Wikipedia:Teahouse

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


Talk page names[edit]

I can't sign my name on talk pages, Even if I use the four tildes. 209.97.89.182 (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are not logged in to your account. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, It worked before. Second I don't have an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.97.89.182 (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have signed your two posts here perfectly correctly. It shows your IP address and links to the IP address' talk page. That happens automatically for you if you click the 'reply' link. But if you click 'Edit' beside a topic title, as you say, you need to add four tildes. I suspect you either haven't appreciated what a tilde character actually is (it looks like this: ~) or your keyboard language is set wrongly, such that it types different characters than the keys actually show. This edit you made shows that you typed four 'equals' signs. What you need to use are four of these: ~ so that they appear like this: ~~~~. A good test is to open a basic text editor and hit every key in a line, both with and without 'Shift', and check whether your computer is displaying different characters that your keyboard shows. When I replaced the keyboard on my old laptop, I bought one from China which had an American keyboard layout. So now I have to ensure I set my laptop's language to Eng>US, not Eng>UK or all my $ and @ appear with the wrong keys, and I don't have access to a £ GBP key at all. If you are really struggling to get your correct keyboard language set, you could always type ALT-126 on a numeric keypad to generate each tilde character. Does any of that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sorry, had your edits confused with someone else. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weirdly it's only working here on the teahouse and not on talk pages,The only way I think It could work is maybe through using visual editing instead of source editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.97.89.182 (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello IP user
I would suggest that you simply create an account though that decision is entirely up to you Volten001 21:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you using the automatic reply tool? If you have no idea what I'm asking, the gist is whether or not you're clicking the "reply" box when responding to people. If you are, it automatically signs your comments for you. If you aren't, you need to use the four tildes. Does that help? Clovermoss (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What Do I Do, if I Have Published a Page, Everyone agrees on Notability after Discussion and Admin Comes to put it on Draft[edit]

This is a legit issue.

I looked through this admin and I see that he is famous for doing this especially against Africans. Seems racist to me imo Oyindebrah (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would advise you outline the issues without accusing people of racism, especially when you lack an understanding of Wikipedia's basic policies. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oyindebrah: Our biographical policy MUST be adhered to. A subject being notable does not negate having to comply with it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where is this agreement on notability or discussion? – robertsky (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oyindebrah, if you are asking about the draftification of Draft:Ifeanyichukwu Odii, then I'll say that it was generous. I'd have been inclined towards deletion. Just one indicator is that the longest section of the draft reads Dr. Odii was born as the first born of seven children from his mum and the 2nd born of eight children from his father in Ebonyi to Mr and Mrs Odii. He attended Isu-achara primary school and Isu secondary school, both in Ebonyi state for his early education. Dr. Odii studied Business Administration from the National Open University of Nigeria earning a Bachelors of Science (B.Sc). He was conferred with a Doctor of Science Degree in Strategic Business Management & Corporate Governance by the European American University in the Republic of Panama. He also studied through the Chief Executive program at Lagos Business School. with a grand total of zero references. -- Hoary (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no evidence for "Everyone agrees on Notability after Discussion." David notMD (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oyindebrah We don't know with any certainty if you(or anyone) are African or not. I would suggest that you withdraw the accusations of racism unless you have hard evidence of this. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a coincidence. The majority of drafts I've seen are biographies of African and Indian actors, artists and businessmen, most of which are poorly written. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 05:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although it did go through an AfD, there was minimal participation, so it ended in a soft delete. I suggest you stand finding more and better sources in newspapers and stuff and run it through Articles for Creation so that, when you finish, there's less of a chance of it being draftified again. If you can't find any sources, it may not be good for a Wikipedia article. As you can see, the admin did not do it based on any racial bias, as you've accused them of doing, but looked at the discussion for a result. I also don't see any discussion where everybody agreed on its notability. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 05:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's some coverage on Ifeanyichukwu Odii in news. Try looking at this list for a list of unreliable and reliable Nigerian sources. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 06:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creating a page for the first time[edit]

I have no experience in setting up one of these pages. Is there a service to have someone assist and get the page up to speed pretty quickly? Paul Reavey (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Paul, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that the language you use suggests that you have a (very common) complete misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. The action you are talking about is not "setting up a page" it is "writing an encyclopaedia article about a notable subject". Such an article does not belong to the subject, and is not in any way intended for the subject's benefit.
Writing an article is much more difficult than it looks - not mostly because of the business of writing it but because of the research that must take place first, to find the required independent reliable sources on which 99% of the article should be based. (Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.)
I always advise new editors to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making small improvements to some of our six million articles before they embark on the journey of creating an article. If they have a conflict of interest in respect of the article (and even more if they are contemplating writing about themselves), I generally advise them to give up the idea entirely: if the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then somebody will write an article about it eventually.
If you want to go any further, please read all the links in what I've said, and then read your first article. ColinFine (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll add further: there is a page called WP:requested articles, where you can put in a request; but there is no guarantee that anybody will pick it up. Wikipedia is created by volunteers, who spend their time on what they choose.
There are also people who will take your money to create an article. I presume that some of them are competent and responsible, and will explain to you that they cannot guarantee that an article will be accepted or that it will look the way you want, and that neither you nor they will have any control over it thereafter. Any that do not explain that to you up-front are either incompetent or dishonest. ColinFine (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The one ref in Draft:Helen Reavey does not work. Multiple refs with content written about her, by people with no connection to her, are required. The reviewers who declined the draft both pointed to the lack of references. Furthermore. given you share a last name, see for what you need to declare on your User page. David notMD (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Paul Reavey I think David notMD left out ths link that you need to follow: WP:COI 71.228.112.175 (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Host[edit]

Hello! Not right away, but in the near future, I was thinking about maybe becoming a Teahouse host. Would the five hundred edits be required to be mainspace edits? Thanks! 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔) 20:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Helloheart Welcome to the Teahouse! It is, to be fair, more of a guideline than a set requirement. We would hope anyone signing themselves up as a Teahouse host would already have made a substantial proportion of those edits to mainspace, but we are flexible on that. Only if you started to help other people and were clearly out of your depth and giving poor information might we have a gentle word with you about it. We have had a few users who have only ever messed around on their user and talk pages and never contributed any content at all and still try to sign themselves up - and that's simply not fair to those who come here seeking answers from skilled editors (hence why we say that number). But, looking at your contributions, you don't fall into that category.
My view is that the Teahouse is a great way to learn, whilst also helping others in difficulty. Plus, it's a great entrance route for many users to contribute in the more adminny/behind-the-scenes side of our Wikipedia - maybe eventually offering to Adopt another user, or contributing at WP:AFD. And we definitely need more of that type of editor. So sign yourself up when you feel ready. But absolutely anyone is free to answer questions here at any time they wish - they don't need a 'Teahouse Host' sticker to help out here. Thanks for asking your question, and hope to see you here again very soon! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Helloheart. I started contributing answers here some time ago, mainly for the reason mentioned by Nick that it's a great way to learn about how Wikipedia works. I've never formally signed up as a host and there is no requirement to do so. The only thing that matters, in my opinion, is that your advice should be helpful and correct (or mostly correct!) and that you be as polite as possible to new editors. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editor Assistance/101?[edit]

This may be the wrong place for this, but I'm new to the editing world on Wiki and honestly am trying to get better. I'm taking on the task of covering a topic that hasn't been added yet and was wondering if someone could give me a quick 101/take a look and provide suggestions? Martystlouis21 (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy link Draft:Orkin Canada (Formerly PCO Services Inc.)

:@Martystlouis21 You asked this at another venue too. Please don't waste volunteer time by asking the identical question in two separate place. See here. If you are connected to this company (as your edits suggest to me that you are), you should follow guidance given at WP:COI and declare if you are being WP:PAID, whether as a consultant or employee. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm in no way connected to a company/not being paid etc. I was doing research and this was a good one to start with because they don't have a presence and it was notable, so I thought it was a perfect first article for me. Apologies for the double posting, but as mentioned I'm newer to the Wiki space. Martystlouis21 (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nick Moyes "Please don't waste volunteer time by asking the identical question in two separate place." -- This is unfair: they where directed to the teahouse from the help desk by Helloheart. @Martystlouis21, looking at the article, the first thing I notice is that it shouldn't have the former name ("PCO Services Inc.") included in the title, but when and if its published you can create a redirect from that name. small jars tc 22:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Martystlouis21 Please accept my apologies and for my 'bitey reply'. It was not appropriate, and I'd not fully read the answer you got at our help desk. We do get that happening a lot, but it's no excuse for me being so sharp with you. Thank you for clarifying your non-involvement with it. (Just fixing my failed ping to Martystlouis21.) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Martystlouis21: To try to make amends somewhat, I took a look at your draft. I think the biggest worry might be meeting our notability criteria for businesses (see WP:NCORP). It might pass, but Orkin (Canada) seems just to be a subsidiary of the larger Orkin company (about which we already have a page). So I do wonder whether it's appropriate or necessary to have a standalone article for it, rather than briefly mentioning the subsidiary, and linking it with a WP:REDIRECT.
It's best to avoid citing statements from websites related to the company itself. Thus, your very first statement that it is the largest pest control company in Canada is based upon the parent company website, Rollins, Inc.. It is better to look for independent sources that talk about the company in detail and in depth to substantiate such a claim, and not the company itself.
When you use the 'Cite' button to add references, it helps to not just rely on the auto-complete process, but to add in the fields missed out. For example, for newwspaper stories it helps to add the author name if you can. e.g. Citation[1]
But all in all, it has a good structure, though I think relies too heavily on insider sources, rather than wholly independent ones, such as mainstream news media. And some of those sources only really mention the company in passing, rather than talking directly about it in detail. Hoping this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my view: it's about a division of a company, which is probably not in itself notable. None of the sources cited helps to establish notability: they're all based on press releases, or on what a spokesperson for the company has said, and so not independent. An example is the one cited here (which also lacks any discussion of the subject). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maproom (talkcontribs) 07:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bonang, Eilish (4 November 2021). "Moncton, N.B., earns dubious honour as Atlantic Canada's 'rattiest city'". Atlantic. Retrieved 5 August 2022.
@Martystlouis21, please don't remove others' talk page posts (or your own posts if they've been replied to). Teahouse discussions will automatically be archived after several days of inactivity. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

