Wikipedia:Teahouse

Marchjuly, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
A friendly place where you can ask questions
to get help with using and editing Wikipedia

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help

Wikipedia

English article about Płanetniks - can a native speaker have a look?

Hello ;-)

Nice to meet you, it's my first post on English Wikipedia :D I translated the article about Płanetnik - basically, a Slavic mythology entity - from Polish into English. Could some native speaker have a look at my translation, pretty please? ;-)

LINK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaworu1992/sandbox

After a native will say it's okay I am gonna post it on Wikipedia ;-) I think? ;-)

Best wishes! ;-)

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kaworu1992 I made some copyedits for grammar, such as adding "the" or "a" in places, changing "divinated" to "divined", etc. I don't understand "because of eclipsing of functions płanetniks", or the rest of that sentence. David10244 (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kaworu1992 I also edited the sentence that Carpimaps mentions below. I hope I didn't change the meaning. David10244 (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Hm... the "eclipsing" means that kinda both terms fused into one? Something like that? Sorry, maybe that was too literal a translation? --Kaworu1992 (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is too literal, in English, it has a different definition. Carpimaps (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The article looks OK but some parts are confusing.

You should make sentences easier to understand. For example, I did not understand this sentence "By the name of płanetniks were also called the people who divinated the weather or controlled it." Also, you should make it present tense since this mythology still exists.

Though overall, the article seems fine. Carpimaps (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi ;-)

The sentence just means that we could also use a name "płanetnik" for people who divinated the weather? ;-) Also, I do not wanna argue with you about present tense or the past tense, but... actually, nobody in Poland knows this myth? xD And generally the whole Slavic myths and beliefs are a very niche topic and as a native Polish person, this is all news to me? And in this case płanetniks no longer exist, I mean, you do not encounter them "in nature" in modern day Poland, so past tense seems appropriate to me?

Please, tell me how this sentence you mentioned should get changed, okay? ;-)

ALSO, apparently I put this on Main Wiki... I hope that's alright? ;-)

Best wishes! --Kaworu1992 (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Kaworu1992, I plan to copyedit your mainspace article Płanetnik later today assuming you have no objection.

A problem that was immediately obvious to me was your use of sentences such as Płanetnik – a character from Slavic beliefs. Here, you use the em-dash (–) to say 'is'. This is not done in English, except informally. I myself have taken up the habit having learned it from Russian. You could rephrase the sentence as follows: A Płanetnik is a character from Slavic beliefs. You also write: The name “płanetnik” is derived from “płaneta” – cloud. Here is another issue of formatting, where you have used the quotation mark " where usually foreign-language terms are italicized. You could also replace the em-dash by writing what you mean to say, in this case, you are saying that the term płaneta means cloud. Therefore, The name płanetnik is derived from płaneta, meaning cloud. If any other users can add to this, feel welcome.

Also, because Polish is your first language, and because you can speak and write in English at a high level (your English is much better than my Polish, even after watching How I Unleashed World War II a few times), you may also consider translating articles from the English Wikipedia to the Polish Wikipedia. I invite you to read the article for notable Polish-American and your fellow schizophrenic (I mean this without rudeness according to your user page) Francis E. Dec. Happy editing! Fishing Publication (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Fishing Publication I think your comments are spot on. You'll improve the draft much more than I did. Thanks! David10244 (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

How do I know wether or not I can use an image

Basically, I'm working on a page about a war in ancient greece. For the infobox I'd like to have an image of soldiers at the time, and I found a suitable image here: http://www.about-turkey.com/karun/aktepe.htm (the larger one) I don't know if I'm allowed to use it, since it's not in Wikicommons, but the image is quite old. How do I find out if I am able to use it? Many thanks! GeneralCraft65 (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, GeneralCraft65, and welcome to the Teahouse. For any image you find on the internet, you must assume that it is copyright and cannot be used unless you can find an explicit statement that it is public domain or released under a suitable licence. I can't find anything about copyright on that site, so I'm afraid not. Note that there may be copyright in the photo itself: just because the artwork is ancient doesn't mean that the photo is free of copyright. ColinFine (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Is there a website other than WikiCommons that I can use to find free-source images? Or could I recreate the image myself and upload that? GeneralCraft65 (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@GeneralCraft65 If you use Google image search, it has an option in "Tools" called "Usage rights" which will limit the hits to those images with Creative Commons licenses, which is what we need for Wikimedia. That tool is not foolproof but it can help. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@ColinFine: just because the artwork is ancient doesn't mean that the photo is free of copyright - the WMF takes the legal position that it does. See Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#The_position_of_the_WMF:

WMF's position has always been that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain.

GeneralCraft65, based on the above, you could upload ancient pottery and similar old works of arts to Commons and slap commons:Template:PD-art on it; that would satisfy copyright. However, are we sure that the images on the site you linked to are what they say they are? That site seems to be a one-person blog, with little guarantee of reliability. It would be safer if you could find the same images and a description linking them to that war on a museum page.

(Ironically, if the images are a Photoshop forgery, they would be recent enough to trigger copyright protection.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tigraan, I'm confused. Do you think that images of pottery are, or are not, "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art", are they? I thought ancient pottery is three-dimensional art, whele the wall paintings are two-dimensional works. Right? David10244 (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Eh. Arguably pottery painting is two-dimensional (even if the pottery itself is three-dimensional), but I suppose that’s not a very convincing argument.

I would say that the legal difference between 2D and not-2D is that you can more easily argue originality in the latter case. You can choose the angle of photography around the object, whereas faithfully reproducing a 2D object necessarily needs to be done in front of it. I have no idea if there is a standard technical way to take photographs of pottery, which would weaken the originality claim.

(Of course all that is academic - in the OP’s case we’re talking about wall paintings) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the wall paintings are 2D... unless the wall is really bumpy! (Kidding.) David10244 (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The other key missing point: All of the above depends upon what country the pot and the person taking the photograph are in when the photo is taken. - X201 (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Edits Removed Due to (Incorrect) Copyright Judgement

Article: U-Con

There was no copywritten material on this site. Worse, there was a list of historical guests going all the way back to 1989 and that was deleted after I updated it. The page had been updated every year and sat in its current state since 2018.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U-Con&oldid=1114327599

I simply added the guests from 2019, and now all the guests are gone. This makes no sense. And my edit is blocked, so I can't revert. How do I appeal this and avoid it from happening in the future? Intrepidgm (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Intrepidgm. According to the editors involved in removing the content, it was a copyright violation of this website. The article contained vast swathes of unreferenced content, in violation of the core content policy Verifiability. What the conference itself says about its guests is inappropriate for inclusion in a neutral encyclopedia article. If reliable sources independent of the conference discuss these guests, then that can be included, as long as it is referenced properly. Cullen328 (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I represent the con. What we need then on that page is something that clarifies that the guest list is not copyrighted. Would that be sufficient?

It is just a list of guests that attended and lists their works. I doubt that U-Con could actually copyright that, hence the confusion. But if there were clarifying language that the guest information was not Copyrighted by U-Con then we could update the Wikipedia article? Intrepidgm (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Intrepidgm: if you "represent the [conference]", then please read WP:PAID and make the mandatory disclosure on your userpage before editing Wikipedia any further.

A mere list of guests is indeed likely not copyrighted. (Simple facts cannot be copyrighted, and there are not that many ways to write a list of guests, so a list writing lacks the originality component of copyright.)

However, what the conference website says about the guests is almost certainly copyrighted. Even a standard, CV-like presentation of one’s career is susceptible of many changes in presentation.

Similarly to Cullen328, I doubt that material is worth including in Wikipedia anyway. However, if you want text from the conference website to be usable on Wikipedia, "not copyrighted" will not cut it. "Page text available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" will. Please note that this means anyone, not just Wikipedia, can reuse that text - Wikipedia does not accept licenses "for Wikipedia use only". For more details, see User:Tigraan/Wikipedia_copyright_inquiries. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. U-Con is a non-profit organization, and even its board members are not paid. In that context, the contributions I've made, reflecting over 30 years of a community group's history, are not paid for in any way, so I don't see how WP:PAID applies here.

I'm trying to determine how we can publicly record the history of this convention and organization, with no commercial PAID incentive of any kind. We can certainly list the authors we have invited, but again I struggle to understand how listing their published works as authors somehow violates copyright restrictions. We can certainly comply with a list of just names, but that seems unnecessarily restrictive and not reflective of "creating a list based on facts" such as published works. Intrepidgm (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Intrepidgm, I'm afraid you don't quite understand what a Wikipedia article should be based on. 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.

Many articles have been added over the years which don't meet current sourcing standards; if they go unnoticed, they survive, but once they're put under the spotlight for some reason, they often end up deleted. Has there been any independent coverage of this convention in reliable sources? Perhaps older newspapers? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Intrepidgm Paid says that interns are included in the "paid" category, which is interpreted to include unpaid interns (interns are gaining experience). I wish that that policy page explicitly mentioned those who volunteer for a nonprofit, or are serving on nonprofit boards, but it doesn't, as far as I can tell. Can anyone else clarify the "paid" status of such volunteers? David10244 (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328, David notMD, or Tigraan -- I predict that you all know the answer to the above.... and if volunteer status is documented anywhere. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The paid-editing policy is unclear about such side cases.

The criterion I tell people to use is "if you are at work, and your boss sees you edit Wikipedia, do they think you’re slacking?". That does cover non-paid work such as that of an intern, and it clarifies whether an employee that was not specifically instructed to edit Wikipedia is doing it as part of their work duties. However, it only works for people who have a clear boss exercising control; when it comes to NGO without a strong hierarchical structure, it becomes fuzzy.

I, for one, am not very worried about chasing the exact details here. Intrepidgm has been open with their exact situation from the get-go. If any admin wants to block them for undisclosed paid editing without warning first, they are out of their mind. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Under unintended consequences, U-Con now nominated for deletion. David notMD (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong language

Hi I visited a Swedish Wikipedia article and decided to open a Wiki account. Since the instructions were in English, I assumed I had enrolled in the English language Wiki site. I then published a new page in Wiki, in English, and again, the instructions were in English, so a ditto assumption. I was then told by "Disembodied Soul" that English articles are not permitted on the Swedish Wiki. But that dude did not say what I should do next. So do I have to open another Wiki account? Has my page been deleted, or can it be transferred to the English language site? Cheers Tomashssn (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Tomashssn, Disembodied Soul pointed you to a link with all the language Wikipedias. Accounts are global, so you can recreate the article on the English Wikipedia. Your article on svwiki was deleted, you can ask around there to see if an administrator is willing to provide you a copy to help on the English article. See WP:YFA for overly detailed instructions on how to create a new article. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 21:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks SGT, much appreciated! Tomashssn (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tomashssn: Your interface language at a wiki can be set at Special:Preferences. At Special:GlobalPreferences it can be set for all Wikimedia wikis. Account creation at the Swedish Wikipedia is at sv:Special:Skapa konto which has an "English" link. I guess you clicked that but it only means you get an English interface during the account creation at the Swedish Wikipedia, before you can set an interface language for the account. I see how "English" could easily be misinterpreted to think the account creation is at the English Wikipedia. The account automatically works at all Wikipedia languages and other Wikimedia projects so it's not important where it was created. Years ago an account only worked at the wiki where it was created, and somebody else could create the same username at another wiki. Now we thankfully have a better system with global accounts. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

If you are ever in doubt where you are, the language code is in the domain name. en.wikipedia.org is the English Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks PH, much appreciated! Tomashssn (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

How do I exclude templates with what links here

I’ve seen several articles which were likely orphans if not for being linked in a commonly used template.

Is there any way to exclude such templates when looking at back links? That might reveal pages that need a lot of more links to them Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 07:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle this is a rather advanced question for Teahouse! Another user made a script for this. You can past the following into your Special:MyPage/common.js.

/* This script adds "Source links" below "What links here" in the sidebar.
   "What links here" will include pages using a template with the link.
   "Source links" tries to search for pages where the link is in the source.
   To use the script, add the following line to Special:MyPage/common.js:
 
*/ 
importScript('User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js'); // Linkback: [[User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js]]

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

There's also a userscript to easily install userscripts:User:Enterprisey/script-installer Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång so it will just make me automatically not see template links anymore? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 15:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Any pages in neuroscience which needs work?

Hey there, is there any page in (computational) neuroscience which requires some editing. Even beyond deadlink and missing citations. I would be happy to help Didiogiorgio (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Didiogiorgio The article computational neuroscience itself has been marked as requiring some tlc to make it more readable for non-experts. There are a whole bunch of "See also"s that you could review for content. I presume that you are familiar with WP:NEURO and that may be a better venue to ask what else needs doing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh my God!

There are many citations and references which are literally self-published websites.

This doesn't make sense given the amount of peer-reviewed paper we have Didiogiorgio (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Didiogiorgio This is not my area of knowledge, but you might be interested to know that you can find numerous related articles listed in some of the Categories shown right at the very bottom of the article. See Category:Computational neuroscience, for example.

