappointing if you prepared a large edit to align the two, only to have it undone by some other editor. Discussing it in advance is a collegial thing to do, and may avoid possible conflict. Still, WP:BE BOLD is a thing, so how you approach this is up to you, once you have considered all the factors involved. See also WP:Summary style. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Danos Denik It hasn't been reviewed because it was submitted yesterday, they take time to be reviewed. There are currently around 1700 articles waiting to be reviewed in WP:AFC and an expected wait time of 8 weeks, sometimes it's shorter and sometimes it's longer.
Although I know this likely isn't what you want to hear, I'm afraid that the article in its current state is unlikely to succeed in review, looking more like an advert than an encyclopaedic article, please read WP:PUFFERY. Also read WP:42, from what I can tell all of the references are either to chess games or rankings, not to reliable and secondary sources talking about the individual. CommissarDoggoTalk?20:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Danos Denik As Doggo said, reviews take time and us volunteers can only work on so much. Although I'm not a reviewer and not too reliable to judge notability, the only sources the draft cites are bare Chess games and online Chess profiles. Sources like these do not contribute to WP:NOTABILITY, so it's unlikely the article will be accepted until the problems are fixed. TheWikiToby (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23 Just gunna loop you in here to gain clarification, looking at the two articles that got brought up here that I subsequently CSD'd, you denied the CSD's due to the articles having a claim of notability. Looking at the draft mentioned here however, it failed WP:AFC a couple of days ago due to what appears to be a lack of sources. Does being an Arena Grand Master meet notability guidelines? CommissarDoggoTalk?21:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I declined the deletion, but that doesn't mean the article meets WP:GNG, just that it has enough to get past an A7. As an aside, it looks like there may be some socking going on here.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being very new to wikipedia, I am not sure about that. But as far as my chess knowledge and research, becoming arena grandmaster is quite tough, also it is the highest title to be achieved on the online arena. Due to the pandemic effect on chess, chess has more players on the online platforms. Also we have about 15 million daily users. We only have 423 Arena Grandmasters( Till Sep'24 Wikipedia) Danos Denik (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how to submit for topic review but wait on smaller edits?
hi, this is our first try at a page. we would like to get an overall look at the Topic Suitability before we spend more time fixing small citation errors, putting in some helpful figures, etc.
Is there any way to request just the big-picture review of the page but defer the smaller things until we've had a chance to clean it up further and make various small improvements that we want to do? Many thanks!! Ingrid wysong (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ingrid wysong Hello. You don't need the whole url when linking to a Wikipedia article or page. I fixed this. You linked to an article, but you seem to be talking about a draft. What review are you waiting for? 331dot (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hello @331dot, and thank you. i was hoping it would be a draft that would get a first review, but i may have done it incorrectly and put it to an article page directly by mistake? ugh. what should i do? Ingrid wysong (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, @David notMD, you are correct there for sure. I had really intended to move this from sandbox to a draft article for a while, since it needs a bunch of format corrections, and added text where indicated. But, I did it wrong and it went straight to article. If you know how to put it back to Draft status, I would be grateful. It definitely needs work before it's public. Thank you. Ingrid wysong (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I recently found out by readinga cademic paper on Ptolemaic queens of ancient Egypt that two of them were granted title of Vizier. So I went into page Vizier (Ancient Egypt) and added their names to list of viziers, I also provided sources. And today I got this message: 'I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Vizier (Ancient Egypt) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk'. I brought back my edition and in meantime I am wondering what exactly 'not constructive' means.
This was page for viziers. I added viziers names and source. I do not speculate about extent of their power, I only provide information about title. What was 'not constructive' in my edit? Sobek2000 (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Sobek2000, and welcome to the Teahouse. What happened is that a particular editor (not "Wikipedia") decided there was something not right about your edit. They may have had a good reason, it might have been a simple mistake, or many other possiblities between. The thing to do is for you to engage with that editor - probably on the article's talk page, and make sure you ping that editor - you can find out who it was by looking at the article's history. Please see WP:BRD for how this works. ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I read, it seems that the edit was constructive as it was a list. Having the names there is the first step to completing lists and you did the proper fact checking so I don’t see how this was unconstructive. I’ll be undoing the revert as it doesn’t seem unconstructive if it hasn’t been done already.
@Humanengr: I assume that you mean policies and guidelines and essays. However your question is much too concise and hard to understand. SO please be less concise! Do you want a link to a list of all of these? Essays will be hard to get a total list as many are in userspace and a one user's opinion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Less concisely: Say someone objects to an edit and claims, e.g., WP:DUE as their justification. I, on the other hand, don't agree that WP:DUE applies (and quote part of that policy to support my argument) and ask the objector to indicate what they are relying on in WP:DUE. They don't respond. What should I cite to encourage them to respond? Humanengr (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thx … my question is: Which policy, guideline, etc., says to quote policy? Is there anything stronger than WP:ALP? I thought I had seen something, but can't remember where. Humanengr (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is much clearer question now. This depends a lot on the context of where you are talking and to whom. If you are issuing a warning to a newcomer, then link the policy and explain it simply. If you are talking to someone around for a long time then basic policies can just be mentioned, or linked as an abbreviation. So please consider your audience. For a formal deletion discussion then policy based arguments should be used, and it should be clear what policy that is. But in many discussions you don't have to mention policies. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mention of Number of Views
There is this article, which i'm trying to clean up and there this section called: Public image and influence. Which policy / guideline regulates / specify what to include in it or if it should just be deleted? Synonimany (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Synonimany The main policy is that Wikipedia article content is based on secondary sources, not primary ones. If some reliable secondary source had commented on how influential Giardelli had been owing to his videos, that would be valid content. Indeed, it would help confirm his notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving a Google Books/image source
Hi, I'm currently working on the Sacred Reich article (more specifically the draft on my userpage), and I wanted to ask about how to archive a paper source archives on Google Books (if possible).
