Wikipedia:Teahouse

below is a portion can anyone help with rewording :)

In 2011 Pinot partnered with Aldo Dinelli to create the luxury brand, Icon Jewels. Icon Jewel's clients include the Hollywood Elite. Icon Jewels has provided jewelry for premieres, award shows, including mega athletes like Patrick Mahomes,stars like Toni Braxton, Candace Owens, and many athletes. In April 2018, Icon Jewels, aided Drew Brees in a courtroom victory, when he filed a lawsuit against a local jeweler in San Diego California. The lawsuit claims Brees and his wife paid $15 million for investment-grade diamonds that an independent appraiser valued at only $6 million. On June 21, 2019, Brees was awarded $6 million in the lawsuit. JanaFerrume (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JanaFerrume, welcome back. I think most, if not all, of that paragraph is irrelevant and could stand to be removed. The article is not about Icon Jewels; a list of its clients is entirely unnecessary, besides being promotional, and the lawsuit doesn't seem terribly relevant to Pinot's career either. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!! ok, thank you first! :)

So, don't include it, you think is best.

So question.

She designed jewelry for famous people, like Patrick Mahomes, a famous football player, or rather, people of note'... like Martin Katz , should I just make small mention of that, since it speaks more to Pinot's art career JanaFerrume (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JanaFerrume, yes, I think it would be much more helpful to focus specifically on her work as a designer here. But please keep in mind that Wikipedia prefers independent secondary sources over primary sources. If independent secondary sources have mentioned her design work on specific pieces, feel free to mention those in a little more depth. If all you have are primary sources, though, best to keep mentions brief and minimal. Remember: Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that makes complete sense. Thank you for your insight. I am use to writing from an emotional perspective, so I welcome the challenge. I also chose an inventor/scientist,as a secondary article, and it is a bit more technical. I figured if I worked on both simultaneously, I will find the right balance.

Thank You :) JanaFerrume (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current citations in your Draft:Cynthia Pinot relating to Patrick Mahomes or Toni Braxton using her designs have no mention of her: please find sources that verify that information. Also the suggestion he is a "mega" athlete has no place in an encyclopaedia article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

100000% noted :) thank you.

Question:

I have seen in other published articles where facts are verified / substantiated via "Instagram" a social media platform. Is that acceptable, across the board

)

JanaFerrume (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JanaFerrume, is it the instagram of the subject of the article? In that case WP:ABOUTSELF applies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes. In this case it is. Its a magazine(s) giving credit to the subject of article, for work created. JanaFerrume (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JanaFerrume, that might violate the third requirement of ABOUTSELF, which is that claims regarding third parties should not be supported by such sources. Was nothing published in the magazine itself? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to look deeper.

So, I guess for now, I will sit with it.

I appreciate all this great input.

My learning curve is straight up, thank you :)

Cheers! JanaFerrume (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JanaFerrume, creating a (decent) article on English Wikipedia is indeed harder than it looks, and folks here at the Teahouse often tell newcomers not to try it until they've gained some experience editing existing articles. The best thing to do is familiarize yourself with WP:RS, then go out and find sources which you're sure meet the criteria, then start writing a draft based on the sources. The list at Perennial sources might help you find good ones and eliminate bad ones. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you all for great input. I will sit with all this great info, and reapproach. :)

I completely agree! I want to create a great article, however small, so I truly appreciate all the notes, and input.

cheers! JanaFerrume (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JanaFerrume if you're looking for some easy article writing experience, take a look around articles about living things. There are literally millions of unwritten articles about bugs, fungi, pondscum, etc. An acceptable basic article about an obscure species is one of the easiest to write. Such subjects are generally devoid of controversy, emotion, or even conflicting opinions. If you're interested drop a note on my talk page I'd be happy to show you how. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Roger, that is a great idea. (lol pondscum) It is the balance of non emotional, emotional, and boring that I have in my mind to master. Thank you for this, I will find you on your talk page later in week. :) JanaFerrume (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Kent Mackay is a Canadian wildlife artist (http://www.natureartists.com/artists/artist_biography.asp?ArtistID=1283), conservationist (https://www.coyotewatchcanada.com/site/advisor-barry) helping found/run several Canadian conservation organizations, and was previously a Toronto Star columnist (and now contributor... https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2022/10/09/help-keep-endangered-frogs-from-croaking.html) and part of the Uncle Bobby children's television show in the 60's-70's (referenced here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Bobby). Is this considered "notable" enough for his friends, colleagues and former child participants on Uncle Bobby (me) to put together a Wikipedia page for him? G. Michael Bowen (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Michael, and welcome to the Teahouse. He may well meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability; but I'm afraid that there is nothing at all in your paragraph above that contributes to establishing this. None of the sources is independent of him, and notability (in Wikipedia's sense) is entirely about published independent material about the subject, not (directly) about what the subject has created or done, or what their associates have published about them. Please read WP:NBIO. ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G. Michael Bowen, please read Wikipedia:Notability basics. Cullen328 (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I had done that before I wrote. Apparently I didn't well understand what an "independent source" is by Wikipedia's definition, although I find it weird that wikipedia itself isn't considered acceptable. I have to say I also find it bizarre that someone can write newspaper columns for decades, multiple books, illustrate books for others, have their art chosen for inclusion in books by famous people (e.g., Roger Tory Peterson), found and run countless organizations that still exist and make impacts, etc etc but only be considered "notable" if other people have mentioned them in their own writing. Okay, so this review of a book written by someone else that BKM created the illustrations for mentions his work, is *that* considered an acceptable source for notability?

https://www.stevedonoghue.com/review-archives/book-review-the-double-crested-cormorant G. Michael Bowen (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a self-published blog, so it isn't a usable source. Even aside from that, it doesn't contain any signficiant detail. Notability on Wikipedia can seem strange at first, but consider that our core policies (WP:V, WP:DUE, WP:NOR, etc.) all assume the existence of independent sources. Without those sources, there really is no way to write a policy-compliant article. MrOllie (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, blogs aren't usable sources. And there needs to be significant detail. Got it. Checking into a few others of his era whose obits are cited as sources in their wikipedia pages I guess we'll have to wait until Barry is dead and has obits written in credible news sources before we can proceed. Interesting learning about all of this. But I'd encourage you to google his name and read info available about him in non-usable sources, and ask yourself how someone who has been so prominent in Canadian wildlife art circles and Canadian conservation activism and publishing (how many columnists have a column for 2-1/2 decades?) is completely unable to meet the criteria that Wikipedia requires. Cheers. G. Michael Bowen (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at Uncle Bobby, I'm afraid there are serious problems with that article. The main one is that it has only one reference, so most of the content (including Mackay's participation) is unsourced. It is also unclear whether it is about the person or the programme; and it fails to establish that either of these meets the criteria for notability.

One more thing to think about if you were a participant: it is possible that you have a conflict of interest in writing about him (which doesn't bar you from doing so, but means you need to be aware of the implications). However, that would depend on how closely involved you were with Mackay, and may not be an issue. It would for his friends and colleagues, though. ColinFine (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted an external link in Uncle Bobby to a reference (and rescued it from the Internet archive), but the article still has the problems I mentioned. ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, well I was a participant on Uncle Bobby 55 years ago. I'm not sure how that would create a conflict of interest. G. Michael Bowen (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G. Michael Bowen, if you once participated in the TV show and are unable to understand and accept that you have a conflict of interest, then you should not be editing any Wikipedia articles related to your personal life in any way. Do you think that conflicts of interest expire after "X" number of years? Hint - they don't. Cullen328 (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, while that is definitely a COI, it is a fairly minor one. I would not expect a new editor to grasp the subtleties of what constitutes a conflict of interest right away. Was that harsh tone really needed?

To expand a bit, G. Michael Bowen: a conflict of interest is an objective situation - being a member of the family, an employee of a company, etc. which, objectively, could encourage someone to do biased edits (even if it does not necessarily lead to biased editing). That is why we ask for disclosure. Being a talk show contestant qualifies.