help needed in wikipedia page creation on a village having no links no popularity[edit]

hi i am kamran, i have created an article on wikipedia about a village, i need help in this article because its request is declined about a month, but its cause is unknown to me also received two messages one from Eagleash and Nevertry4Me wont, i want to clear you that i only have data of this village about its history and some of its demographics, no i am thinking that i can't publish it by myself because i dont have the references of this village, can you tell me that can we create a biography on any topic that doesn't have references and one thing i want to knoe about this article creation is that can an article's request be declined for its wrong punctuation or spelling mistakes, waiting reply from you, i also want to be a excellent volunteer like you, hope to work with you. Kayzed4343 (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Chak 43/GD, Tehsil and Okara 💜  melecie  talk - 05:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi @Kayzed4343 and welcome to the teahouse! while I'm not an article reviewer, here are some tips I can give you:
  • a little note, you don't need to post this same request in my talk page.
  • ...but its cause is unknown to me... - your article was declined for not having enough sources to prove its notability. while the village is probably presumed notable (under NGEO, if the national government recognizes the village as a place), it's still best to add sources that show the town exists beyond its local government. additionally, there are uncited sentences, which you might wanna add a citation to or remove if you can't find one. breaking down each of the specific points:
    • significant coverage means sources have to specifically talk about your subject, they can't just have a short mention of it.
    • published just means the sources cannot be drafts, leaks, etc and have to officially be released to the public. doesn't have to be published in the internet, you can work with paper articles. that's probably not a problem here.
    • reliable means the sources have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. if you're citing a news source, is the publisher known for making fake stories or reporting rumors? that's probably a sign that it is not reliable.
    • secondary sources are sources that summarizes and explains points made by others. if you're citing a book, is it describing using the author's experiences or through others' experiences and research about it? the first is a primary source, the second is a secondary source.
    • independent means the source has to have no personal connection to the subject. in this case, you can't use the town's government articles about itself to prove its own notability, however if news articles talk about the town, they're probably alright.
  • can we create a biography on any topic that doesn't have references? no. all topics need references from reliable sources before an article can be made about it. you can start by searching for news writings (ideally national) and other articles about the village. if you'd want to see how another page does it, check out Hyderabad - a featured article.
  • can an article's request be declined for its wrong punctuation or spelling mistakes? probably not unless there are too much. small spelling mistakes and wrong punctuation can really easily be fixed, and an otherwise great page with a few typos doesn't need to be declined solely due to them. this also counts manual of style errors!
  • while working on your article, you could check out Introduction to the Manual of Style, as well as keeping Your first article, Writing better articles, and the Manual of Style on hand (...or browser) for reference.
happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 06:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next Shark[edit]

Is next shark reliable independent source in the field of entertainment and business? Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Arorapriyansh333, you may ask this at the WP:RSN, and welcome to the Teahouse! Lightbluerain (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 08:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

my wiki page has been deleted.[edit]

I published a bio about myself. But is was deleted after 2 days. I have given upto 12 published authentic news about myself. Biplob Kumar Sarker dig (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi @Biplob Kumar Sarker dig and welcome to the teahouse! I cannot see what the page contained (administrators can, although I'm not one), but while you can write about yourself in your userpage, you cannot use it to advertise your stuff. see this page on userpages for what you can and can't have there. if you intend to write an article (one intended for viewing by readers and not just editors), I advise you to not: writing an article is hard for a beginner, writing an autobiography about yourself is even harder and not recommended for anyone and there are reasons why you may not even want one. instead, you could check out task center for other, easy things you could do to help out. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Biplob Kumar Sarker dig Welcome to the Teahouse. Your userpage was deleted because it was wholly unacceptable for a userpage. We do not permit users to have userpages that resemble encyclopaedia pages. If it were intended to be an encyclopaedia page, it was written in a quite unacceptable style (I.e. it sang your praises, and was far from neutral in its tone. By way of example, I offer this:”In addition to performing police duties, his exceptional thinking and role in working for society and people has given him special fame. Biplob Kumar Sarker is humble, and his office is open to all who have been wronged. To the common man he is a true hero”. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:UP explains what does and does not belong on a User page. See WP:YFA for how to create a draft and then submit it to a Reviewer. Per Nick Moyes, all content must be verified by reeferences. David notMD (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chicken eggs[edit]

Hi, are anybody here able to tell me name of this "illnes"?

https:commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abnormal_egg.jpg 2022 test nepodobny (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@2022 test nepodobny Welcome to the Teahouse. Our purpose is to help people with editing difficulties, not to serve as a REFDESK. Two minutes on usually lets someone find most answers for themselves. I found this which might give you some clues. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) @2022 test nepodobny, Welcome to the Teahouse! The best place to ask this question is at the WP:Reference desk. Regards. Lightbluerain (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 07:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Advice[edit]

Hello I'm a little unsure how to proceed here. I recently edited the Fox Sports (Australia) article and changed the Fox Netball channel name to Fox Sports 505 names per the official TV Guide. https:foxtel.com.au/tv-guide/grid However, another editor quickly reverted it back even though to my best knowledge it has never been called "Fox Netball" other than the logo changing when a Netball game is playing. It is currently now edited with what I believe to be the correct station names. However I would like advice on how to best to proceed as I want to avoid this back and forward editing? Otchiman (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Otchiman, you made an edit, and it was reverted. If you want to take this further, you should discuss the issue on the article's talk page.   Maproom (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, User:86.1.199.26 and Otchiman are slow-motion edit warring on this, and Otchiman has left a comment on 86's Talk page. David notMD (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finding old sources that are possibly deleted/link rot[edit]

So i am working on Draft:MovieStarPlanet, a game that had its peak at around 2013-2014. Finding sources/media coverage can sometimes be hard, and i am not sure if this is because there was no media coverage, or if the articles have link rot/been removed from the news websites. I found one article from Edge Magazine that had link rot/was deleted, and was only viewable through the wayback machine, so I'm wondering if there's a possibility that more articles have gone through this too, and if there is a way to find them? 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷) - (✉) 12:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might want to try some alternative archive sites with better search facilities than the Wayback Machine, archive.today, for example.--small jars tc 12:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Mousetrap Ending Spoiled[edit]

I’ve seen “The Mousetrap” when I was a teen and 2 months ago, I planned to buy tickets again this time with my daughter. But there was one flaw, my dear Lana Banana read the ending on Wikipedia I complained to Wikipedia only for it to fall upon deaf ears. I’ve complained again and again but again, deleted. It just makes me angry as a bunch of the newest generation cannot see the play due to this spoiler. Can you please do something about it if you can? 109.245.127.176 (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not censored - this includes not removing "spoilers", whether for a play that came out yesterday or fifty years ago. Such information is going to be widely and easily available in this information age; not searching for it if you don't want to be spoiled is the only good way to avoid it. 97.113.18.106 (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please don't be put off going to live theatre because you know how it ends. When I go to Madama Butterfly for the umpteenth time, it's for the performance, not the plot. Your daughter might even enjoy the play more working out how Agatha Christie gave clues to the identity of the murderer earlier than the dénouement. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As 97.113.18.106 said, Wikipedia is not censored. As an encyclopedia, it is supposed to provide pertinent information on a subject, and one routinely sees plot synopses for media on here. People will discuss fiction (even mysteries) on the Internet, so if you genuinely don't want to be spoiled on something, getting off the Internet is the best way to do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The identity of the murderer is prefixed by a bold headline: Identity of the murderer. If that's not a spoiler warning I don't know what is.--Shantavira|feed me 16:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All Wikipedia articles about works of fiction should include a reasonably complete plot summary. Period. The applicable guideline can be found at Wikipedia:Spoiler. Cullen328 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would anyone read the article about a mystery play before seeing it? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stress and nervous tension are now serious social problems, and it is in order that this situation should not be in any way exacerbated that the solutions to all Agatha Christie mysteries will now be revealed in advance. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 08:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or the prior names of one in particular. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anchor syntax doesn't direct to the anchor[edit]