If you're wondering why I'm going the length to archive it, it's because I want to 1. maintain the EL archive banner on the talk page and 2. build the article to endure. Normally I would try and find an alternative (such as a website) for this purpose, but the information I'm trying to cite mandates a non-retrospective review of the topic, in this case an album. the source I want to use doesn't seem to be archiveable via the Wayback Machine (via screenshot or or similar web-archives) so I'm not sure what to do. If anyone can provide an answer, it'd be highly appreciated. Thanks for reading. Sparkle and Fadetalkedits00:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sparkle & Fade This is going to be an annoying answer, I know, but Google books doesn't play well with any archive sites that I'm familiar with. Due to licensing and copyright, it's also pretty unstable, which adds another layer of frustration. If the book in question is available on the Internet Archive you could always try linking that, I suppose. However, offline sources such as books are a fundamental part of Wikipedia. They often very high quality, and, as you've found, contain material that is not currently on the internet. If people wish the verify the content, they can always go to the library and find a copy of the book. If you're citing the book to say something really contentious, you can always use the quote= parameter in the citation (but be careful not to do this too much or to often, for copyright reasons). Sorry this wasn't the answer you were looking for, but I hope it helps. Let me know if you need any clarifications. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this makes total sense. I believe it'd be better to just not include the link as it would cause less frustration regarding archiving it. Besides, since it's an offline source, they don't technically need archiving and thus do not need an external link. Thanks for your reply, @GreenLipstickLesbian, and thanks for reading. Sparkle and Fadetalkedits00:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not accessible? Also, is there any context here? If it's the same one on your user page, almost certainly not unless you can cite three reputable news articles on it that aren't interviews. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's your description of it (as posted on your rightly deleted user page): Bird.bud is a website about absolutely random tool and silly stop, and there is no practical use for random tool. these things and more with the bird.bud's homepage link: So it sounds like mere junk. Can you make a page about it here? No you can't. Can you post it here? No you can't. -- Hoary (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:SPS, podcasts are considered self-published sources. I want to ask whether there are situations where podcasts can be used as reliable sources, particularly podcasts that interview celebrities. Do the podcasts have to be produced by a reputable organization to be counted as reliable sources? How about, for example, this podcast produced by a YouTuber that interviews Barbara Corcoran? Could it be used in the article about her? Băng Tỏa 01:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Băng Tỏa, and welcome to the Teahouse. Reliability for podcasts is the same as for any other source: it depends on who publishes it, not on who it features. A podcast published by the BBC is probably reliable; a podcast published by some YouTuber on their own channel, probably not. ColinFine (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Troublemaking user
User Anoravsil has added "citation needed" (without rationale) to dozens of articles, many or most of which have been reverted, some labeled as vandalism -- ergo I think all of their edits are probably of the same nature. Where can I report this type of trouble so that, once verified, all of their edits can be rolled back? Al Begamut (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your question, @Al Begamut. I haven't been able to check who you're talking about, but if this person continues to add tags at this current moment, you can either report them to WP:AIV (for obvious cases of vandalism where there is no argument) or WP:ANI. Please remember to provide diffs (if you know how to. They look like this [4]) so that contributors can easily see the evidence you provide. TheWikiToby (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Shovel Shenanigans! There's actually a policy about this: WP:NONENG. While we prefer English-language sources, non-English language sources are completely fine! Without them, we wouldn't be able to make the encyclopedia very complete, would we? For example, I wrote Great Raid of the Pasaje Begoña last year, and I only used one English language source. As far as I can tell, this event was only ever covered in one English language source. It would be a great shame if I had to limit myself to just that one source, wouldn't it? I hope this helps! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, IP! This looks like a Spanish language newspaper from Uruguay, but looking a the top, it appears to be a sponsored post. That means the article subject paid for it to be written. These aren't typically good sources- they may be able to say a few facts about the subject (such as name, birthday, job), but they can't be used for exceptional claims or to establish notability.GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! One of my pending edits on John Logie Baird was recently reverted due to it referencing IMDb. I found another source referencing the exact same thing which is The Engineer. I am a little worried though that it seems like a blog type program because there are multiple on Late great engineers. Would this be considered a reliable source? ThrowScroll (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, a near-170-y-o professional journal is very far from being a blog, and is about as reliable a source as one could hope for. FWIW, I used to refer to 19th- and 20th-century issues of the magazine when researching articles (for a part-work encyclopaedia) on railway locomotives (and related topics) back in the 1980s: the library of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers kept (and probably still keeps) complete bound volume collections of this and many similar publications in its basement archives. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering, @Taymallah Belkadri. I've just marked the second page under WP:CSD, where the author wants the page deleted. However, I'm reluctant to delete the first page as it's actually your sandbox. I'll blank it for you, but if you really want the page deleted, you can copy and paste {{db-author}} to request a speedy deletion or ask someone to delete it for you again. TheWikiToby (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anything within your own User area (link starting User:Taymallah Belkadri) is under your own control and you can simply blank the page or place the template {{db-author}} at the top and an administrator will come along and remove it entirely. That course of action is not really needed for pages in User space, as you can simply re-use the page by adding new content. As CanonNi said, you can't delete the editing history of a contribution you made to a live mainspace article, although in many cases you can self-revert if you simply made a mistake. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me reassure you, Taymallah Belkadri, that Wikipedia is a very complex entity, and making mistakes of one sort or another is pretty well inevitable for a new, and even for a more experienced user: we all did, and do, and honest mistakes (of fact, coding or judgement) are not held against us. Learning from our mistakes (or just having another editor disagree with us) is how we all get better at editing, which is why the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (often just referred to as BRD) is a standard way of working here. Happy editing! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My page rkbanda aka Raghu Banda
Hello,
Why was my wiki page deleted? I have been contributing to the good of the wiki foundation for sometime. I am real human being and all the information provided was true but still it got deleted. I would appreciate a response.
@Rkbanda: I deleted your user page because it was very promotional, and not compliant with our user page policy WP:UP. I also posted a message on your talk page about autobiographies – have you read it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @BadEditor93: without commenting on whether the edits you refer to are vandalism, and/or whether you should be reverting them, just to say that you don't need rollback rights to undo someone's edits. Simply go to the last 'good' revision, ie. the one that you want to roll back to, and click on 'restore this version' on top of the page. This has the added advantage that it allows you to leave an edit comment explaining what you've done and why. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BadEditor93 These edits are certainly notvandalism, which has a very narrow definition meaning, roughly, that the edits in question are known and intended to damage the encyclopedia. The IP clearly went to considerable lenghts to add information, even if in your opinion that information is wrong. Please discuss this on the Talk Page of the article at Talk:La Revolución World Tour. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where should I ask if 'Personal View' articles published in The Lancet are appropriate secondary sources for biomedical information? According to The Lancet website they are peer reviewed. Daphne Morrow (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thank you for this. I understand the basics, I just need specific advice on this one type of article and I can't find this specific type mentioned within the resources I've checked. Daphne Morrow (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have had at least two - maybe three Wikipedia pages over the years created by great efforts of volunteers. All have disappeared, thanks to the censorship in vogue over the last decade. Is there any way to restore one of these - at least. The last one was the most comprehensive - amazingly so. It included family history I was only slightly aware of. I have no idea how to do this and would like some guidance.
Bill Still
writer director of:
The Money Masters - 1996
The Secret of Oz - 2010 - winner of best documentary of 2010 at the Beloit International Film Festival
Jekyll Island - 2015
YouTube producer of 4,608 YouTube news reports over 18 years.
Author of: "No More National Debt" - and several other books Billstill (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Billstill This had nothing to do with censorship and was entirely because, at the time (up to 2013) there was no evidence that Bill Still met any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The history of what happened is available here. The administrator who salted the tilte was User:Anachronist, who may be able to advise on the details. It is possible that more sources now exist to allow the creation of an acceptable article but if so that should not be done by you owing to your conflict of interest. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the history is available here (and at the pages to which it links). People can make drafts for articles about themselves (though in practice such drafts tend to be pretty feeble). No matter how heartfelt an attempt at a draft might be, if good sources don't exist then the attempt will fail. -- Hoary (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what Hoary linked to, articles about you were nominated for deletion and deleted in 2007, 2010, 2013, 2015. Also an article about your film The Secrets of Oz. You can try by creating and then submitting a draft via WP:YFA, but Wikipedia advises against attempts at autobiography (see WP:AUTO) as those almost always fail. What you know about yourself to be true cannot be included unless verified by independent references (see WP:42). David notMD (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Protalina Yes. If you go to the URL you specified, which can only be reached by people who have TWL access, you will see a way at the foot of the article to link to it. It is fairly easy to see that the URL= link.gale.com/apps/doc/A53563938/ITOF will work and, indeed if that is placed in the address bar of a browser takes you to this webpage. There should be related links at the Internet Archive which could also be used. We should never use wikipedialibrary.idm links in articles as they are not generally available to readers. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm editing a page and I think - this section needs rewording, or that section could be expanded upon and/or edited, does it count as a revert? I recently edited one page where I added some more information and to incorporate that completely, I reworded the original text a bit. Just some grammar, and sentence structure. Is that a revert? WikiwriterM (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was fired by a company for a simple assult but hand book says, The possession of a criminal
record is not a bar to employment. Each employee’s criminal record will be individually evaluated
during the selection process to determine if the criminal activity renders the employee unsuited
to the specific job assignment.