We also have innumerable 'WikiProjects' which aim to work on specific subject areas. Most have a really useful 'Quality Assessment' tables for finding articles of varying importance to that WikiProject, and also varying levels of completeness. 'Stub' and 'Start' class articles are the shortest and have the most potential for quick-win improvements. Just click the number in the relevant cell of the table to see a list of all those articles. In you case, I'd guess WikiProject Molecular Biology/Computational Biology would be most relevant to your interests. Hoping this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Didiogiorgio Yes, replacing bad references with good references will be a great help to this encyclopedia! David10244 (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Explicit Text Use Permission

Hi! I have a question about permissions. Recently, I had a page deleted because it use too much similar lingo from the subjects own website. I can get permission from the subject to use any text I want from his site for his wiki page, but I had to start a new draft of the article since the old one was deleted and it is not a live article yet. In the permissions letter it specifically asks for the Exact URL of the page or file on Wikipedia they are giving permission for, but how can I do that if it is not live yet? I am including Wiki's specific letter lingo below for reference, thank you!

"I hereby affirm that I, [I, (name), am], the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [URLs of the content] as used here: [Exact URL of the page or file on Wikipedia], and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work." Pinkcell23 (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Pinkcell. I think they would need to be clearer about what they mean by "release" (to public domain? or under which licence?) and would need to send the authorisation directly. See WP:DCM.

But beyond that, it is comparatively rare that material from the subject's website will be suitable for a Wikipedia article, because it is unlikely to be neutral in tone. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pinkcell23 Assuming that you mean this website, the information it contains would only be of limited use when drafting an article about Jonas: to the extent mentioned in WP:ABOUTSELF. For an article about him to be accepted, you need to find sources which meet all of these criteria and show that he meets the relevant notability requirements. Don't waste your time trying to get permission to use verbatim quotes from websites: Wikipedia articles are based on editors recasting material in their own words and using a neutral tone. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pinkcell23 If the site author gave you "verbal" or e-mail permission to use his words, that doesn't mean that you can give permission on the form -- you are not the creator of the content. That language, which you quote, explicitly refers to him, not to you. Also, that release allows anyone to reuse the same material (if he were to release it). Knowing that, please follow what Mike Turnbull and Colin Fine say about notability and reliable sources. David10244 (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

conflict of interest question

I want to clarify who can edit a page. I work for someone who wants a few edits to his page, e.g., job title and newest published book. Can I make those changes as someone employed by him? If not, is it possible to prompt someone else to make the changes? 2600:4040:4467:7000:D11C:62E7:EAA:7F8C (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID, which should answer your questions, as well as reading how to make edit requests. It would be easier for you to make the required disclosure if you create an account, but you must disclose even if you choose not to make an account. 331dot (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming. I think it's best that I make the edits and disclose. 2600:4040:4467:7000:D11C:62E7:EAA:7F8C (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You need to make edit requests and disclose. Please don't edit the article directly. David10244 (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

G 105.33.156.86 (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

No it is not possible 105.33.156.86 (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

IP user, please do not give incorrect advice. It is possible, if done correctly. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

What 331dot wrote was create an account, dclare on your User page that you are paid to contribute to name of article, then on the Talk page of that article create a new section in which you describe the changes you wish to have made - including properly formatted references - and append and edit request so that a person from the edit request squad can look at in (in weeks to months) and decide to implement or deny. David notMD (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Editing/Links

Recently on a Science Fiction binge (Lost in Space), noticed some real-world locations mentioned as homes for an alien race (star system), wanted to include the episode in the category for that specific star in fiction and when in that category the link would auto scroll to a specific episode so people can know that this Star was mentioned in the episode. not a huge deal but thought it could be kinda neat for those looking for references. Mrhidesbees (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mrhidesbees. You mean, add it to categories like Category:Fiction set around Rigel? What is added to a category is an article, not a section or anchor in an article, so I don't think there's a way to do what you are asking. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for pointing that out. I am largely ignorant as to how things work behind the scenes. Mrhidesbees (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Mrhidesbees. Further to Colin's reply above, I think there would need to be two criteria met to be worth even adding a mention to an article on a real star system. Firstly, it shouldn't just be some passing mention in a SF programme, but a significant part of the storyline. Then I feel it would need a supporting citation to permit someone to confirm that that star system was indeed used as the focus for a particular episode. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you have a point; if every passing mention of everything from everywhere was included in Wikipedia it would be a clusterjumble. I suppose an alternative would be to make a plot summary for each episode but that would take some work! haha. Mrhidesbees (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, very true. See also WP:TRIVIA. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Are corporate pages reliable?

I was editing The Chicken Rice Shop article and one of the main issues is citations for verification. I want to cite https://www.thechickenriceshop.com/find-us but I don't know if corporate pages are considered reliable or not by Wikipedia. I did check Wikipedia:Reliable sources but couldn't find anything. Imbluey2 (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It depends on what information it's being cited for. If it's a basic uncontroversial fact about the business, it should be fine. Though it's always best to find a source independent of the thing you're writing about. And you need at least some independent sources to prove that the business is actually notable enough to have an article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hu, Imbluey, and wleomce to the Teahouse. The buguglyalien's advice is right. The relevant policy is WP:ABOUTSELF. ColinFine (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Correct vs Common vs Consensus

Though I’m not a new editor per se, I’m not so active in the ways that I would have come across this issue before. My question is in connection with an edit I’m wanting to make, but it exists independently of that edit. If there is a conflict between accuracy, common parlance, and Wikipedia consensus, what is the aim of Wikipedia as an organization, for Wikipedia as a repository of knowledge? What if an article is self-contradictory, such as a situation where an article’s longstanding and accepted text is that the article’s title (or a key section in the article, or whatever) is incorrect. On the one hand, the larger conflict needs resolving, but I don’t have the cycles to enter into that kind of argument. On the other, how should small edits to a self-conflicting article proceed? Follow the accepted incorrect wording/text or follow the article’s text that the title (or section or whatever) is inaccurate? I’d like to get an answer to this in the abstract, so I’ll forgo a link to where it came up for me for now. I could not find writing on this matter in Wikipedia Help, but maybe I wasn’t searching well. Triplingual (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

When there's doubt about what should be on an article, the answer is usually to discuss it on that article's talk page. If you need more input in the discussion (especially if it's a more obscure article where no one is looking at the talk page), you can make a post on a noticeboard. For example, if you think the article doesn't accurately reflect what its sources say, you can make a post at the no original research noticeboard. Or you can ask for input on a WikiProject, like if it's an article about psychology, then you can get more input from WikiProject Psychology. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Triplingual. "Answers in the abstract" are often not helpful in discussing issues on Wikipedia. Your dichotomy Follow the accepted incorrect wording/text or follow the article’s text that the title (or section or whatever) is inaccurate does not necessarily capture all the possibilities. ColinFine (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It is possible that they are not helpful for you, but it would be extremely helpful for me. Getting the answer for one article is nice, but having a conversation that leads to guidelines I can use in future editing is even better. I'll also be happy to hear pointers to where editing self-conflicting articles has been discussed before or policies that inform what to do in situations such as the one I described, or, as you say, in other possibilities. Triplingual (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:V, WP:TRUTH, WP:ONUS, and WP:CONSENSUS combine to say information comes from verifiable sources and our priority is verification, not truth. When information that is verified is challenged, consensus determines inclusion or exclusion.Slywriter (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Citing author names that are in non-latin scripts

Given that there are multiple ways to romanize Korean, and particularly Korean names, would it be best practice not to Romanize any Korean names (when the person has not been referred to in English) when including them in references? (eg. 유, 석조; 김, 광일 (1994-10-23). "교량 붕괴 주범은 과적차량...철저한 단속 필요" [The main culprit of the bridge collapse were overloaded vehicles...a thorough crackdown is needed] (in Korean). KBS News. Archived from the original on February 17, 2023. Retrieved 2023-02-17.) :3 F4U (they/it) 00:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U I would include the original script, since that's an exact match, while romanization can be inconsistent, unless they're well known by a specific romanization e.g Sun Tzu. This has been discussed before, and while there are script-chapters and script-titles, I don't see anything about script-author. Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_73#Author/Editor_link_in_other_language. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Template:WelcomeMenu-introduction follow-up

I have a number of questions—writing out here to help myself use the mental frame of conversation to draw out my goals, curiosities, and current confusions, but will likely go follow up on elements myself.

• I'm interested in power tools: effective or commonly used ways to query for—data the community finds interesting.
  • I'm curious what level of activity triggers your threshold to prompt a Template:WelcomeMenu!
  • I'm also interested in bulk-editing tools. I made a series of around two dozen edits recently by hand, adding {{About| hatnote templates to disambiguation pages.
    • I'm curious about how to do edits in bulk.
    • And where I should raise discussion about it. Perhaps here on my user page, or on a user (project) subpage.
• I'm curious why the tooltip previews don't appear (for me) on mouseover of links in your post.
• I plan to follow up with wiki "adoption" or joining or contributing to a WikiProject.
• Heck, how do I check watchers, or how does the reply mechanism work here. What are the ways of (and levels of) bringing other's attention to edits, or questions, or topics, with appropriate light but effective insistence.

Mcint (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mcint, welcome to the Teahouse. Here are answers to some of your post. Wikipedia:Welcoming committee says: "Welcoming committee members welcome new users who have already made constructive edits". We don't welcome users who have merely registered an account without editing, and we usually don't say welcome to users who have only made vandalism. Your hatnote edits like [1] are contentious per Wikipedia:Hatnote#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous. If Les Misérables (1995 film) is the only 1995 film called Les Misérables then the full article name is not ambiguous and we usually don't make a hatnote. I think you should learn more about Wikipedia before using bulk edit tools. They can quickly make a mess. The default tooltip feature Page Previews is only active for links to articles and not other namespaces. A piped link may conceal that a link is not to an article. For example, I just wrote [[Wikipedia:Namespace|namespaces]] which produces namespaces but links to Wikipedia:Namespace. This is not an article so there is no tooltip. [[Namespace]] produces Namespace which is an article. Registered users can enable "Navigation popups" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. This is an alternative tooltip feature which is more geared towards editors than readers and it does produce a tooltip for other namespaces. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for an extensive reply, PrimeHunter!

I'll work on habits of checking the culture. I suspected there would be discussion, or policy about this somewhere. In this case, it looks like my intent of linking to related articles is also not preferred, although I find self-aware phrasings in the prose of some pages, such as "1862 novel of the same name, by" on the musical's page, excessively hard to skim. It does look like infoboxes contain these kinds of adaptation backlinks that I care to see. I'll look to those in the future.

• Given that the linking I really want to see seems handled by infoboxes, I'm still a little dissatisfied with hunting for the base reference of adaptations, but I guess I should revert these. Where else could I find discussion, debate, and policy, related to the reference type I'm interested in, but maybe not describing well. If not disambiguation, something like "a primary reference" for the page, page is an instance of other page. It seems like my questions might be appropriate or familiar in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, expounded thinking on the nuances might be there for me to find.
  • I'll look to WikiProjects or intro tasks lists first, for an active but guided and higher-context introduction to more extensive editing.
• Here perhaps, possibly irc:#wikipedia-en-help, where are other good places to think about asking or checking for novel (to me) kinds of edits? Or where

Excellent tip about Navigation popups, thank you. It looks like I should ask on MediaWiki for more help with using them elsewhere, as naive Special:MyPage/global.js inclusion does not solve it.

• Is there, analogously, some way for the editor's link-insertion search to search and offer completions from Help:, Template:, or other editor-relevant namespaces?

I'm quite happy to have discovered, through playing with settings and enabling introduction edit links section=0 how introductory sections are numbered. I've been wanting to transclusion of just introductions on another MediaWiki site. Mcint (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for an extensive reply, PrimeHunter!

I'll work on habits of checking for existing consensus. I suspected there would be discussion, or policy about this somewhere. In this case, it looks like my intent of linking to related articles is also not preferred, although I find self-aware phrasings in the text, such as "1862 novel of the same name, by" on the musical's page, excessively hard to skim. It does look like infoboxes contain these kinds of adaptation backlinks that I care to see. I'll look to those in the future.

• Given that the linking I really want to see seems handled by infoboxes, I'm still a little dissatisfied with hunting for the base reference of adaptations, but I guess I should revert these. Where else could I find discussion, debate, and policy, related to the reference type I'm interested in, but maybe not describing well. If not disambiguation, something like "a primary reference" for the page, page is an instance of other page. It seems like my questions might be appropriate or familiar in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, expounded thinking on the nuances might be there for me to find.
  • I'll look to WikiProjects or intro tasks lists first, for an active but guided and higher-context introduction to more extensive editing.
• Here perhaps, possibly irc:#wikipedia-en-help, where are other good places to think about asking or checking for novel (to me) kinds of edits? Or where

Excellent tip about Navigation popups, thank you.