Having a COI is no bar to editing, it just means you need to be more careful. What we really care about is that editors (such as you and me) try to be as unbiased as possible when making edits. But that is a subjective criterion, impossible to evaluate. All that can happen is a posteriori: if one does many biased edits and ignore suggestions to self-correct, then editing restrictions will be imposed from the outside. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@G. Michael Bowen. on sources in a case like this, google isn't the end of it. WP:OFFLINE and WP:PAYWALL is fine. Check Archive.org [1], and sites like Proquest and Newspapers.com if you can get access, perhaps via a local library? If we can have an article on this guy, we should. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to find a constructive solution to the discussions on the stubs. Why not raise the bar for article creation? The requirements on who can create an article will stay the same, an article would need to have at least 10 phrases to be published? If something is notable, there should be 10 phrases on it I believe. Anyone knows if a similar discussion took place? Or anyone has something to add I have of?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paradise Chronicle, and welcome to the Teahouse. The best place for that sort of discussion is WP:VPP - but it wouldn't surprise me if it had been discussed enough already to appear at WP:PERENNIAL (I haven't looked). ColinFine (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't find anything at WP:PERENNIAL. Would be surprised too if this wasn't brought up in any of the many stub related discussions, but I followed a few long ones rather actively and and as far I remember, it was not one of the proposals at the time.05:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC) Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Chronicle, can you please point us to some software that counts phrases? 126.33.111.187 (talk)

Wordcounter for example. It also counts phrases.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A mere numerical threshold would be easy to game, but "needs to require significant content" or similar wording could be found. More fundamentally, some people (including myself) think that there can be notable topics about which there is little of value to say. It is still better to say that little, than to say nothing at all. That is not exactly a new debate - in the 18th century, someone wanted to have an article about Aguaxima even if it was low in information, and Diderot ranted a bit. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how do i search for a page? 2600:8804:8C40:CBD0:87B0:1F54:A9B2:E460 (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked for vandalism. -- asilvering (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the search bar at the top of any Wikipedia page. If you scroll to the top, a rectangular bar will pop up at the top that says "Search Wikipedia". Click it and you can type in the search terms. Carpimaps (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. There is a search box above. Cwater1 (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwater1, they were already given that information, in the very post you replied to. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Thought I could help too, Cwater1 (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I was wondering if I could copy from SABRE Roads if I put it into my own words. I have asked this question to experienced road article editors before, but I have been given mixed answers, depending on who you ask. Could someone please tell me the final answer, so I can but this query to bed - BTW I was at WP:ANI for copying from this website back in August, however if I did it again, then I don't want to potentially get banned for doing something stupid. Thank you in advance. Roads4117 (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty easy to comprehend; you can do that (if you summarize it or rewrite the script). I may be report for this if I'm wrong. =ˆUwUˆ= (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Roads4117. On Wikipedia there is rarely a "final answer". First, most decisions are open to discussion, and consensus can change; secondly, general questions "Can I do this?" without specifying the precise details are often unanswerable, as so much will depend on the precise details.

Does WP:PARAPHRASE help? ColinFine (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Roads4117 (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the page Louis Alexandre Berthier redirects to Uncyclopedia's Napoleon Bonaparte article. it seems to be on PC. is there anyway for me to fix this on my end? Pizzapenguins (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pizzapenguins. The problem must be with your computer. The article displays normally to me, and there is nothing unusual in the recent edit history. Cullen328 (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It fixed itself a couple minutes after I posted this, thx anyway Pizzapenguins (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pizzapenguins, there was some vandalism over the weekend which got corrected fairly quickly (others reported it elsewhere). Thanks for reporting it too. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my draft Aysha Renna declined even it had multiple verified sources with direct mentions. I feel the action to be biased from the editor. This is least expected in a space like wikipedia IbnAliyar (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are promoting Aysha Renna. Example: During the protests, Aysha Renna emerged as a prominent voice and a fearless leader. Please note you are expected to be neutral on Wikipedia. If a reliable source says she is a prominent voice and a fearless leader, then say so-and-so says she is a "prominent voice and a fearless leader". Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have given proper attributions for the quote and given citations too. Is this the sole reason why it got declined? IbnAliyar (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are also grammar issues, which need to be copyedited. You are a little stylistically off, for example using subsections (===) instead of sections (==), capitalizing all words in section names instead of sentence case, putting citations before instead of after periods, using external links outside of the proper section ... A not-so-simple guide is at WP:MOS.

You cannot say During the protests, Aysha Renna emerged as a prominent voice and a fearless leader. You must say who said that. The source you have linked does not directly mention this, but instead has Aysha Renna herself describing her protests. By the way, interviews do not count for notability. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IbnAliyar -- @Sungodtemple is right; the referenced article does not say she was a "fearless leader". David10244 (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. You certainly don't need to worry about her being "low profile", and it doesn't look like her connection to the event is weak. But the first one, about only being notable in the context of one event, might cause you some trouble. -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening,

I've spent a lot of time with vim and LaTeX, and the combination of MediaWiki + template + html markup is more or less intuitive. However, using the default source editor makes some things more difficult than I'm used to. For example, consider this reflist:

==Cites==
{{reflist |refs=
  <ref name="Van Hoesen" >
    {{cite journal
      |last1   = Van Hoesen
      |first1  = Henry B.
      |title   = The Bibliographical Society of America—Its Leaders and Activities, 1904–1939
      |year    = 1941
      |jstor   = 24297076
      |journal = Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America
      |volume  = 35
      |issue   =  3
      |pages   = 177–202
    }}
  </ref>
}}

The tab key doesn't work, of course—I'm in a web browser. Hitting space twice after a character inserts an unwanted fullstop. (Update: This is an OSX issue and is not fixed, thanks Hoary! 00:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)) And of course I don't have all of the vim keybindings that are part of my muscle memory now.[reply]

Is there a way of getting some or most of the vim functionality enabled in the source editor? If not, is there a workflow that's better than editing a local file in vim and then copying and pasting into the editor?

I know I can't be the first person to trip on this, but I'm not seeing anything after a modicum of poking around.

Many thanks,

Elizabeth Shiprock (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Shiprock, "Hitting space twice after a character inserts an unwanted fullstop": not when I use the default editor within Firefox, it doesn't. (And I don't understand why you'd want to insert tabs or additional spaces.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hoary,

Ah, good to know that double-space behavior is browser- or OS-specific.

As to why I want to add extra spaces, here's the reflist above without extra space.

==Cites==
{{reflist |refs=
<ref name="Van Hoesen" >
{{cite journal
|last1=Van Hoesen
|first1=Henry B.
|title=The Bibliographical Society of America—Its Leaders and Activities, 1904–1939
|year=1941
|jstor=24297076
|journal=Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America
|volume=35
|issue=3
|pages=177–202
</ref>
}}

I find this much more difficult to read, and I think you probably would as well. (Did you catch the error I introduced? The extra space makes it obvious.)

Thanks for the help,

Elizabeth Shiprock (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Shiprock, you have of course "forgotten" (feigned forgetting) the closing of the CITE template. I don't find the second version harder to read than the first. I will concede that if the nesting were more complex, then indentation of the source code would be a big help. Incidentally, have you set up WP's own editor to allow syntax highlighting? I have, and it's a big help. (Unfortunately, I've forgotten how I did this. I'd expect it to be an option within "Preferences | Editing", but it isn't. I see "Preferences | Gadgets | Editing | Syntax highlighter", but this isn't enabled.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary Found it! It's the "highter" icon between the "insert template" icon and the "advanced" menu. Thanks!

Elizabeth Shiprock (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I find it flawed (no surprise), but definitely worthwhile nevertheless. -- Hoary (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Shiprock, there are two much more pressing problems with the article you're working on: an unreferenced list of presidents (the most recent list among the lists), and an almost complete lack, I think, of any citation of a source from outside the society itself. (A possibly independent source is referenced twice, but not obviously for anything about the society itself.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hoary.

Oh, I'd say there are several pressing problems.

• There's a bit of plagiarism in the first paragraph.
• There's not much in the way of citations that would establish notability (fixable, but needs to get done).
• There doesn't appear to be a list of presidents after 1980, and as you pointed out, they'll need individual cites. That led to me playing around with reflist and getting frustrated with the lack of vim mappings.

Couple of less-pressing problems:

• The category of past presidents is incomplete.
• There's not a list of notable books the Society published.
• Some images would be nice.

So yeah, it's a fixer-upper, but it's eight hours better than the article I pulled up this time yesterday.

Elizabeth Shiprock (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, Elizabeth Shiprock. (I hadn't looked at the history for the timing.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to use an external editor, firefox has addons which make that possible (e.g. textern) – this is what I do for complicated edits where having a proper text editor would be useful. There's also at least one addon which allows you to edit textfields with neovim directly in firefox. Similar addons may be available for other browsers. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto-public: have you checked Help:Text editor support? MKFI (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how do i change it? 104.235.124.168 (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Create a user ID, log in under this, change preferences to taste. 126.33.119.142 (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Are you asking about a sudden change to Wikipedia's appearance? It is because the default skin has changed from the Vector legacy (2010) skin to the new Vector (2022) skin. If you would like to change back to the old one, you can, as a registered user, click on the in the top-right corner and choose Preferences. Once there, go to Preferences → Appearance → Skins → Vector legacy (2010).
If you would like to leave feedback, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. You can use different skin colors. Create an account first. I am not sure if this can be done without an account. Cwater1 (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