As part of this evaluation, the applicant or employee will provide an
opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding the criminal conduct.I wasn't given a chance to explain. My concern is others are allowed to work there depending their color. I'm looking for legal help. Ovacheva (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
resubmitting an article draft after adding inline citations
My article was declined and I was asked to use inline citations which I did and edited the draft, then I clicked publish. What do I do now, just wait? The message about having the draft declined remained the same after I re-published the article. Nikitronic (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good day
I would like to confirm I did a page for a person Laurenzo Noèl Thomson. How can I publish the page and submit it for approval? It's on my account. Thanks I'm new to this. You guidance will be truly appreciated.
Is this an attempt at an autobiography? While that's not prohibited, it is almost never successful, especially when new editors come here just to create such a thing. Wikipedia is not social media and for biographies of living people we insist that all details are cited to reliable published sources. I suggest you give up this attempt and begin by adding to our millions of existing articles until you have learned the basic of contributing. Then you might like to read this essay which explains why you might not want to have a biography here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mobile editing; Technical difficulties with adding specific objects
Question:
How do you add a heading/subheading on mobile?
Problem:
There is no button that helps with adding advances on mobile.
External info:
When I try to change the URL from “en.m.wikipedia.org” to “en.wikipedia.org”, I get sent back the “en.m.wikipedia.org”.
@Selectortopic: Hello! Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are familiar with html language, or md language, then you can do it easily in mobile view with source editor. Even if you are not familiar with html, the source editor uses wikitext, which is very easy to learn. For example, normal headers have two = on each side, eg: == normal header == a sub-header has three = eg: === sub-header === Regarding your second query, Wikipedia shows me two different versions of "desktop mode" (because of my settings). To achieve desktop mode, you have to do two things: first, click on "view deskto site" in a menu somewhere in your browser. Second, go down to the bottom of the Wikipedia page, and click on "desktop mode". If you do both these things, you will get desktop mode/display. —usernamekiran (talk)18:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can use the source editor if you wish (I always do except when replying to posts on this or talk pages), but when I just tried it on the App on my Android, one of the items it offered on the editing toolbar was "H2": if you pick that it offers H2, H3, H4, and H5 - that is to say, a header at level 2, 3, 4 and 5. ColinFine (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the edit you tried to make. It was on Sippy Grewal, correct? I would put a brief description of the desired information in its appropriate place on the page, and then use the "Add Citation" function to use the link in an unobtrusive manner. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to remove it, Arcot Shankar, because the sources don't have to be in English, and if there were sources in other languages then these would be languages in which I have zero competence. If you're pretty sure it's a hoax, do please nominate it for deletion. Here's how. Just follow the recipe. ("AfD" isn't the only option, but in view of the number of participants, or co-conspirators, so far, it's the best option.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging etiquette
Hi, I wanted to check on general etiquette when replying to editors on article talk pages. If I've pinged (@) someone in my post, then I reply to their response, do they get automatically notified or should I ping them again? I don't want to annoy anyone so thought I'd best check first! (I also just realised that my title looks like I'm asking about penguin etiquette if you squint really hard)Blue-Sonnet (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there might be some miscommunication here. When using the Reply tool, typing @ will open up a dropdown list of available users. Continue typing the to-be-pinged username and choose it from the menu. The user will be notified once the comment is posted. Users won't be notified if someone edits a comment; it has to be a new line with the commenter's signature; WP:MENTION goes into further detail.Users are, by default, subscribed to discussions they have participated in. When anyone adds a new comment in the discussion, they get a notification in their . You can still alert them with a ping and put a notification in their , though. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that was enabled by default; at least, I didn't have to fiddle with my preferences to toggle it on when the feature first came out. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing that in the infobox itself, only in the documentation. Although MOS:RETAIN is aimed at content, not template documentaion, I think the same logic applies here, there's simply no compelling reason to prefer British English here, given that frequent flyer programs were invented in the U.S. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but what about for non-US airline pages which use british english but then have a random piece of non british english in the infobox? notadev (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're really bothered about it, @NotADev, put a request on Template talk:infobox airline asking somebody to add a parameter to make that display as "programme" rather than "program". I don't know that you'll necessarily find anybody with the rigthts to make the change willing to do so, but you might strike lucky. (I'm in Yorkshire, and I wouldn't bother). ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How to fast forward the waiting process over Request comment on Talk:Jats
oh hi, my request sound is too bulky and marginal, but it have some common expect to remove an controversial featuring of wrong image and I did on talk summary over all by so far, still i felt it dont getting enough attention or recognition from wiki moderation and hardly lapping for more than 1 hrs 2409:40D6:109F:6A5F:D5CB:4884:480C:2A0E (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I for one find your request incomprehensible. Suggestion: Edit it. Read it out loud, checking that it makes sense. Where it doesn't make sense, edit it again. Make sure that it says precisely what should be changed to precisely what, and why it should. Then save ("Publish changes"). -- Hoary (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheer-up man, I don't bother you either and for the sack of god What the purpose of your statement is itself an intelligible resentment, most of the time i used this wikipedia as an medium of relatable centralised platform and coming to your spectacular question i think your try to revert the changes on Jats and font me point if you mind my word it was restricted by Semi protected layer ,however if you dont mind likably to ascend you over talk page at Talk:Jats you will understand whole endorsement User talk:Hoary2409:40D6:109F:6A5F:D5CB:4884:480C:2A0E (talk) 06:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your requests are very difficult to understand in English. If you don't have the ability to translate directly, I believe you would best get your point across by using short, simple sentences, using basic English words, and getting right to the point at describing exactly what you want changed and the justification. I kind of get the idea you want the photo removed because you claim the people in the picture are not Jats, but like Hoary, I find your justification to be incomprehensible. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An Vandal, allegedly Jats offender who pretending to be an pseudo mocker for ethnic marking
Hey can anybody please try to resolve an utterly arrogant issue which affecting the dignity of an social groups which sound quite sensitive issue for most of and not even single wikipedia user try their efficiency to resolve an hypocritical and triggering the value offered by Wikipedia standards
Accuser: This For removing the recent racist remark, and unfaithful potation by User:Dympies, who bluntly confronted by various admin over narrowing Jat and related topic
Reason: Unexplained exposure of controversial image convicted by User:Dympies[5]