• Is there, analogously, some way for the link-insertion search, to search and offer completions from Help:, Template:, or other editor-relevant namespaces?

I'm quite happy to have discovered, through playing with settings and enabling introduction edit links section=0 how introductory sections are numbered. I've been wanting to transclusion of just introductions on another MediaWiki site.

For myself, but mentioning, I want to 1) restyle the numbered headers I've enabled, and 2) enable fragment linking from the headers (and not just from the table of contents of a page). Mcint (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

How to get a COI article approved

I have been working on and twice submitted an article, which I am being paid to create (a fact that I disclosed at the outset). I submitted the first draft of the article, and it was declined; the reason the editor gave was that it sounded more like an advertisement and needed more independent sources. I went through, reworked much of the article, cut much of the copy and added in many more independent sources/citations. The article was declined again, with the editor stating that it was still exceptionally promotional — and noting that this is why COI editing is strongly discouraged. Despite probing both editors for additional feedback/clarification, I haven't received any.

Essentially, I am hoping someone can provide some thoughts on areas of the article that Wikipedia may deem as too promotional so that I can edit or remove those. In general, I would be super appreciative if anyone has advice on how to get a COI article approved. I am sure COI editing occurs all the time (whether people disclose it or not), and I have seen quite a few articles that are much more promotional or lacking in independent sources than the one I am creating.

The article is for Springbar; here is the page: Draft:Springbar.

Thank you in advance for your help! Xlea Nollmav (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Xlea Nollmav. I have been a tent camper (though less frequently in recent years) ever since the late 1960s. Mostly, I have used tents made of lightweight synthetic fabrics, but I have stayed in pre-erected canvas tents in both car-accessible and wilderness areas of Yosemite National Park a number of times. I read backpacking and mountaineering magazines and books, own hundreds of volumes, and have never heard of this company until just now. The first reference in your draft is to the company's own website which is a big red flag waving in a strong breeze for reviewers. Acceptable Wikipedia articles summarize reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic of the article. The very first sentence includes overtly promotional marketing language spacious design, simple setup and mid-century style, referenced to the company's own website. That is the functional equivalent of hollering to reviewers, "Please decline this promotional draft immediately!" Claims that their tents have been used at the Everest Base Camp are poorly referenced and of little significance. That camp is a seasonal tent city, after all, visited by as many as 40,000 people a year. Who cares if this company's tents were once erected there? You have referenced some baloney about the company being mentioned on The Price is Right to the company's Facebook page. So, that is irrelevant trivia referenced to the exact opposite of a reliable source. When I read your draft, I conclude that some young investors have purchased a moribund, non-notable company, and are trying to promote it using 21st century marketing techniques. The problem is that advertising, marketing and promotion are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Language like All Springbar tents are designed and treated to be highly water and mold resistant, yet breathable, with tightly woven, double-fill, 100 percent cotton duck canvas. Springbar tents made in the USA are manufactured with Sunforger finished canvas and treated with the highly water-resistant Sunforger finish. Imported tents are made with HardyDuck finished canvas, which features a highly water resistant and anti-mold finish similar to those made and treated with Sunforger. Every Springbar tent uses a lap-felled seam construction, three types of cotton thread and special cotton bindings to prevent leaking. A fine-grade opaque mesh netting is used for all windows, and canvas reinforcements on windows allow for venting while keeping rain out. is overtly promotional and has absolutely no place in a neutrally written encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Delete the entire Products section. David notMD (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Xlea Nollmav: Additionally, you must totally lose the mindset that Wikipedia is a publicity channel. It isn't, it must never be used that way, but you're trying to use it that way, and your employer is expecting you to use it that way. As long as that purpose exists, the article can never be published. Answer the question "what three sources cited in that draft meet all of the criteria described in Wikipedia:Golden rule"? If you cannot identify them, then the company doesn't merit an article here. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective. That is a great approach to take. I appreciate it! Xlea Nollmav (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I will remove that section. Xlea Nollmav (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback! This is certainly helpful. Xlea Nollmav (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Question about Editing

So I have Noticed I have been editing while I was logged out of my account and I had to Endlessly claim it was mines and apologizes, So I did make some minor edits to claim it was mine and I need to delete the edit that shows my Ip address, how do I delete a edit? Spookycheems (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Spookycheems. Please read Wikipedia:Oversight and do not discuss this in public any further. You do not want to draw extra attention to it. I can delete this thread if you want. Cullen328 (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ey 2601:202:8180:1F80:B4C2:7F9D:9929:E8AF (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hikaru no go and Takeshi Obata

Hello. In Hikaru no go page it is written that Hikaru no go won Shogakukan manga award in 2000, but in Takeshi-sensei's page it is written he won it in 1999. Which one is really true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfp5 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hikaru no Go and Takeshi Obata: Each is referenced in Japanese, so check the refs. The article Shogakukan Manga Award shows year as 1999 without a reference, but it has External links which may solve the problem. David notMD (talk) 09:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikiproject request SM Supermalls

my Draft is bad from WikiProject ok 210.23.189.140 (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Welcome IP editor to Teahouse! New proposed WikiProjects should approved at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. The key thing there is a proven need and interest to maintain a WikiProject beyond one or two editors. I will remove the draft review, because that's intended for actual Articles. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Shushugah new wikiprojects? 210.23.189.140 (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

IP editor. You seem to have joined a group of IP editors from the Philippines who are determined to create articles on every SM shopping mall. While some of these articles now exist in mainspace (see SM Supermalls and dozens of similar articles) your latest attempt at Draft:SM City Sorsogon Design is, frankly, a mess. In its current state it is bound to be declined by a reviewer. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Upload denied

Hello everyone!

I am working on an artists page and wanted to upload a picture which comes from the artist itself, taken with her own camera. When I completed the file name and description I was told that it could not be determined if I was really the one who took the picture. How can I imbed these pictures anyway if there is obviously no copyright issue? I tried this with multiple ones and got the same result every time.

Thank you everyone for their time! DeSantarossa (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

DeSantarossa Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You say you are working on the draft for an artist, but you have the same name as the artist. If you are not the artist themselves, you must change your username at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS as soon as possible. Please also read conflict of interest and paid editing.

If the artist took the picture of themselves, it would be easier if they were the one to upload it, not you. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I would also note that images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, DeSantarossa. I'm afraid that you are wrong when you say "there is obviously no copyright issue". There is no copyright issue if the photographer chooses to release the picture under a suitable licence (which will allow anybody in the world to reuse or alter it), and if they personally assert that they are so releasing it. You cannot do that for them. ColinFine (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@DeSantarossa: It doesn't matter who owns the camera. The copyright belongs to the photographer regardless of who owns the camera. Did you take the picture? ~Anachronist (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy to Teahouse hosts: Draft:Hella Santarossa, which states she is also known as Hella De Santarossa. David notMD (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism, adding same content repeteadly without references

I came across Societat Civil Catalana article and found that user @Mariano211 edited the content by adding unreferenced text. I think the proper term for that kind of edit is vandalism. I reverted his edits but the user added again the exact same thing. I added a section in the discussion of the article to alert of the bandalism of that user. Can be something done to stop that user from damaging the article more than it already is and leave it as it was before his edits? 95.17.250.138 (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Vandalism may be reported to WP:AIV; edit warring may be reported to WP:ANEW. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I reported the vandalism but it was declined because the user has not been warned. Unless some admin decides to step in and warn him, his removal of content and non referenced additions will prevail. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

IP editor. You may not be aware that WP:VANDALISM has a very limited meaning within Wikipedia editing and adding unreferenced text which may be true but is unverified is not one of its characteristics: it is only vandalism if the editor makes changes which they know will damage the encyclopaedia. It seems you have a content dispute with Mariano211, a new editor who may not be aware of all our policies, one of which is to assume good faith. You should not edit war but seek consensus for what the article should contain at its Talk Page. Meanwhile, instead of reverting that particular addition, you could add a {{cn}} tag to show that it requires a citation, which Mariano211 may be able to provide: and of course if they cannot, is justification for the removal. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think that replacing content with non referenced text supporting the thesis of the political group which the article is devoted to damages the encyclopedia. It's difficult to seek consensus when the user keeps pushing his edit. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

this is not vandalism at all: I quoted a meeting of the European Parliament when the issue was discussed. Perhaps you do not like that meeting, but its existence is something totally objective Mariano211 (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

UPDATE: IP 95.17.250.138 and Mariano211 are having a discussion on the Talk page of the article. M has started the process of supporting intended changes with reference(s). David notMD (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

PL GNG

Hi, what is the GNG for a Programming language? Tzahy (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Tzahy Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There are no specific notability guidelines for a programming language, so as you suggest WP:GNG would apply- the topic must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much 331dot. Tzahy (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tzahy You might also find the opinions in this essay of interest to you: Wikipedia:Notability (software). They are not a formally adopted guideline, however. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

JUDUCA - Abandoned Article

JUDUCA is a stub which requires ASAP expanding and actualization, the information is outdated as of 2016

多多123 (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

多多123 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has no deadlines, so what is the source of your urgency? We're only as good as the volunteers who choose to edit when they can. The draft is currently completely unsourced and probably merits deletion. Do you have sources changes to propose? 331dot (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, but I believe it is an essential article for the Sports section of Wikipedia, although your point is valid.

'Wikipedia is not working to a deadline, though it is not an excuse for complacency.'

There are no encyclopaedic references available on the internet; there are primary sources. If the community and/or admins wish to delete it, go ahead, but I think this has great potential. 多多123 (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I just believe it is a good article with potential and requires a little clean-up to keep it up to date and to Wikipedia's standards. If these are achieved it would speak for itself. I'm asking for experienced editors to help with the expansion and actualization of this article. 多多123 (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

多多123 This isn't really a forum to request that others edit an article. That's part of the purpose of the maintenance tags, but they haven't resulted in others editing. If you have sources to contribute to this article, you're the best person to edit it. If you don't feel comfortable with editing it, but you still have contributions to make to it, you may make an edit request on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

👍 多多123 (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Which request would I make? 多多123 (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, 多多123. I'm afraid it is a good article with potention and requires a little clean-up is like saying "this house (which has no foundations and may fall down at any time) is a good house and just requires repainting". It is not possible for an article without citations to be a good article, or to "speak for itself". Unless and until independent, reliable sources are found, any effort spent on the article would probably be effort wasted. ColinFine (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Would local governmental references be still considered biased? 多多123 (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Golden rule for guidance. Generally local coverage (government or not) is insufficient to establish notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm learning as I go. 多多123 (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

My edits on page "Sonipat"

Hi there!

I am a new editor and learning the ropes of contributing to wikipedia which I have been using since I started typing on laptop. My first contribution was to page Sonipat as I am a resident of Sonipat which lies in country India. So, I started with putting the names of the famous schools from Sonipat with citations and links but those have been removed. When I started editing the page only 1 school was mentioned so I continued by putting 4 more school names but now we are back to square one. In case if I have followed any wrong practice contrary to wikipedia's guidelines then do let me know and if I were correct then I hope the edits which got removed will be reinstated.

Thank You

A sincere Wikipedia's lover Ajoobaa.in (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ajoobaa.in Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You added some external links to an article, these were inappropriate for the article. Please read the external links policy. Generally, schools are only added to articles about communities if the schools themselves merit and have articles. 331dot (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. So, can I add the school names without links as I strongly believe that to make my city's page fully exhaustive for the readers then it should be replete with all basic information. Ajoobaa.in (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

There should not be a mere list of schools. Only if the schools merit and have articles themselves should they be mentioned on that article. The vast majority of schools do not merit articles, as they must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources that an article can summarize. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Roger that! Ajoobaa.in (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ajoobaa.in In my opinion, if a random person wants to find what schools are in a city, they should use a search engine, not an encyclopedia. Therefore, my opinion is that an article on a city doesn't need a list of schools. Others might disagree with me though. David10244 (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Atom

When I go into the edit history of an article, on the left sidebar, under "tools", there's an RSS symbol with a link with the text "Atom." What is this? When I click on it it sends me to what appears to be an error page. :3 F4U (they/it) 17:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, 3 F4U. I had never noticed this, and had no idea, so I entered "WP:Atom" in the search bar, which took me to Syndication, which has information about it. ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It is like RSS. - Roxy the dog 08:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The link in question is a live feed of updates to that page, so that if you have a feed reader you can receive news of any new edits made to that specific page from there. Atom is a standard for feed syndication. If you aren't concerned about the actual XML behind it just think of it as RSS but with a different specification. Your browser or feed aggregate will likely interpret the feed the same way as any other RSS feed. - Cheers, KoolKidz112 (hit me up) 12:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Oooh, thanks for the explanation :3 F4U (they/it) 12:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

How does one 'fancy up' their User Page?