In the Overview section of Network-centric_organization, there is a link [[#Hybrid enterprises|adaptive hybrid]], however it doesn't seem that it directs to the section Hybrid enterprises below. Can you check it? I use Firefox on Windows. Ooker (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ooker: It was just a problem with the link, which is case sensitive. Now fixed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull Thanks for doing that though, actually, it ought to have been the other way round. Section headings should not be capitalised, apart from the first word. i.e. Sentence case, per MOS:HEADINGS. So now that Ooker understands the issue, perhaps they could address the whole page and fix both the headings and any internal links that are essential to the understanding of this topic? Nick Moyes (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Thanks. A different question: what would happen with this conversation? Will it be deleted after 24 hours? And why do I have to manually sign post with ~~?Ooker (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooker, this post will be automatically archived after a few days of inactivity; no need to do anything further with it.
Signing your posts is important so other folks can track who is responding to conversations (and also so your pings will work); the Reply function will automatically sign your posts for you, and there's also a SineBot which tries to sign unsigned posts, but it's best not to rely on the latter (it doesn't always work and pings won't go through). 97.113.18.106 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ah the reply button. I didn't notice it. Had been clicking the edit button all the time.
I mean, why doesn't it sing my post by design? It should be easy, right? Or better, why does the conversation should be in the open edit format that everyone can change, and not in a comment format that virtually all other platforms use? Ooker (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooker: The reply tool is a very recent addition and had gone through beta testing for more than a year. A lot of other wikis that use older versions of Mediawiki still rely on editing the source directly. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ooker, it doesn't sign for you? It should. Maybe disable/re-enable? Valereee (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Valereee: I assume Ooker meant why using edit source doesn't sign automatically. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooker If you click 'Reply' at the end of someone's post, your response to them will be automatically indented and signed for you. You still have to select if - and indeed who - you want to notify (=WP:PING) in that reply - by typing the @ character and selecting the relevant name from the drop-down list that appears. This is NOT done by default, and for a number of reasons which I won't bore you with here.
By contrast 'Edit source' gives you complete control over every single thing you type in. Nothing is done automatically for you, so we have all learned how to PING other users and have also to remember to sign with four tildes ~~~~ in the same edit. As Tenryuu says, the Reply tool was only introduced this year to make it easier for newcomers to engage with everyone else without needed prior knowledge of the intricacies of using WP:Source Editor and in correctly notifying people. Hope this makes things clear. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I reply to myself do you get notified? Ooker (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooker, replying to someone (including yourself) does not automatically notify anyone; you need to include pings for everyone you want to notify. There is, however, a new "subscribe" function which allows account holders to subscribe to particular discussions and receive notifications when those discussions are updated (I have no experience with it, but others may elaborate if you're curious). 97.113.18.106 (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wikipedia and history[edit]

what should editors of wikipedia do when creating pages for historical events that have happened very recently? and when i mean recent i mean like in the same year. because how events are named and categorised kinda influences how they are percieved.

the recent tension between china and taiwan should probably be named the 4th taiwan strait crisis. Omsk346 (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Omsk346. I suggest that you begin by reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis. Cullen328 (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i didnt write that article Omsk346 (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
if the current situation does indeed escalate, then itll probably be called the fourth crisis. Omsk346 (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Omsk346, I think you already understand what's going on here, but for some background knowledge, Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources say. If it has been shown that reliable sources on the topic are calling it the "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis", then we will call it that too, but if not, then we will not jump the gun. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we cannot be predicting the future by guessing at what something might be called in a few months or years down the line. Best, Toadspike (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review[edit]

I got a message saying "The page User:PDXBart has been reviewed" and it had a link to a long-time editor who I won't ping because I don't know what this means. What does this mean? There's nothing meaningful on my user page. PDXBart (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, PDXBart. It means that an experienced editor took a quick look at your page and did not see anything obviously inappropriate. No threats, libel, copyright violations and the like. Cullen328 (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi PDXBart. Perhaps this has to do with Wikipedia:New pages patrol (NPP) or something similar. Newly created pages tend to be given a cursory review by experienced users (e.g. the members of NPP) who do a quick assessment as to whether the contents of the page are in compliance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Posting a new article.[edit]

How do I upload an article for review or to upload for the public to see? I'm currently working on a draft for an Automaker in particular, and I was wondering how to I upload it when completed. ItsDMan (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ItsDMan: Welcome to the Teahouse. There is no uploading to be done as almost everything is visible on Wikipedia. If you want to attempt to move the article from draftspace to mainspace, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. Be aware that standalone lists need references, though. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Thanks for the info! ItsDMan (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh one more thing, where exactly at the top of the Draft do I put that submit template? ItsDMan (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ItsDMan: I've added a draft header for you, you can use the blue button there if you are ready to sumbit. --LordPeterII (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy: Draft:List of Mitsubishi Motors vehicles. When I look at other List of _____ articles for cars, there are references. David notMD (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

question about WP:TWA[edit]

I wanted to know if a mobile editor can do WP:ADVENTURE. Also although I used mobile, I started the adventure here is the mobile screenshot of the part of the adventure I can't seem to get past. Whenever I reach this level I can't seem to complete it.

screenshot

. The screenshot is a mobile screenshot but with desktop setting. CHEERS, happiest editing.Uricdivine (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Uricdivine, and welcome to the Teahouse! According to WP:TWA;Unfortunately, this game is not supported on tablets and smaller mobile devices. Sorry about this! Please try with a desktop browser. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 22:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EpicPupper thanks for replying. That is the problem my laptop crashed few days it's at the repair shop mow. Wait do you mean laptop or the just the desktop setting option in mobile phones?
@Nick Moyes when my mentor for counter Vandalism academy user Cassiopeia told me to complete WP:TWA I went to the link after clicking "start adventure" I then clicked "check stats" then it began telling me things about Wikipedia. After that is enter a place where I should edit user space.... I know my reply is kinda confusing but if you would like I can upload the screenshots of the processes I passed through during the adventure so that you can better understand me. Would you like me to send you the screenshots? Uricdivine (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Uricdivine ah, we have the same mentor! I'm sure Cassiopeia would be fine with you clarifying the situation. They might allow you to proceed without TWA. Pinging @Cassiopeia to see what they think! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 01:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EpicPupper thanks for replying. I have responded to user Cassiopeia message on talk and asked them about what you said, waiting for there reply. CHEERS happiest editing Uricdivine (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) @Uricdivine Welcome to the Teahouse. I've not done TWA for some time, but it has been getting clunkier in recent years and is no longer supported, sadly. For that reason I've been recommending it less and less to new users. The front page f TWA says "Unfortunately, this game is not supported on tablets and smaller mobile devices.", and you may have hit that problem.
I'm unclear from the screenshot what point you had got to, or the task you had last performed. Can you elaborate on that, please? If you can, I'll try it out again on my old iPhone 5S when I get a spare moment and see how I get on. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the preferred archive site for dead links.[edit]

I have decided to begin a minor project of searching for broken links in articles and fixing them if I can.

I have been using the wayback machine for now, but I would be interested in learning if there are better alternatives.

Also I have found that controversial articles have the most typos (angry typing perhaps?), and it seems my edits to correct these errors have got my account a black mark, Should I be worried?

Washuchan73 (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Washuchan73: The "Big 3" archive services are web.archive.org, webcitation.org and archive.today. These account for over 90% of all archives on Wikipedia, with web.archive.org being over 80% of all archive links. Other archive services are listed at WP:WEBARCHIVES. The Mementos interface allows one to search multiple archiving services with a single search.
I'm not sure what you mean by your account having a "black mark", but if you're referring to the discretionary sanctions notices on your talk page, those are nothing to worry about so long as you are following Wikipedia policy related to those pages (mainly not edit-warring). ––FormalDude talk 09:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to WP:WebCite, webcitation.org has been dead since October 2021, though it reports a certificate error, which looks like something you should be able to bypass, but that doesn't seem to work. If there is a way to get the old archive copies, we should be doing something about that because there are a lot of (now broken) links to WebCite archives.
Aside from the variety of archiving services, there are numerous subtleties that differentiate them, but there seems to be almost no sharing of information about these distinctions. As an example that can sometimes prove quite helpful, Wayback allows a limited prefix match, which may enable you to find archives that none of the bots would be able to find.
One archive site I occasionally find quite useful is the Library of Congress archive, for most U.S. Government websites. This archive appears to use a "frozen" version of the Wayback software, so it will look fairly familiar to anyone accustomed to the Wayback archive. Many more archives sites are on the "canonical list" of archives at WP:WEBARCHIVES. Fabrickator (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

British Actors Images[edit]

Can anyone tell me why on wiki pages there are never images of British actors who do NOT normally make films in Hollywood?

I am trying to understand if this is cultural or rule driven by those actors, if these individuals actively remove such images, and the reason when large numbers of images of those individuals are instantly available to view on the major search engines.