Thank you for sharing your concerns about the image uploaded by Dympies and its impact on the article about Jats. I appreciate that we are all working towards ensuring that Wikipedia presents content in a neutral and verifiable manner, in line with the platform's core policies. I understand that the image in question is a contentious issue for many, and I believe there are a few key points to address to move forward constructively.SkīHītalk17:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. How much time will it then take to get incorporated into the article ? BTW, there is a viewbox with view source code, what am I supposed to do with that ? I know HTML code and markups but this is something else. Arcot Shankar (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you're asked to edit, Arcot Shankar, is "MediaWiki". It's not Markdown, but it could be called a markdown language. Anyway, it's a markup language, which means that it's very easy (though tables remain somewhat fiddly). In regular body text, a line break does nothing; two consecutive line breaks start a new paragraph. Regular ("ASCII") apostrophes are used for italics and bold; <blockquote> starts an indented block and </blockquote> ends it. You sign by hitting tilde four times in a row. Help files, which are easy to find, tell you more, but there's not much more to tell. -- Hoary (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to use HTML codes alongside MediaWiki markup for better formatting and readability ? What are the usable HTML codes ? Is there any FAQ for the MediaWiki markup language ? Arcot Shankar (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arcot Shankar, start with the "introduction". Since you're accustomed to markup languages, skip the "visual editor" and instead edit the source. If the instructions seem too laboured, skip them and go straight to the "cheatsheet". The acceptable (or at least tolerated) use of HTML is explained in "HTML in wikitext": I'm pretty fluent in HTML ("strict", too: 4; less so for 5), but rarely need or want to use HTML here. The time you'd spend working out what you can and can't do here with the HTML you already understand would be far better spent accustomizing yourself to MediaWiki ("wikitext"). It's simple, really. -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't go away, Arcot Shankar! Please revisit "Add a link", above. As you're pretty new here, "AfD" may seem daunting. But it isn't. If you decide to nominate the article, do so citing one (or more) of the reasons for deletion. Avoid adding your own commentary (let alone sarcasm, etc). Be concise. If subsequent "keep" comments make fairly clear errors of fact (e.g. claiming that a particular reference states such-and-such whereas in reality it does not), then feel free to argue back, coolly; but if you object to a comment for some other reason, better keep silent. -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dates (2019, December 2019 or 2020?)
I'm currently working on the Sacred Reich article (specifically at my user sandbox) and I don't know whether or not to use "December 2019" for accuracy or "2019" or "2020" for simplification.
I've used the Alice in Chains article (the lead) as a reference, and it simply says "2006" because the most recent change in the band's lineup was in mid 2006. However, the most recent lineup change in Sacred Reich was in December 2019, which has me doubting if I should use "2019". Any response is appreciated, Sparkle and Fadetalkedits06:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the question, @Sparkle & Fade. I am unaware of any policies or guidelines which specifically state this, but looking at several other articles for bands (including The Beatles, which is a featured article), it looks like the best answer would be to either say 2019 or late 2019. I hope this helps! TheWikiToby (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How to improve this draft?
Hi there, it's my first time writing an article and I understand that Wikipedia is all about credibility. May I know what can I cite or add to this draft (Draft:LUZ (2025 film)) to get approved? Would it be more media coverage or an IMDb link? Thank you very much. Pineapplebunbun (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Pineapplebunbun. There is a pretty high threshold for articles about unreleased films. What is expected are references to multiple sources that are indisputably reliable and that devote truly significant coverage to the production of the film. Your current references are weak. Synopses published in advance on film festival websites are of little value, because their purpose is to promote the film showing, not to discuss the production process. Please read WP:NFF. As for IMDb, that is not a reliable source. Please read WP:IMDB for the consensus of the community. Cullen328 (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed and Declined. There is content that does not have a reference. Given that the first time this award was given was November 2024, may be WP:TOOSOON to have published content about it. David notMD (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! As in - each question in this TeaHouse presents as a drop down section, right? I was asking about that. Collapsed until we click it when it expands. WikiwriterM (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had submitted a proper edit to the existing wiki page called True Anomaly. However, I do not see the changes shown on the page. Can someone kindly tell me if I have done something wrong or will pending changes not be shown until either accepted or rejected? The link to the current page is: True anomalyPdmaley (talk) 10:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would try again. There's nothing in the edit history or in the edit filter history(which might have stopped your edit). 331dot (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:NCONCERT does not say anything about once-off concerts such as the Super Bowl Halftime Show. Question is, can a concert (which is a part of a world tour) have a standalone article? The "Chris Brown Live in Johannesburg" is a well discussed concert in RS, plus he sold out the biggest stadium in Africa (13th in the world) in less than 2 hours. dxneo (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could do, per WP:NEVENT, if the one-off concert has enough lasting impact. Though it would have to be looked at case by case and I don't think that would be possible to guage when the concert happened (let me check...) yesterday. For some examples, Modena Park 2017broke the record for highest attended concert, a sum which is more noteworthy of how quickly the tickets sold out. The Last Waltz was made into a Scorsese documentary and has been discussed in depth many times since, the article is as much about the event as it is about the documentary. The album At Folsom Prison has an article but the concert which it is a recording of does not - arguably the topics are one and the same, but the article is structured around the album and not the concert. The Doors at New Havendoesn't have a standalone article, as even though the event is discussed in many reliable sources it is always part of the band's story as a whole - which what I imagine this one concert of Chris Brown's would be: undeniably worth including in the main article, but not so much standalone. -- D'n'B-t -- 14:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, @Sophia Labadi. This is a scam and not acceptable under our policies. Report the email and its contents to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org so that they can handle the situation. Do not contact or interact with this person. Please read WP:SCAM for more info. TheWikiToby (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was the user that did this by any chance Biune Ploke? I can see that they made an account to instantly make a page about you. This situation may require a block.
I concur with what TheWikiToby wrote, that you should not make any contact with the person, and should report them, but will add a few comments. Any Wikipedia article, including an article about a living person, must pass the test of notability, which mostly means that reliable sources have written significantly about the subject (that is, about you). An article about a person (or other subject) that is not notable will be nominated for deletion. After the deletion discussion is closed and the article is deleted, there will not be an article about you, but your money will still belong to the con person. They are making a false promise if they say that they can get an article about you to be in Wikipedia. So you, User:Sophia Labadi, were wise to ask whether this is permitted or is not acceptable, because it is not acceptable and is a con game. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Above: "have written significantly about the subject (that is, about you)". Yes, if we stretch the meaning of "you". Academics are busy people and very few of them have the time or energy (or desire, or, arguably, bad taste) to appear on TV game/"reality" shows, wear "designer" clothes, get into newsworthy spats with their significant others, or do the other nonsense that keeps mere celebs in the tabloid eye. What makes them notable is the reception in reliable sources not of themselves but of their work. Comments on your publications by academics unaffiliated with you would go towards notability. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to a quick search, you are a professor at the University of Kent who has published and has received various awards. Wikipedia guidance for academics is at WP:NACADEMIC. Looking at that, do you believe you meet the criteria? If yes, you could attempt to draft an article about yourself using the guide at WP:YFA, after first carefully reviewing WP:AUTO. There is a consensus that succeeding without first gaining experience by improving existing articles is rare but not impossible. a key requirement is that people with no direct connection to you have published about you (see WP:42). The Univ Kent website does not count as an independent, secondary reference, nor do published interviews, nor your website. David notMD (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier this year, using my IP, I suggested a split. What do I do now?