just, why? i know wikipedia can be home to crazy shit but things takes things to a new level 104.235.124.168 (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia has an article on everything! and Wikipedia is not censored. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i cant say cock in the heading because it will appear in the url and i have gogaridan on here and i dont wanna get in troublee 104.235.124.168 (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you talk about roosters? Or taps? HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there are weirder articles with many different flavors of weird. even on human sexuality which notably doesn't include CBT. happy reading! 💜  melecie  talk - 04:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one reason why any article in the English Wikipedia exists; when the subject is notable. Article content is subject to more policies and rules than I could (be bothered to) count, but an article's existence is judged by only one rule. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Wally Green and all my pictures etc are linking to a page of someone who is deceased and his name Is actually Walter Green but its under Wally Green how can i change this its really annoying that people keep telling me that it says that im a dead motorcycle racer please help Wallygreennyc (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is simp[ly an article on someone who shares the same name as you. You can hardly expect Wikipedia to delete or change an article because someone else has the same name. If anyone tells you you are a dead motorcyclist, I think you both know that they are wrong. Moons of Io (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Wallygreennyc and welcome to the Teahouse! unfortunately we cannot do anything about this until and unless there is a separate Wikipedia article about you (since there currently is none, and people share the same names occasionally). if there is, then that page can be disambiguated to something like Wally Green (biker) and the article on you would be somewhere like Wally Green (table tennis player). the solution is not to replace the existing Wally Green with information about you, as not only is it intended to cover the biker and not you, it is also discouraged to write an autobiography for yourself as well (instead, it's recommended for someone completely unrelated and unaffiliated to you to write it due to the lack of a conflict of interest, and no asking someone to write an article on your behalf does not count). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 04:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wallygreennyc, if people keep telling you that the article Wally Green says that you are a dead motorcycle racer, perhaps they are not very bright or (more likely) they're just making a (remarkably dull) little joke. In your place, I might respond, "So I have already been told, many times." Feel free to yawn as you say this. You ask for help. Would you like the article to be headed Note: This article is not about any person named Wally Green who was not a motorcycle speedway racer, born 1918, died 2006? That's not going to happen, because anyone with at least half a working brain would assume this and wouldn't have to be told this. Wikipedia doesn't like to encumber articles with what's blazingly obvious. -- Hoary (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wallygreennyc Adding to the above, if this is about what you see on Google (Google Knowledge Graph), that is a Frankenstein's Monster made by Google algorithms, Wikipedians have no control over that. There is a "Feedback" link under it, you can try that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure this is on topic, but I started Wally Green (table tennis). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am a direct descendent of three people who knew Joseph Smith well and I have documents ( links on my website) from house of research. I am interested in the succession of Brigham Young as it related to Samuel Smith's murder purportedly (per Jon Krakaurs LDS book) by my great-great grandfather Hosea Stout. My mother stole documents about Hosea Stout in the 1960's from my grandmother a grandaughter Hosea Stout. Look at his eyes on his Wiki site. That got me interested in this guy when I was 15. Here is the link for Hosea Stout www.debenhamenergy.com/Stout.pdf Scott Debenham <redacted> www.debenhamenergy.com Hosea Stout (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hosea Stout, I have shortened your title, as it was excessively long and you anyway repeated all of it. Thank you for your offer of information, but you should make this on the talk page of the relevant article. (If the article is Hosea Stout, then on Talk:Hosea Stout.) When you do so, perhaps you should clarify: I for one don't understand either "my grandmother a grandaughter Hosea Stout" or your invitation to "Look at his eyes on his Wiki site." -- Hoary (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hosea. I suspect you are wanting to contribute some information to Wikipedia. That is great - except that Wikipedia relies on information which has already been published by a reliable source. Unpublished information can never be used in a Wikiepdiaq article, and nor, usually, can information published by an unreliable source. (Debenham energy might possibly be reliable for some kinds of information, but not for family history unconnected with their business). ColinFine (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hosea Stout So you are interested in the succession of Brigham Young. But it's not clear what you actually want to happen here. Hoary and Colin have given good advice. If you can be more explicit about what you want, maybe we can help. David10244 (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is someone The my best brother who listens to me is here. Be able to convince him of what I say!! Listen to my plea Mrs Farhan RR (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to understand what you're saying, Mrs Farhan RR. What you write elsewhere is a little easier to follow. You want to publicize a film. However, Wikipedia is not a PR conduit. Please try some other website. -- Hoary (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say That you should befriend me from Pakistan in the system. And you said Mrs Farhan RR (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

INFO: "The Land of Skulls" (2021 film) was a draft, then an article, then a draft; deleted because it was created by a blocked editor. Mrs Farhan RR is free to attempt a draft about the film. David notMD (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The account has been globally locked. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got most of the micronations from Wikimedia. Like Gold Island, Kugelmugel, Kekistan etc. But what are the available flags I can place there? Flag Creator (talk) 11:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why have they been deleted, Flag Creator? AndyTheGrump explained. See the comments in the page history. What flags can you place there? If these aren't "micronations", or if they are "micronations" but don't have flags, then you can't place any flags for them. -- Hoary (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why can't i get approval to publish a biography HanifaNaveed (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HanifaNaveed, you mean Draft:Dave Elkington? It was deleted for "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". -- Hoary (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HanifaNaveed. Please read What Wikipedia is not and WP:NBIO. ColinFine (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I create personal groups on Wikipedia, or is it disallowed? 2: Can I create personal experiment subpages with my User:Username? =ˆUwUˆ= (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UwU, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what you mean by "personal groups". Wikipedia is not social media, and communication between editors is encouraged for the purpose of improving Wikipedia There are WikiProjects for collaboration on particular topics, and editors who join them (which is usually a matter just of adding their own names to the list of members). You can start a discussion somewhere (on an article's talk page, or your own talk page) and ping particular editors to invite them to join. But there is no concept of a place (for discussion or any other purpose) which is visible to only certain people.

You can indeed create user subpages to experiment, as long as they are within the bounds permitted by WP:UPYES. ColinFine (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:ColinFine; I appreciate it. =ˆUwUˆ= (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

What is the best route for recommending a page on a person who does not have a page? I realise I can't create one for the person in question as they are a family member.

Thanks!

PS If it helps steer me in the right direction, she is a theatre director, Janni Younge. She is mentioned on these two pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleur_du_Cap_Theatre_Awards

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Arts_Festival

102.222.181.139 (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What type of page: User, Bio, or Regular? =ˆUwUˆ= (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hello, what is the difference between bio and regular? I just meant any page that gives basic facts about her 102.222.181.139 (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no difference between a "Bio" and "Regular", except that the requirements on sourcing are stricter for biographies of living persons. And we don't do "pages that [give] basic facts about" a subject, at least that is not our mission. We do articles that summarise what independent reliable sources say about a subject. ColinFine (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing a Biography.... =ˆUwUˆ= (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What year? =ˆUwUˆ= (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would guess bio too, what year? I don't understand. Thank you 102.222.181.139 (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(2010 Drama) =ˆUwUˆ= (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UwU please do not answer questions here until you have acquired enough understanding of Wikipedia to give answers that are actually helpful. The OP is clearly asking about an article (not a user page), and I have no idea what you think "Bio or Regular" means. ColinFine (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or what relevance you think "What year" might have. ColinFine (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the confusion ColinFine. User:Ionic Ludicrous (talk) 8:20, 27 February 2023 (CST) =ˆUwUˆ= (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. As a family member, you are not forbidden from trying to create an encyclopaedia article about the person (I strongly recommend you think of it in that way, rather than "a page for") but your conflict of interest is likely to make it significantly more difficult for you to do it.

Unfortunately, there is no reliable way to get somebody else to create an article on a subject. In theory, you can put a request in at Requested articles; but in honesty, the take-up there is low. You could ask at (for example) WP:WikiProject Theatre if there is anybody willing to look at an article on your relative.

If you or anybody else does try to create an article, absolutely the first task is to find the independent reliable sources that are an absolute requirement to establish that she meets Wikipedia's criteria for WP:notability, becuase if you cannot find them, there is no point in anybody spending time on the project. So I would recommend you look for those first, and if you decide that she meets the requirements, you can either cite them in your request, or try the challenging task for yourself: if you do the latter, please start by reading your first article. ColinFine (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is helpful. Yes, the term encyclopaedia article is accurate, thanks for the correction.

Thank you for the WikiProject Theatre link, I will try that.

I will compile the sources and try my luck there. 102.222.181.139 (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can join Wikipedia. It is best if each family member has their own account. Wikipedia is made possible by contributors like you. Cwater1 (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was wondering why my draft Code of Everand was declined? THaywood (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@THaywood Well, there is a fair bit of explanation right there at the declined draft. But in addition to that, I notice that there are no actual References. You have three External Links, and one link that you've placed under the References heading. But References are supposed to link from the article, in the usual manner of numbered footnotes, to support specific things that you say in your article. Nothing in your article is specifically supported by references; the one Reference you provide amounts to another External Link, under a different label. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Shiloh has been a good article nomination since October 2022. I can understand how someone would not want to review it, since it is a long article for a complicated battle. However, it does not seem to be moving up in the "line" of Good Article nominations. What is causing that? This is an article that had over 29,000 views in the last 30 days. TwoScars (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that as of January 2023, the order in which the nominations are sorted has changed. Nominators who have no promoted GAs are sorted at the top of each section, in descending order of the number of GA reviews they have performed. Then nominators who have at least one promoted GA are listed, in descending order of the ratio of reviews they have performed to the number of GAs they have had promoted. For example, a nomination by a nominator who has 5 GAs and has done 10 reviews is listed above a nomination by a nominator who has 10 GAs and has done 5 reviews.. Your article isn't moving up the list because you have only done a single GA review, but have many GAs. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info -- good to know. TwoScars (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch - that is going to hurt me, as 19 GAs and have done no GA reviews. Needto find out if this is like DYKs, where there is a strict quid pro quo, or just where in the list it appears, but not a queue, so GA reviewers can pick which they decide to do next. David notMD (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the latter - it's just about where you are in the list, no strict quid pro quo. I can see the reasoning for this but for me as a reviewer it's made the list basically unreadable to me and I've switched to using the other, much more detailed list instead, because at least that one will tell me what the most recent additions are. -- asilvering (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was wondering what the difference was between a reference and an external link? Thank you in advance. Roads4117 (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roads4117 You might want to look at 1) any substantial article (to see how the references are linked to specific statements in the article), and 2) the response I gave to THaywood just a few minutes ago and two topics above this one; this THaywood is apparently another English(wo)man who wants to write about Road topics. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK then - thanks for that feedback :) Roads4117 (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I received a notification (10-15 min ago) that I am now eligible for access to the Wikipedia Library, but the message has vanished. I'm perplexed. In my haste and excitement, I may have made a false move, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it might have been or how to roll it back. (It seems as if another message or two may also have gone missing as well.) Any thoughts? Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ionic Ludicrous, they are not asking about page moves, they are asking about notifications. None of this seems particularly relevant to their question. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought false move as in: "Moved a wrong page." =ˆUwUˆ= (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ionic Ludicrous, no, that is a figure of speech - see here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need to stop taking things literally. =ˆUwUˆ= (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