Thank You! 2A02:C7E:3806:BE00:F942:8AB6:205F:32F9 (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For an image to be usable, it must either (A) be explicitly released under this or that specific (and unusually permissive) copyleft license, or (B) (whether because of age or because rights were explicitly waived by the copyright holder) be released into the public domain. (NB "public domain" here doesn't mean what many people think it means.) Of the images of actors that "are instantly available to view on the major search engines", only a vanishingly small percentage belong to either of these two classes. -- Hoary (talk) 10:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately this is a common problem with articles about living people (not just British Actors). The problem is that part of Wikipedia's mission to provide a resource which is freely reusable by anybody: when you add text you are explicitly warned that by adding it you are releasing it under a licence which allows this. When you upload an image that is your own work (eg you took the photo) then you can license it in the same way, and it can be uploaded and used in any article. But most images you find anywhere on the internet are not free to use in this way, and so Wikimedia commons (where most images in Wikipedia are hosted) does not accept them.
Some Wikipedias maintain this purpose strictly (I believe that German Wikipedia does, for example). In order to allow images for at least some articles that otherwise wouldn't have them, English Wikipedia moderates that policy to a degree, by applying a version of the principle of Fair use. Provided that a non-free image and its use meet all the conditions in the non-free content criteria, then Wikipedia allows you to upload and use it. But one of the conditions is that there is no reasonable expectation of being able to obtain a free image, so images of living people are hardly ever acceptable in that way. ColinFine (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If somebody's article has a single photo of that person, and if the photo is free of copyright problems, then it's hard for the single photo to be removed (unless it's replaced with a better alternative). If you can take a photo of an actor whose Wikipedia article doesn't have a photo, then do please upload it to Wikimedia Commons. But only if you are the copyright holder. -- Hoary (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prostitution laws[edit]

Why is New Zealand, a leader in legal prostitution included under decriminalisation and not legalisation ??? the web page is wrong as are the maps used in it . Kafiristani (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Kafiristani, and welcome to the Teahouse. It would have been helpful if you had indicated which of our many articles relating to prostitution you were talking about, but I'm guessing you mean the article Prostitution. The place to discuss this is on the article's talk page Talk:Prostitution (where I see that the New Zealand case was mentioned in a discussion long ago, but it's not clear to me whether that discussion went anywhere. It looks to me as if the terminology is not very clear, and if you start a discussion, making a case for why it should changed (rather than just asserting "it's wrong") people may agree with you. ColinFine (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kafiristani, there is a detailed article Prostitution in New Zealand. Cullen328 (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that very article says how NZ LEGALIZED sex work, not decriminalised it .So why then( in direct opposition to the article) is NZ listed among those that have decriminalised sex work and not under legalized ??? Kafiristani (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the article itself says it was legalized = your own article so to say its just me, have u even read 'your' own article your self ??? Kafiristani (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kafiristani, you are asking "why [...] is NZ listed among those that have decriminalised sex work and not under legalized ???" Presumably you're talking about a Wikipedia article, though you still haven't specified which one. Whichever article it is, it has a talk page. At the foot of that talk page, ask your question. -- Hoary (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kafiristani: This distinction in New Zealand is in fact mentioned in the last paragraph of the lede section of Decriminalization of sex work. Fabrickator (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kafiristani, English Wikipedia had over 6.5 million articles. Certainly you cannot expect individual editors to be familiar with every single one of them. If you are unwilling to let us know which specific article you are complaining about, how can you possibly expect anyone to assist you? Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328: @Kafiristani: I just want to make sure we don't overlook the point made on Decriminalization of sex work (as referenced above) that the appropriate terminology for New Zealand is that prostitution has been decriminalized rather than legalized. Fabrickator (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am commenting about the prostitution law wiki page, decriminalization is not the right terminology . NZ has legalized sex work Kafiristani (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Prostitution law page Kafiristani (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Hoary said above, you should now discuss this on the talk page of the Prostitution law article, here. Be aware that there are is a reference on that page which clearly states that NZ has "decriminalized" prostitution (from the Library of Parliament of Canada), and that our Prostitution in Oceania page directly cites the NZ Prostitution Reform Act 2003 which begins "The purpose of this Act is to decriminalise prostitution". So be prepared to explain why these sources are wrong or misinterpreted, and present alternate sources which support your position. CodeTalker (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editor threatened to block me before I even made any changes[edit]

Hi, I added a section to an article about professional ethics which has political (controversial) aspects. It involves a significant historical event, some of which was investigated and documented by The Washington Post, a US Senate Intelligence Committee report, a book written by a New York Times reporter, etc. So there are large interests at stake.

Hired PR consultants and affiliates of an interest group repeatedly deleted the well-documented section that I added, but it was put back repeatedly by multiple Wikipedia editors, with warnings to those people. But now a very active Wikipedia editor deleted the whole thing himself, using a range of Wikipedia rules. He seems to be an expert in the rules and is using them to pursue his own point of view. He admitted in a Talk discussion that he is not an expert in the subject area (but just has political opinions on it).

I would like to adjust each of the many parts that he deleted, with improvements based on each rule that he cited for a particular section. However, he is very abrasive and sarcastic. That is not appropriate or professional for a frequent Wikipedia editor. That makes it hard to make changes, and is not in Wikipedia's interest. He seems to make changes every day, so has far more experience with Wikipedia rules than I do. Instead of helping to add historical facts to the article, he is using the rules to censor them. Does a Wikipedia editor have an obligation to correct a statement if convenient, rather than just delete a large section?

This seems likely to lead to a dispute if I go to the work of making changes and improvements. That compromises the integrity of Wikipedia, if contributors know in advance that it is not even worth trying to add reliable documentation about significant historical events. For whatever reason, his actions are helping to cover up and censor them. Any suggestions? He has already threatened to block me, and I have not even made any changes yet. PsycProf (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, @PsycProf, and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that Wugapodes gave you the block warning here. They are an admin with lots of experiences editing in Wikipedia, and are thus aware of our different policies and guidelines. Specifically, they cited the following reasons why your edits were reversed: a lack of neutral point of view, giving undue weight to details not worthy of inclusion in an article, original research, and using resources of dubious reliability. Have you carefully read the contents of the pages linked in their warning? ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
13:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for replying. Yes, I have read the reasons, and I am happy to comply with any suggestions. But it seems heavy-handed to make threats about blocking before I even make one change. Thanks again. :-) PsycProf (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PsycProf I looked at the edit history of Canadian Psychological Association and I can see you have been editing there since January this year. So I'm not sure what you mean bybefore I even make one change. Whatever your views about that article, they need to be discussed on its Talk Page, not here. You should also read WP:EXPERT, if you have not already done so. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
STATUS: PsycProf and Wugapodes have been communicating on each other's Talk pages and on Talk of Canadian Psychological Association. There is a history of a large block of text deleted and the deletion reverted, more than once, prior to Wugapodes being involved. The approach by Wugapodes is deleting smaller block by smaller block, with more detail in Edit summaries. David notMD (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PsycProf, you might benefit from reading Wikipedia:Expert editors and Right great wrongs. Please also be aware that anyone can edit Wikipedia as long as they comply with the Policies and guidelines. Subject matter expertise is never required, because the role of Wikipedia editors is limited to accurately summarizing what reliable sources say about the specific topic, without bringing in sources that do not mention the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
-
Thanks to everyone for the helpful comments.
Cullen, I understand your explanation that anyone can edit Wikipedia and that subject matter expertise is never required, because contributors summarize reliable sources. The problem is that Wugapodes deleted a giant section based in part on an incorrect assumption(s) about points of view because he does not have professional background as an ethicist, or as a member of CPA. That is why one of his removals was based on: "comparisons to nazis is quite obviously an WP:NPOV issue, remove". Those who have professional experience with medical ethics will know that informed consent for healthcare ethics originated in medical ethics (the “Nuremberg Code”) defined in the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi healthcare professionals after WWII. Wugapodes deleted large sections based on a layperson's mis-understanding of why books like The Nazi Doctors are relevant to CPA's Code of Ethics. This is not an issue of a Neutral Point of view; it is one of the cornerstones of medical ethics. But subject matter expertise _is_ required to know that. Yet he deleted an entire history based on multiple similar mis-understandings. Interestingly, subject matter expertise is not required to contribute, but may be more important when making deletions and justifying why.
PsycProf, a book about Nazi doctors is utterly inappropriate for use in an article about the Canadian Psychological Association unless the book discusses that organization. Does it? If not, any such use is Original research which is forbidden on Wikipedia. You continue to argue that subject matter expertise is required. That is false. There is no such requirement on Wikipedia. The sooner you accept that, the smoother your editing experience will be. Cullen328 (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
-
Hi Cullen, The section on the CPA page was about the history of the organization's policies on medical ethics. The first principle in CPA's code of ethics is about "informed consent". The principle of informed consent originated in the Nuremburg Trials of Nazi healthcare professionals, which is the basis for the book The Nazi Doctors. It doesn't make sense to talk about the history of CPA's ethical policies without mentioning where and why the founding principles were developed. Thanks for your comment; I'll see if I can cite a reliable published source that summarizes this. PsycProf (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would belong in the article on informed consent, not this article. Unless there are specific sources saying that the CPA adopted this policy directly because of the Nazi war crimes trials, the origin of i.c. is not relevant here. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will attempt to correct this and to have dialogue with Wugapodes about any changes, but it is worrying that he threatened to block me before I made any response to his deletions. So hopefully I get a chance to try to add improvements. I am certainly attempting to follow the rules responsibly, and appreciate all suggestions. PsycProf (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mike Turnbull: Thanks for your suggestions. I just meant that Wugapodes made the threat to block me before I had made any kind of response to his substantial changes. PsycProf (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PsycProf That does seem somewhat hypocritical of you when you yourself have threatened other editors with being blocked. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oy vey. David notMD (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This calls to mind the old aphorism, What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Cullen328 (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another experienced editor has made more cuts, resulting in Canadian Psychological Association now being about 1/5 of its longest version. To PsycProf I recommend a cooling off period, and then a reconsideration of what is germane to the topic. The consensus appears to be that any "history" that is not specific to history of the CPA does not belong in the article. Citing the APA article as an example of a larger definition of history may only mean that the APA article needs to have content deleted, too. David notMD (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the interests of disclosure, I am neither a Canadian nor a psychologist. David notMD (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reliability of sources[edit]