Hello, I just wanted to know how I would make one of those colored boxes, the one that gives tidbits about the user; "This user likes/is/ etcetera etcetera..." I've tried to find a Wikipedia: prefixed page for it but I can't. I've also tried to go on user pages and use the edit option to see all the markup and symbols that go into them, but everyone I go on has an edit-lock to prevent vandalism. [Which is fair, yes, I just wanted to state that I've tried all that I can to find a template.] So if someone could help me, I'd truly appreciate it. Thank you in advance. MetricPin (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @MetricPin, see Wikipedia:Userboxes, and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Userboxes. AdmiralAckbar1977 ^{talk contribs} 17:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@MetricPin They're called userboxes and there's a whole page about them and how to create them at Wikipedia:Userboxes Nthep (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Jinx @Nthep, you owe me a coke. AdmiralAckbar1977 ^{talk contribs} 17:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@AdmiralAckbar1977 no Cokes in the house, will a Pepsi do? Nthep (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh well thank you two. I think I just got lost in the nomenclature of these sorts of things. MetricPin (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem! Welcome to Wikipedia. AdmiralAckbar1977 ^{talk contribs} 17:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. MetricPin (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@MetricPin: And regarding edit-protected pages, you can still access the page content by clicking the "view source" option that appears instead of the regular "edit" option. For instance, if you go to the Main Page, you will see the "view source" option, which allows you to view (and copy, of course) the page content but not to modify it. — DVRTed (Talk) 17:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@MetricPin - Recently, I re-build my userpage and found helpful examples at User page design center/User page Hall of Fame. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Camila Coelho

Hello! I am working on creating a page for Camila Coelho, one of the biggest creators and entrepreneurs from the original 2009 blogger era that is a top creator to this date (was on Forbes 2022 creator list, CEO of two businesses), but I am running into some trouble despite having about 30 credible sources. Any help would be appreciated. Paulboy (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Paulboy Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As odd as it may sound, you probably have too many sources. Fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. You have some interviews, these aren't acceptable as it's the person speaking about themselves. Good sources should go into detail about the significance or influence about the person as the source sees it. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Paulboy (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Paulboy did you also ask the same question at the Articles for creation page? David10244 (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

On that dreaded “Uncyclopedia”

Uncyclopedia is, what it’s name suggests, a Un-encyclopaedia. They have gone against everything we Wikipedians stand for, they make a mockery of Wikipedia on their page on us, and the website’s similarity has led many astray. So I present you this Query. Should we sue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:968C:9001:B9C7:5E23:C4EF:36A7 (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2023(UTC)

This isn't really the forum for this, but they're allowed to do that. The Foundation has lawyers who surely would pursue action if there was a legal case to do so. 331dot (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Bother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c8:968c:9001:b9c7:5e23:c4ef:36a7 (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

(please note: creator of this page speaking) Some people enjoy “Uncyclopedia” very much, and, I have worked on both Wikipedia and “Uncyclopedia”. But, Uncyclopedia causes more problems than it solves. But the question still remains unanswered. (Forgot the clock so I don’t know what time, 14 March 2023) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c8:968c:9001:b9c7:5e23:c4ef:36a7 (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

IP editor, please sign your posts with four ~ (or simply use the reply button). The answer is that there is nothing to sue over. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Bother again.2A00:23C8:968C:9001:B9C7:5E23:C4EF:36A7 (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c8:968c:9001:b9c7:5e23:c4ef:36a7 (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You did get an answer, "The Foundation has lawyers who surely would pursue action if there was a legal case to do so." 331dot (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Bother a third time.2A00:23C8:968C:9001:B9C7:5E23:C4EF:36A7 (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c8:968c:9001:b9c7:5e23:c4ef:36a7 (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing my attention to Uncyclopedia. It's satire (I've heard that Americans don't understand satire, but I don't believe it). It's really very funny - have a look at this article.   Maproom (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

For one, I am not American, and two, I understand satire. (Just so you know, I used to work on Uncyclopedia, I know what to expect, and I fear what will happen if I click that link.)2A00:23C8:968C:9001:B9C7:5E23:C4EF:36A7 (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up to Ivan Law AKA Ivan The Great has officially solves the Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls Murders

Last.fm Ivan Law - IMDb Ivan Law - Wikitia (Hip Hop Homicides) of Holly Hood : Who Killed Tupac Amaru Shakur and Christopher Biggie Smalls Wallace - Kindle edition by Law, Ivan , Law, Ivan. Professional & Technical Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com. (Link to buy a book deleted.) Holly Hood Tupac and Biggie Homicides Solved (2023) - IMDb The Tupac and Biggie murder case solved by Ivan law podcast interview (Podcast Series 2022– ) - IMDb Monster Beats – Medium The Investigation of the Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls murders has taken a decisive turn with the addition of Ivan Law's name to the homicide file by the LAPD. From now onwards, Ivan the Great will be solely responsible for solving the murders that were unsolvable for over two decades. : monsterbeatspress (reddit.com) The tupac and Biggie murders Solved By Ivan Law Press release by Ivan Law - Issuu “A New Book coming to Unveil the Truth on Murders of Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G our Most Beloved Hip-Hip Icons” – NBS-KA (nbska.com) Ivan The Great Monster Beats Ivan The Great Monster Beats (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ivan The Great Monster Beats, welcome to the Teahouse. As you were told the last time you visited, you should discuss articles on their talk pages. However, you should cite reliable sources for any information you wish to add. Citing your own book is not likely to be enough. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ivan The Great Monster Beats You are just putting ungrammatical assertions here, on a Help page. That will serve no purpose, especially since you don't mention any existing articles. I suppose you want readers here to click the link and buy your book. So you were posting here to get sales. I removed the link. Like the IP who replied, I also remember your previous posting of similar information on one of the Help pages. You should stop doing this. David10244 (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit request for Bill Ackman

Hello, Teahouse editors! On behalf of Pershing Square Capital Management, I've submitted an edit request flagging issues with specific text recently added to Bill Ackman's Wikipedia article. An editor added text using Twitter and the New York Post as sources. The latter does not appear to be considered a reliable source, but one editor reviewing the request says Twitter is appropriate in this case. However, the text is not even accurate based on the Twitter source.

The reviewing editor has not returned to the open discussion so I'm hoping someone here might be able to help. Thanks in advance for any assistance resolving this issue. FMatPSCM (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@FMatPSCM: Thank you for playing by the rules regarding your conflict of interest. The edit request is properly formatted, and hence in the appropriate category for interested editors to peruse. Please be patient, and do not try to "jump the queue" by asking reviews at other places. That might be considered WP:CANVASSING.

If you have a boss asking "where’s that edit I asked you to do?" or similar, well... "Our house, our rules", and the rules are that there is no deadline, and nobody is forced to work on anything on Wikipedia. If that’s inconvenient for your annual marketing review or whatever, sorry, too bad. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation question

is there a sockpuppet hunting squad i can join? Blitzfan51 (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Blitzfan51. Please read Wikipedia:Signs of sockpuppetry. Cullen328 (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Blitzfan51, and you may want to look into WP:SPI. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 00:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

why are inline citations ending up in external links

Newbie here. I am writing an artist's bio and am near the end of this process, but now a huge stumbling block! What am I doing wrong? I have one reference. But all the others are under external links. Many thanks for any help! Mcc17 (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Mcc17, welcome to the Teahouse. Your contributions show no edits to any draft article - can you give us a link to this bio you're writing so we can check out the problem? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Should I hit "publish" even though the article has issues with references? I was afraid that might hurt the approval process. Also, I put the article under another account so the artist can access it. Hope that wasn't a mistake. If you say to hit publish, I'll do it, and I think you'll then be able to search for it under the artist's name, Jane McNichol. Will that work?

Wow, I really am a newbie! Thanks for your help! 2600:4040:7E73:2E00:80E0:1FDF:CDAF:A39D (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

IP editor/@Mcc17, please don't share accounts with anyone, and please stick to just one. If you place your draft at Draft:Jane McNichol and then click Publish, a draft will be created, which can then be worked on and eventually submitted to AfC. Please review our policies on editing with a conflict of interest - WP:COI - since you seem to have some sort of connection with the subject of this draft. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I am getting paid, which I want to disclose. I've read the rules and thought that if I disclose, that would be sufficient and not be subject to a conflict of interest. However, I do know the artist. Do I have a COI? 2600:4040:7E73:2E00:80E0:1FDF:CDAF:A39D (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

As a paid editor, you would fall under the stricter WP:PAID policy. As long as you declare per that policy, there's no need to also declare a COI (it's sort of implied!). If your employer decides to create their own account (they must do it themselves, do not do it for them) and wants to edit the draft, they would need to follow the WP:COI guidelines. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate your help! 2600:4040:7E73:2E00:E092:1D24:3AD9:2D15 (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, PAID is a special case of Conflict of interest, and we are no less picky about it. As long as you make a formal declaration, and stick to the COI guidelines you should be OK. But note that creating a Wikipedia article is a very challenging task for inexperienced editors, and some volunteer editors resent spending a lot of time helping people who are getting paid but don't spend time learning the ropes before they plunge in and (often) make the same mistakes as other beginners. I always advise new editors to spend a few months making small improvements to existing articles before they attempt it. ColinFine (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Good advice, Colin. I worked with several articles before beginning an article, but I probably should have spent more time. Altogether, however, I think I've spend at least 50 hours trying to learn the ropes before asking for help. I'm a good writer but a novice with coding and all the ins and outs of the rules. You make a point that volunteers are careful with their time and whom they help. 2600:4040:7E73:2E00:E092:1D24:3AD9:2D15 (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If you missed that, "Publish" means "Save." Wikipedia made that change so that people realize that what is saved can be seen by other edits, just by clicking on your User name or IP address and then on Contributions. Remember to log in at all times. David notMD (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, David. Very helpful! 2600:4040:7E73:2E00:E092:1D24:3AD9:2D15 (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mcc17. Since it appears your original question has yet to be answered, properly formatted references will automatically be added to the bottom of the page unless you tell the software to add them somewhere else. Since "External links" sections are often the last section of an article, the references may appear to be being added there; they are, however, actually be added to the page space below that section. Generally, a section placed right above the "External links" section titled "References" or something similar that contains a Template:Reflist will tell the software to locate the references there as expalined in WP:REFLIST. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks so much! 2600:4040:7E73:2E00:E092:1D24:3AD9:2D15 (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of interest statement?

Hello, your guidance please. I am employed by a university to support a large scientific research network whose work is coming to a close after seven years. As this is publicly-funded research, I am trying to make sure the findings of the investigations are reflected in the topics covered by Wikipedia, and added to the encyclopedia if there is no appropriate existing article. To facilitate this, we have carried out a series of webinars to familiarize researchers with Wikipedia editing and are now trying to encourage further engagement with the editing process.

I am also collaborating with others in the programme in drafting articles, some of which are about the programme itself or about people who have been involved in its development. I have drafted a statement about possible conflict of interest / paid contributions and have shared it on my user page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Km4water. Can you tell me if there is anything else I should do to ensure there is no misunderstanding?

Many thanks! Km4water (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Km4water. You have made the declaration, thank you. But it sounds as if you are looking at Wikipedia as a place to publish your conclusions. That is not what Wikipedia is for. Even if your results are reliably published, the publication will be a PRIMARY source, and insufficient to ground an article, until there have been further publications, wholly independent of your project and its staff and associates.

You may draft articles about the project and its staff, but remember that each of these articles must meet Wikipedia's criteria, particularly for notability of its subject - which depends crucially on coverage in independent publication (or, for academics, alternatively on being cited in independent publications). You will likely suffer the usual problem for COI editors of wanting to describe what you know, rather than what the sources say.

As for adding the conclusions to existing articles: that is possible, presuming your results have been reliably published; but you should not do it yourself. Adding material (or citations) from your own work is a form of COI, and you should again use the edit request mechanism. ColinFine (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Km4water: A clarification of what ColinFine said from an academically-minded editor... Wikipedia is not a venue to publish primary research. A clinical trial of a new drug, a new commentary on Shakespeare’s writings, a catalogue of objects found in an archeology websites, etc. would not be accepted as articles.

However, many Wikipedia articles closely resemble review articles about their subject. A historical document, its discovery process, its scholarly discussion etc. makes for a fine article. For instance, our article about the donation of Constantine details at length what we know and do not know about the composition of that document, based on existing scholarly literature.