🤦 =ˆUwUˆ= (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cl3phact0. If you go to WP:Library, it will tell you all about it. ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cl3phact0: Your first edit was 30 August 2022. I don't know exactly how the 6 months at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org are calculated but I guess you saw MediaWiki:Notification-header-twl-eligiblity. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cl3phact0: The bottom line on this is that your Wikipedia participation (e.g. as an editor) has made you eligible to access a variety of resources (e.g. database) that are, in aggregate, referred to as the Wikipedia library. But it is not necessarily straightforward to do so. As an example, you can sign up to access JSTOR. This is great, but I have not really found anywhere that explains that you don't access JSTOR by logging into it or by going to some special page... instead, you have to sign up for it (see the Wikipedia page, I guess), and then use a modified url.

Each of the resources has its own unique mechanism. Presumably, there's a simpler way to do this by using a proxy, this is mentioned on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:The_Wikipedia_Library/Archive_7. But so far as I know, every resource has its unique access mechanism. This can be quite helpful, if you want to look at certain types of sources, but as I say, the mechanism varies with each resource. Perhaps somebody will tell me that I'm just plain wrong. Fabrickator (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cl3phact0, Fabrickator, how I access Jstor: From the Wikipedia Library, I click on "JSTOR | Access collection". This takes me to Jstor. That's it; I'm there. All very simple. -- Hoary (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cl3phact0, Hoary I don't think that works for what I consider to be the typical use case, i.e. I have a jstor link from a reference in a Wikipedia article. Your way, I have to find the Wikipedia Library page, find the jstor listing, and ultimately copy the jstor reference number. All I want to do is access the link.

My alternative is to replace the part of the url preceding "/stable" with

https://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org

. Under certain conditions, it will prompt me to login to the applicable WMF site, but I find this contortion is at least a little bit easier than remembering the other sequence. (This would actually be fixable if I would do something to override the {{jstor}} template.) OTOH, my solution is specific to jstor and I don't know whether solutions for other sources would be something similar or something completely different. I think it's sort of a bait and switch. Wikipedia Library promises some degree of access, but the access is unnecessarily complex. Fabrickator (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Fabrickator, I wish it were slightly simpler. But it's simple enough for me, perhaps in part because anything described as being at JSTOR is likely to be at least fairly long and complex, and thus requiring some digestion, which takes time. Percentagewise, the extra time needed to access the paper seems insignificant. WL promises some degree of access, and one gets a good level of access. I have not encountered any switch. -- Hoary (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (all) for this information. It may take me a bit of time to work through and absorb the nuances re: Wikipedia Library, but I look forward to having access to these additional resources.

Ionic Ludicrous, apologies for the ambiguous language and mixing both my curiosity about the above and my confusion about disappearing notification message(s) in the same thread. Appreciate your help. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something has changed: When I used to log into Wiki, there was a place at the top of the page on the right to gut in a Tonic in which I was internste. What happened to that? New I get a page about enteering or correcting Information on Wiki. I want to use the site. Britsubenc (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Britsubenc, welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, the default display for Wikipedia was recently changed. The search box is now center-left at the top of the screen. If your browser window is very narrow, you may only see a magnifying glass icon. Since you have an account, you can switch back to the old display format in your preferences. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--My tightness (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit WP:AFC. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's a good outline to follow when a novice wants to study Astronomy? 2600:1702:51C2:ED10:15DC:C79D:61F2:61FE (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. Besides the obvious - reading Astronomy and following the various links therein - you could also check out Outline of astronomy. If you have questions and can't find an article which answers them, you could try asking at RD/Science. If you're looking for off-Wikipedia resources, RD/Science might be able to name you some good places to start learning the basics. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should something that doesn't have a Wikipedia article be listed on a Disambiguation page? or is it only if there is something about it on Wikipedia?

Specific case: I wondered if the movie Bloodsport_(film) was based on the science fiction novel "Bloodsport" by William R. Burkett, Jr. It isn't. The novel is not listed on the Bloodsport_(disambiguation) page. I thought of adding it, but am not sure it is appropriate.

I couldn't find anything on Wikipedia for William R. Burkett, Jr. or his better known science fiction novel "Sleeping Planet."

Digressing, would it be appropriate to add a page for Mr. Burkett, or would he be too minor an author? Cptbutton (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cptbutton: Heh heh! As it happens, Burkett has a Wikidata entry, but he has no articles on any language version of Wikipedia. Furthermore, at least on enwiki, we generally don't include a "non-existent" entry on a disambiguation page.

Furthermore, the presence of an entry in Wikidata doesn't mean that it meets the notability criteria for enwiki, even though it might seem surprising to you that Burkett wouldn't surely be considered notable. So you are welcome to attempt to make the case for his notability, but there is no assurance of success. Also, please keep in mind, I am a mere editor, so you can never be sure that I know what I'm talking about. Fabrickator (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cptbutton, you wonder if it would be appropriate to add a page for William R. Burkett, Jr. He appears to be a recent author, so I'd expect that web pages would be enough to indicate his significance. Please provide the URLs of three non-commercial web pages (reliable sources, independent of Burkett), that discuss him or his works in depth, and we can evaluate his "notability" from the quality of these three. -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"A recent author" – not really, he started publishing Science Fiction in 1965, though he was still active in 2015. He hasn't been very prolific (4 novels and 1 short story over that period), so I doubt that he's WP:Notable on their strength: I have no knowledge of his notability in his main profession of journalist. SFE and ISFDB have entries on him, of course. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.55.125 (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The guiding principle for disambiguation pages is that they should help the reader find information in Wikipedia. As such, they shouldn't include items where there is no information to find. But if you were to write an article about Mr Burkett, it would be quite appropriate for you to include his novel "Bloodsport" in the bloodsport disambiguation page (wikilinking to the Burkett article which will presumably mention that he authored the book) if you believe that readers might look for it there. The novel might not have sufficient notability or material to be worth a complete article, but in this instance, there would be information in Wikipedia that a reader might want to find, using the search-term "Bloodsport", and that's enough for a disambiguation page entry. Elemimele (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have Penn fishing reels ever been manufactured outside the USA? Bttrfl (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bttrfl Penn Reels does not say anything. You're out of luck on Wikipedia, see if any of the references, or maybe its official website, mention the manufacturing location.

Please note this forum is intended for questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, not general knowledge questions, which can be asked at the reference desk. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