I would like to know why CNN and MSNBC are considered reliable, but political reporting by Fox News is not considered reliable. Why are the sources The Federalist, The Daily Caller. The Daily Wire, and the New York Post considered unreliable, but considers Vox, Slate, The Nation, Mother Jones, and Jacobin to be reliable sources? Interstellarity (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interstellarity This is probably best discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard. WP:RSNP may also provide some guidance. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, @Interstellarity! First thing you have to understand is that reliability does not mean free of political bias. The British Guardian or the BBC, for example, may publish certain articles that reveal their political biases against trans people, but in the larger picture, this does not (necessarily) affect a publication's general reliability. To answer your question about reliability of certain sources, please visit WP:RSP and check the entries for CNN, MSNBC, or Vox there. Prior discussions about their reliability would be linked in that page. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
14:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello all, I checked the pages you suggested, and that's the info where I got it from. Will discuss at WP:RSN. Interstellarity (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please help[edit]

Hello, I'm new to wikipedia. Ive created two articles, Sruthy Sithara, the title winner of Miss Trans Global and Heidi Saadiya, the first transgender journalist from Kerala. There are so many articles are online about both. Now, one of the admin user:Deb, deleted both the pages without any notification. To my knowledge, what he did is unethical, against wikipedia guidelines. Kindly please help me to get those article back. See this and this. Imperfect Boy (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your inability to understand notability and the purpose of Wikipedia does not make an editor transphobic and I suggest you immediately strike your personal attack unless you can provide adequate WP:DIFFs establishing this, otherwise you're likely to find yourself blocked. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The admin directly deleted those articles without notification. Is that a right thing? I've gone through all the wiki norms. Sruthy Sithara is a international Pageant title winner. Thus that qualifies the norms to my knowledge. And Heidi Saadiya, She is the first transgender journalist from kerala. The First fron the State of Kerala. See, Padmini Prakash, the first trans journalist from India. Imperfect Boy (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That doesn't change your personal attack being inappropriate. Redact it. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't attack anyone personally. I'm sorry if you felt so. Imperfect Boy (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Imperfect Boy, yes you did make a personal attack on Deb, a highly experienced and respected administrator. You accused her of being unethical. Please be aware that your behavior is unacceptable because you presented no evidence whatsoever. Cullen328 (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Imperfect Boy: Deb listed the reason as no proof of notability. Did you put reliable sources to support the claims in the article? Remember that every subject on WP has to meet the requirement of WP:GNG. Even if Sithara is an international pageant winner, she has to be discussed independently of the contest first before getting an article, or else she should just be discussed on the Miss Trans Global page. There is no inherent notability.
An admin is allowed to speedy delete articles unsupported by sources if there isn't any proof of notability. You should probably make a draft first and submit it instead of moving it immediately to mainspace. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 06:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's the rub - User talk:Imperfect Boy shows that s/he's been told this repeatedly, not just by me, but has simply moved the drafts back to article space, suggesting that s/he knows better than anyone else. Deb (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I create an article using redlink?[edit]

 – Combined sections. GoingBatty (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm I able to create an article about Heidi Saadiya, the first transgender broadcast journalist from Kerala? There are plenty of reliable sources are there, like, Kerala gets its first transperson broadcast journalist, Meet Heidi Saadiya, Kerala’s first transwoman journalist, Kerala Transgender Journalist Marries In Ernakulum On Republic Day, News Karnataka, Many channels rejected me, they never considered my merit: Kerala's first transwoman journalist and lot more. Please help -Imperfect Boy (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This question is a continuation of a previous question. Moved by GoingBatty --small jars tc 15:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Imperfect Boy: If you can collect enough reliable sources to make a better article than the one that was deleted, then I suggest you follow the instructions at Help:Your first article to create a draft. GoingBatty (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given that you have created articles in main space and had those either draftified or Speedy deleted, I strongly recommend that any new attempt to create an article about Heidi Saadiya go through AfC. The Admin who did the last SD did not see the references as sufficient. David notMD (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Imperfect Boy has created a draft - not submitted - at Draft:Heidi Saadiya. David notMD (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Imperfect Boy In my opinion, none of the refs establish notability. Three establish she is working in journalism (as a trainee?), and three deal with personal life. David notMD (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New information to submit[edit]

I would like to provide a link to give some information on David C. Lewis age. I don't want to be an editor or have an account but would just like someone to fill in this information on his page. Thanks, James https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_C._Lewis_%28musician%29 / https:findagrave.com/memorial/228329822/david-c.-lewis 2600:1700:5510:5320:4053:8E38:9FAD:B98D (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Findagrave is not considered to be a reliable source here, see WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Please be aware that Find A Grave has very limited use on Wikipedia, especially if you're intending on using it as a source for age. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow-up to Major edit needed: how do I best approach this?[edit]

I've been doing my best to make an article that is widely helpful and, above all, *accurate*, about Hudibras, the C17 verse satire, and I uploaded it today. I'd really welcome any thoughts that editors with that more experience may have. No doubt someone more expert would have done it much better, and more sophisticatedly.

There hasn't been a lot of seriously good research on Hudibras since 1967, as far as I can see; while all too often what people have written (or published on Wikipedia) is rather confused, or just plain factually wrong. Everything that can't be properly footnoted I've tried to make sure is firmly and unarguably sourced in the text itself. All thoughts very welcome. GoldenDorset (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, GoldenDorset. It is clearly a notable topic and you have provided a lot of detail. I have no expertise on the topic, but I noticed that many of your references display URLs. You should reconfigure your references so that the URLs are hidden although clickable, and only the bibliographic information is displayed to the reader. Referencing for beginners may be helpful. Cullen328 (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cullen 328, warmest thanks for this! I absolutely agree, and tried to do exactly that, but somehow couldn't make it work. I will go back to the fray as soon as I'm next free, study the Referencing for beginners wiki (I've studied so many info pages in the last few week, but I haven't come across that one before!) and *make it work*. GoldenDorset (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your good work, GoldenDorset. Just a few points that will keep you busy for now. First (and simply): You may wish to insert verse within <blockquote><poem>this</poem></blockquote> markup. ¶ Secondly, and illustrated by one randomly selected extract: Hudibras and Ralpho set out, very like Quixote and Sancho Panza, Who says that the one pair resembles the other? to combat those whom they consider to be their enemies. Throughout their adventures and humiliations, the third key person of the story [...] Who says that she's the third key person? Et cetera. ¶ Oh, and there's this: It is noticeable that not once, in over 11,000 lines of satiric verse, does either of them laugh or smile. Did somebody (you?) notice that they don't smile or laugh; or is it possible that this reader failed to notice hints that they smile or laugh? (After all, it's a long poem; and would-be readers have been known to doze off in places.) Perhaps "Not once, in over 11,000 lines of satirical verse, is either of them described as smiling or laughing"? ¶ Not hyphens in for example "(I:iii:757-928, pp. 82-87)", but instead en dashes: "(I:iii:757–928, pp. 82–87)". ¶ Hmm, one more: No mention of hudibrastic(s)? -- Hoary (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hoary, warmest thanks. the <blockquote> reference is invaluable, and I'm deeply grateful. and the preference for en-dashes, which I find totally congenial! As for the laughing ans smiling, I've read the whole of Hudibras through several times since the 1970s (without dozing off, though I take your point!), including three weeks ago when I was specifically checking that point out. I think what I've written is accurate.
I'll deal with both the others as soon as I can get back to "Hudibras", but my general health issues and in particular the current heatwave have wiped me out for the time being. I'll try to follow up all your thoughts as soon as I can make a space to work in the cool (e.g. before dawn one morning!) GoldenDorset (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, should have added: you're absolutely right about "Hudibrastics". I'm drafting a section about that for this page, but I want to keep it short and very specific: I don't want to overlap the article "Hudibrastic", and though this could do with being broadened and deepened, that's not on my own to-do list at present! GoldenDorset (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You've attached Template:In use to the top. Its documentation tells us that "The In use template message is for pages actively undergoing a major edit." Putting aside the rather bizarre notion of "actively undergoing" anything, then ... it doesn't seem as if the article is now undergoing any kind of editing. -- Hoary (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry not to have written back more promptly on this point, Hoary: I've cleared up both of the old template messages. (Access to the workstation is rather limited in this hot weather, so things currently move very slowly in this study.) All the best! GD. GoldenDorset (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference templates[edit]

The article is 'Acadian cuisine'. The entries in the list 'Dishes' are either unreferenced or wrongfully referenced. The section needs a 'a reference needed, or better ones needed, etc.

Some examples:

  • 'Beurre de homard—lobster butter.' The reference is about a French (France) recipe from a French chef.
  • Bouilli Acadien—a boiled dinner consisting of potatoes, salted beef or pork, carrots, green beans, cabbage and turnips. This reference is from a reliable source and needs no improvement.
  • 'Bouillie à la viande salée.' Links to a blog: 'Le Quebec Cuisine depuis 12,000s ans'. Acadian? The reference hardly supports it.
  • Less than half have adequate references.
  • To be edited soon.

Absolutely Certainly (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template you're looking for is {{More citations needed}}. It's possible that the list could be verified by the books in the "bibliography" section, which lack inline citations, but both are in French so it would probably be difficult to check. small jars tc 22:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I speak and understand both French and English and the respective dialects of Quebec and New Brunswick. The list has 'dishes' that are clearly not 'traditional Acadian dishes'. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added the citation template for you. I'm no expert in Acadian cuisine, so I'd rather not do it myself, but if the information is unverifiable and you know it to be false, no one is stopping you from removing it. It's worth noting that a simmilar list appears on French Wikipedia, and you might want to change it there too. small jars tc 11:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you can improve this article, Absolutely Certainly, please do so; if you can't, then please bring up its problems at the foot of Talk:Acadian cuisine. -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is my bot idea a good idea? Where can I get advice/discussion on it?[edit]

I was searching for a bot that finds articles and either automatically converts currency values to Template:Inflation, recommends them to an editor, or supplies the inflation estimation automatically inside the article content. I could not find any bots that do this, and was looking to get discussion on both the why's and how's. I have found discussion in the past that seemingly led to the creation of Template:Inflation which is great, but none about automated services that help convert currency related information.