In fact a couple of articles were dual-published as Wikipedia articles and review articles in reputable venues. It is entirely permissible to write a literature review both for Wikipedia and for another journal - but pay attention to disclose that fact to both parties, otherwise whichever gets the text second will accuse you of copyright infringement. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

... a small addition to this, one which nevertheless matters: (1) if someone does write an academic review article of that sort in Wikipedia, it is fundamentally different to a review published in a journal. It is not owned by the author, and it may continue to evolve. It doesn't remain as a historical record of a named author's overview of the field in March 2023, it is in fact the basis for an ongoing article outlining the subject, which may ultimately end up expressing ideas with which the original author disagrees vehemently (it can do so, if those views gain traction elsewhere). And (2) named authors often write secondary review articles to propose their synthesis of the best way to understand things. Wikipedia does not. You cannot, here, combine your understanding of primary sources to create a review that generates a new and interesting viewpoint. The review must (unfortunately) stick to giving a balanced overview of the primary stuff and reporting what secondary stuff says. So it's quite hard to use Wikipedia to announce the results of an academic study, unless the study has been published "properly" elsewhere. Elemimele (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for these details. The intention is not to publish primary research in Wikipedia but 1) rather to update and add references to existing articles, 2) to provide synthesis of findings, and 3) add articles about notable topics that have not been included in Wikipedia. We are paying close attention to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. A question about "what the sources say": if a scholarly work is cited many times in other scholarly sources, does Wikipedia consider these citations to count for something? Km4water (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it counts for a lot. If someone publishes a piece of primary research, we don't know whether other academics regard this as good, bad, are influenced by it, or whether no one whatsoever has even noticed it. If it gets cited a lot, we have far better grounds to believe that it's a big enough part of the story that it should be used in a Wikipedia article. Some primary research is, after all, a one-off result of an individual academic or group, which never gains wide attention, and no matter how much it deserved attention, Wikipedia isn't the right place to correct that. Be careful about synthesis; you should avoid drawing any conclusion here that requires a logical combination of information from multiple sources unless that combination has already been made by someone else, outside Wikipedia (see WP:SYNTH). Be careful about the extent to which you add references to your own work; see WP:SELFCITE for guidance. Elemimele (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks -- this is helpful advice. Km4water (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Km4water, since you ask, it would help if you wrote straightforwardly. Your user page starts: "Hello, I'm a knowledge mobilization specialist [...]. I contribute in English." Pointing out that you contribute in English wouldn't have been necessary if you hadn't just talked mystifyingly of "knowledge mobilization" (which is absent from my own lect of English and, I suspect, from many other lects). As I continue to read, I vaguely infer that the term means PR -- which itself may have started as a windy euphemism but is now widely understood. Wording aside, you say you're "exposing researchers – in particular, Highly Qualified Personnel – to collaboratively sharing and improving the expression of knowledge through training and edit-a-thon activity". I hope that you've told them (i) to announce their own conflicts of interest, and (ii) not to cite their original research. -- Hoary (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Km4water: "Exposing researchers" should not be a purpose here. Wikipedia is emphatically never to be used as a publicity platform. That is not negotiable, and attempting to do so will get your account blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I am guessing that you intend the researchers involved in the project - such as Howard S. Wheater - to create articles about themselves. This is a horrible idea, doomed to failure. See WP:AUTO for why Wikipedia warns against attempts at autobiography. Also see Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for who might qualify as a topic of an article, preferably created by a person who has no paid or personal connection to the subject. David notMD (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no intention to encourage people to post their autobiographies: Wikipedia policy makes it clear that this is not acceptable. There is a need to add biographies of people who have had a significant impact on certain fields of water studies, and we are looking carefully at what makes a good (and acceptable) article. In our Wikipedia webinars, conflict of interest has been explained and discussed at length. Km4water (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a language misunderstanding here. "Exposing" researchers to Wikipedia and its editing practices is a form of training or framiliarizatio, not an attempt to publicise them or their work! But since you have not understood the wording, I will rephrase. Km4water (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I can see from your remarks that someone needs to create a Wikipedia article for Knowledge Mobilization. It is not a synonym for Public Relations. There are already articles for Knowledge Translation, Implementation Research, Knowledge Sharing, Evidence Based Practice (and Public Relations), which can be related. Simply, Knowledge Mobilization intends to make use of all of these in working to get knowledge into use. This can happen through changing knowledge production systems (such as those in academia), opening communication channels, encouraging scientist-user interactions, and using brokers to link previously unrelated field of interest to increase their potential for implementation. Km4water (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You are free to describe the nature of your work on your User page however you want. Regardless, all drafts of articles about the research program, the research and the researchers need to meet Wikipedia standards for neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and independent references from reliable sources (WP:42). Given the work is coming to a close, it may be WP:TOOSOON to expect non-connected people publishing about it. You should be aware that if drafts are accepted by reviewers other editors will be able to edit those as long as they also provide valid references, and that you, as a paid editor (WP:PAID) will be prohibited from further editing the articles. Instead, you will be limited to proposing subsequent edits on the Talk pages of the articles. Given WP:COI, the same would apply to any articles the researchers manage to get approved about themselves (of if you end up creating those, you). David notMD (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, David. It seems sensible to capture factual details about a programme or institution while the people who can verify those facts are around. Analysis and interpretation of the influence and impact of the work would naturally follow and be added in future edits. Km4water (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"Analysis and interpretation" should not be added in future edits unless those edits are summarizing analysis and interpretation carried out and published by people wholly unconnected with the original programme. ColinFine (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the point, Colin, but with seven years' of research and review and citation of that research by scientists outside the programme there will certainly be that opportunity. "Wholly unconnected" is an interesting concept in the world of academia, as communities of practice are a vital part of knowledge creation and there is much overlap among institutions, projects (and fiunding). I think Wikipedia's weakness in representation of many areas of science may be partly due to this interpretation. Km4water (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Declined Biography submission.

Hello, i'm very new and trying to get this through was wandering is i could get some help. i believe i gave enough inline references in the draft but for some reason it was declined. I've corrected what i think was the error and would like for someone to please go over this with me. Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cyrus_DeShield HistoryVille1 (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The section "Early life and career" is long, HistoryVille1. It has a grand total of zero references. The reader therefore has no reason to believe any of it. Everything the draft says must come with references to reliable sources, which of course must be independent of DeShield and of any company profiting from his work. Anything that cannot be so referenced must be cut. (I didn't look beyond "Early life and career". Anything beyond it must also be referenced, of course.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. So i have references is it possible to get help completing this ? HistoryVille1 (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

HistoryVille1, if you reference everything that can be referenced, and cut everything that can't be referenced, and then ask here for help in some specific aspect of your already-greatly-improved draft, then it's likely (though not certain) that somebody will help. -- Hoary (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If you have acceptable references, it is possible to make a start. You have been writing your draft backwards.   Maproom (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Counter-Vandalism Unit

Hello, I am interested in joining the Counter-Vandalism Unit on Wikipedia due to my interest in anti-vandalism. Ever since I've joined the site a week ago, I've done a lot of work patrolling Recent Changes and reverting vandalism/other unconstructive edits.

So, my questions are: How can I join the Counter-Vandalism Unit? Are there any requirements to joining?

Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shadow of the Starlit Sky. Perhaps you'll find the information you're looking for at Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. A word to the wise,though, fighting vandalism is an important but typically thankless task; it's also an area where new editors who seem to have lots of enthusiasm can quickly run into problems if they're not careful, especially after only a week of editing. So, if you feel that fighting vandalism is a way to somehow make your mark on Wikipedia and perhaps see it as a path to bigger and better things, then you might be disappointed at the lack of formal recognition your efforts will receive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Where would I ask a question about British/American English?

I want to know where I'd get an answer about the correct form of a word in British English to use on Wikipedia. Quirk4 (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps try WP:Reference desk/Language. -- Hoary (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Quirk4 (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the policy at MOS:ENGVAR? Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. :) Quirk4 (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for products and services.

Dear Teahouse Members,

I need your support to improve this article which has notability issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_Data_Recovery

Could you please suggest how can I improve it so that it follow all Wikipedia Guidelines? Thanks Cordless Larry for your suggestion to post here Amitpandeys0281 (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, for example, Amitpandeys0281, you link to this page, which actually seems a decent source. But you hardly use it. It's a review published in 2017, so obviously anything it says is about a five-year-old version of the software; however, you might summarize the more important parts of what it says -- of course making it clear that what you write is about an old version. -- Hoary (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary for your suggestion! I will definitely implement this. Amitpandeys0281 (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear Hoary I have made some edits as suggested by you could you please check if its fine or not? Amitpandeys0281 (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Amitpandeys0281, according to you, the title of this page is "Tested: Stellar Phoenix Macintosh Data Recovery (Old version of the software): when it finally worked the program worked well, so if you have a copy of this software available to you I would still recommend this utility as an option for people to consider." This is not the title. The title is "Tested: Stellar Phoenix Macintosh Data Recovery". (I didn't look at any other title.) The body of the draft says no more than it did a couple of hours ago. -- Hoary (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary I have made the changes again. Could you please check it.

Thanks in advance! Amitpandeys0281 (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

2026 FIFA World Cup Qualification

Why my editing is being reversed continuously, in spite of, that it is correct and useful for readers. Further, total slots mentioned in play-off column is wrongly mentioned as 10 instead of 2 Riaz Butt SBP (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps if you explained your edits in the edit summary and provided reliable sources for them (WP:V) it would not look like disruptive editing to @JalenFolf: and they wouldn't revert them. - X201 (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Riaz Butt SBP (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. My first suggestion would be that you ask the users who are removing your edits as to the reason, either directly on their user talk page, or on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

In relation to your edits, the total in the direct slot column is supposed to include the teams that would later qualify through playoffs. However, you are correct in that the playoff slot total should not display 10 (possibly leaked in from 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification), but should actually display 6. Yes, I do agree that the edit summary should have been used here. Jalen Folf (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

save before publishing or submitting as draft

I am trying to find out how to save an article that I am working on as I am not finished with it yet and don't want to publish it or submit to review

Japan Political and Economic News (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Japan Political and Economic News Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. "Publish changes" should be interpreted as "save changes", it does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". It says "publish" only to emphasize that all edits are public. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

data overload

See history of Milly Alcock - curprev 09:11, 15 March 2023‎ Vergucci talk contribs‎ 19,031 bytes +2,442‎ Considering that all references used were already saved into the wayback machine internat archive for future possible use, this latest innovation has managed to add 2442 bytes of data to this article to achieve nothing except congestion. Multiply that by some 6 million articles and I forsee that many more servers will be required.James Kevin McMahon (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

James Kevin McMahon Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Storage space is not a problem for Wikipedia; the Wikimedia Foundation that operates the computers Wikipedia is on has plenty of computer storage space available, and can acquire more if needed. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance and the thread Too many edits on the talkpage. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. James Kevin McMahon (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Arrow formatting

Hullo. Say I want to demonstrate a sequence of words that connect to each other, for example a quine. The Ouroboros programs section lists multiple examples of quines spanning multiple languages, like Python → Bash → Perl. My question is, is this the general way to format lists connected by arrows? Are there other ways or is there a consistent styling? Would this → this be better, or would this this be better? Or is there generally no set style? - Cheers, KoolKidz112 (hit me up) 12:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@KoolKidz112 The nearest advice I could find was for chemistry articles, where MOS:CHEM uses simple arrows of the type → for reactions that can be shown in text. That sort of arrow seems fine for your purpose also. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! - Cheers, KoolKidz112 (hit me up) 14:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Infobox book

For the isbn parameter of {{infobox book}}, it states that you should prefer the first edition. Does that still apply when there is a foreign-language original and an English-language translation of a book? Should the first English edition's isbn be used or should the original isbn be used? :3 F4U (they/it) 12:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about it either way. Many historical books, for example Das Kapital were published and public domain'ed before ISBN even existed, so there's no correct answer of what's even the first German ISBN of Das Kapital. I'd lean towards using an English ISBN though, where you can also mention the translator if need be. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

That's what I decided on as well. Relevant article is An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital. :3 F4U (they/it) 20:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

As a former bookseller and book editor, and a book collector, I would say that a translation of a work is essentially a work in its own right. Translations often contain significant information not found in the original, particularly in the case of non-fiction texts, so for English Wikipedia, the first English translation is often more useful as a reference.

And yes, ISBN's only started coming into use from 1970: any first edition older than that will not have one, although later reprints will. {The poster formerly known nas 87.81.230.195} 5.64.160.67 (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Responding to COI editor

Hi all, someone might want to respond to Talk:Peter Kimbowa#sole admin rights in a more informative way than I could. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done by myself and another editor. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have left a short comment with links over there; someone should have a look at the article, as we have now, amongst other things, plenty of external links included, and I haven't got the time to do more. Lectonar (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Question about whether article would meet 1b and 1c of the FA criteria

Hi! I just wanted to get some people's opinions on something... So... I want to get Vivien Lyra Blair, which is currently a GA, to FA-status... but it's a really short article (like really, really short); however, that's all the information I can find related to Blair at the current moment. I'm not really sure if that would meet the criterion of comprehensiveness and being well-researched for an FA, and I just wanted to ask your opinion on whether it has a shot at being an FA. A lot of people (well, around three, but still) have expressed doubt on whether it would. I'm not asking for a full review or anything, but just whether it really has a chance in hell at getting to FA status based on its current length and depth. Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pamzeis It must be very difficult to be comprehensive about an actress who is only 10 years old and has, presumably, many more years of work ahead of her. So any version of the article might be OK at the point it was reviewed but would not be stable, one of the FA criteria. Also, it is a pity that the article has no images. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

On the more general question, there is a page at WP:Very short featured articles with some information and links to past discussions. The shortest current FA appears to be Miss Meyers, which has 150 more words of readable prose than Vivien Lyra Blair currently does and was promoted back in 2010. Of the ten shortest FAs, the only one promoted in the past five years seems to be Fir Clump Stone Circle, which is almost twice the wordcount of the Blair article. I agree with Mike that you'll have a hard time getting such a short article of a living person so early in her career to FA; if she were a child star of the 1920s and you could confidently demonstrate that you had exhausted the sources it would be more doable. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Creating articles for a semi-experienced editor

Hullo. Apologies for asking another question in such short notice. For some time now I've been intending to create an article for some time now, and I've been looking through articles in the requested articles page that I could give a shot at creating. I've seen the usual lecture on how creating an article is incredibly difficult and I believe that seeing as I've been a part of this website for years now and made 300 edits I might be a tad bit more capable of something like this, if nothing else. Obviously my first question is, should I start small first? I'm thinking of expanding stub-class articles and adding more information, and I believe it would be better if I did that first, so I oughta. But I also want to know for the near feature, when I do start trying to create my first article, are there any good pointers for someone like me who has knowledge of the website to write an entire article, maybe factoring in the fact that I usually work with copyediting?