when i translate a page in nepali i found multiple mistake but as i tried to edit nepali page it convert to english.how can i edit page pls help.I am new to wikipedia Upadhayasagar (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to start with an article in Nepali Wikipedia and create an English translation in English Wikipedia? David notMD (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No.It was in english originally and as i translate page i found mistake. Upadhayasagar (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Upadhayasagar Judging by your global contributions you have been taking content from Shiva Panchakshara Stotra and trying to translate it into Nepali for their corresponding article. You need to follow the guidance at WP:TRANSLATEUS and note that although there is a tool to help with the translation it does require you are familiar with both languages so you can check the translation is correct. Of course, if you notice an error in our English article that needs updating, you can be WP:BOLD and make the change here, provided you have a source for the new information or it is an obvious typo. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Upadhayasagar (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you recommend adding content even if you don't have time to add the source (but can do so later)? Or does that confuse the process? Thanks! Glowingantelope (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Glowingantelope. This may have been acceptable in the "Wild West" early days of Wikipedia 20 plus years ago, but is a bad practice in 2023. These days, the references to reliable sources should come first. Then, write the content that summarizes what the reliable sources say. Then, add it to the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense! Thanks. Glowingantelope (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Glowingantelope Your personal sandbox at User:Glowingantelope/sandbox (currently a redlink you can click to create) is an ideal place to develop fragments of material you are working on while you develop text and associated sources. Once you have something fully suitable for the relevant article, you can copy/paste it in. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! This is really helpful. Thank you. Glowingantelope (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E7%89%B9%E5%88%A5:%E3%83%9B%E3%83%BC%E3%83%A0%E3%83%9A%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B8&namespace=-1#/homepage/suggested-edits May I ask for an English version of this page? I cannot seem to find it. AlphaBetaGammsh (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi @AlphaBetaGammsh and welcome to the Teahouse! Your editor homepage should be located at Special:Homepage, which can also be accessed in a tab (next to userpage and talk) in your own user page. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 04:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dora Diamant didn't have a single endnote. Not one alleged fact had a source. I've never seen a Wikipedia article like that before, and I don't know how it could be. (The article has a section titled "References," but it has what would normally be called "Further reading" if there were any books or articles cited in endnotes, in a section titled "References.") As a small beginning, I added two endnotes, which incorrectly appear at the end of the article. Would someone please move them to a new section titled "Notes"? Or the new section could be titled "References" if the current "References" section were retitled as "Further reading." Maurice Magnus (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maurice Magnus On "how" the answer is that it was started in 2005 and rules were different then. These articles will linger in such a state until someone notice/does something about them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maurice Magnus I've fixed the separation between the "References" and "Further reading" sections. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger (Dodger67) Thanks. I moved the Kathi Diamant book from "References" to "Further reading," and I alphabetized the books. One more thing needs to be done, which I don't know how to do: Remove the template message above "Further reading." It says that there are an excessive number of books, but there are only three. Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Let me add that I am not being lazy in asking another editor to remove the template message. I read the directions, and I tried by clicking "Edit source," but I didn't see the template message when I did so. Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maurice Magnus I reverted it because a cited work is never listed in "Further reading" because it is already used in the article. There is a simpler way to have multiple references of different pages of a book, I might change it accordingly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodger67 We could put all the details about the book (publisher, year, etc.) the first time it is cited in References.

Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maurice Magnus OK I'll set it up that way. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else has already done it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maurice Magnus: Welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, there are many articles without sources - see Category:All articles lacking sources. Your work to improve articles is appreciated! GoingBatty (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From some time ago, I've been browsing through new pages on Wikipedia and have stumbled upon several articles that don't comply with Wikipedia's policies and lack proper references. Some of these articles have been labeled for the draft, while others have been marked for deletion. Although I find Twinkle's XFD feature helpful, I haven't been able to locate the option to move a page draft and suggest it for the AFC process while notifying the creator. Can you please suggest the easiest way to accomplish this task using a tool? which helps the creator get a second chance to improve their article. Endrabcwizart (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Endrabcwizart: you can use User:Evad37/MoveToDraft for this purpose. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, do be careful with draftification like this. In many cases it is preferable to send to AfD. Firstly, if the article has already been draftified and returned to main-space it should not be redraftified (because it's clear at this stage that at least one person is contending the draftification, so it's time to seek consensus, and AfD is the ultimate discussion-venue on whether an article is ready for main-space). Secondly, if you choose to draftify, in effect you are taking the full moral responsibility for deleting the article. There is no guarantee that the article's creator will notice, or do anything. Draft space is supposed to be a place for writing and improving articles, not a mechanism for their deletion, a place where they can be quietly dumped in the hope that six months later they disappear still more quietly. A poorly-referenced article on a probably-notable subject is more likely to be improved through AfD than draftification. Elemimele (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I have recently received an unsolicited proposal from a Wikipedian who would like to write and publish an article for my employer, but with a fee. The Wikipedian mentioned that all Wikipedia policies will be followed when writing the article including proper citations, neutral tones etc., as well as declaring paid-contribution. I'm not sure if this is an acceptable practice... Can someone help to advise? Thanks much! DragonHappy3000 (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DragonHappy3000 Hello and welcome. Beware of anything unsolicited. It's possible it could be legitimate, but it's also prettly likely it's a scam. Paid editing is permitted if disclosed, but third parties claiming to offer Wikipedia editing services have varying reputability. The person communicating with you should show examples of their work and tell you their Wikipedia username- and should not ask for money up front. Do not give any money up front. My advice is to ignore the email. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @331dot for the quick reply and advice. The person did mention the fee would only be collected after the article is published, but I agree with you that it is best to stay cautious. Thanks again! DragonHappy3000 (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DragonHappy3000, if the Wikipedian said "all Wikipedia policies will be followed", they must have disclosed to you from which account they intend to create the article (and which other accounts they used if any): see Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Disclosures_to_clients. If they did, that allows you to check their previous work (via Special:Contributions). I suspect they did not.

In addition, note that an article being published does not mean it will stay, nor that it will stay the same. We delete dozens of articles each day. The really bad ones get deleted "speedily", the simply bad ones get listed for discussion (here’s the discussion list for today). Of those that get listed, I would say more than half usually end up deleted. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Tigraan and noted your advice above. Appreciate it. DragonHappy3000 (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did not specify whether your employer is a company or a person, and if a person, what profession. Standards for company or organization articles are at WP:NCORP. Before considering the offer, is the company/organization/person so well known that content by people with no personal connection has been published? What the c/o/p publishes about itself as website, social media, interviews, press releases, etc. all do nothing to confirm notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. As noted below, WP:42 applies. David notMD (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMDThank you for your comments and noted. DragonHappy3000 (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, an article I am trying to publish keeps getting rejected despite all primary, secondary and tertiary sources being compliant with your guidelines. I want to better understand where I am going wrong. Please help. Page link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shanti_Raghavan Starshinegalaxy (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Starshinegalaxy The core requirements for good sources are listed at WP:42. I suspect that most of those in your draft do not meet the criterion that they be WP:INDEPENDENT of Raghavan, since they are mainly based on interviews with her. These sources do not contribute to her notability, which is the issue highlighted by the reviewers. There are other problems, for example that many facts (such as some of her awards) are not cited and the citations that are given are simple weblinks, not properly formatted as {{cite news}} or similar to give credit to their authors. You clearly personally know Raghavan, since you have uploaded a picture of her that you took and this may have lead you to use an inappropriate WP:TONE for the draft. Also, you definitely need to read this essay. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starshinegalaxy Small note: Declined (what has happened to the draft) is not as severe as Rejected, but after too many Declines, the next reviewer may decide that no significant progress is being made, and Reject the submission. The reviewers call for better references. You could leave a message on the Talk page of the last reviewer, asking if any of the existing refs qualify. David notMD (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created an article Government Degree College, Kalakote some days ago. Today when I try to add map location on infobox using | module = {{Infobox mapframe |wikidata=yes |coord={{WikidataCoord|display=i} its is showing error Lua error in Module:Mapframe at line 384: attempt to perform arithmetic on local 'lat_d' (a nil value). Is this because my article isn’t reviewed yet or some other reasons because when I tried same parameter on IIT Bombay & IIT Jammu it works. Gorav Sharma‎ 💬 12:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some { to show code otherwise it was showing same error here Gorav Sharma‎ 💬 12:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gorav Sharma: Welcome to the Teahouse! Is there a Wikidata item for this college? GoingBatty (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No because article isn’t reviewed yet. But I edited many IIT’s articles too, 95% of them gone well but I got same error on some of them like IIT Delhi whose wikidata exist. Gorav Sharma‎ 💬 14:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gorav Sharma: Well, you have specified that {{Infobox mapframe}} should get the coordinates from {{WikidataCoord}} (which means Wikidata). Since there is no Wikidata item for this article yet, the module encounters an error. There are two ways to fix this: 1) specify the coords explicitely using {{Coord}}, or 2) create a Wikidata item containing the coords. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you victor, I fixed it. I was not getting the infobox mapframe template link but you helped. Have a great day ahead 🍻 ‎ Gorav‎ Sharma‎ ^{‎ TALK} 16:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy around noting indigenous names for biota? I recently edited a short paragraph in the taxonomy section noting the Abenaki name for this bird, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-capped_chickadee, to change the tense of a note that the language is still in use. Then, another user deleted the entire note, marking it as "irrelevant". This user has a history of Native American erasure on Wikipedia, according to their Talk page.

Rather than argue the point with them, I want to know if there is a policy around how indigenous names for biota are handled on Wikipedia articles. I can't find one, but I also don't know where to look. Richlitt (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Richlitt, MOS:LIFE says "Non-English vernacular names, when relevant to include..." So when is that? I'm guessing case-by-case local consensus, but there may well be "traditions" here I don't know about. Consider asking somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds or Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @Richlit: as far as I know there is no spelled-out policy or guideline for indigenous fauna/flora name, but there are several considerations that generally accepted (and thus will be applied by other editors). The most uncontroversial convention is that the names dealt with in the lede/opening paragraph should only be drawn from those that are in demonstrable use in English-language sources (see MOS:COMMONNAME) - because we are the English-language encyclopedia. Of these there may on occasion be many, and some of these may even be decidedly non-English (see e.g. Ficus religiosa), but again that only applies in cases where they see lots of demonstrable use in English literature. For use later in the article, some articles have a dedicated naming or etymology section that lists names in indigenous languages, but some discretion is required here as well. E.g., note that lion only treats the derivation of the English and scientific names. That is because there are ~250 different names for the species in African languages, and we can neither list them all, nor is there any good justification to pick out just one or a few for mention. This latter is the problem with your edit adding one Native American name. There must be dozens or possibly hundreds of different names for this bird in different languages in North America. We are certainly not going to list them all. How is this particular one relevant? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Elmidae. I hear you on the "We are on the English-language Wikipedia."