How can I search what bots are in existence?

How can I get advice or discussion on whether this is a worthwhile bot to make?

Where are the relevant rules/regs/styles around bots (essays etc)? I would be willing to make it myself, if others would find it valuable.

Thanks! MrSirGuyFriendBuddyOlPal (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MrSirGuyFriendBuddyOlPal, you might be looking for WP:Gadget or WP:Javascript. As far as I know, you can create your own userscript without approval. A bot can be requested at WP:BOTREQ. Sungodtemple (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's exactly it. Thank you!
MrSirGuyFriendBuddyOlPal (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MrSirGuyFriendBuddyOlPal, I see a lot of potential problems with your proposal. For example, there are quote a few countries that call their currency the Dollar. In addition to the United States dollar which is the dominant currency for international trade, other countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and many smaller counties have their own versions of the dollar, and the $ symbol is shared among almost all of them. So, your bot will have to be intelligent enough to distinguish between Canadian financial transactions in Canadian dollars and Canadian transactions in US dollars, and so on. In addition, you need to consider the utility to the reader. Perhaps an article that discusses the price of a loaf of bread or a bushel of wheat or an automobile 100 years ago might benefit from such a conversion. But how about a mention of a currency from 2019? Is there any benefit to a reader in knowing the amount that the currency has depreciated since then? Readers already know that inflation exists, and editors should know that there is great variation in inflation rates among commodities. The recent significant decline gasoline/petrol prices is a perfect example, in the context of inflation in many other parts of the economy. Cullen328 (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Cullen328 Yeah, I agree that its quite easy to overdo it with this sort of bot. There's a reason it hasn't been done yet right?
I still suspect there is room for smaller services which don't do as much. You could offer this information by dynamically altering the webpage -that is, never making edits so if you get garbage info its your fault for trusting my dumb script. If the script is that bad you can toggle it off.
Another way to approach this problem could be to automatically hunt for articles which utilize a variety of common phrases in wording their currency amounts, and then recommend the articles to an editor, who could then use Template:Inflation to edit the article and add the information manually.
I suppose I am primarily motivated by the fact that I do this constantly- I find an article which says "15$ in 1922" which is meaningless to me, and manually look up what that means today. I realize there are endless philosophical problems with inflation estimations, but I would still prefer to see this information next to it, as a supplement.
For what its worth I am not interested at all in removing the original phrasing. If the article says something like "$15 dollars in 1922" I would prefer to keep that there; I merely would like to see "(about $72.6 in 2021 dollars)" right next to it.
MrSirGuyFriendBuddyOlPal (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow-up to I need help with article creation[edit]

I have added news that reported about the Worldwide AI Webinar. Please let me know your thoughts on the possibility of the article draft being published.

Olivia shannon 4021 02:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Olivia shannon 4021. Yes, we have articles about upcoming events that have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Examples include 2024 Summer Olympics and 2024 United States presidential election. An article about what is claimed to be an "annual event" that has not yet happened is likely to be perceived as promotional by uninvolved editors, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball also comes into play. Promotional editing is simply not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the info. How would you advise to improve this draft if I may ask? Olivia shannon 4021 02:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Olivia shannon 4021. You and the people who are paying you would be much better off trying to promote this in some way other than Wikipedia. Pretty much all of your current draft looks (at least in my opinion) to be akin to a promotional brochure. Even if you were somehow able to establish its Wikipedia notability per Wikipedia:Notability (events) or even Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), pretty much all of the existing content would be likely removed by other editors for various policy and guideline reasons, leaving at most a very brief WP:STUB. This stub might be able to be expanded as more of these webinars are held or the event starts to receive more coverage in upcoming years, but it will never be expanded to include the information it currently includes and it's unlikely going to end up being something you or your employer are going to like (particularly by date this webinar is scheduled to take place). Furthermore, even if a stub could possibly be justified, you and your employer would have pretty much zero editorial control over the content of the stub and would be strongly encouraged from directly editing it yourselves. You would be basically left to making edit requests on the article talk page when you want changes made and there's pretty much no chance any epxerienced editor would agree add anything like what's currently in the draft. You will have much more control over content if you use some other websites or social media and you won't have to worry about Wikipedia various policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expansion of Chisnallwood Int School article.[edit]

I personally go to Chisnallwood Int, and seeing this article so lifeless and incomplete makes me sad. We really gotta do somthing about this like, talk about all the great programs they offer, sports, awards and history.

I am willing to recriut any wikipedians willing to help me.

Please reply if interested. Thanks WilburSoot (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Chisnallwood Intermediate
Find sources:  (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS ·  · NYT · WP Library
hi @Organic Increse45 and welcome back to the teahouse! please feel free to improve the page! you may want to use the links above to find sources and information about the school. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 06:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Organic Increse45. That article does not provide any evidence that this school is actually notable. Is this school historically significant or does it have significant architecture? Wikipedia is not a directory of every single school on Earth. Cullen328 (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. Organic Increse45 Confusing that this is your User name, but you are having your comments signature showing up as WilburSoot. And as loose guidance, high schools get articles, but middle schools and elementary schools do not, unless as noted, the school is historically significant. David notMD (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will take your advice. WilburSoot (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Organic Increse45: See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice. GoingBatty (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wanted to Created a Company Page[edit]

Hi all,

I wanted to know How can I create a Company Page and What all information do I need to add so it should not get reverted by the moderators.

Recently I was trying to edit one of my Brand Page: Scaler and I had added a paragraph about the company and it got reverted by the moderators.

Wanted to understand possible ways to contribute.

Thanks! Bikashdaga09 (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Bikashdaga09 Wikipedia does not have company pages. We have encyclopedia articles about notable companies. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). You have a Conflict of interest regarding any business you own. Please do not edit those pages directly, although you can leave a well-referenced formal Edit request on the talk pages of the specific articles. Since you have a financial stake, please make the mandatory Paid contributions disclose. Cullen328 (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Repeated rejections and confusions[edit]

Respected Wikipedia member,

As a first attempt, I tried to create an article for Union Cooperative, which happens to be a notable name in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. I tried refining my words and add notable media coverages as well. However, I am not able to determine exactly how an Article on Largest Consumer Coop in UAE is not noteworthy or is going against Wiki ideals????

Contribution Links - > Draft:Union Coop - Wikipedia

I will really be thankful to any respected editor or moderator who can guide me on exactly what 'content' is the root cause of these submission issues.


Respectfully,

Bennair (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Bennair. By itself, the claim that this is the "largest consumer coop in UAE" is not a persuasive claim of notability. Are there a large number of consumer coops in the United Arab Emirates? Do reliable independent sources compare and contrast these coops? What you need to do is to make a persuasive case that this specific business meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Cullen, Thank you very much for your valuable response. There are multiple Consumer Cooperatives in the UAE and among those Union Coop happens to be the largest, which is why I mentioned this statement. Please let me know if you suggest removing the same statement because I thought it should be a notable info for readers. Bennair (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bennair Does the statement have an inline citation (a reference to a published source) in the article? 71.228.112.175 (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If coops are a major element of the UAE economy and if reliable independent sources describe these coops and discuss the biggest of them, then include references to such sources. Otherwise, it is an unsupported assertion which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Verifiabilty, after all, is a core content policy. Cullen328 (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand which is why I have mentioned all the citations necessary supporting the statements. As per previous valuable comments of the moderators, I refined the language and removed less noteworthy citations. Bennair (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is the recent coverage by Dubai Media Office itself. Even they claim it to be the largest
DFM welcomes the listing of Union Coop, the largest retail cooperative in the UAE (mediaoffice.ae) Bennair (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

STATUS: Draft:Union Coop Declined several times, and then Rejected on 5 August. In my opinion, the Rejection was not warranted, as the draft is well referenced, albeit perhaps promotional in tone. To Bennair, I suggest deleting all of "Announcements in the Media." Next step may be to ask the Rejecting editor on that person's Talk page how to rescue the draft. David notMD (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How i can have wiki page[edit]

hello

i am Singer and performer from USA how i can have my wiki page 49.156.93.206 (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. You can't, because we don't have "wiki pages". We have articles, typically written by independent editors, about notable topics. If you truly meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, someone completely independent of you will eventually take note of your career and choose to write about you. Be advised that a Wikipedia article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Writing an autobiography is heavily discouraged on Wikipedia, as well as paying someone to make your own.
Asparagusus (interaction) 15:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Making a map of self-managed social centres in the United Kingdom[edit]

Dear Teahouse,

I came across Self-managed social centres in the United Kingdom recently, but the static map from 2006 is badly out of date. I was thinking about trying to use a template to create an editable map, such as the Template:Location map+. Does anyone know of a more fitting template? Does anyone know of a way to auto-generate the template from corresponding wikidata items, rather than entering the data manually?