Main question: if I want to create an article from a programming language, what sort of notability guidelines would it have to meet? I assume it is inherently bound by WP:GNG but are there other things to consider with this field? How does one... find sources? Any help is appreciated. I apologise if this is a large set of questions to ask. - Cheers, KoolKidz112 (hit me up) 15:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

KoolKidz112: creating an article is only "incredibly difficult" if you do it backwards. Unfortunately, most editors (including me) do create their first article backwards. If you decide to pick a subject from WP:AFC, choose one which already lists a few good sources. Maproom (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I've taken some time to work on a barely-finished stub-ish draft in my sandbox. I'm currently trying to not write it backwards, working with the citations I was able to find online from searching and taking information from there. I have a few questions though, besides the usual "can you provide feedback on it?" question.

1. If I wanted to use a screenshot of the main page on the article, how would I go about taking it? I understand that it'd likely be as simple as taking a capture of the index page, but my concern is a) uploading to Wikimedia Commons and, most importantly, b) what sort of copyright it would fall under. How would I go about this?
2. The second reference is one I'm slightly vexed about. It's a primary source, I would venture to guess, taken from the Gitbook-based documentation of the website. How would I format the citation for this? Is this a reliable source in the first place?
3. What's the bare minimum for an article before it's considered for creation? Can it be accepted as a stub? Of course, I'll try to do as much as I can, but information on this website is proving to be relatively scarce besides the two news articles provided for it and the website itself. Which brings me to my fourth question, which slightly terrifies me...
4. ...Is it notable? Can it be considered as such? Also,
5. am I able to put categories on the sandbox article at this moment or should I wait until it's in the Draft namespace or Article namespace?

I hope this isn't too much to ask. I'm still far from knowing everything about Wikipedia... seeing as I'm a copyeditor. - Cheers, KoolKidz112 (hit me up) 20:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, KoolKidz112. To answer some of ost certainly be copyright, and could not be uploaded to Commons, It is possible that it could be uploaded to Wikipedia itself, and used as non-free material, but it would need to meet all the conditions in WP:NFCC, one of which is that it is used in at least one article: it cannot be used in draft. You would need to justify its relevance to the article.

1. . As long as they are actually published, and are clearly published by the subject, WP:ABOUTSELF sources are generally taken as reliable. Of course they can only be used within the limits of ABOUTSELF. Cite it with {{cite web}}.
2. . Stubs are from the history of Wikipedia, when it was of value to get a lot of articles in quickly. They rarely get expanded into articles. In my view, and the view of many editors, there is no place for new stubs today: if it's worth creating an article it's worth creating it. What's much more important is whether there is actually enough reliable independent information available: if not, the subject is not notable, and all effort spent on it, by the writer, reviewers, and anybody else, is effort wasted.
3. . See my previous answer. Writing so much as a single word of a draft before having found sources to establish notability is like painting the windows of a house before surveying the site to see if it is suitable to build on. See also WP:TOOSOON.
4. . You should not put a draft into categories, but if you wrap the category wikilinks in {{Draft categories}} it will handle that for you.

ColinFine (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Commons

I am doing a blog all about native plants and have utilized many pictures from Wikipedia Commons. Recently I've noticed that the Wikipedia Commons is not easy to find anymore from the 'normal' Wikipedia page. How can I get the old look/style back also with all the different languages it used to show on the left-hand side!Thanks for your help, it means a lot as this blog is educational and non profit (costing me a lot actually!) Yokeflower (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Yokeflower, welcome to the Teahouse. Since you have an account, you can switch back to the old look (Vector 2010/vector legacy) by going to Special:Preferences and clicking thru to the "Skin" section of the appearance tab 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Yokeflower In the new vector interface, when you are looking at an article, the right-hand menu which is always visible includes a direct link to the corresponding Commons page (the "In other projects" header), which I find very useful. Otherwise you can always go via the Mainpage (top left menu item) and hence the main Commons page via the same "In other projects" link. Languages are now always top right of articles/pages. Stick with the new interface for a while and you may even like it..... Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Is this how the hover preview is supposed to work?

While looking at articles for deletion, I noticed that E. E. Cleveland is on the list. I hovered over the name at the log, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_March_15, and as usual my browser popped up a little mini-window containing the first few lines of text and a photo, as a preview of what the article is about. The photo was of a couple obviously taken a long while ago, so I was surprised to find that Cleveland and his wife died relatively recently. The explanation is simple: the photo is of James and Ellen White, and whatever thing makes the preview has lifted it from a template box on Cleveland's page identifying him as a seventh-day adventist, the picture merely illustrating that the article is part of a series on that church. Clearly the photo shouldn't have been lifted and used in the preview because it's a general image that's only tenuously linked to the subject of the article, and it misleads the reader. Is the preview provided by the Wikipedia system? Is it just lifting the first photo it finds in an article? Wouldn't it be better if it excluded images derived from templates, and stuck to images derived from the article itself? Or have I missed something? Elemimele (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Elemimele, the hover preview is created by something that picks the first image from the article. In this case, the picture is relevant to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and was taken in 1864. The code that chooses the picture should be rewritten to avoid pictures from inside templates - I've no idea how (or by whom) that might be achieved. Maproom (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Elemimele: See mw:Extension:PageImages#Image choice. It prefers the first image if it has a suitable size but other lead images are possible. Infoboxes are templates and we don't want to exclude all infobox images. In theory the feature could examine whether the file name is present in the source even if it doesn't have image syntax in the source (infoboxes often have an image parameter with the raw file name), but the current feature doesn't even look at the source. It works on the final expanded wikitext after all templates have been evaluated. I have added |class=notpageimage to the image.[2] This removed it as page image after a delay. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Maproom:, @PrimeHunter: it's really useful to know what's going on behind the scenes, thanks! I shall make sure that any article I work on has an image the extension can pick up, placed higher in the article, if there are templates with images, and I'll remember the trick of class=notpageimage as a remedy if it happens. I'd never dared edit a template... always new things to learn. Elemimele (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Create Wiki page

How do I add someone who has acting credits in a Series to create a Wikipedia page without getting cancelled. Ive never added someone new but tried. And have made alot of edits on existing pages only. Lauralaelbart (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Lauralaelbart Welcome to the Teahouse. You have made 24 edits over several years, which is not "a lot" but that should not necessarily put you off. The key is to find sufficient sources so that your draft demonstrates that the person you are writing about is a notable actor. Read the essay WP:BACKWARD and then use the WP:AFC process if you feel you have the sources which meet the key criteria. Good luck. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Lauralaelbart: you can find everything you need to create your first article at WP:YFA. Among other things there's also a big blue button there, to start drafting using the Article Wizard.

However, the first thing you should probably do is take a look at the notability guideline for actors, at WP:NACTOR, as well as the general one at WP:GNG. The subject will need demonstrably to satisfy one or both of those, before an article can be accepted. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Citing a website breaks the url

I've encountered a few websites where when I try to cite it it breaks the url. Why is this and what should i do as protocol for this?

The main ones are Sohu, encyclopedia iranica, and Kokugakuin University digital museum Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 18:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Does Help:URL#Fixing links with unsupported characters help? ColinFine (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

How does a reference work?

I don't know what to do. I have to link it to a website besides Wikipedia? I also don't know how to put a reference into an article. A colorful girl (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, A colorful girl. Please read Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay. A colorful girl (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

A colorful girl Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia. We usually recommend that users first spend time editing existing articles to gain experience. Using the new user tutorial is a good thing as well.

Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. You may learn about creating references at Referencing for beginners. What sources do you have for your draft? 331dot (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't have any sources. I just think I shouldn't work on an article when I just joined yesterday. A colorful girl (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

A colorful girl If a topic does not receive coverage in reliable sources, it would not merit a Wikipedia article. I would suggest you use the tutorial if you haven't yet, and spend some time doing smaller edits, working your way up to writing a new article. This way you will gain experience and knowledge. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@A colorful girl: Every time I have written an article on Wikipedia about a topic that caught my attention, the first thing I do is try to find reliable sources about that topic. The sources must comply with the criteria in WP:Golden rule. If I can't find at least two or three such sources, I move on. I never try to write the article first and add sources later. As a result, some of my articles are really short even though they are notable topics (for example Sayyid Baraka and The Train Is Coming) and some have so many sources that I can write a long article (like funding bias and Red Deer Cave people). The point is, start with the sources. If you can't find any, then find a different topic to write about. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay. A colorful girl (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Sock blocked. Also editing as 80AaronHunter80 in a separate thread below. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Self promo in User Pages

I'm considering writing about things I do outside of editing Wikipedia in my User Page. One of these things is moderating and hosting an online forum. Will it be considered self promo if I put the link to said forum on my user page?

Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Shadow of the Starlit Sky Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read WP:USERPAGE for information on acceptable user page content. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

In my view, if you had one sentence saying that you did this (and explaining in a few words what the forum was about, if necessary) but did not link to it you'd probably be OK. ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

In my view, if your user page is mostly about you in a Wikipedia context, and you have one sentence about your forum with a link to it, nobody will complain. I certainly wouldn't. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong photo of person used in bio. How do I change it?

I found a Wikipedia page featuring my brother's basketball career. It is basically positive and acceptable, but unfortunately, the game action photograph displayed below his name is that of a different player, in the same uniform, wearing a different number -- not actually him. How do I go about replacing the current photo with a correct one? Eddie Artist 1 (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Eddie Artist 1 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It would help to know which article we are talking about. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This is the article. It features my brother, former European Pro basketball player, Mike Reddick, however the player in photo (#14) is not Mike, who wore jersey #15: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Reddick Eddie Artist 1 (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Eddie Artist 1 I've removed it for now per your word. Apparently it came from [3], which doesn't seem to give us any name. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

And are you willing/able to contribute a picture you have taken yourself with your own camera? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I have photos given to me by the player in 1998, Mike Reddick, my brother. They were not taken by me, as I was not in The Netherlands, or Italy in 1984-95. I also have a photo scan of a 1988 magazine cover, "Play Off - American Sports Magazine,"which features Nashua Den Bosch player, Mike Reddick. Eddie Artist 1 (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Eddie Artist 1, Thanks. Unfortunately, this doesn't help us. WP, and the sister-site we keep the "free" pics on, Commons, are both very careful about copyright. In short, the copyrightholder, generally the photographer, can "give" away their images, see [4]. The [5] image is ok (but wrong), it is marked with an acceptable license, called CC BY-SA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Eddie Artist 1 That said, is this [6] Mike Reddick on the recht? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is Mike Reddick on the right. I am puzzled... How can the current photo be "Ok, but wrong"? Anyway, can we replace the current (wrong) image with a cropped version of the photo that you referenced? "That said, is this [6] Mike Reddick on the recht?" Eddie Artist 1 (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Eddie Artist 1, I meant ok in the copyright sense. I'll get the recht image in place, maybe not tonight. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much... Will you be able to crop the landscape photo to better fit the "portrait" format? And out of curiosity, is it possible to get permission from Mike Reddick's former clubs (of 30 years ago) to use the aforementioned photos given to him during his European career? Eddie Artist 1 (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Eddie Artist 1, new image is up at Mike Reddick. And Aleksandar Đorđević. I cropped it, but not all of it, I thought the "duel" looked pretty good.