Hello! this march, I found the page on Religious views on masturbation and was shocked to find that the christianity section is literally the length of an entire article while everything else was brief. I made the Topic on the talk page ([7]) suggesting it be split into its own article whilst being trimmed down heavily on the general religious page. nobody has responded to the request yet and Im not sure what to do. Ive been told by a helpful user that its generally bad practice to respond to old talk pages + it seems disengenious to just respond to it pinging people 9 months later, I think itd come off as me trying to boss people into responding to me now that I have an account. AssanEcho (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the question, AssanEcho. Off the top of my head, I would probably recommend going to the article's respective Wikiproject and ask if anyone interested would want to contribute. You can also ask prominent contributors to the article or people who you know are knowledgeable on the topic. TheWikiToby (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Politician possibly discovered article on his party
I have a bit of an odd situation on my hands. Earlier this month, shortly after the Namibian elections, I created a short article for the Body of Christ Party as it gained a seat in their National Assembly. Recently, on the talk page of this article, someone claiming to be the politician heading the party saying he wanted to "start discussing" the party came onto the talk page. What should I do in this situation? Should I delete his message or just leave it there and not respond to it? --IntergalacticOboist (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I believe they're asking is if the use of large language models (LLMs, otherwise known as AI) for Wikipedia articles. There is an essay on this and other documents regarding it on Metawiki, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of consensus/info on it. However, the common points are:
All text needs to be backed up with reliable sources/citations, as AI is generally known to "hallucinate" sources for text—among other problems—which can lead to original research.
Text needs to be verified for grammar mistakes, unverified info, and other problems before being published. Editors need to take caution when using LLMs for articles, and should not edit using LLMs if they are unfamiliar with using them responsibly.
Elaborating on my comment here since I accidentally posted too early:
Generally, you will be held accountable for any edits you make using LLMs and AI, and are advised to use it responsibly, and with due respect to Wikipedia's core content policies and guidelines. If you are new here, I recommend familiarizing yourself with editing at Help:Introduction. If you are unsure about an edit, contact an administrator or another editor about it. Thanks for asking. Sparkle and Fadetalkedits02:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I'm Ampil. on Rollback requests. Text: I'm fight vandalism again, and I'm quite active in the Recent Changes, I use a Anti-Vandalism tools like AntiVandal and Ultraviolet. after Fastily retired, since November 19, 2024. I have more than 200 vandalism reverts, last 4 months, and I'm meet all minimum requirements. The rollback rights would make easier. Can fix the grammar? Thanks. ~🌀Ampil「💬 / 📝」03:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've fixed your Grammar, "I'm fighting vandalism again, and I'm quite active in the Recent Changes. I use AntiVandal tools like AntiVandal and Ultraviolet. After Fastily retired on November 19, 2024, I have more than 200 vandalism reverts in the last 4 months, and I meet all minimum requirements. The rollback rights would make it easier." Here you go. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The best place to discuss changing the templates is on their Talk pages: I see that on each of them a (different) user has already started such a discussion.
The file in Commons needs to be retained, as it will still be required for articles, etc. when referring to the historical period when that flag was in use. Its description will need appropriate modifications to reflect recent events, and this needs to be taken into account with relation to the approximately 22,000 pages on which Template:Country data Syria is used.
Personally, I feel that it's still a little early (perhaps only by days) to start making sweeping changes – the situation is still volatile. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request a Block
I wrote this when I was fighting vandalism, but even though a moderator has resolved it, I need to know for the next time this happens... how do I request a block on a user? Basically, when the person has vandalized like 5 times and won't stop, how am I supposed to alert a moderator to block them? Should I ping a mod? Should I just wait for a mod to come across the profile? Help! Ali Beary(talk2me!)(stalk me?!)13:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommissarDoggo, I appreciate it, but I do use Twinkle. I was sending several vandalism warnings and they wouldn't stop. However, how do I report a user with Twinkle? I only know how to work the Welc and Warn sections really... what section is the report one in? Ali Beary(talk2me!)(stalk me?!)15:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ali Beary Oh whoops, hadn't seen this message so sorry for the late reply, you click on ARV in the Twinkle drop down. In that section you can choose which board you want to post the report to, sockpuppets/sockpuppeteers, AIV, edit warring and usernames. CommissarDoggoTalk?16:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ali Beary, Wikipedia has nobody designated a "moderator". Do you perhaps mean "administrator"? There's no policing of the English language (so you're free to call administrators "moderators" or indeed "knights who say 'ni'" if you wish), but calling administrators "moderators" suggests that they have a role that they don't have, and perhaps adds to confusion about them. -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary uh... 'moderator' is basically just another term for 'administrator'. Also, I'm on Discord a lot, so they use 'moderator' more there. Sorry I say stuff differently... I guess... but it didn't seem to confuse anyone else to replied to this thread..? Ali Beary(talk2me!)(stalk me?!)12:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Polite Request
Hello, I have drafted an article about Eray Birinci, which I am connected to, and I have disclosed my Conflict of Interest (COI) per Wikipedia guidelines.
I would greatly appreciate it if a neutral editor could review the draft for notability, neutrality, and verifiability.
Remember to log in when posting. You need to click the "Submit your draft for review!" button on the draft to formally submit it. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As 331dot says, you can submit your draft. But there is no point in doing so now, because the only sources are about Birinci's books. Like most new editors who immediately try the challenging task of creating an article, you have written your draft BACKWARDS. Wikipedia is not interested in what you know about Birinci: it is only interested in what people wholly unconnected to Birinci have chosen to publish about him in reliable sources - and if you cannot find several such sources, then there is no point in trying to write an article about him. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I just created the account, I use the standard settings on a conventional Windows notebook with Firefox. The site states:
The article that you're looking for doesn't exist.
You can create it as a draft, but...
Before you create an article, you should read this guide.
New to Wikipedia? See the contributing to Wikipedia page for everything you need to know to get started.
Need interactive help? You can ask questions at the Teahouse, help desk or through live chat.
You can also search for an existing article.