Cheers, DougInAMugtalk 10:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Douginamug. Welcome to the Teahouse. I think you win this months prize for the most interesting and challenging question. I think you're on the right track with the template you suggested, but I agree that creating a map from Wikidata does sound the most logical approach for maps with innumerable point on them. It is a very technical question for this newcomer help forum. So, if you don't get an answer here in reasonable time, you could consider asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps, or WP:VPT, or over at Wikidata (here). I would start by looking at what raw data and the format that geolocation info is currently available in, so that you know how much, if any, location data you might have to convert into a format our solutions here would handle. Then ask yourself how would another person best update any map in another 10 years time- would it be easy for them, or an incredibly complex task? Sorry this isn't the answer you sought, but I hope it may give a few pointers, or that someone with more skills at mapping on Wikipedia can help you.
(BTW: Please ping me if you get an answer on another forum - I've spent half my working life mapping biodiversity data using RECORDER, DMAP and MapInfo GIS. But I have absolutely no clue how to create distribution maps here!) Nick Moyes (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia Mailing Lists to subscribe to[edit]

Hello, I was wondering if there was a complete list of Wikipedia mailing lists so that I could subscribe to the ones that interest me. And which ones do you guys personally subscribe to? Wpakxl (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't subscribe to any personally, but there's a list at wikipedia:mailing lists. You can also sign up to get new editions of the The Signpost on your talk page. small jars tc 12:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your reply. The links on the https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mailing_lists page are mostly for receiving emails about the functioning of Wikipedia. I was looking for lists more on the lines of the 'The Signpost' something that is geared towards people that are interested in a niche hobby or a subsection of a very specific topic. But thank you again, I just subscribed to the signpost! Wpakxl (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wpakxl: The Signpost is a newsletter. It posts about new editions to your talk page but doesn't send emails. At Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo you can choose whether to get an email when your talk page is edited. Template:Newsletters shows other newsletters but may not be complete. Most of them are listed as inactive. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, that's just the thing I was searching for. Wpakxl (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duplicate footnotes[edit]

In Peter Swales (historian), footnote 1 appears in the opening sentence twice, and then, in the footnote, as "a" and "b." Footnotes 2 and 8, and footnotes 11 and 13, are also identical pairs, and each pair should have a single number and an "a" and "b". I don't know how to format that. Would another editor please do so? (If it's easy to do, then please explain how.) Maurice Magnus (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Maurice Magnus. The procedure is called named references. The full reference is defined and named once, and then a very brief reference tag is used elsewhere. Please see WP:NAMEDREFS and try it yourself. Cullen328 (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, but I don't understand that. In [1], I don't know what to put in "name" or in "content." I'm sorry, but I prefer to do substantive editing and copyediting to learning technical stuff. In this case, furthermore, it's not important; it's just two footnotes twice each. Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine. You can leave them as two footnotes linking to the same source. Maybe some day someone will come along and replace them by a single named reference used twice. Maproom (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maurice Magnus  Done - see my recent edits to the article. GoingBatty (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Next time I'll try to do it myself. It would be embarrassing to ask again at Teahouse. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Next time" has already occurred, and it wasn't so difficult. I added material to the second sentence of Peter Swales (historian) and footnoted it with a source that had already been used, giving them the same footnote numbers. Thanks again. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding: the name does not appear in the text off the encyclopaedia article, only when editing it. ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The content is everything that should appear in the citation: title, date, author, publication, URL etc. The name is a name you make up to refer to this particular reference, and thereafter you just need to use the name when you want to cite the exactly the same reference again. If the name has any spaces or special characters, you need to put it in quotes; but people often put the name in quotes anyway. ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. ^ content

criket[edit]

so i want to ask about these and what is criket? 49.36.111.127 (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

but what about criket? 49.36.111.127 (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try spelling it cricket? Maproom (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless you mean Krikkit. Shantavira|feed me 19:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asset forfeiture Law[edit]

I am attempting to get the "Asset Forfeiture Law" enacted to get the money back from the banks that has been confiscated since the law was put on the books in 1986 by Senator Joe Biden! Schools in Oakland California are being closed down and replaced by charter schools in the same locations and citizens have no say!!! I provide the solution on my page... Your assistance would be greatly appreciated... Thank you, Allen Sanford, (redacted) 2601:643:867F:8BA0:C402:8B78:47F2:3A90 (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed the link. Campaigning for anything is not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do not advocate for anything on Wikipedia. The one time we did, it was controversial amongst us editors, and this does not rise to the level of "existential threat" that SOPA did. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I upload a jpg into an existing article? The image is on Wikimedia and my desktop. Thanks in advance.[edit]

Can't seem to find an answer on Youtube. Dutchviz (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't. Images are called as if they were articles, with [[File:(image name)|##px|(caption)]]. Note that being on Commons means you can call it from Commons directly this way. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, so I can't add the jpg to the existing Article? 75.167.184.156 (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you talking about File:WAGS plate SoccerPlex crop.jpg, which you have uploaded to Commons? There's a link at the top of that page called "Use this file" which gives you the string you have to insert into a Wikipedia article to display it. If you use the Visual editor, I don't know how you do it, but I'm sure it's straightforward. You will need the whole name, including the .jpg, and you need to get the case and spaces exactly right. ColinFine (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uploading the image to Wikimedia Commons is a good first step. The second step is to add code to your article as Jeske suggested above. See Help:Pictures for a more detailed explanation. GoingBatty (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we report disturbing edits?[edit]

I am the one who knocks vandalises

Hi, I just reverted an edit made on Spider-Man 2 that looks like... a confession? Really weird but do we report this kind of thing to anyone? GuineaPigC77 (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a quote from Breaking Bad 🤭 — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 21:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct. Just some fiction put in an inappropriate place. Cullen328 (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lol thank you. I will sleep better now. GuineaPigC77 (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

have what I believe is a cask off of the uss trumbriull 1722 have a picture[edit]

I would like to show someone and see what they think of it. maybe someone knows what they used it as

thanks tom 2600:8800:A596:1500:A82C:87CD:7C73:1404 (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not the place to ask about/appriase artefacts. Find a historian near you. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Along with what the other person said, asking this question at the Reference Desk (in whatever section you see fit) would probably get you better results. The Teahouse is a place for new Wikipedia editors to ask questions about the project. Have a good day/night!
Asparagusus (interaction) 14:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to delete children’s names to keep private on an adult’s page[edit]

Hi. Was wondering how you could tell me to remove our kids names to keep them private on the section that lists children 2600:1005:B0BE:8F1A:E8E8:310C:7FD1:E6C1 (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:BLP we shouldn't be listing the names of non-notable children, particularly minors. You can contact oversight if you'd feel more comfortable. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just deleting the names from the article would mean still visible via View history, so oversight is the way to do it David notMD (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

deleting facebook and deactivating accounts[edit]

to be able to only be signed in to one face book not 120000lol 170.199.174.85 (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! This is a friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia. Did you have a question about Wikipedia? GoingBatty (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Olivia Newton-John[edit]

Why is it taking so long to put Olivia Newton-John’s death in Recent Deaths on the front page? 71.168.140.238 (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because Wikipedia doesn't operate on deadlines. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are not a news site and we want consensus that an article is good enough to link on the front page. It's nominated at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD: Olivia Newton-John. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michael de Santa gta v?[edit]

why wont you accept the page??? Dazaew26h (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because it's a single sentence and sourced to Wikia/Fandom. We don't cite open wikis, full stop. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
be kind, please. Dazaew26h (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am being kind. Not my fault if your answer doesn't match the proper answer.Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you for understanding. Dazaew26h (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am also thoroughly unimpressed by your haranguing other users over this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
im gonna report you too, stop harassing me ya hear?? Dazaew26h (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How on Earth is anything I or Praxidicae have done harassment? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
because you have. Dazaew26h (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merely responding to you on a single page and calling out your behaviour isn't harassment. And if I recall, Praxidicae told you to stay off her talk page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you 😊 Dazaew26h (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notice can be removed on this page - Multidimensional Poverty Index[edit]

Hello everyone - I added some citations and corrected previous citation title errors on this page - Multidimensional Poverty Index. I feel the notices on top are 6 years old and they can now be removed since the issue seems to be addressed. I would love to have some opinions on this. I didn't want to remove the notice without having some opinions. Thank you. ANLgrad (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed the 2016 tags, as article length and referencing much improved since then. Article needs to be rated for class and importance. David notMD (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How are the "rules of Wikipedia" updated?[edit]

Forgive me if this isn't the correct location to post this as it's a bit "Wikipedia meta".

I was just wondering essentially how Wikipedia's rules evolve over time and are adjudicated between members. Is this process typically open to the "public userbase" of Wikipedians? Or is it more normally reserved for the, well I'll just call them the arch wizards of Wikipedia for lack of better term. For instance, obviously journalism has changed significantly in the past 10, even past 5 or so years - though Wikipedia heavily relies on journalistic outlets to determine things like notability and quality of information (I should also note that I am by no means an "anti-journalism" guy, as this premise may suggest).


I recently had some productive conversation with other users, but was interested to see that many of them viewed the rules as objective and concrete in nature, essentially that there was only one possible letter of the law, while I thought they read as allowing for some degree of subjectivity in the interpretation - more of an enforced spirit of the law. So are Wikipedia's rules everchanging with the times? Or are they largely carved in stone?


Again, apologies if that's a rather tangential question. I'd rather have a little too much context rather than not enough.


Thanks!