To be clear - I didn't add the original Abenaki name. Someone else did. I was just reverting a change by someone else who had removed it.

This particular note is relevant because Abenaki is an Algonquin language spoken along the east coast of North America, where original settlers would have first seen this bird. The Algonquin and Cree language families/continua are the only two that would be relevant, here - it doesn't look like Cree have a word for this. One could argue that the Black-capped Chickadee's range includes Alaska, where there are other language families, or that Carolina Chickadees are basically morphologically identical, and so any North American language should really work. I don't have an answer for that.

Which is why I was curious if there was a policy. A naming section makes sense, to me.

I am largely curious about this all because deletion of a note on the living, indigenous language's name for this bird with the note "irrelevant" seemed particularly culturally insensitive, given the long history of colonial racism applied against indigenous communities here. I'm aware my personal feelings don't lend themselves towards a better Wikipedia article, but I wanted to check and see if I was missing some policy that we have around noting these things. Perhaps an added note saying "The indigenous name was not adopted by Western scientists or anglophone settlers, although kejegigilhasis also has an onomatopoeic structure" would make it more relevant. Richlitt (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there is a DJ i want to write about him. Source : https://g.co/kgs/XeXN6K

thank you so much Shiva.kk22 (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva.kk22, see WP:YFA. Creating a new article is a very hard task, be warned. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Shiva.kk22: See Your first article for the procedure. You will need some better sourcing though - (Google) Searches are highly dynamic and personalized and as such don't qualify as a reliable source, though the search results might or might not be reliable. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shiva, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

General advice on creating an article is at your first article. I will pick out three things in particular to mention:

1. Absolutely the first thing to do in creating an article is to look for the reliable independent sources that talk in some depth about the subject, because if you cannot find those then the person does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability and all further time and effort that you or anybody else spend on it will be wasted.
2. Writing a Wikipedia article is one of the hardest things to do for new editors. I always advise spending a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making small improvements to some of our existing six million articles, before trying it.
3. When a person comes here and immediately tries to create an article, it very often means that they are connected with the subject, (or are the subject themselves) and their purpose is increasing that subject's web presence. If any of those is the case for you, please note that creating an article with a conflict of interest is even harder than usual, because you will need to forget everything you know about the subject and write only one the independent sources say. If you are Djdarki, then please read why writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged. And if your purpose is indeed telling the world about Djdarki, then that is called promotion, and is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia.

ColinFine (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I'm trying to edit an article for a Draft:Kyler Chua and the reviewer said that the article has insufficient sourcing. I've tried actually using some of the sources from another member of the group (Vinci Malizon) and they were approved. Can you tell me what's wrong? Thank you! Mister.lucky95 (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mister.lucky95: Welcome to the Teahouse! Do you have a reliable source for his birthday? GoingBatty (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you but unfortunately I don't. Can I just remove that info? Mister.lucky95 (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mister.lucky95 Yes, please remove any material that doesn't meet our policy for biographies of living people. The sources you do use need to be reliable. See WP:RSPS for some examples of those to use or avoid. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am editing Kimberlé Crenshaw's page where one citations (#12) read [failed verification]. I found another source and cited it but I was wondering if I should delete the one that had the failed verification message? Acb2025 (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Acb2025 Yes, remove the failed reference (and the tag too). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Acb2025 (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am a college professor trying to get training for me and my students to create wiki pages for scholars of color... is there a place or person that can provide such training (we can even pay for their time, as we know that people are busy).

Thanks for your help.

Yolanda Martinez San Miguel 2600:1700:36E1:5C20:9919:D836:2DCE:6F72 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully WP:TUTORIAL and Wikipedia:Education program will be of some help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! I also suggest reviewing Help:Your first article. GoingBatty (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Education program exists specifically for your situation, so do sign in there after registering a username. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For advanced robotic systemd being deploy into the S.T.E.M field that emulate or simulate human behaviors, whom invent or deploy scientific theory, if unproven or replicated with consensus backing. How does Wikipedia handle this content [AIGENSCIENCE]or label/ID AIGEN content? thanks. Gray00x (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gray00x, welcome to the Teahouse. If the AI submitted their research to a peer-reviewed scientific journal and it was subsequently published by them, it would be treated like any other content published by a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Otherwise, it would likely find no place here, unless perhaps the mainstream news media decided to publish articles about the AI itself. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on improving sources and I was wondering if .org websites are reliable sources? Specifically AAPF It was unclear in the Wiki training about these types of sources. I would appreciate some feedback and guidance. Thanks Acb2025 (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Acb2025, welcome to the Teahouse. A website's domain - .org, .com, .gov, etc. - doesn't have much bearing on whether it's reliable or not. An organization's website can be used for some types of information about the organization itself (per WP:SELFPUB and the following section on that page), but an article should not start to rely heavily on that information. Independent secondary sources are always preferred. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Acb2025: Taking a quick peek at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for some examples, I see Amnesty International (amnesty.org) is considered reliable but GlobalSecurity.org is not. GoingBatty (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any discussion there or in the archives about the reliability of the African American Policy Forum, and our article doesn't say much about their editorial policy, so I can't comment on how reliable a source the AAPF might be, @Acb2025. You can start a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard about the AAPF's reliability, if you like. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm an intern with First Second Books and have been directed to make sure that the First Second page, and pages associated with some of :01's bestselling authors, are up-to-date. My plan has been to go about this by filing a few COI edit requests in accordance with Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines—I want the information to be current but I have no interest in subverting WP's editing standards.

One thing I noticed is that on the First Second Books page, the "Titles (selected)" list only runs up to Winter 2018 and could use an update with more current titles. Before I started putting together an edit request, I wanted to better understand the criteria for which titles merit selection—most of the selected titles have their own Wikipedia pages, but not all of them. How are "selected titles" selected? Can selected titles be added by a COI edit request, or are the notability standards similar to the creation of a new article, and parties with a potential conflict of interest are recommended to steer clear in general? Looking for standards has mostly turned up results about notability requirements for the creation of new articles or the standards for article titles, so I'm turning here. Any guidance would be appreciated as I do not want to run into any conflict of interest issues. Thanks so much! Leif Budget (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leif Budget Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first note that as an intern you meet the definition of a paid editor, and as such the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure.(this is stricter than the COI disclosure) Please see WP:PAID for instructions. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thank you for directing me there. I am in the habit of making relevant disclosures in my talk page posts as explicitly as possible, so I think I should be fine on that front, but I'll add a disclosure to my user page just to be safe. Leif Budget (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Leif Budget, ideally, a selected titles list should consist of titles which have been found notable in some way by independent, secondary, reliable sources. The easiest evidence of this is an existing Wikipedia article (though of course many poor articles exist on subjects which aren't actually notable). As an alternative, if you know a book has gotten one or more independent critical reviews but no article yet exists, you could include it in the proposed list along with a citation to the review(s). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's extremely helpful! As far as independent critical reviews go, would reviews in major trade publications like Publisher's Weekly, Kirkus Review, or Booklist qualify as appropriate citations? Leif Budget (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Leif Budget, as far as I can tell, those are all reliable sources, though there's a note at WP:KIRKUS about avoiding Kirkus Indie. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! I appreciate the time everyone has taken to to help me out; this has clarified a lot for me, and hopefully I'll be able to file some requests to keep the pages up-to-date without being disruptive! Leif Budget (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that since PW/Kirkus/Booklist tend to be brief reviews, you'll impress a books editor more if you have something like, say, LARB or the NYT or something with a long-form review. But that's for "is this book notable", which isn't actually the question you are asking here. (But a good idea of where to start!) Having looked at the article, I don't think existence of reviews is particularly relevant - there are already a lot of titles in that list, and presumably most of the books published by this publisher get reviewed! Think instead about what is most useful to a reader. Someone who wants an exhaustive list of books published by :01 will be looking somewhere else. So think in terms of "what are our most recognizable and defining titles"? Or "what will someone who just read the rest of this article want to know about next?" If you had to pick only five books to represent the last five years, what would they be? You'll probably come up with some pretty reasonable criteria on your own if you restrict yourself to only a set number. Just keep focused on what is most helpful to the readers of the article. -- asilvering (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a certain article there is a citation link to a news post that is no longer available. The website is up, but it returns a 404 for that specific URL. I'm aware of the fact that some links on this website are archived with the Wayback Machine, so I ask this question: how would I "rescue" (if that's the correct term) a dead link used within a citation and have it point to an archived version of the most recently functional/relevant version? - Cheers, KoolKidz112 (hit me up) 16:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KoolKidz112: You would go to https://archive.org and paste the dead link into the search box there. If you find a page on archive.org that isn't 404 (the site also archives 404 pages), you can replace the dead link with the archive.org link. If the dead link is in a templated citation, you can add the parameter archive_url=https://archive.org/link |archive_date=YYYY-MM-DD into the citation template, substituting actual values for those two fields. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you! - Cheers, KoolKidz112 (hit me up) 17:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, could someone help me with the border change at User talk:Wikiexplorationandhelping#A barnstar for you!? New mediawiki messages are stuck inside the barnstar section. I'd like it to be separated from the barnstar section, without deleting any borders of any sort. Cheers! Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiexplorationandhelping:  Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How many citations are required and how often through the article. For instance, if you are writing a page and have a paragraph that most of the information comes from a single source do you need to cite each sentence or just at the end of the paragraph? SweetBriar17! (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Philp Lawson (Artist) - Wikipedia SweetBriar17! (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SweetBriar17! You can put a single reference at the end of a paragraph only if all of the paragraph's content came from that source. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SweetBriar17!, it's not so much the number of citations that matter, as the quality. You'll need several reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of the subject. Draft:Philp Lawson (Artist) currently has five citations, but the first, second and fifth aren't independent, being based on what the Lawson has said, and the third doesn't mention him. (I can't comment on the fourth, as I don't have full access to it.) Maproom (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. Is TripAdvisor a reliable source for Wikipedia? Cwater1 (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand, I'd have to suggest no, it is not. No oversight, can be edited by anyone. My 2¢. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  18:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwater1, the most recent discussion of Tripadvisor at RSN seems to be this one, and the consensus is not in its favor. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. Thank you, Aloha27 and 119.208.172.35! Cwater1 (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to create a page for a hungarian swimmer. Can I get some help? Anonymus0823 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)  Courtesy link: Draft:Mészáros Dániel --ColinFine (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anonymus0823, welcome to the Teahouse. We already have an article on Dániel Mészáros. You've created and submitted two different drafts which also appear to be about that person. Are you trying to replace the existing article? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to create a new page with for that swimmer. There is two swimmer with the same name, one was born in 2003 and the other one was born in 2004. Someone already created a page for the 2004 one, but i would like to create one for the 2003 since he is getting bigger media coverage now than the other one. Anonymus0823 (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymus0823, this is likely to be very confusing for a reviewer. I recommend:

1. Removing the submission template from Draft:Mészáros Dániel. It appears to be a duplicate with an incorrect title.

2. Add a note at the top of Draft:Dániel Mészáros explaining that this is a different Dániel Mészáros from Dániel Mészáros.

3. Improve the sourcing of Draft:Dániel Mészáros. Right now it has exactly one inline citation and a bunch of references at the bottom which are not used to verify anything, plus some external links. This is a biography of a living person, so it's very important to get your sourcing straight. Look at the article on the other guy - it's got some good inline citations going for it. Copy that style. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So for the last hour or so I’ve been developing my user page because I have nothing better to do, and while informing myself on how to do several things related to editing, I stumbled upon a couple of other interesting things to know about Wikipedia. Some of them positive, some of them negative. Now since I’m still sitting on my desk with nothing better to do then to edit some stupid paragraph on my user page, I got the idea of adding a section of problematic things on the website I realized or thought to have realized while informing myself. But before I do something that gets me trouble, I would like to know if it is allowed to put such a list of things that seemed problematic to me on my user page. Reman Empire (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Reman, and welcome! Yes, you can put things that you think could be improved about Wikipedia on your user page. In general, we try to be civil about things of course, but that doesn't mean "free from criticism". The list of things that shouldn't be on user pages is quite short and intuitive; it's at WP:UPNOT. VQuakr (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you very much for the response Reman Empire (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that would arguably be better to do than develop your user page, Reman Empire, would be to improve one or more articles. (There's not yet much sign of this in your list of contributions.) -- Hoary (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I guess that would be correct Reman Empire (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! So, there is an article published in French [[2]]but I want to create the same article in English. Since I'm not an expert, I can't do that. Should I copy and paste the information and just translate it into English in a new draft? Or what are the correct steps to do it? Wikicontemp art (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wikicontemp art, welcome to the Teahouse. The steps are given at Help:Translation. You should be aware that English Wikipedia's sourcing requirements may be quite different from those on French Wikipedia, though since that article looks pretty well sourced, I think you'll be fine as long as you carry over all the citations. Note that you're expected to check those sources yourself to make sure they actually say what is being attributed to them; you can't just trust that the original author(s) did it correctly, you're responsible for the content you add. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you mean by "not an expert"? Do you mean that you're not an expert in Wikipedia, in the topic of the article, or in the French language? If it's the latter, please don't translate it! Instead you can request that it be translated by someone else. -- asilvering (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am getting from the research phase to the writing phase for some bios of living people in my field. But I would like to find the absolute best bio to emulate so I can make sure that my tone, references, etc. are all top notch. Which articles would you recommend? Thank you LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deena, I'd look at authors listed at WP:GA to get started. The very best are at WP:FA, but I think those standards are unhelpfully high for writing biographies on people where you don't have FA-levels of information. -- asilvering (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I should add, I like to use James Joyce as my example when asked about author bios. I think this one is a good format because it shows how various sections can expand into sub-sections if needed, and demonstrates how all the additional bells and whistles can work on an author article - like "x and Politics" and "Legacy" and soforth. Normally I would say a decent author article just needs something like "Biography", "Works", and "Legacy", however you want to understand those depending on the person you're profiling. (Basically: how they lived, what they did, what other people think.) If you really want to get specific about how references, tone, etc work, all of that is in WP:MOS, somewhat exhaustively. -- asilvering (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teahouse. I would love to have an essay or something to point people at that gives a general overview of the differences between notability standards in the various different languages of Wikipedia. We often get people at AfC or AfD saying something like "but it already exists in Arabic Wikipedia!" and I can help only when it comes to the projects I'm more familiar with (eg de-wiki). Otherwise we're just stuck with "well, standards are different", which isn't very helpful. Does such a thing exist? I've gone looking before and not found it. -- asilvering (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think it unlikely such an overview exists, as compiling it would require being familiar with all the policies on every version of Wikipedia(and by extension the languages involved). 331dot (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it was a one-person effort, sure. But I could draw a paragraph up about de-wiki vs en-wiki easily enough, and with enough people to help... -- asilvering (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering:The closest things to what you're looking for that I can think of is WP:OTHERLANGUAGEEXISTS and WP:OTHERLANGS. However, trying to develop a guide that covers every local Wikipedia project seems like an impossible task.There's no guarantee that an article should exist on some other language Wikipedia; so, you'd essentially need to be able to assess an article's notability per some other Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Even if it was notable per some other Wikipedia's notability guideline, that still would make it notable per WP:N unless each Wikipedia's guideline is the same. Basically, the best you can do when faced with a sitution like this is point out WP:NRV and work from there. The unfortunate fact of the matter seems to be that some other Wikipedias have much less active communities that English Wikipedia has, and they sometimes do a much poorer job of applying and enforcing their respective policies and guidelines than English Wikipedia does. FWIW, it's not only WP:N where this kind of thing is an issue, but also things like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, etc. Some other Wikipedia's closely follow what English Wikipedia does, but others just go off in other directions and do things their own way.

If you're familiar with things on German Wikipedia, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to create an essay about that. Maybe that's the best that can be done if you want to go into specifics. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What many of us here will be familiar with, asilvering, are the notability standards in en:Wikipedia. Te:Wikipedia may get somebody saying something (in Telugu) like "but it already exists in English Wikipedia!", but we know that this is meaningless, because over 160,000 articles here have the "Unreferenced" template (and if your experience is like mine you'll often arrive at unreferenced articles that don't have this template). And of course en:Wikipedia has a vast number of articles that have a token, feeble reference and thus don't qualify for this template, but are clearly junk all the same. -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. I'm well aware that standards are different in different wikis, and also that articles don't always live up to expected standards. What I am asking is whether there is a reference page somewhere that gives a brief explanation of the standards that are generally different. For example, de-wiki is in general more comfortable with articles that have a bibliography but few or no citations, provided the information appears uncontroversial. Writing a new article like that and submitting it here will give an en-wiki new page patroller a hernia. -- asilvering (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my poor expression, asilvering. Perhaps my attention had been too narrowly on "But it already exists in [some language or other] Wikipedia!" My point was that an article's mere existence in en:Wikipedia doesn't mean that it meets en:Wikipedia's own standards (for notability, referencing, or whatever). Indeed, it's very likely not to do so. I might wager that for any language Wikipedia that proclaims its criteria (perhaps many don't even do this), there are plenty of articles in that language that don't meet these criteria. One could ignore practice and just look at proclaimed criteria; however, I don't remember ever having read "But my draft meets the article criteria in de:Wikipedia!" or similar; and therefore the practical benefit of such a comparison isn't obvious to me. (It could make for an interesting academic study, however.) [cough] As for your hernia-inducing species of article, back in the bad old days I perpetrated a number of this kind of thing myself, here; and I haven't yet bothered to revisit and rework several of them. -- Hoary (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember ever having read "But my draft meets the article criteria in de:Wikipedia!" or similar Oh, I see it by translators all the time. Most often it's a polite but bewildered "I don't understand, it's already an article in (insert language), what's the problem?" but I did get an extremely indignant de-to-en translator the other day who insisted I was out of order when I declined a draft with sourcing problems (and entire sections without footnotes...). -- asilvering (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: yes, you're right about the general differences. But a fundamental problem is that English Wikipedia's mode of operation is a cultural thing quite different to what's written down, so it would be hard to say how it differs from the methods of other Wikipedias. For example, the first written instruction in the guide for AfC reviewers at WP:AFCSTANDARDS is "Avoid declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material..."