I stumbled across a page with a bare URL (Takeya Mizugaki) and I wanted to correct it but once I entered the visual or source editor, all the references change to completely other websites and also the bare URL is gone. Can someone explain that behaviour to me and whether if I can remove the banner? Squawk7700 (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Squawk7700 and welcome to the Teahouse. There is one bare reference in the article but it is in the infobox. The Visual Editor has limitations when it comes to templates like infoboxes. It ignores those references and renumbers the others, so it looks like there is no longer a bare one while you are in the editor. You will need to use the source editor to correct the reference. Hope this helps. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm just using mine incorrectly but I can't find any reason to use my watchlist. I currently have two articles, my user/talk page, and a draft I made on my list and I just never use it. Is it a thing that is more useful when working on multiple articles at once or something? How would a more experienced user use their watchlist? ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions18:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the way I use my watchlist (I have 628 pages) is that before leaving Wikipedia for the day, I check the watchlist to make sure that other edits made by others are legit. So the watchlist will be more useful if you have more pages under watch. Hope this helps. Cheers. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 18:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the question, @ApteryxRainWing. The watchlist is used to be of alert of any edits that occur to any articles. This is especially useful if you're a part of a major discussion, a contributor to a GA nomination, or are simply interested in whatever shenanigans happen for whatever reason. For example, I watchlisted Rain World and Lethal Company. I did Rain World because it's my favorite video game of all time and I wanna see what happens. I added Lethal Company because it's one of the first articles that I majorly contributed to when I first created my account. I'm pretty sure I have 71 and 72 edits to them respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWikiToby (talk • contribs) 18:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ApteryxRainWing, some people don't use watchlists and others use them for different reasons. I mainly deal with vandalism and spam so I have 4,942 articles/talk pages on my wl. A small amount of those are temporarily watched (you can select how long a page/article stays on your wl). I go through my wl every now and then to reduce it. I wouldn't worry too much about the list if it's not really useful to you. Hope this helps, happy editing, Knitsey (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ApteryxRainWing. I am an editor with 15 years of experience and an administrator. I have over 67,000 pages on my watchlist. I can usually detect subtle evidence of vandalism or disruption, or see unusual activity of various kinds that I can investigate when I review my watchlist. A large majority of the entries on my list are uncontroversial. I pay attention to those that are out of the ordinary. Cullen328 (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ApteryxRainWing I use my Watchlist to keep track of articles I’ve written or have done major edits on, plus I watch pages that interest me. If some new information is put forth on an obscure topic that appeals to me I want to check it out, and see if a reliable reference was sourced. Use the list anyway that is of help to you, and if you don't consider it helpful, then just ignore it. Best wishes on future Wikipedia projects. Karenthewriter (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoozoor. Hello there, don't worry. I've fixed the error. It seems like nowiki codes ended up with your attempt to create a redirect. I've fixed it. It maybe happened because you were on the VisualEditor since something similar happened to me when I tried to create another redirect. Cheers. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m currently working on this page, Draft:May-Li Khoe, as part of a project for my Digital Technology course at LIUC University, and it will be evaluated. The page needs to be approved by December 28, ideally with a very high B rating. I was wondering if you could offer some advice on how to further improve the article to increase its chances of receiving a high rating. If you have any suggestions on refining it or if you could assist with the approval process, I would be very grateful. Thanks again for your assistance! LIUCRiccardo10 (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what advice to give you (unless another editor does give) since your draft is already pretty good. However, this is what you should keep in mind. Drafts will be reviewed by AFC reviewers in a random order. That means that your draft may not be accepted before December 28. But hopefully, for you, it does. That's all I can say to you. Hope it helps. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @LIUCRiccardo10, and welcome to the Teahouse. The first thing I will say is that making academic depdend on getting an article accepted at Wikipedia is a thoroughly bad idea, because you have no control over how long it will take to be reviewed: drafts are not reviewed in any particular order, but just as the volunteer reviewers choose to get to them. Whoever set this as part of your coursework should take a careful look at WP:EDUP
I am not a reviewer; but looking at your draft, in my opinon, there are far too many sources which are either not reliable (eg linkedin, sprout.place), not independent (eg MIT, all the patents), or barely mention Khoe (sprout-place again, the Rene Ritchie piece). There might be enough reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of Khoe to establish that she meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, but I'm not prepared to wade through looking for them.
An article should be almost entirely a summary of what such sources (see WP:42) say about the subject, and very little else. Sources which do not mention the subject of the article are nearly always a waste of time. Sources which are not independent may be used to verify a limited amount of uncontroversial factual data (such as places and dates). But if you can't find an independent sources that talks about (for example) Sprout, why is it significant enough to get a mention in an article about Khoe? ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LIUCRiccardo10 I completely agree with this, and would add that the Apple and Microsoft logos are really not necessary - just use a wikilink to the company names. You may think it makes the page look pretty, but it adds nothing of encyclopaedic value; just as a skyline view of Vancouver would not be needed to illustrate the statement that she once lived there. Also: sub-headings should always be written in sentence case, so you could remove the unnecessary capitalisation.
Feel free to show this reply to your tutor and tell them that we regard it as not only unreasonable but also unfair to have student's work assessed by whether or not our volunteer team have regarded their work acceptable, and to some artificial deadline that they have set. A course tutor should be sufficiently skilled in the workings of Wikipedia to be able to assess students work for themselves, based purely upon a Draft article or sandbox page! If they aren't, then they should not be setting you these tasks. It smacks of incompetence. I'm sorry you have all been put in this invidious position by your tutor - but you appear to made a pretty reasonable attempt thus far. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The matter of sentence case for headings is so trivial that I fixed the matter myself. The Apple and Microsoft logos are conspicuously superfluous here; please get rid of them. Aside from those (I suppose) differences of emphasis, I warmly agree with Nick Moyes in his comment above. Nick's "we" (in "we regard it as...") isn't a grand way of referring to himself; instead, it probably covers most people who've been editing Wikipedia for some time and who've given some thought to the matter, and it most definitely includes me. -- Hoary (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted logos and other stuff that would have contributed to the draft being Declined. Still needs work and references. P.S. There is no such thing as a "high" B rating. David notMD (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The deletions were beneficial. But, David notMD, I don't see how the deleted material "would have contributed to the draft being Declined". To be accepted, a draft doesn't have to be "good"; it must merely seem likely to survive AfD. I'm pretty sure that it would do so now. I could accept it now, but LIUCRiccardo10 still has more than one week, and is keen to get "a very high B rating". From whom -- Wikipedia or the class teacher? If the former: Individual Wikipedia users give "B" ratings, but typically not after careful consideration. And if it's "B", it's plain "B": there's no "high B" or "low B" or even "borderline B". ¶ Here's something that Riccardo could attend to. A reference that's not unusual for this draft: Gray Area. "May-Li Khoe". Gray Area. Retrieved 2024-11-07. If a web page, article, etc that's on/in website or magazine XYZ isn't attributed to any particular author(s), we don't attribute its authorship to XYZ. Instead, we just leave it blank: "May-Li Khoe". Gray Area. Retrieved 2024-11-07. Same if the website, magazine etc attributes it to "Editorial staff": "Editorial staff" is uninformative, so we skip it. If using a Cite template, use "last=" for the surname of a single person, not for anything else. (This edit of mine [search within it for "Schachman"], and this one may help explain.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Etiquette regarding removal of extensive needless detail
Hi, I am wondering if there are any specific etiquette or pitfalls I should be aware of as I go about trying to improve an article like Monk parakeet. I understand that it's acceptable to edit boldly, but in this case what I'd like to do is start chopping out a lot of what I consider to be needless detail, for example a population estimate of 5277 parakeets in Barcelona in 2015. It seems like taking out something that someone thought was interesting is a little more aggressive than fixing typos or adding to an article.
One thing I was particularly unsure of: should I start a new topic on the discussion page for the article? I can be civil but it comes down to being pretty blunt about the fact that I think the article is badly organized and overemphasizes one particular aspect of the subject. Discuss or just go after it?