A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are generally changed via large-scale requests for comment, usually coordinated at either the talk page of the policy/guideline under discussion or at WP:Village Pump (policy) and given a watchlist notice to encourage people to chime in. As a rule it takes a supermajority (generally two-thirds) to change a policy, especially if the consequences of doing so would require a literal mountain of work to get going.
It should be noted that very little of Wikipedia policy is set in stone. The most rock-solid policies we have are ones with legal implications (i.e. WP:Copyrights, WP:Biographies of living persons, etc.). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help regarding improving Draft:Govind Dholakia and check references[edit]

Hello This is Brakshit. Draft:Govind Dholakia, a page i am trying to create since long, Due to reference it gets reject or finding wrong impression past or something else. so if you would Guide me through. Its pretty much in line and much neutral. I have added much valued references and news and details which might help.

Thank you for your help in advance Brakshit23 (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Brakshit23: Please see Wikipedia:Golden rule for an overview of what's expected.
A source must be reliable and independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage. All three attributes must be present. Your references include:
  • A hospital website where he works - not independent, not significant
  • A corporate website of SDB - not independent, not significant, doesn't even mention the subject
  • A library index of the subject's own works - not independent, not even coverage
  • A promotional press release on Solitaire International - written by the subject or an associate, not independent, and likely not reliable due to the promotional content
  • A De Beers web page that doesn't even mention the subject
  • A Business Standard review of Dholakia's autobiography - it would qualify as significant coverage, but based on material (autobiography) that isn't independent of the subject
  • A People Matters interview - we don't care what an article subject says about himself; this isn't independent coverage
  • A brief mention on the USGBC awards page - while USGBC is notable, the award may not be, and this coverage is not significant
  • A page on the Penguin Books website promoting one of his books - not significant, not independent
  • A Press Trust of India review of his autobiography - that makes two reviews, which suggest notability of the book, but not the author
None of thouse sources meet our criteria, and none of them demonstrate notability. You might be better off writing an article about his autobiography, which does have some reviews.
Note that your draft has been rejected, not merely declined. That means you need to give up and move on, or completely start over. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank You Mate.. Really appreciate. thus far more satisfying and guiding answer to work upon.
Will start again and do the needful and really thanks for your help. Brakshit23 (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is your connexion to Dholakia? Answer this before you do anything else. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At User talk:Brakshit23, Brakshit23 denied paid or any COI on 28 June. David notMD (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is possible that Shree Ramkrishna Exports, the billion dollar company he founded, can qualify for an article even though Dholakia does not. David notMD (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inherent notability of achievements[edit]

I'm an editor in WikiProject Schools, and I come across the issue where sources are not properly cited to prove the non-trivialness/notability of extracurricular/athletic accomplishments (WP:WPSCH/AG#OS specifies that an achivement should not only be verified, but also notable. So say, sources that come from the competition organization's website may be a reliable primary source, but primary sources do not signify any sense of notability, only reliable secondary sources do).

However, I have been editing with a principle that there are some achivements with inherent notability, such that these reliable primary sources can be cited. An obvious example, national championship to a notable competition is notable in itself, so the competition website can be cited (though not the school website, since the school would be biased to promote themselves). But where should the line be drawn? Or should the idea of inherent notability even be a thing?

Currently, the WikiProject Schools article advice (WP:WPSCH/AG) does not talk about this (and as far as I'm aware of, neither does any policy or guideline). However, I was told some years ago that the top 2 in the state/province are generally notable in itself, and have been generally applying a version of this advice to articles. However, there has been a recent conflict about this, so I would like to reach out for advice. And in retrospect, I should've reached out for advice long ago.

I believe that notability should be based off of when it can be determined with enough confidence (whatever that may entail) that an achievment is as or more extraordinary than other achievements that would generally recieve secondary coverage. Personally, I believe this to generally be around the top 2-3 in the state/province (though of course this may vary), and is also based to some extent on the structure of the competition (for example, 3rd or 4th in a finals of eight teams is generally more notable than a team making it to semi-finals where only two teams face each other), although only to the small extent that news media emphasizes in this particular manner since the structure is merely based off of the nature of the competition. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, TheGEICOgecko. That essay you linked to misuses the word "notable". In Wikipedia terms, Notability applies to the topic of an article, not to specific content items within an article. There is no such thing as inherent notability, although certain types of topics have a strong presumption of notability. Notability is determined by the quality of coverage of the topic in independent reliable sources. As for including content about an athletic championship in an article about a school, a secondary source is certainly preferable, and the issue of due weight also comes into play. It would not be appropriate if a local basketball fan creates a lengthy, detailed section about the local basketball team, while the school's championship baseball team is ignored. In the end, if there is a contest disagreement, consensus to include is required. Cullen328 (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia pages were served by a different domain[edit]

For a few minutes today (19:21 - 19:38 2022 August 8 UTC) my accesses of Wikipedia were redirected to http:eder.iliensale.com/edu-https-en.wikipedia.org As near as I can tell the content was genuine. I started at en.wikipedia.org, searched, got pages at that domain.RussellBell (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What did you search for? Shantavira|feed me 08:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
bomber command RussellBell (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RussellBell: It's unlikely to have been anything at our end. Your post is the only mention of iliensale at en.wikipedia.org. Numerous websites show our pages. Maybe you actually started in an external search engine or something was adding ads to your browser. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't start in an external search engine. My home page is a page on my computer that I maintain myself. It has 1 link for wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org. I was browsing with lynx, to which nothing adds advertising. I don't think it was anything at your end. I think somebody poached my accesses, that this may be of interest to you. Why does iliensale have a copy? RussellBell (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Big Steals[edit]

I'm going to do some editing to the article for The Big Steal (a 1949 movie). I see there could be some confusion about this title and some other terms (there's already a hatnote regarding The Big Steal (1990 film)): Timothy Wade Corder's book with the same title (no Wikipedia article), the term "The Big Steal" used in reference to the 2020 Presidential election, the term "The Big Lie" used in reference to the same election, or Big Lie, a Wikipedia article about a concept in general. Which of these are actionable, and which tool should be used to ameliorate the confusion in each case (hatnote, disambiguation, or redirect)? Pete Best Beatles (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pete Best Beatles are there substantial book reviews for the book for it to pass WP:NBOOKS' criteria? – robertsky (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reviews I see are all little snippets on commercial book-seller websites. Does Good Reads count as a RS? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pete Best Beatles: According to WP:UGC, "Examples of unacceptable user-generated sites are Ancestry.com, Facebook, Fandom, Find a Grave, Goodreads ..." Deor (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, I can find no instance of "the term 'The Big Steal' used in reference to the 2020 Presidential election" on Wikipedia, so it looks like there's nothing to disambiguate there. And "big lie" is a different enough term that I don't think you need to worry about it. Deor (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that Pete was misremembering the "Stop the Steal" slogan and getting it confused with "the Big Lie". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't getting them confused, I just thought there was a possibility others might. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) Pete Best Beatles (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. So then do you think "Big Lie" (the Wikipedia article) is similar enough to deserve a hatnote? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) Pete Best Beatles (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, {{u|Pete Best Beatles}. In my opinion, no hatnote is needed in thus case. Cullen328 (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About decline[edit]

Despite following all the guidelines of Wikipedia, many articles by pre-existing authors deliberately decline. so what should we do Mpsaharan8 (talk) 08:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles are not declined if they follow the guidelines. Can you give an example? If you are referring to your own submissions I suggest you read the messages on your talk page and click on the blue links for further explanation. If there any specific points you still don't understand feel free to ask a more specific question here. Shantavira|feed me 09:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being a "pre existing author" does not mean that anything that author writes is automatically accepted. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article on British artist Dorothy Adamson (1893-1934)[edit]

I'd be grateful for some advice please. The artist Dorothy Adamson, who I believe is notable as she was a member of the Royal Institute of Oil Painters and Royal Institute of Painters in Water Colours) has not got an article in the English Wikipedia, but there is one on the Welsh Wikipedia https:cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Adamson. The latter is very minimal and has the wrong birth date. I would like there to be an improved article about this artist but don't speak Welsh - although I could work with a family member who does. Adamson was born in England and spent most of her life there so does not have a strong Welsh connection, although she died in Wales. Should I seek to improve the Welsh article or to get approval for one in English Wikipedia? Thanks for any advice. Buckland1072 (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Buckland1072: Welcome to the Teahouse. The policies and guidelines differ between the Welsh and English Wikipedias; the biggest one is probably notability as Wikipedia defines it. If you wanted to properly create an article about her on here, you would need to find reliable, secondary sources to establish that. It's probably easier to improve the existing article on the Welsh Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Buckland1072 Of the four citations on the Welsh entry, the first doesn't mention her and two others I can reach via their URL merely show that she exists, with no significant coverage. English Wikipedia has pretty stringent notability requirements which unfortunately these references won't support. You will have to look for decent sources before you can draft an article here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both very much. That's very helpful. In my research I haven't found very good published sources so she's probably not notable enough. Buckland1072 (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Buckland1072. It's perhaps unfortunate that we use the word "notable" as it does not mean exactly the same as the normal undertanding of the word. (For this reason, I try never to use the phrase "is/isn't notable", but rather "meets/doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability). One way of looking at the difference is to interpret it not as "worthy of note" but as "has been noted (by independent commentators in reliable sources). Another way of looking at it is to ask "is there enough independent material published to base an article on?", remembering that the material must have ben published by somebody with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking, and that nothing said, written, or published by the subject or their associates contributes to this. ColinFine (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]