Well, you can try. I know of a lady who had an image from 1990 she wanted to put in a WP-article, and she hunted down the photographer and persuaded (or maybe paid) him to release it on Commons. It's up to you. The copyright holder has to communicate with the Commons:Volunteer Response Team. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, so much for your assistance! The "duel" is exactly how I would've cropped it. I will seek the other permissions/releases as recommended. Cheers! Eddie Artist 1 (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Glad it worked out! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Rubenfeld Synergy

I would like to submit for publication an article on a little-known body/mind healing method called Rubenfeld Synergy, which is referred to in the section of Wikipedia called "Body Psychotherapy". There are two books about it, one of which was written by Ilana Rubenfeld herself and the other of which is stories about it. There is an article about it on USABP.org. I'm wondering how to manage source citations when these are the only ones I can find. Thank you in advance for your help. Rubenfeld Synergy (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Rubenfeld Synergy Welcome to the Teahouse. There are a few problems here. Firstly, your username breaches our WP:USERNAME rules as it is wholly promotional, and liable to be 'soft-blocked by any of my fellow administrators. That would mean you would be prevented from editing until you either requested a username change or, more simply, created a new account that did not breach our rules and just abandon this one and forget the password.

Secondly, any editing you did (even with a new account name would be a Conflict of Interest and you would still be required to declare your connection to the business, were you to attempt to edit on that topic.

Thirdly, being "little-known' it is unlikely that it would meet our Notability Criteria for a stand-alone article, but I realise you were initially asking about expanding the text within the Body psychotherapy page. I still feel a book written by the author of the method would be inappropriate as a source, and I can find nothing about it at the link your gave. This would likely be unacceptable (i.e. WP:PROMOTIONAL) unless there were significant third-party sources referring to it. So I question whether expanding upon it is appropriate at all. What you wrote at User:Rubenfeld Synergy/sandbox would definitely not be acceptable without better, independent sources. You have also broken our rules about copy/pasting existing copyrighted text there, as you did from this source.

You might wish to raise the suggestion of a very minor expansion (just one or two lines max.) at the article's talk page (via an EDITREQUEST) once you have addressed the issue of your username, but be prepared for a consensus to reject any attempts to expand upon it. I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

New Wikipedia article about myself : Miray Dogan

Hi Everyone,

I am Miray Dogan. I’m a young Actress, Model and Writer. I would like to start by writing a true bio about myself on Wikipedia because it’s one of the most trusted websites for true information. If you Google my name I am seeing a lot of Celebrity misinformation. Wikipedia is the most credible source I know of. I submitted an article but it was marked for deletion. How can I move forward? I would love to keep this piece. User:Mimidogan Let me know what’s possible. Thanks and take care, Miray Dogan Mimidogan (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mimidogan. Based on reading your userpage, it seems that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. Self-promotional activity is not permitted, and your page is overtly promotional. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Cullen328 (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, I understand. I can try to write an autobiography if I want to create a Wikipedia page, correct? Thanks for the link I will read it and get it done properly.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12629409/ Mimidogan (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

No, you do not understand. Please give up any attempt to write about yourself. 119.245.86.251 (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I just read that in the link you provided. Can I let a PR company write the article? Mimidogan (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If you were to, any people affiliated with that would have to disclose the fact that they are being paid for their editing. I would still strongly advise against it as conflict of interest can arise either way. - Cheers, KoolKidz112 (hit me up) 22:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Mimidogan. You may not know that if an article about you does get published on Wikipedia the article won't belong to you. Anyone who can find a reliable reference about some aspect of your life can add information to the article, even if that involves things you don't want the public to know about. And as long as the new information is properly referenced the information can't be deleted, for this is an encyclopedia, and not social media. It may be useful for you to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Karenthewriter (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

That’s good information to know. I will try not to be naughty. The same goes for all media and news outlets. There’s good press and bad press. I appreciate your concern. Thanks and take care.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12629409/ Mimidogan (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Mimidogan, your IMDb listing is a perfect example of why IMDb is not accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia. It is self-promotional drivel. Read WP:IMDB. You are not going to be permitted to promote your own career here on Wikipedia, either yourself or through paid PR people. Cullen328 (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

As per WP:AUTO writing articles about yourself is strongly discouraged, in addition it creates a conflict of interest. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 22:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mimidogan. Perhaps it's WP:TOOSOON for you to have a Wikipedia article written about you. Maybe in a few years after your career has taken off a bit and your efforts have started receiving significant coverage in secondary reliable sources, someone out in the world will try to create an article about you based upon what those reliable sources are saying. All I can suggest is that trying to do so yourself now is probably not a good thing and you'd be better off focusing on other ways of gaining recognition for your work. Even paying someone like a PR firm to do it for you, most likely won't lead to an article being created but might lead to you to being deceived by someone who's happy to make whatever promises they need to make to get your money. Finally, please don't keep posting the url for your IMDb page. Doing so isn't going to make you Wikipedia notable and eventually it's going to be seen as spamming. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

New Astronomical Designation System

I recently spent a while creating a new system for designating galaxies, nebulae, star clusters, star, sand stellar remnants. I plan on extending my designations to planets, moons, comets, and asteroids eventually. I wanted a Wikipedia page about it but I don't know how it works. Does someone else write it for me? Do I have to write it myself? Ryan2516 (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

See WP:N and WP:FORUM. Wikipedia won't have an article about your new system unless is notable, which means it must have had significant coverage in reliable sources. If this is just something you have come up with and want to publicize, Wikipedia is the wrong place. Meters (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok. I've emailed a few news companies but it's only been a couple hours so I haven't gotten any responses yet. I asked about it in the live chat room thing and I got the same answer that you gave me. Do you happen to know a good place to publicize it other than emailing like 15 news companies? Ryan2516 (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

No, and that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I would suggest that unless you are a well-known expert in the astronomy field (in which case you would likely not need to ask that question) no-one is going to be interested in your new classification system. Meters (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ryan2516: Your best approach would be to get a paper about your new system published in a refereed scholarly journal. If other astronomers cite your work, that starts to indicate that it might be notable enough to merit an inclusion on Wikipedia. If you are unfamiliar with the publication process, set up a meeting with an astronomy professor at a nearby university to explain what you have and how to go about publishing it. Wikipedia is emphatically not a publicity channel, and should never be used that way. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Accessing ISO 3166-3 code when you know the ISO 3166-2 code

The 3166-3 code should be listed in the country box when you ask for say Sweden. ----MountVic127 (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, what about listing in the country box whether that country regards itself as a ""Motherland" or a "Fatherland"? ----MountVic127 (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The place for either suggestion, MountVic127, is Template talk:Infobox country. The first suggestion, or something similar to it, has already been made there; you are free to comment on it there. The second suggestion strikes me as too trivial or silly to be worth consideration, but of course you're free to make it. For either suggestion, be sure to provide persuasive reasoning. -- Hoary (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

File request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SM City Sorsogon pls ask of files @Eejit43 and @EchidnaLives ask it? 122.52.79.185 (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: WP:FFU

We have explained to you, the file needs to have a link proving that it is in the public domain (which is what you are claiming), a compatible license, or add a fair use rationale instead. Please do not continue to make new requests with adding this. echidnaLives - talk - edits 04:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Email question

Hello. I enabled email on my account, and I'm asking if I would receive a talk page notification if somebody sends me an email. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: You won't automatically recive a talkpage notification, however, some people might chose to explicitely leave something like the You've got mail template on other people's talkpages when sending them an email, in particular when there is reason to believe the email gets send to a normally unwatched inbox. Also, depending on your preferences at Special:Preferences -> Notifications -> Notify me about these events you might get a notification via the onwiki notification system. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing my Article

Hey, Can I send my article for review What should I need to improve in my aricle ? Please do check .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:EORTV Dreamzzimages (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Dreamzzimages, add summaries, in your own words, of what reliable sources (which of course must be independent of EORTV) have said about EORTV. When you've done plenty of that and are satisfied with the result, click "Resubmit". -- Hoary (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

New Editor

 Courtesy link: Draft:Jonathan Daniel Ross

Hello here, I am new to Wikipedia and i want to create an article for Jonathan Daniel Ross but at the top of the editing place it says the page has been deleted thrice and i don't know if i can create it or not?

Can anyone help me on how to go about it? Daremize (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Daremize: Generally, there is nothing stopping you from recreating a page as long as you adress the reasons why it was deleted in the first place. Sometimes, when a page is persistently recreated with the same issiues, the title might be protected against recreation, however, this is not the case here. I'll have to warn you, however, sucessfully creating a new article from scratch can be hard, particularely if one tries to do it backwards. Please see Your first article for some guidance. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Daremize: The three Speedy deletions were for different reasons (copyright, blocked account, promotional/advertising), so topic has not been 'salted' (meaning Administrator approval needed to try again). Just don't make the same mistakes. The key question is what makes him notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word? Are there reliable-source published articles about him? Unless he is playing basketball at NBA, there should be no mention of basketball other than in an "Early life and education" section that he played at high school and college. That will need a reference, but will not contribute to establishing notability. Be aware that social media, IMBd, interviews, blogs, his website, etc. are not valid refs. All-in-all, this feels like WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

April Fools

Hey, I have created a fake page that I have prepared for April Fools, but I don't know if you can create fake pages on April Fools. Can you do that? I've checked WP:Rules for Fools but I don't see anything related. I've added Template:Humour on my page.LeGoldenBoots (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

No, you cannot. User:LeGoldenBoots/The Gunner and Kawizee Show can be deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I remember that some years ago the English Wikipedia's front page for 1 April carried several stories, including a featured article, that seemed to be obvious April Fool hoaxes. But in fact they all turned out to be true. I wish I could remember the details. The only one I recall was about the Union army in the American Civil War using cameras mounted on pigeons to spy on the enemy. (Or was it the Spanish Civil War?) Does anyone else know anything about this?Mike Marchmont (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I seem to remember that was one: Wife selling (English custom). Lectonar (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Marchmont: Wikipedia:April Fools' Main Page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

See also pigeon photography. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

While the article might be real, the brief synopsis of the article is usually a joke (for example, I recall once Groundhog Day (film) was the April Fools FA repeated the first few sentences multiple times, as a joke based on the film's plot) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a thing we used to do every year that has (sadly, in my opinion) been relegated to the "Did You Know" section with only occasional participation from the rest of the Main Page. I think it's quite unfortunate. casualdejekyll 13:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

In contrast, I feel we have a duty as a serious encyclopaedia not to mess about in a childish manner here. We discourage new editors doing it all the rest of the time, so why do it ourselves on 01/04. It sets a bad example. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Jan 4th? (Kidding... I know you are using Euro-standard....) - UtherSRG (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted it as WP:CSD#G3. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, to answer your question, no you cannot, Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines apply pretty much all the time and April fools Day isn't an exception. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 18:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Info-Box Politics of Hesse

Hi, dear fellow-wikipedians. I'm currently translating the German text on the Hessische Staatskanzlei for the English site (as was wished for)...and i saw a nice info-box on the page Politics of Hesse - how does one adapt this info-box for the Hessische Staatskanzlei? Could someone help me with transferringand updating it so that it fits for the Staatskanzlei? Kind regards, Naomi Hennig (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Since it's only an infobox, were I you, I'd go and copy the infobox from Bavaria or some similar article with similar-appearing layout, from the English wikipedia, and populate it with the information appropriate to Hesse. At least there will be consistency of appearance across the English WP, and you know all the parameters work! Elemimele (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Elemimele, i can do a lot, but these info-boxes are shere horror to me, i just cannot get my head around it. That's why i sought for help here. I translated the whole article, did find good references, i could add this to the page, but i'm "mentally unable" to get such an info-box together. My apologies. Kind regards, --Naomi Hennig (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Naomi Hennig I'd be inclined to use {{Infobox building}} for that article, if it is describing the building, not specifically the politics of Germany. However, looking at your new draft at User:Naomi Hennig/Hessische Staatskanzlei I'm not sure whether your aim is to describe the building or to describe the role of the State Chancellery (i.e. a group of people who happen to work in that building). If the former, then I don't think the wording in the Tasks section is appropriate since I don't see how a building can "assist the Prime Minister...." You might even need two articles. Anyway, don't worry about the infobox at present, I'll be happy to help set up something appropriate if you contact me on my Talk Page once your draft(s) are ready. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll gladly contact you on your Talk Page! Kind regards, --Naomi Hennig (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Sharon Kay Penman?

H 108.3.164.88 (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a question regarding Sharon Kay Penman? Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Updating of Box office number of RRR movie

At present as per Wiki, it is showing BO: 1,200−1,258 crore. The movie was released in Japan and it has added 80+ crores (RRR is still running in theaters). So BO need to be updated as 1,280 −1,338 crore (Adding 80 crores to current BO).