I have found some general guidelines that bear on this. (Wikipedia is not a collection of statistics, it is more than a collection of facts, etc.) I'm just wondering if there is more I should be aware of or if I am being too delicate. Philly6097 (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Philly6097. I'm all for cutting out cruft from articles. The question, I suppose is, whether you think anybody is going to object. If you don't think anybody is, then go ahead and be bold. If you think they might, then you still have the choice of whether to be bold and see if you're reverted, or to open a discussion first. It looks as if the person who has contributed most to the "Invasive Species" section recently is DuckWrangler97, so that would be ping in a discussion if you decide to do that. ColinFine (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Philly6097 We do encourage the removal of WP:TRIVIA from articles. But, yes, it can be tricky. It's important to be aware of possible reasons why such figures were included in the first place. The context here is about this being an Invasive Non Native Species (INNS), so I found the figures very informative to show the spread of this taxon around parts of the Europe and elsewhere. That said, I would go for generalisation rather than completely excising it. Thus, I might change Madrid has the greatest population of monk parakeets in Europe, with 10,800 parakeets as of June 2015. A population estimate model projected the population of monk parakeets in Barcelona to be 5277 in 2015 to something like: Madrid has the greatest population of monk parakeets in Europe, with 10,800 parakeets as of June 2015, whilst Barcelona's population was estimated to be well over 5,000 at the same point in time. Some of the minor detail about which spots the birds occur in within one particular city do seem like WP:TRIVIA, and are quite unnecessary. But don't lose the elements that show a currently changing situation. Hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Moyes, on the matter of cruft, how about the kind exemplified within the article Philip Nichols (diplomat)? It's ostensibly about somebody who was an ambassador to Czechoslovakia at a very volatile and decisive time in that nation's history. (This is how I encountered his name.) But it says very little about that, instead divulging to the reader such nuggets as who his younger sister's husband's sister was and who his daughter's husband's father and (maternal) grandmother were. -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary, I agree that the material about Nichols' less immediate relatives is not very useful*, although I'd hesitate to cut all of it, but of course it has no bearing on showing the suject's notability, and ignoring that material I'm not sure that the remainder, actually about Nichols, contains enough to justify an article. He seems to have been just another competent diplomat, doing his job, with no outstanding achievements (or blunders).
(* I had to double check that he was not part of the Middleton family sphere so over-inserted by a certain Australian-based contributor.)
@Hoary I'm not sure there's any comparison, is there? One article is attempting (albeit a tad verbosely) to use data in an encyclopaedic manner to demonstrate the expansion of a non-native and potentially harmful species around various continents during the 21st century (and within quite a detailed article); whilst the other is about a UK ambassador and knight of the realm - and mentions a load of notable relatives in passsing - all within a fairly perfunctory article that could merit some expanding. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sacred Reich and verifying sales claims
I'm currently working on the Sacred Reich article (specifically a draft on my userpage) and I'm trying to verify a claim regarding the sale of one of the band's release. In an interview with the Arizona Republic, the band's frontman Phil Rind recalls that their EP "Surf Nicaragua" outsold their first album "Ignorance" within two weeks. However, I'm having trouble verifying this because this is a statement from 2019 (when the release was in 1988) and I can't verify the sales because Metal Blade Records, the band's preferred label, did not sign with the RIAA until 2011. Should I use his statement in the article as fact "It outsold the band's first album within two weeks", use it as a quote "Phil Rind recalls that the EP "outsold their first release within two weeks." or not include it at all per WP:RS and maybe WP:ONUS? Any response is appreciated. Sparkle and Fadetalkedits23:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally go with your second option and tweak it a little to say that, "In 2019, Phil Rind recalled that the EP "outsold their first release within two weeks."TheWikiToby (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am updating Nat X Ross page. He has no photo or photos. I would like to add a headshot and a photo of his biking. How might I go about that if I do not have photo taken by myself. Nat X RossKeelahgrif (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Keelahgrif You can only upload an image to Wikimedia Commons if you can find one which is clearly and explicitly marked as available for re-use for commercial purposes. I might look on Flickr, or search with a tool which allows you to select for Creative Commons images (but a quick check didn't reveal anything useful). So, you are stuck, really, unless you find images that someone has posted and persuade them to change the licensing. I've done this once or twice with copyrighted images on Flickr where a personal approach to the photographer has resulted in them changing the default licence they first posted it under. But we do take copyright very seriously here, so please don't try to upload an image you can't clearly prove is properly licenced. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Keelahgrif Before you upload an image to Wikimedia Commons (the site that hosts creative commons images for Wikipedia), you need to verify that the image is liscenced under a Creative Commons Sharealike (CC-BY-SA) liscense. If it is listed under CC-BY-NC or only permitted for use on Wikipedia, do not upload it. If it does not have a Creative Commons license, then it is presumed copyrighted. You can attempt to upload it On Wikipedia instead of Commons under a Fair use rationale in accordance to Wikipedia's non-free content policy. If you do not know what fair use is, see Fair use. I hope this helps, Sparkle and Fadetalkedits23:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi WikiPhil012. The threshold of originality applied when assessing the copyright status of logos often varies from country to country; so, it's hard to say whether this logo would be 100% within the public domain worldwide without knowing more about its provenance. The US, for example, has a relatively high threshold compared to the UK; so, this would most likely fall below the US's threshold and be considered too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law; however, it could be considered to be above the UK's threshold and thus creative enough for protection under UK copyright law. Since English Wikipedia's servers are located in the US, English Wikipedia primarily follows US copyright law when it comes to such things. Wikimedia Commons, on the other, also takes into account the copyright laws of the country of first publication in addition to US copyright law because Commons is more of a global site. So, if this logo originates out of the US, it should be fine to upload to Commons under a c:Template:PD-logo license; if, however, it originates in a country other than the US and that country has a lower threshold than the US, it might not be OK to upload to Commons. In the latter case, it should be fine to upload locally to English Wikipedia under a Template:PD-ineligible-USonly license and would not need to be treated as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rules of recommendations to add links in an article
Hello ! I'd like to know if there are rules or recommendations to add links in an article.
I'm talking about internal links to Wikipedia in English.
As an example. We can choose the article "Bashar Al-Assad".
If there are a section or a sub-section citing "Moscow" (This is an example but I could take another subject mentionned on this article).
If Moscow is linked one time in the article. Can I do it for others sections or sub-sections if this is not the same sub-section or section ?
If you don't understand what I means with words "section" and "sub-section".
You can see the example below.
== Presidency == is a section.
=== Early leadership (2000–2011) === is a sub-section of the section "Presidency".