And yet you are quite right. Any attempt at using general referencing in English Wikipedia will lead to guaranteed decline from AfC, and Teahouse people are daily handing out advice that every paragraph must have inline citation. So, in theory English WP is the same as German, but in practice it is enormously different, which is a real problem if you're translating. We have gone beyond the principle of verifiability, and instead gone for a principle of linkage, where every fact must be linked to where it came from. Elemimele (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I have proposed an article be renamed for almost obvious reasons, though has been rejected to be renamed under the guise of technical conditions due to the potentially controversial nature. I have proposed the move in the talk page but has only been voted by another user (but apparently it counts as mine due to "per nom"). That means that I am the only one that has voted in favor and no one has objected so far. WP:CONS states that a consensus must be reached for change to happen but is unclear how many votes are needed. No one has objected and I expect no objections, but how can I bring more traction to this other than it being posted on Wikipedia:RM in case my proposal and vote are not enough? BurgeoningContracting (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because you used WP:RM, it's out of your hands now, and you can just wait, taking no further action. Someone else will assess consensus and move the page after 7 days, or relist it. -- asilvering (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if other editors object they can respond to those objections. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By what do you mean this, LegalSmeagolian? -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer, @Asilvering. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do I view the number of edits that another user has made without having to go to the contributions page and manually count the edits? Mast303 (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mast303. If you set your WP:PREFERENCES so that Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups is enabled, I believe you can see the total number of edits a user has made when you hover your cursor over their user name as long as their user name is formatted as a WP:WIKILINK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mast303: At the bottom of the contributions page there is a link to the edit count. RudolfRed (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And just so you're aware, the edit count is meaningless for editors who make heavy use of automated tools. It doesn't represent a measure of experience or knowledge in that case. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was on a Wikipedia page, a small one, when I found a red link. I decided to fix it: from UR-67 to UR-67. Would that be considered a minor edit? I'm not exactly sure and I want to make sure I'm not doing stuff wrong. Rockethead293 (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, Rockethead293! To be safe, if you are ever debating if something is "Minor," don't count it as such. Also, redlinks are not necessarily an issue as long as they could eventually become an article. ✶Mitch199811✶ 01:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have write my article on my sandbox and save it  using"cntrl s".iI have softcopy but i cannot open it in sandbox to complete my document.pls help Upadhayasagar (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Upadhayasagar, your contribution history doesn't show any sandbox edits. They might have been deleted. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i have not edit sandbox.i had written in sandbox.I save using cntrl s.I have html file but i don't know how to open it. Upadhayasagar (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Upadhayasagar I think that "cntrl s" (or "ctrl s") is the usual way to save a file being edited in a word-processing program, such as Microsoft Word, on Windows. It may also work in other programs and operating systems.

But, when you are editing using a Web browser, I don't think that cntrl s has the same effect, although this might depend on the browser or operating system you are using. When you are editing your sandbox, there is a "Publish Changes" button that will save what you have entered (it will not actually "publish" the contents as a Wikipedia article). David10244 (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i was using chrome .can i recover it ?.i had written more than 1000 words. Upadhayasagar (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. For some time my HotCat is not working. It was working fine till about two months ago and then it suddenly disappeared. I tried disabling and enabling it, however, it still doesn't work. Is there some issue going on with HotCat? I am using Chrome.HRShami (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HRShami, hmm, that's odd. Do you use any custom user scripts or similar? I'd try reporting it to WT:HOTCAT. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do use chrome extensions but I don't think any of them would interfere with hotcat. Anyway, I'll disable some extension to see if it works. HRShami (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HRShami, I think Sdkb meant "internal" Wikipedia:User scripts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know when my page will be released in public Erneskal (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never. Wikipedia is not, and never has been, a platform for publicity or promotion, and your violation of that policy has resulted in an indefinite block on your account. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some months ago, I read a discussion about a Pakistani source HIP in Pakistan at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard but don't remember who posted it and what was its subject. Now how can I find it in the archived discussions? Thanks. Insight 3 (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Insight 3: Just to the right of the first heading on this page is a small gray box that lets you search the archives of this page. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, found it. Insight 3 (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...to answer the question, Archive 389 § Hip in Pakistan. The one post by TrangaBellam says it [f]ails WP:NEWSORG and WP:RS. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 06:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Insight 3 (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have been wondering if a radio interview is a good enough source to cite something small in an existing Wikipedia article. How would I go about citing a source like that? Much Thanks! Spiggotr6 (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiggotr6: How would the source be verifiable? The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy requires that any cited source must be verifiable by anyone. The source doesn't have to be online. One can verify things by going to a library, for example. And if online, it doesn't need to be free; many academic journals and some major newspapers are behind paywalls, for example. Where would I go to verify that the radio interview exists and says what the Wikipedia article claims it says? Is there a transcript available anywhere? This is especially important when attributing a quotation to a living person. If a transcript is available online, you can use the {{cite web}} template. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source I have in mind is on their website, and anyone can listen to it for free. There is no written transcript though. The only thing I was going to use from the interview was the subject's date of birth as I could not find any other sources with his DOB. If I cite the radio website that should be good enough? Spiggotr6 (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spiggotr6 Just going to add that WP:INTERVIEWS can sometimes be considered primary sources, which means they have limited use as explained in WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PRIMARY. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guide please, while sipping your tea! Eum Bon-Hwa (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eum Bon-Hwa, welcome to the Teahouse! WP:NORG and WP:YFA may be a good place to start. And, if it applies to you, WP:COI. See also WP:BACKWARD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, YFA is a guide for how to create a draft; NORG describes the criteria for deciding if a corporation is notable; COI (also WP:PAID) touches on personal or paid connections to topics; BACKWARD advises to find references first. David notMD (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

reporting an article that is categorically invalid. It is full of misquotes and incorrect statements. Sayvoltha (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sayvoltha! It sorta depends. If the title itself is not a topic that should have a page, nominate it for deletion. If it'd just need large chunks removed, feel free to try boldly removing them, or if it's a higher-traffic article proposing on the talk page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, respectfully I wish to complain about the amount of adverts on Wikipedia. Particularly concerning and annoying is the amount of politically-motivated advocacy. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. How can the content of the articles be trusted when at the top of each article are displayed advocacy banners, almost always promoting things of a particular world view? Even after I unchecked all these options "Banner types to display" in preferences, I still see certain banners. It is not a good situation. Moribundum (talk) 09:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out at a specific example (name of the article and rough text of the "advert")? Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moribundum Wikipedia does not have paid advertising from outside parties. The Wikimedia Foundation will sometimes communicate events like edit-thons or other events to promote editing Wikipedia by all. While Wikipedia content strives for a neutral point of view, the Foundation certainly does take positions consistent with the idea that all are welcome to edit Wikipedia regardless of race, religion, sexuality, gender, etc. This isn't about politics, it's about editing and building this encyclopedia. I think some banners do override the suppression available in account preferences, but as Tigraan notes we would need to know which message you refer to in order to give more detail.

We don't ask people to blindly trust Wikipedia; we provide the sources so readers can examine and judge the content for themselves. You are free to read everything here and disagree with all of it. You are also free to disagree with the views of the Foundation, as long as you understand that civility and collaboration with all users are fundamental aspects of Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it absolutely is very political and exclusionary. Constant promotion of certain topics. This undoubtedly causes problems with neutrality such as historical revisionism and undue weight. Moribundum (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The notifications can be on a variety of topics. As I understand, the article / page that is opened which will display the banner is not relevant. It could be any wikipedia page that is opened. The point is, why am I still seeing them, when I don't want to and stated I did not want to see them in preferences?

I unchecked all the options in preferences (please keep in mind that the majority of wikipedia readers will NOT make accounts and/or will not know/bother to find out how to hide banners, and therefore will be subjected to constant advocacy and other notices). It appears that there are 2 categories of notification banner that are mandatory and cannot be unsubscribed from: "Maintenance" and "Special". None of the banners I have seen would fit under "maintenance"... therefore I can conclude either I have a bug where my preferences are not applied, or regular banners are being approved as "special" category and cannot be hidden (in which case the person/people approving these "special" banners should be alerted that their actions are not appreciated by many users and constitute an opposite philosophy to the supposed neutrality of wikipedia). Thank you for your assistance. Moribundum (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an account is required to have the ability to disable the banners that can be disabled, because there is no way to know with an IP address if the person sitting at the computer/holding the device at any given moment has seen them. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]