Article is RRR (film)

https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/telugu-cinema/rrr-sets-new-record-in-japan-grosses-over-80-crore-as-it-enters-20th-week-of-theatrical-run-101678962257074.html 49.204.137.242 (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! The best place to suggest an improvement to a specific article is to post on the article's talk page. In this case, that would be Talk:RRR (film). Thanks for your interest in improving Wikipedia! GoingBatty (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. "Adding 80 crores to current BO" is not how we do things in Wikipedia: that would be synthesis. The article should report the total that a reliable source claims, and should only update it when a reliable source published a new total. ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Refrences

I think i know how to make a refrence but, i don't know when and what reference it should be. Can someone please explain what kind of reference I should use? I'm working on this page. 80AaronHunter80 (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As per the decline explanation:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Also check out WP:RS and WP:CITE for more information about sources. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 18:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Power-Up_version_history

How do I add the following as a source to this page?

https://www.f150gen14.com/forum/threads/power-up-4-2-1-ota-software-update-installed-today.16496/ Rugedraw (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Rugedraw. That website consists of user contributed content, so it is not a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

That article is just full of unreliable sourcing, mostly just forums. I wonder if it actually is notable. Drmies PRODed it in October 2022 and the PROD was removed because "The sources on this page are properly cited to a sufficient degree." ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Rugedraw Forums contain user generated content which is unable to be verified, use WP:RS for more information on finding reliable sources. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 19:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion since I'm not seeing anything to indicate notability. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of updating the wiki page in question, the source I referenced is merely is to show that an update was indeed released and can be added to the table based on various people confirming they received said update. What if I am the source? I have access to Ford's Professional Technician System, I can verify the info posted on the thread. However, the content I posted was deemed as possible copyright infringement and removed because it came directly from Ford. While it is user generated content, there is content there to verify the update exists and has been rolled out to several people and continues to be rolled out. Pardon my ignorance, but this is all very new to me and I am just trying to do things the right way. Rugedraw (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You are not a source. You are what's known as original research. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

So a Ford employee with access to Ford's technician website to verify Ford related updates is not considered a reliable source for a wiki page exclusively dedicated to Ford updates? Seems like I have a lot to learn. What if I cite the Ford website itself as the source and not "me"? Without a user name and password, however, anyone that tries to verify the source would hit a dead end, so I doubt that would be acceptable.

I now see the page in question has been flagged for possible deletion and it is most likely due to me trying to update it without knowing what I am doing. Rugedraw (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The policy is verifiability, Rugedraw. A reader in Manchester next week, or Milwaukee next month, or Mumbai next year, needs to be able to verify it (for example, to check that it hasn't been altered by a vandal), otherwise it doesn't belong in the encyclopaedia. ColinFine (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. That makes sense. I just can't think of a way to properly source it as the updates are being released unsystematically and the only "proof" is a notification in our Ford app that an update was installed in said vehicle. The reason the Power Up update wiki page was started was for owners of relevant vehicles to have a way to keep track of this new over the air update system since Ford themselves do not provide a timeline for them for owners. The page has been maintained by member of online communities who are savvy on the issue. Some are Ford employees, technicians and even software engineers. I feel like by trying to do the right thing, I have stirred a hornets nest (so to speak) where now a valuable tool that we use help new owners understand the OTA process may possibly be deleted. As the old saying goes: No good deed goes unpunished. Rugedraw (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Rugedraw, I'm afraid you've been using Wikipedia for something which is outside its intended purpose. The best thing to do would be to place this information on another, more appropriate website, like a blog or a forum (and you should probably save it to a computer or similar device now, before the article is potentially deleted). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Rugedraw: Welcome to the Teahouse. You are essentially drawing from a primary source, which can only be used in specific cases. Primary sources don't contribute to a subject's notability (as Wikipedia defines it), which is why articles should cite secondary sources at the very least. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to make a constructive addition to the page "Blonde stereotype" in defence of Hollywood dumb stereotype acresses that can be misunderstood and confused with dumb blondines.

I am trying to make a constructive addition to the page "Blonde stereotype" in defence of Hollywood dumb stereotype peroxided acresses that can be misunderstood and confused with dumb blondines. How should I write to get the message through on the page without getting it undone and reverted? Any suggestions of phrasing and wordings? Blonde_stereotype PoeticReturn (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@PoeticReturn, a WP-article, on any subject, is supposed to be a summary of WP:RS about that subject. Nothing indicates that [7] is a WP:RS. So, first of all, get good sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't get all of the Wikipedia:Rs . The first source [8] should be easy to verify, it has clickable reference links for each person listed. Is that not enough? What should it have more? PoeticReturn (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

That source is an anonymous WP:SPS list with links to photos. It's good for nothing in WP-land. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Can this work? More sources to address "poorly sourced". What was wrong with the first source?

How do I fix "Inappropriate content"? Whats inappropriate with the content?

"==In defence of Hollywood actresses promoting the dumb blond stereotype==

A photo of a brown haired Monroe taken by David Conover in mid-1944

There are many examples of peroxided dumb blond stereotype actresses that are in fact not really natural blondes" PoeticReturn (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Poetic Return, and welcome to the Teahouse. You don't seem to have grasped what Wikipedia is: it is an encyclopaedia, which means that it summarizes what published reliable sources say on a matter. No Wikipedia article should ever present an argument or a conclusion, still less a defence of anything (see WP:RGW) or an attack on anything, in Wikipedia's voice. If you can find a reliable source which discusses the argument that you want to present, then you may summarize that argument, but you may not present any argument of your own devising. ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I am still not sure to have grasped it all. How do you as editor defend a page such as for example Blonde stereotype from being Wikipedia:OR? PoeticReturn (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

There are reliable, independent sources, such as academic papers or news articles, that have discussed the blonde stereotype. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you write about the academic and independent source status? For example:

"There is no apropriate reliable source discussing the subject of peroxided actresses versus the stereotype on the topic of if the actresses are dumb or not.

On the other hand are there no apropriate independant reliable sources of any well known celebrated natural blond Hollywood star being dumb.

There is also no apropriate reliable sources discussing if peroxided woman on the street in general are more dumb or not." PoeticReturn (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Or: can you write: "There is no apropriate reliable sources discussing any correlation between peroxiding hair and being dumb or not, or in what direction the correlation would go in, if dumb people more often peroxide or if peroxide makes people dumb." PoeticReturn (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It's spelt "appropriate", with one more "p". I note that your other contributions here have been to create Draft:Negro jokes and Draft:Jew jokes, both of which suggest that Draft:Gay jokes is in the works. You're free to waste your own time; but please do so in some message forum somewhere, or in your own blog, not here. -- Hoary (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Article Submission

Hello,

I have submitted an article and provided enough references but it is getting declined. I need more help to understand how exactly do I need to improve it for acceptance.

Thank you Sarj82 (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Sajid 'Sarj' Masood. Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Sarj82, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not the number of references: it's their quality. Most references (and all those which are to support a claim of notability) must be independent of the subject: interviews, articles based on press releases, and the subjects own works, are useless as references. Please understand that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The references belong in the text, following the content being verified. The software automatically puts a superscript number there and puts the ref under References. David notMD (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Transcribed pages interwiki link/notice

Can someone show me an example or two of pages that exist both here and on another language's Wikipedia, and how the link or statement that "this page has been transcribed from [other] Wikipedia" or "this page is also on [other] Wikipedia" is done? I found a new article that was clearly transcribed from another language's Wikipedia, and doesn't make any note of the other page's existence. I'm not finding the Help/Howto page for this. Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Zinnober9, and welcome to the Teahouse. The "Howto" is at Translation, and says that attribution in an edit summary is adequate: if you look at the history of the articles in question, you should find the attribution there, in the summary of the edit that created or introduced the translated material. ColinFine (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don't think Translation is what I'm looking for. Hafiz Indonesia has already been translated, and reads fine. Needs a little work on the tables and needs some red links addressed, but these are not (directly) a translation issue. What I'm looking to do is add the "this page came from/also exists on the Indonesian Wikipedia" link, and I don't remember where that goes or what that looks like. There is nothing in the page history linking the two. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Zinnober9, are you thinking of {{Translated page}} (which is mentioned at Help:Translation#License requirements)? There should have been an attribution statement in the first edit summary, when the article was created, but the creator neglected to include one. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes! That is what I am seeking. Thank you! Zinnober9 (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Seeking additional eyes on my article

Hi! I added lengthy contributions to the banking lobby wiki article, and I would appreciate some feedback. :) Thank you! Peanutbutterisbad (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Two of my pages

Page #1 is not notable, so I decided to make a page for the creator after I noticed he did not have one. Page #2 was declined to be published because of the lack of evidence, but there is not a whole lot of evidence to use. Page #1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jim_Pickens Page #2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Call_Me_Kevin&oldid=1145037337 KeyboardWarrior22 (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

KeyboardWarrior22, sadly, if there is no evidence (sources) to use, then the draft will not be accepted. See WP:N. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, KeyboardWarrior22. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes the significant coverage that reliable published sources that are entirely independent of the topic devote to the topic. Your drafts have no such sources. Cullen328 (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Youtube is not a credible source and for the most part cant be used. Neither can fandom. You have to find independent reliable sources for your article to be accepted. The first one has no chance of being accepted due to WP:N PalauanReich (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank all of you, I find it sad that my page cannot be published because no credible sources have been presented. I feel it's wrong that he will never have a Wikipedia page because of this, however, I can do nothing and completely understand. I have added more links, one where Kevin literally states his story on a video that describes my entire page. I hope it will be reviewed and approved, but I do not know how to re submit it, if even possible. So far, I agree, my page is not the best and maybe shouldn't be published. Although I also agree that he should have a page because his girlfriend does and he doesn't seem as respected. Any and all help is appreciated as this is my first and most likely last attempt at adding a page to Wikipedia. KeyboardWarrior22 (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree he should have a page, but there are unfortunately no secondary independent sources on him. This is a problem with many other youtubers as well. The only sources are youtube. I hope you do not get too discouraged though, there are many articles that are notable and have sources that need to be created. PalauanReich (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

KeyboardWarrior22, when you say he should have a page because his girlfriend does, that shows that you have no idea how Wikipedia works, despite several people trying to explain the basics to you. Cullen328 (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Correct, That is not quite what I meant. He should have a page because I think he has grown big enough to deserve a page. I made this for the giggles not knowing how Wikipedia works and expected it to be straight forward. Sorry for anything that made you infer that as that was not the reason. But when you said "that shows that you have no idea how Wikipedia works, despite several problems trying to explain the basics to you" Sounds a little rude, but that could just be me, I don't think it's enough to discuss further though. If there is any things you think I should make, I'll consider that as I love writing but too often do I have no ideas. KeyboardWarrior22 (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree Cullen328 comment was a bit rude, not exactly WP:DBN. A good place to start is the page of where you live or where you were born. Or any place or that you know well. Just know if you are related to a person or have a conflict of interest, you have to look at WP:COIE, which discuesses the the conflict of interest. I know Wikipedia can be an intimidating place for newcomers, but once you learn more about it and learn your way around, it becomes very enjoyable. Happy editing PalauanReich (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It is fundamentally counterintuitive that a YouTuber with millions (!) of subscribers should not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, yet nevertheless that is the case here. This is, I think, a failing of the popular press, though it also reflects on what kinds of content are given the most weight in public discourse. There was some discussion of this on the Signpost regarding Technoblade, who only received significant media coverage after (and as a result of) his death, despite having tens of millions of viewers.

As mentioned at Help:Your first article, Creating an article is one of the more difficult tasks on Wikipedia. It's of course unfair that new users should be encouraged to edit and then be immediately discouraged from creating articles (possibly the most obvious way to contribute to Wikipedia), but that's just how things have panned out. @KeyboardWarrior22: there are plenty of help pages all over the place, but I think the quickest way to learn here is simply to improve articles, take advice from other users, and not become demotivated after they WP:BITE you. Good luck, if you still want to stick around. Shells-shells (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing! I love how much you were down to earth and now I kinda want to do this now. I think it will help because I'm writing a short film and I need the skills for the screenplay. KeyboardWarrior22 (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

To further explain PalauanReich's answer, YouTube generally can't be used unless the video is from a verified official account of a reliable source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense, I think it's credible, but I understand Wikipedia's point of view. I also understand if this were allowed how it would change Wikipedia's credibility and other aspects relating to that. KeyboardWarrior22 (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Editing an S rated article

For my class project, I have to edit an S rated article..I have thought that Below Deck (TV series) and Intervention (TV series) were good ones but finding more sources on them is challenging and then knowing what additions would be appropriate and needed is difficult. I would love some guidance, thank you.Phoenix3305 (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, if you wanted to edit Below Deck, but I updated it to C. The start rating was assessed in 2013. There are many start articles that have many needed additions. You can use this website to find the Top important articles in a wikiproject that are start class. Add the name of the project and you'll see which articles are important but start class. PalauanReich (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Template editing

I should know this as a host, but what are the rules for Template editing, I was going to do a rework of the Akkar District template, but I wanted to make sure I wasnt violating any rules. You can my edits in my sandbox. PalauanReich (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Article rejected

I have posted article which is notable locally but you have rejected 1.38.93.210 (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Well then, if you have a question about the rejection, please specify the "article" (draft?) and ask the question. -- Hoary (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

And clarify if you mean a draft was Rejected, or as a draft or article, it was Speedy deleted. David notMD (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

How to demerge the article?

Hi, I have previously created a article and it was merged into another article citing that the content in the newly created article is very small. Now I have expanded the section and now how do I demerge the article? Do I do it like the way normally a article is demerged with discussion template or straight request to the reviewer who demerged it? 456legend(talk) 04:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)