A footnote on that page says Major sections are generally detailed sections with a level-2 heading, but consensus at an article may determine a lower-level subsection is major..., so generally speaking, a term shold only be linked once every section, unless the section is very large. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs)08:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anatole-berthe, it is not necessary to wikilink major world cities known to all literate English speakers such as London, Manila, Paris, Delhi, New York, Tokyo, Havana, Cairo, Rome, Baghdad or Moscow, for example. However, my mother's home town of Moscow, Idaho should be wikilinked. Cullen328 (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieving deleted article made by sockpuppet user
Hello, a while ago I found out about the Recession pop article, and I believe it was well written and should stay on the project. However, as it was written by a confirmed sockpuppet, it recently got deleted. Is there any way for an admin to restore the article Pyraminxsolver (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also is there anything regarding Wikipedia policy on restoring a sockpuppet edit if another person regards it as a reasonable and quality contribution? Pyraminxsolver (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pyraminxsolver: I think these things are kind of covered in WP:REVERTBAN. If you're WP:HERE and feel recreating the deleted article would be to the benefit of Wikipedia, you can your explain your intentions to the administrator who deleted the article and see what they have to say. They might restore it for you themselves. The same applies to individual edits made by blocked/banned accounts. You should understand though that trying to do so things might make others suspicious and they might assume the worst. So, you should make it clear that you're not WP:PROXYING and be able to clearly show how whatever you want to recreate is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, our English articles are all translated from Chinese articles, but the source information in the Chinese articles is not reliable. Moreover, this article was published in 2015. It may be very difficult to find reliable source information now. How can we solve this problem? CHEN HEBING (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @CHEN HEBING: simple answer is, you need to find better sources. (Sorry if that sounds like a truism, but that's what it boils down to.)
Each language version of Wikipedia is a completely separate project with their own policies and requirements. The English-language one has stricter referencing and notability standards than any other version (that I'm aware of at least), therefore it often happens when translating from other language versions that the referencing isn't enough to be accepted here.
My advice when looking to translate anything is to first check if the sources cited in the original article are enough for our requirements. If not, then do some research to find more and/or better ones. And if you can't, then don't bother even starting to translate, as your effort may well be wasted. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid this answer is probably not going to be what you want to hear.
My very strong advice is to give up. "Creating a page or your local rugby club" is not a task that is in the gift of your club - in fact you (and your fellow members) are collectively the least appropriate people to work on such an article, because of your conflict of interest - not forbidden, but discouraged.
More fundamentally, the chances that a local Rugby Club meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability are remote, and if it doesn't then any attempt to write an article will fail.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent reliable sources have said about a subject, and very little else. Unless you can find several such sources (see WP:42) there is nothing you can put in an article. Sorry. ColinFine (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am trying to write a Wikipedia page for Guru (getguru.com), a knowledge management software company. We are quite large and larger than many others that have Wikipedia pages below but we keep getting denied for being "run of the mill". We've been denied 4 times now with multiple edits over 9 months and it's becoming a bit frustrating because there isn't any constructive feedback given, especially relative to smaller competitors that already have "ROTM" Wikipedia pages and are referenced in the Knowledge Mgmt Software Wikipedia page (Knowledge management software)
Could someone help me with the next iteration so we know what "good" looks like for something like this? we are kind of stuck and willing to adjust as needed. Draft:Guru (software company)
An important thing to understand is that Wikipedia is a work in progress; just because an article is on Wikipedia, does not mean it should be on Wikipedia. It's possible that each of the articles you mentioned should be deleted (I don't know; I haven't checked). It's also possible that your company simply does not meet notability criteria at this time, despite being successful and influential: 'notability' is a function of external independent coverage. The extent to which a topic has been noted. This is the problem with having a conflict of interest (which we do appreciate your mentioning, thank you): you are incentivized to believe that your own company meets notability criteria, because you equate 'being on wikipedia' with 'greater publicity' and, consequently, with 'your own financial success'. DS (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Signing question
Hello friends, Shen here again. I was curious about something. I've noticed a lot of people have customized signatures (ex: colored text with their username, a neat little phrase instead of "Talk", etc.) and I was curious how I could go about doing that myself.
Thank you for the question, @Shovel Shenanigans. In your preferences, you can go to the tab User profile and create a custom signature there. Maybe I can find a guide out there on examples of how to change its look and show it to you. TheWikiToby (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a full citation I can link to the exact book page I’m referring to if that page has its own URL, like https://archive.org/details/b2803806x/page/58/. But if there are several citations of different pages of the same book, I like to replace all full citations except one with {sfn}. The remaining full citation links only to one page (if any). Is it possible and appropriate to create links to specific book pages from {sfn}?
Hi editors, I made a rather large request for the power generation section. It's essentially a reorganization and removing some unsourced sentences and a little bit of new content. I recognize that it is pretty unwieldy. I would appreciate any suggestions that editors here have for improving it! Cheers FPL Daniel (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FPL Daniel, it's unlikely that any editor will approve a large unwieldy proposal like yours. You don't even make it clear what you want. Are proposing to replace the whole article by the six sections you've written? Or to add them to it? Or to have them replace some unspecified parts of it? Maproom (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Feedback on Draft: Dr. Toula Gordillo
Dear Wikipedia Editors,
I hope this message finds you well. I am seeking guidance on improving the draft article I submitted about Dr. Toula Gordillo, a clinical psychologist, author, and researcher. You can view the draft here: [10].
The feedback I received from an editor included the following comment:
“No evidence of notability, and very poorly referenced.”
I want to ensure that the article meets Wikipedia's notability and content guidelines, and I would appreciate your expert advice on how to address these concerns. Specifically:
Notability: What additional evidence or sources should I include to establish Dr. Gordillo's notability? Are there particular types of achievements or recognitions that would better meet Wikipedia’s guidelines?
References: I have attempted to use reliable and verifiable sources, but it seems they may not be sufficient. Could you suggest how to strengthen the references or identify any gaps in the current citations?
General Improvements: Are there other significant issues in the draft, such as tone, structure, or content, that I should address?
I have disclosed my potential conflict of interest (COI) and my intention is to create a balanced and encyclopedic article. I’m committed to improving the draft and learning from the process to ensure it aligns with Wikipedia's standards.
Your feedback and guidance would be invaluable in helping me improve this draft. Thank you for your time and expertise.
Best regards,
Syed Tayyab SyedTayyab560 (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. A few weeks ago I created and edited the page in caption. I'm quite happy with the result. However, I have noticed there is no caption about the subject when typing the page name on the search box. How can I add a caption? Benzekre (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specific articles take a long time to load edit history
Does anyone else notice how some articles take forever to load their edit histories? Does that mean there have been a lot of edits and/or an edit war? An article affected by this phenomena that really annoys me (as someone who is currently giving it a major overhaul) is the Wings of Fire article. It's not a problem with my device or WiFi, the edit histories take exceptionally long times to load no matter my connection strength or PC power. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions20:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless this is a setting that can be changed and you've done so, loading the edit history for any page only initially shows the latest 50 edits, so I don't see how the total number of edits to an article being large would have any impact on the load time for the edit history. My instinct would be that this is an issue at your end, so I wonder how you know that it's not a connection speed issue? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i know it isnt a connection issue because I have that problem on all three of my devices (personal PC, phone, school chromebook) on all three of my connections (school wifi, home wifi and mobile data). My PC is pretty beefy and I have gigabit internet, but I have the same problem that I have on my school chromebook and shitty 50mbps school wifi ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions21:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hellenic Army[2]
Greece
In progress <--- You can search for most templates by typing Template:Name (replacing Name with the name of the template) in the search bar. TheWikiToby (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
![[icon]](/uploads/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg/20px-Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg.png?auto=webp)
This section needs expansion. You can help by making an edit requestadding to it .![[icon]](/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small}
Courtesy link: Draft:Guardrails of Democracy
. You can still alert them with a ping and put a notification in their 
, though. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
